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?

Kevin Harris Has Agreed to Debate Me.

To see the topic and who he is see here.

Paul Copan and Free Will in Heaven

One comment below asked the question about free will in heaven and whether or not the saved will have it. It's a good question, and Christian philosopher Paul Copan has dealt with it. Here's my response:

Paul Copan offers three possibilities with regard to free will in heaven [in “That’s Just Your Interpretation”, (Baker Books, 2001), pp. 106-108].

1) That through our truly libertarian free actions on earth we gain access to heaven where we no longer have this freedom to sin. But if heaven is a place where we longer have the freedom to sin, then God could’ve bypassed our earthly existence altogether. If there is no free will in heaven then why not just create us all in heaven? What does it matter what we did or didn’t do on earth? Furthermore, why reward someone by taking away their free will? If free will can be taken away without a loss of goodness, then why create us with it in the first place?

2) That God foreknows that no one who enters heaven will freely choose to sin. But if God has that kind of foreknowledge then again, what is the purpose of creating this particular world? It appears to be a cruel game of hide and seek, where God hides and we must find him, and only the few who find him will be rewarded while the many who don’t are punished when they die. If God has foreknowledge then why didn’t he just foreknow who would find him even before creating them, and simply place them in heaven in the first place?...then there’d be no one punished for not finding him. If heaven is a reward, then “it seems absurd for a wholly good God to force humanity into a position of ignorance regarding correct moral choice and then hold people accountable for such a choice.” [Suffering Belief, Weisberger, p. 136]. Furthermore, if this world is to teach us the virtues of courage, patience, and generosity in the face of suffering, then most all of those virtues are irrelevant in a heavenly bliss where there is no suffering or pain.

3) That those who enter heaven will be in “the unmediated presence of God” such that “not sinning will be a ‘no brainer’—even though it remains a possibility.” But if this is the case, then why do Christians think the Devil rebelled against God, since he was supposedly in the direct unmediated presence of God? How was it possible for the traditional Devil to have such an experience of absolute goodness and absolute power and still rebel against God?

Non-Exclusivism, Universalism, Evil, and, Philosophy As One Big "IF"

America's leading Evangelical Christian philosophers (influenced perhaps by the struggle to find a way to justify the devilish amount of sheer ignorance in the world) are more attracted to ideas of "non-exclusivism" (i.e., people who are not born-again nor confessing Christians can still be "saved"), including even universalism (i.e., everyone will one day be "saved"), than are America's leading Evangelical Christian theologians, the latter of whom spout relatively more exclusivistic views based on a stricter linguistic interpretation of the Scriptures.

Though Alvin Plantinga is not a universalist, he is apparently a non-exclusivist who is attracted to the idea that more than just born-again or confessing Christians will be "saved."

Evangelical Christian philosopher, Vic Reppert [who argues on a philosophical basis that there is a likelihood of a "second chance" after death] adds, "There really isn't a firm quotable statement [regarding exactly what Plantinga's views are]. However, when I used to attend SCP meeting on a regular basis, I would have to say that exclusivism was very much a minority position. The philosophers, Robert Merrihew Adams and his wife Marilyn McCord Adams, are both universalists, and next to Plantinga, they are the best-regarded [Evangelical] Christian philosophers." [email from Reppert to Babinski, Tuesday, October 24, 2006]

Victor Reppert at his blogsite also recently posted an entry debating questions concerning God's "middle knowledge," titled, Gale, Adams, and universal salvation, that ended with Vic's observation that "since Adams [mentioned above] is a card-carrying universalist, it looks like he can dodge this objection. Everyone gets saving grace."

PHILOSOPHY AS ONE BIG "IF"
PART 1

I suspect there are even more "ifs" if everyone looked harder at every argument--from eternal damnationism to universalism to simply death and rotting. I think it would demonstrate that philosophy is one big "if" when it comes to such questions.

Such "ifs" must also include the fact that the Bible is a book of words written by human beings, and such words are not equivalent to visibly seeing God, Jesus, the afterlife. Furthermore, people who claim to have seen God and/or the afterlife are also FEW in number. And many such "sights" are brief at best, or hazy (and they grow either "hazier" or "clearer" with the passage of time, depending on whether one is relying stictly on one's memory, or continually redefining one's memory of one's vision in verbal terms linked to increasingly dogmatic influences and interpretations applied from outside). Even of those few visions that some claim to have seen clearly, there's a wide variety of things seen, not simply Christian ones. So there is no coherent interpretation that includes and explains all such visions, let alone a "theologically systematic" whole, and as I said, FEW have ever seen such things.

PHILOSOPHY AS ONE BIG "IF"
PART 2
POINTS FOR PLANTINGA AND VIC TO PONDER CONCERNING EVIL AND FREEWILL

1) If freewill was truly free than maybe it's logically impossible to assert that a God with "freewill" can also be defined as "good," because a God with "freewill" could also act "evil" by definition of having "freewill." Such a "God" would then have to be defined first and foremost as "free" and His actions defined as "indeterminate" or "vacillating based on choice."

2) Even if someone tries to argue that the definition of "freewill" (i.e., "always being able to choose either good or evil") applies to "God," then there's yet another question.

Let's accept a tri-omni good God exists. The "defense" offered for evil in that case is that anything God creates would be inherently less than God and more subject to temptations toward evil. But such an argument simply redefines the words "less than God," as "evil," but there is no proof that such a redefinition is necessarily true. Being "less" than "God" does not necessarily entail a creature becoming "evil," not anymore than God's own "freewill" might leave God in the exact same situation of always having to choose between two options. And WHATEVER MAY BE SAID IN THE ONE CASE APPLIES TO BOTH. Whatever keeps a tri-omni good God from never using His freewill to choose evil, could just as well apply to a less than tri-omni creation that came directly out of that same God. I stick by that statement, but Plantinga and Vic deny it on no provable basis that I have yet seen.

CONCLUSION

So there is no way for theistic philosophy to prove it has argued its was to reality or THE truth, because it just tries to redefine "freewill" in different terms for God and man, (or, it tries to equate the phrase "less than God" with "evil," again without proving that it is necessarily so), just based on PRESUPPOSITIONS THAT IT MUST BE SO. And such presuppositions remain as QUESTIONABLE as any other view.

In the end the idea of evil coming out of perfect goodness remains an unproven proposition.

~~~~~~~~~~~

All such philosophical arguments also flounder on the fact that we grow up via experiences of this cosmos. We learn about "'good' and 'evil' and the spectrum of actions lying in the grey area" in this cosmos before we ever learn how to separate those examples and concepts fully from one another in the form of "words," and claim they are fully and absolutely separate from one another. So the separation takes place afterwards (after one's mental development and contact with the world), and only after such a separation do philosophers take one of those abstracted concepts and try to build a bridge over to the opposte word and concept:

Perfect goodness---> Evil

When I read about arguments that try to create such a bridge I can't help noting all of the sheer ingenuity and guess work employed in the process of trying to find a way to bridge those two things that WE as human beings experienced and learned about as they already co-existed together, a world with both good evil and many grey areas of various shades as well. People living in this cosmos in which all those things co-existed, have learned how to pull such things apart mentally, and imagine only one of them existing alone in the beginning, then philosophers try to mentally derive one FROM the other. But that proves nothing about reality itself, the one in which we were raised and in which such things co-existed already.

It's like beginning with

Perfect Cold----> Hotness

Perfect Darkness----> Luminosity

A philosopher can of course argue based on scientific knowledge that the answer in the above cases is that molecules start to move faster, generating more heat and even light. But then the philosopher must also recognize that "perfect coldness" has no molecules that move faster than "perfect coldness" allows. Not if you begin with NOTHING BUT "perfect coldness." So you can NEVER get to the opposite side or cross the bridge from the initial defining point--you can't cross the bridge from one word to the other if both are already so well defined to the complete exclusion of the opposite word. (*Don't misunderstand me, I am speaking in terms of the limitation of going from one abstract word or concept to another, which by definition excludes the former word or concept. I am not speaking in terms of a creationist argument in which the cosmos began in perfect darkness and coldness--and even that argument is fallacious because scientists admit many possibilities not simply the one that the cosmos was created out of an inert cold and dark mass. They admit cosmoses might oscillate, give birth to other cosmoses, there might be an infinity of cosmoses and super-cosmoses throughout infinite time and space. And using "God" to explain the existence of the cosmos is simply to employ an even greater mystery ("God") to explain a lesser one, a more immediate and universally recognizable one.)

Now consider these questions and how they might be bridged:

Perfect Cold----> Hotness

Perfect Darkness----> Luminosity

In nature, coldness can and does sometimes warm up and/or cool down again; and darkness can and does grow brighter, and/or dimmer again. We observe such things happening on earth and via telescopes. So in nature CHANGES OCCUR, including oscillating ones. We observe that to be a fact of which there is no facter. Because there's a variety and mix of forces and co-existence of forces in the cosmos, all of which exist TOGETHER, side by side, rather than there being "PERFECT cold" or "PERFECT darkness." Nature, isn't "perfect" in either respect, and unlike philosophy, nature appears to be multi-sided, changeable and filled with the co-existence of things philosphers simply want to purify down into "perfect" words of which there is no worder.

Therefore, philosophy invents and relies on abstractions from nature that philosophers then further elevate to "perfections" or "absolutes," but they are picked a bit here and there from nature, like gnats from nature's hair, and philosophers claim that each particular thing they plucked from nature mentally is the "IT" that began it all.

That's probably why philosophers continues running into the same debates and obstacles to agreement since the pre-Socratics, because philosophy begins with fragments of the whole natural world of experience and then after fragmenting nature has to try and reunite the fragments back together to get THIS whole cosmos. Philosophy is the Humpty Dumpty rhyme writ large.

Thus the BIG QUESTIONS appear to lay beyond the ability of philosophers to get people to agree upon their answers. Philosophy cannot prove it's various conflicting explanations for reality, for this cosmos in which things co-exist, mix, and change. Philosophy has so far proven nothing. It is a mere wax nose on the faces of all philosophers, as flexible as their brains that keep alive all sorts of opposing views and viewpoints concerning the BIG questions.

~~~~~~~~~

BACK TO THE QUESTION OF "ETERNAL SEPARATION"

Why speak about "eternal separation" as if change is no longer possible after some point? If there is "freewill" and if "freewill" is so vitally important, then why not retain freewill and that means retaining possibilities of change throughout eternity? Maybe people have their "up" and "down" periods throughout eternity? If you're looking at options PURELY PHILOSOPHICALL then eternal oscillation with no point of "no return," remains as good a purely mental option as any. But most people simply want the game of philosophy to end in some definitive way. They don't even begin to think in terms of life the universe and everything as an INFINITE game (rather than a finite one). I suppose that's partly because philosophers are lazy like the rest of the primates on this planet. Finish the job, reach the point of no return and get some sleep. (But read James Carse's FINITE AND INFINITE GAMES too, as well as Alan Watts's THE BOOK OF THE TABOO: AGAINST KNOWING WHO YOU REALLY ARE.)

The Logical Problem of Evil Is Still Very Much Alive!

[Written by John W. Loftus] Of course, this is nothing new to educated people, but I still read where Christians proclaim the logical problem of evil is dead. What gives? In the future if someone says such an ignorant thing, refer them here, and to the books listed below.

The Logical (Deductive) Problem of Evil is an argument whereby it is claimed that there is a logical (or deductive) inconsistency with the existence of evil and God’s omnipotence, omnibenelovence, and/or omniscience. J.L. Mackie’s argument was that God is either not good, not omnipotent, or evil doesn’t exist. He argues: 1) a good being always eliminates evil as far as it can; and 2) there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. Therefore such a God cannot exist--it is a logically impossibility. He asks: 1) “Why couldn’t God have made people such that they always freely choose the good?” And, 2) “Why should God refrain from controlling evil wills?” [“Evil and Omnipotence” Mind, Vol. LXIV, No. 254, April 1955.]

Planting’s Free Will Defense seeks to answer this problem in his book, God Freedom, and Evil (Eerdmans, 1974). He argues that it is logically possible that there is a state of affairs in which humans are free and always do what is right. But he argues that God cannot bring about any possible world he wishes that contain these free agents with significant choice making capabilities. He introduces the concept of transworld depravity: it is logically possible that every free agent makes a wrong choice, and that everyone suffers from it. This is crucial for the free will defense to work. But the whole notion of free will has many problems. Plantinga also suggests that it is logically possible that fallen angels cause all of the natural evil in our world! According Richard Swinburne, such an explanation for natural evil is an “ad hoc hypothesis,” [The Existence of God (Oxford, 1979), p. 202], and as such, according to J.L. Mackie, “tends to disconfirm the hypothesis that there is a god.” [The Miracle of Theism (Oxford, 1982), p. 162)].

Most Christians claim the logical problem has been solved, but there are still versions of the logical problem of evil that have not been sufficiently answered. There are those written by Quentin Smith, “A Sound Logical Argument From Evil;” Hugh LaFollette, “Plantinga on the Free Will Defense;” Richard La Croix, “Unjustified Evil and God’s Choice” [all to be found in The Impossibility of God, eds. Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier (Prometheus Books, 2003)], Richard Gale’s On the Nature and Existence of God (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 98-178, and Graham Oppy’s book Arguing About Gods (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 262-268, who argues at length for the thesis that Plantinga's treatment of the logical problem of evil is inconsistent in several respects. See also A.M. Weisberger’s critique of Plantinga’s free will defense in her book Suffering Belief (Peter Lang, 1999), pp. 163-184. Just because Plantinga answered Mackie's formulation, and just because Mackie admitted it, doesn't mean that all formulations have been answered, or that others agree with Mackie’s admission.

Christian people like to tout any successes they have since they have so few. But it’s propaganda, plain and simple, and based on out of date information. Besides, even if there is no logical disproof of the existence of God because of intense suffering in this world, that doesn’t say much at all. The reason is that there are very few, if any logical disproofs of anything.

Consider this deductive argument from Richard R. La Croix: “If God is the greatest possible good then if God had not created there would be nothing but the greatest possible good. And since God didn’t need to create at all, then the fact that he did create produced less than the greatest possible good.” “Perhaps God could not, for some perfectly plausible reason, create a world without evil, but then it would seem that he ought not to have created at all.” “Prior to creation God knew that if he created there would be evil, so being wholly good he ought not to have created.” [The Impossibility of God, pp.119-124]. After analyzing La Croix’s argument, A.M. Weisberger argued that “contrary to popular theistic opinion, the logical form of the argument is still alive and beating.” [Suffering Belief, 1999, p. 39].

Why did God create something in the first place? Theists will typically defend the goodness of God by arguing he could not have created a world without some suffering and evil. But what reason is there for creating anything at all? Theists typically respond by saying creation was an expression of God’s love. But wasn’t God already complete in love? If love must be expressed, then God needed to create, and that means he lacked something. Besides, a perfectly good God should not have created anything at all, if by creating something, anything, it also brought about so much intense suffering. By doing so he actually reduced the amount of total goodness there is, since God alone purportedly has absolute goodness.

A Review of Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God."

Here's a review of Julia Sweeney's one-woman play, “Letting Go of God.” What an interesting time it is to be an atheist when one of our own can act to a packed house!

Don't Judge a Book by Its Cover

A proverb is a short, traditional saying that speaks of an obvious truth. It is not mandatory, in that a proverb must always be true, nor is it universal to cover every possible situation. We utilize them to express a brief analogy to explain a propensity.

“Locking the barn door after the horse escapes” reminds us that preventative measures are useless after events have unfolded. “Don’t cry over spilt milk” tells us to not bother whining about the lost horse. “A stitch in time saves nine” tells us, in the future, to put in preventative measures prior to losing the horse. So does “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Of course, because they are not a universal truth, a proverb does not guarantee results. Despite the sayings focusing on prevention, “An apple a day” does not insure keeping the Doctor away. In fact other maxims caution the “Best laid plans of mice and men can go awry.” Even locked barn doors.

The Bible also provides us with numerous proverbs. Many contained within one book appropriately entitled “Proverbs.” I am informed, though, that this book—this Bible, is unlike any other book in the course of history, due to it being the sole written document with divine involvement.

What, then, is the difference between a normal human proverb, and a proverb that God had a hand in?

One of the quickest contradictions claimed in the entire Bible can be found in Proverbs. First we are informed:

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. Prov. 24:4

Without even taking a breath, the very next statement:

Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes. Prov. 24:5

If these were commands, we would be left scratching our heads, wondering—do we answer a fool according to his folly or not? But of course they are not commands. No, these are proverbs. Pithy sayings that are not intended to be universal truths, nor universal commands.

(And it is poor use of their meaning to claim a contradiction in this context.)

In fact, we expect proverbs, due to their nature of covering all situations, to conflict. “Many hands make light work” flies in the face of “Too many cooks spoil the soup.” Should one be a “rolling stone that gathers no moss” or “still waters that run deep”? When approaching a situation is it “He who hesitates is lost” or “Only fools jump in where angels fear to tread”?

It is therefore not a surprise that even a divinely inspired Proverb would conflict with another.

Which leaves me puzzling as to the difference between a proverb stated by a human, and a proverb stated by a human that is claimed to be touched by God.

Both are not intended to be true all the time. Both are applicable to only certain situations. Both are cute, pithy statements to convey a picture of a fraction of the human experience. Neither is meant to be all-encompassing, always true, always guaranteed.

What makes a stamp of “God-approved” of any real significance? Sure we can be impressed—the fact that one saying is claimed to be from a God, and another is mere human—but if both are of pragmatic equal application, doesn’t that lessen the “God Impact”? The fact that God can do no better than humans when it comes to proverbs?

Imagine I showed you two chocolate cake recipes. One from Betty Crocker herself, the other from a guy named “Fred” down the street. At first, one would expect the Crocker recipe to be better—she has the better credentials. But what if the recipes tasted the same? Do we care, at that point, who has the better credentials?

What if someone claimed they had a cake recipe from God? There could be no higher credential! Yet when we make this cake, what if it is as tasty as any other? Would we start to suspect the person is attempting to give the recipe a greater air of legitimacy by claiming it was divine?

Most of the book could be summed up in “Work hard. Don’t associate with evil people. Use your common sense.” Something humans could figure out on their own. Did we really need divine intervention to recognize that: “A faithful witness does not lie, But a false witness will utter lies.”? (Prov. 14:5) I thought that was the definition of a “false witness” !

Don’t get me wrong—I like many of the Proverbs. I have always appreciated “Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death, is the man who deceives his neighbor, And says, ‘I was only joking!’” (Prov. 26:18-19)

But I like Aesop’s fables, and Shakespearean sayings as well. Does not make them divine.

What is the distinguishing mark of a God-given proverb? What makes it any more beneficial than a human one?

For centuries people have continued to accept the human claim that what other humans have said involved God’s interaction. Perhaps it is time for them to accept some of their own sayings:

“The simple believes every word, But the prudent considers well his steps.” Prov. 14:15.

A Debate on Intelligent Design: Shermer vs Wells.

On October 12th, at the CATO Institute, Michael Shermer, author of Why Darwin Matters, presented his case against intelligent design in a debate with Jonathan Wells, Senior Fellow, Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute.

This is a good debate! See here.

I Changed My Mind

I have to say that as of yesterday I have changed my mind about something. I was quite skeptical of the argument from evil as a valid argument against Christian theism. After having read Loftus' chapter on the argument from evil, I have to really credit John for opening up my eyes to the cogency of the argument. I used to be quiet skeptical but I believe that's because I really didn't understand the argument as well as I thought I did. But I have changed my mind. The author whom John quoted in his beginning paragraphs said that those Christians who are not bothered by it don't understand it. I guess all this time I have never really understood it and even as an atheist I never understood it.

I don't know why it just never took me by grip until yesterday. After having read it, I was nearly in tears. I composed an e-mail to John last night telling him that I was just about in tears after having read his chapter. I am now wanting to read Michael Martin's book on atheism and his sections on the argument from evil. I just don't know how I could've not been fully persuaded of it earlier. I am at a loss for why I never was much impressed by it until now.

I was prompted to give it another look after reading from Charles Templeton. Templeton once recalled what killed his faith in the Christian god. He looked at a photograph of a mother holding up her dead child, looking up to heaven, as though expecting an answer as to why god would let her child die, when rain could've helped to prevent a drought bringing about the baby's death. I can see how Templeton would've disbelieved any god of love was capable of letting that happen. I, too, cannot see how a god of love can allowed that to have happened.

I am just not sure why it took so long for me to see the cogency of this argument. Why did it take so long for it to "dawn" on me? I want to say that I am appreciative that John Loftus challenged me to take another look at the argument. I am glad that I did and I credit John, again, with helping me to see how good an argument that it really is.

I am reminded of a fellow skeptic and atheist Richard Carrier. For some time he was skeptical of the Big Bang. He wasn't a outright disbeliever in the Big Bang but honestly didn't know if there had been one. A fellow skeptic and physicist/cosmologist, Vic Stenger helped to convince him that it happened and Carrier changed his mind. I, too, have changed my mind regarding the argument from evil and I am glad that John helped me out!

Matthew

Nice Resource on Debate re God's Existence

Philoso?hy Talk has a nice episode centered on the God debate. They interview Prof. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (Phil) of Dartmouth, then go out on the streets of Berkeley to talk to people about their beliefs. Here is the audio file (Real Player). [HT: Uberkuh]

Debunking Christianity - Women Speak Out! #2

Additions to the original article, Debunking Christianity - Women Speak Out! A list of intelligent, compassionate, creative women who won't keep silent. Picking up where the previous list ended, the latest additions include the following...

22) Julie Galambush--Holds religious-studies degrees from William and Mary, Emory, and Yale Divinity School. Formerly an ordained Baptist minister, she is a convert to Judaism and has written, The Reluctant Parting: How the New Testament's Jewish Writers Created a Christian Book (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005) Interviewedon Eye on Books. Another interview.


23) Dr. Amy Jill-Levine--Professor at Vanderbilt in the Graduate Dept. of Religion, one of the best-known New Testament scholars in the U.S., and co-editor with Dale C. Allison Jr. and John Dominic Crossan of The Historical Jesus in Context (Princeton Readings in Religions) (Princeton University Press; New Ed. Oct., 2006).

Before teaching at Vanderbilt she was the Sara Lawrence Lightfoot Assoc. Professor of Religion at Swarthmore College and has taught at Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Levine's numerous publications address Christian Origins, Jewish-Christian Relations, and Sexuality, Gender, and the Bible. Her books include Women Like This: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World, and, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus (HarperSanFrancisco, Dec., 2006). She has also recorded the "Introduction to the Old Testament" as well as "Great Figures of the Old Testament" and "Great Figures of the New Testament" for the Teaching Company's "Great Lectures" series. [Her presentations are quite good and keep one's interest. I heard her first series on the O.T.--E.T.B.] A self-described "Yankee Jewish feminist who teaches in a predominantly Protestant divinity school in the buckle of the Bible Belt," Levine combines historical-critical rigor, literary-critical sensitivity, and a frequent dash of humor.


24) Kelly Kerney--Raised in a Pentecostal church, author of a novel that reviewers are shouting about in tongues, Born Again. Her book blog is on myspace.com here.


25) Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady--Filmmakers, producers of a documentary titled, Jesus Camp(2006) about an intensively religious Pentecostal/Charismatic Christian camp to which some conservative Christians send their kids. The film's myspace.com blog is located here.


26) Amy Gattie--Liberal, agnostic filmmaker raised by conservative Christian parents explores this experience in her first documentary film, "The Greatest Commandment is to Love," which documents mission relief trips to Kosovo that she took with her parents over several years. Gattie chronicles her journey toward understanding and communication with her parents and their beliefs, and makes some interesting discoveries about the nature of love, compassion and friendship that transcend specific belief systems. She even points point out the universal problem with self-righteousness that we all struggle with, conservative religionists and liberals alike. Amy's interview published in SF Gate appears here.

Interviews with folks other than Amy whose spiritual journeys are interesting can be found in SF Gate's "Finding My Religion" series. Search their archives for tales of other religious journeys here. You can even E-mail SF Gate with suggestions for interview subjects!


27) Monique El-Faizy--Former Christian fundamentalist, author of God and Country: How Evangelicals Have Become America's New Mainstream (2006), and journalist for the New York Daily News (her work has also appeared in The Guardian, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and GQ). Her personal profile at amazon.com is located here.


~~~~~~~~~~

News story related to Women and Christianity:

Sunday School Teacher Let Go For Being Female
Woman Taught Sunday School For 54 Years
POSTED: August 21, 2006

WATERTOWN, N.Y. -- The pastor of a church that has stopped letting women teach Sunday school said that won't affect his decisions as a city councilman in upstate New York.

Rev. Timothy LaBouf dismissed a female Sunday School teacher this month, saying a woman can perform any job -- outside the church.

The First Baptist Church in Watertown dismissed Mary Lambert Aug. 9 after adopting what it called a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The reverend recently dismissed Lambert, who had taught Sunday school for 54 years, citing the biblical advice of the apostle Paul: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

Lambert has publicly criticized the decision.

The church board said other issues were behind Lambert's dismissal, but it did not say what they were.

LaBouf, who also serves on the Watertown City Council, issued a statement saying his stance against women teaching men in Sunday school would not affect his decisions as a city leader in Watertown, where all five members of the council are men but the city manager who runs the city's day-to-day operations is a woman.

"I believe that a woman can perform any job and fulfill any responsibility that she desires to" outside the church, LaBouf wrote Saturday.

Mayor Jeffrey Graham, however, was bothered by the reasons given Lambert's dismissal. "If what's said in that letter reflects the councilman's views, those are disturbing remarks in this day and age," Graham said. "Maybe they wouldn't have been disturbing 500 years ago, but they are now."

The Triumph of the Gospel of John in American Evangelicalism

A Christian seminarian (at a Southern Baptist seminary--a conservative inerrantist institution), named Chris Petersen, has composed an article titled, "The Triumph of the Gospel of John in American Evangelicalism," that includes some questions I too struggled with before I left the fold.

The questions this student raises are not new. They arise whenever students and scholars of the Bible compare the three synoptic Gospels with the Gospel of John. For instance, professor James D. G. Dunn in his most recent monumental theological works on Jesus has acknowledged that the historical Jesus most probably didn't speak a word of what the Gospel of John portrays Jesus as having said.

Chris also has a five-part series on the discrepancy between the day of the week in which Jesus died according to the three Synoptic Gospels, compared with the day mentioned in the Gospel of John, titled, "The Date of Passover and the Pitfall of Inerrancy."

(Perhaps J. P. Holding and Dave Armstrong might consider reading Chris's pieces and offer to explain to the bright young lad why his questions, like Dr. Dunn's, aren't worth focusing any serious attention on.)

The Problem of Evil, Alvin Plantinga & Victor Reppert

I saw through Plantinga's initial assumptions regarding his "solution" to the problem of evil twenty years ago while reading Plantinga's book that a Calvinist friend loaned me. I phoned Plantinga years later. He didn't answer my question.

Here's my question...

A free-willed
All powerful
All knowing
All good
All perfect
All blissful God

creates something SOLELY out of His own will, power, knowledge, goodness, perfection, and bliss...so what room is there for anything less?

...but out of infinite perfection comes a cosmos where everything dies, where bliss is fleeting, where minds and hearts grow confused, damaged, sometimes even shattered via the process of struggling to earn a living and/or raise a family, or whittled down via repressive labor, or bored to death. Where human development is difficult and perilous, where communication is difficult, even perilous, for both people and nations, where ignorance (inherent in each culture, family and individual) and stubborness about one's ignorance is rife (the latter perhaps due to increasing inflexibility of the brain/mind once it has assumed a "system"--or been "assumed by" a system--because we not only "have beliefs," but there is also evidence that "beliefs have us" as well). A cosmos where we cannot "see" what's "behind it," where "God" and "heaven" and the "afterlife" (or even the "before birth") remains "hidden" to the vast majority of the earth's inhabitants throughout time. A cosmos where consciousness does not appear to pop out fully grown all at once, but has to develop just as the brain/mind develops in the womb and during the time of infancy, childhood, adolescent impulsivness and finally adulthood. A cosmos where we continue to struggled against a world of nature that kills with cold, wind, fire, water, earth, desert heat, lava, predators, poisons, diseases, parasites. A cosmos where we strive to lessen the painful effects of, or eliminate, nature's dangers and pains that haunt not only us, but every other living organism on this planet. So we fighting the cold weather that kills to the desert heat that withers, and we strive to discern early warning signs of natural disasters and epidemics. A cosmos where we also strive to eliminate barriers of communication, or blow each other up trying.

Christian apologists like Plantinga ADD to the above mix of confusion and dangers their PRESUMPTION that this cosmos is all for the greater good, and PRESUME that besides all of the above confusion imperfection and dangers--from the death of everything we see--to insufferable boredom--to daily pains--passions--miscommunications--the ignorance inherent in each culture, family and individual--the inflexibility and intertia inherent in each brain/mind as it develops from youth--or degenerates with age--besides all that--Christian apologists insist everyone MUST believe in a particular holy book written by true believers (even in a particular INTERPRETATION of that holy book), or we will not only continue to suffer as on earth, but suffer relentlessly for eternity, without mercy.

And Plantinga presents it all like it's the most "rational" view possible.

Christian philosopher Victor Reppert at his blog, "C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea," seems at least doubtful that Plantinga's view is the most rational and suggests that it might made a bit more sense if people received "another chance" after they had died to "convert." I assume Vic believes that the ignorant limited brain/minds, and confused or debilitated characteristics of people's brain/minds from living in this imperfect cosmos will be healed following death (otherwise they might misperceive even the afterlife based on past limited experiences or imperfect brain/mind constitutions). So Vic suggests non-Christians will all be given another chance to "believe" after they have seen God and heaven and had time to investigate and ponder matters on the "other" side of this cosmos. But Vic also realizes I suppose that this is a rationalization on Vic's part. (What other of Vic's beliefs might not also be "rationalizations to believe" as he does, i.e., rather than "reasons to believe?") At the very least Vic does not appear to think that Plantinga has "solved" all the problems regarding this cosmos and the Christian view of salvation, since Vic recognizes the need to try and go "further" than Plantinga via Vic's "second chance" scenario/rationalization.

Victor Reppert remains uncomfortable, has more questions than most orthodox Christian apologists on the internet. (Welcome to my mind/brain world, Vic, filled with more questions than answers.)

I have rational difficulties conceiving of a perfectly good and perfectly powerful being squeezing out a cosmos such as this. Furthermore, the experience of this cosmos in which all things die (and stuggle not to) with such daily persistance is a shared experience of everyone on the planet.

I have even GREATER difficulty imagining that humanity (and every other organism on earth) have been placed in such a universally deadly situation in order that human beings might "hear the Word of the Christian God" and either choose to believe a book written by true believers, or die an everlasting death.

P.S., Since I'm agnostic, let me play around with a philosophical suggestion or two, a rationalization here, a guess there, concerning God. What if "God," being a perfect eternal being, got omni-bored and tried to surprise Himself/Herself/They/Itself by playing "hide and seek" with Him/Her/They/Itself in a panentheistic fashion? Not that I even know what "panentheism" is, except to say that some say it refers to a view of "God" as the flame of all reality with everything else being flamelets proceedings from the one great flame, a lot like pantheism, but with each flamelet having a slightly greater degree of individuality. (I won't argue whether such a conception of "degrees of individuality" is "true or not" in a philosophical sense, which will obviously get us no where, since how could one prove any of my assumptions above at all)? At any rate the "Hide and Seek" playing panehtheistic God who gets omnibored and then tries to generate "Surprise," might help explain a cosmos in which life arises yet everything dies, and it might help explain humanity as well, including the "hiddenness" of God. But again, I admit I'm only dealing with analogies from "fire," or from basic human emotions such as "boredom" and "surprise," and ways in which we understand such matters, and thus I am bending the wax nose of philosphical ideas and words in ways I cannot prove and that prove nothing. Though if someone wished to follow up on this little suggestion they could do worse than read Alan Watts's BOOK OF THE TABOO (Against Knowing Who You Really Are); or his Christian version of the same view in an earlier work he wrote while still an Anglican priest, BEHOLD THE SPIRIT. I am not however suggesting one must read anything of the sort.

Another guess concerns the views of universalist Christians who believe that God and time are the best teachers, hence they don't fear what comes next for anyone, and merely seek to blow on the spark of eternal salvation already lying inside us all, to inspire and uplift.

I'm not saying any philosophocal suggestion of mine, or Plantinga's, or Reppert's, is easy to maintain however, not if pains or diseases of body and/or mind grow excruciating. People suffering a "ringing in the ears" have been known to leap to their deaths because the ringing kept them up till they had gone nearly mad. Sleep deprivation, even just dream deprivation (waking up a person whenever they go into rapid eye movement (or REM) mode to prevent them from dreaming) can apparently kill a person faster than depriving them of food. During times of intense pain, disease, or deprivation neither philosophy nor theology seem to help the person who is being forced to suffer greatly. Even in the Bible, though Job didn't curse God, he sought answers. "WHY?" Even Jesus is portrayed as shouting out "WHY" in a despairing line from a psalm before his death, "My God, My God WHY have you forsaken me?" C.S.Lewis admitted a year before he died that he "dreaded most" the thought that he may have been "deceiving himself" concerning the kind of "God" who would give his wife cancer and then himself cancer. Or as in the case of a conversation Mother Teresa had (she didn't believe in pain killers) with a man suffering intense pain from cancer, "Jesus is kissing you," to which the man replied, "Then I wish he'd stop." That's the problem of pain in a nutshell. The "dread" of C.S. Lewis. The "Whys" of Job and Jesus. Not to mention Victor Reppert's "second chance."

Four Points Concerning The Problem of Evil, Christian Apologetics & The Bible

Point 1) Theistic philosophers who discuss the problem of pain/evil without acquainting themselves with specific cases in detail from nature are like Kant who apparently avoided the museum of art that he walked past each day on his way to write a book on the "philosophy of art/aesthetics." (A philosophy professor even shared with me that Kant boasted something to the effect that it wasn't even necessary to look at art in order to write his treatise).

Unlike Kant I prefer to begin all investigations, philosophical or otherwise, by pondering specific instances. And since the topic is suffering (including suffering unto madness) please see the collection of instances found HERE. The effect of reading and pondering those examples is a bit different from reading a philosophical treatise on "suffering" that spends the majority of its time juggling-stretching-and-playing with huge generalizations such as "good," "evil," "pain," "suffering," "God," "perfection," "omnipotence," and "freewill," etc.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Point 2) Has any philosopher yet explained (except via verbal alchemy) how something can start out perfectly good and yet evil can come out of it? If God is defined as the perfectly good and only source of everything, then whence comes evil? Endless ages of verbal alchemy attached to this question explain nothing, the question remains.

Note that if God is perfectly good and has freewill then a freewilled being can exist in a state of perfect goodness. But if God has freewill then wouldn't it be possible for God Himself to commit evil, or become evil? (Or do Christian apologists employ a different definition of "freewill" when it comes to "God?") Conversely, if God does not have freewill then doesn't that imply that freewill is not necessarily of ultimate value and that humanity has something even God lacks?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Point 3) Is there something, ANYTHING, that a Christian apologist might consider to be "unjustifiable suffering?"

For instance, what types of horrendous suffering (or chronic forms of soul-grinding suffering, or physically or psychologically crippling forms of suffering, even mentally maddening forms of suffering) have NOT happened to someone somewhere on this planet, or may not happen say, to someone throughout eternity? And is not ALL of that suffering "justifiable" according to Christian apologists? Judaism claims that even the righteous suffer like Job. While Christianity claims that an infinite eternal and guiltless Being (AKA Jesus-God) has "suffered" and even spent time in "hell," though everyone still continues to suffer here on earth, including for the past two thousand years since that Being suffered. So there does not appear to be any form of suffering that's not justifiable to the Christian apologist, is there, including Jews suffering in concentration camps simply for being Jewish in some way--and then they die in such a camp and may will awaken on judgment day to find their new bodies (and old souls) in eternal hell, right? (For centuries both devout Calvinists and Catholics even spoke about seeing the damned suffer for eternity and not only finding the eternal suffering of the damned something justifiable, but also something worth REJOICING over.) I ask again, is there any form of suffering that a Christian apologist might consider to be "unjustifiable suffering?"

And why must people believe that the only way God can "accept" a person is if that person believes God has wrath (or a need to punish), and cannot simply forgive, nor punch a super pillow till His wrath abates, nor calmly instruct with minimal pain, and give people more than one chance, but instead God must take the sum total of His wrath out on the most unworthy recipient, a wholly guiltless individual, who also happens to be Himself? Why is such a belief necessary? And why do Christian creeds insist on the necessity of such a belief, when it obviously does not appeal to all, nor even make sense to all? All people don't even find the same stories (whether they involve "God" or not) as equally appealing or believable.

At present about a third of the world is nominally speaking, "Christian." No doubt the Bible is constantly being published and republished, even Uber-published if I may coin the phrase, and passed out round the world, making it the "world's biggest best seller," though a more truthful accolade might be the "world's most handed out book," or the "world's most common gift book," or the "most commonly suggested book that Christian men and women and pastors tell others that they should or must get a copy of and read."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Point 4) I wonder whether Christian apologists have ever come to grips in a truly convincing fashion with the ways their God is portrayed (either in reality or metaphorically) in the book that they claim "reveals" the truth of their beliefs to humanity? For instance does the DEVIL threaten to cast people body and soul into hell? No. That type of imposed suffering is God's design. Does the Devil get portrayed as wiping out every breathing thing on the planet except some ark survivors? Nope. That's God again. Does the Devil command the destruction of everything that breathes in certain cities? Does the Devil send plagues, famines, poisonous snakes, and opposing armies to teach people lessons like the God of the Bible is portrayed as doing? Does the Devil strike husband and wife both dead if they lie about giving all of their earthly possessions to the church?

Have Christian philosophers really dealt with questions like those above and below, or do they tend to flee them till they reach a nice quiet corner of huge generalizations resembling nothing so much as pious platitudes? But think for just a moment longer about this...

God is portrayed as acting thusly toward the "apple of His eye," the "children of Israel": The God of Israel tried to kill Moses (and failed); struck dead two sons of Aaron; commanded “brother to kill brother” leading to the deaths of 3,000 Israelites (right after He gave them the commandment, “Do not kill”); opened up the earth and buried alive “wives, sons and little children;” sent a fire that consumed 148 Levite princes; cursed his people to wander in the desert for forty years and eat 40,000 meals of quail and “manna” (talk about a monotonously torturous diet--and when they complained about it, God killed 3,000 Israelites with a plague); had a man put to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath; denied Moses and Aaron entrance into the “promised land” because Moses struck a rock twice with his staff instead of talking to the rock; delivered to his people a “promised land” that was parched, bordered by desert, and a corridor for passing conquering armies; sent fiery serpents among Israel, killing many; wanted to kill every Israelite and start over with Moses and his family (but Moses talked God out of that plan); drove the first king of Israel to suicide; killed someone who tried to steady a teetering ark of the covenant; murdered king David’s innocent child; sent plagues and famines upon his people that killed men, women and children; ordered the execution of 42 children of the king of Judah; “smote all Israel” killing half a million men of Israel in a civil war between Israel and Judah; “delivered into the hand of the king of Israel” 120,000 Judeans massacred in one day along with 200,000 Jewish women and children; gave Satan the power to kill Job’s children and servants (in order to win a bet); let the Babylonians conquer the holy city of Jerusalem, and then the Greek forces of Alexander the Great, followed by the Romans; and finally left the Jews homeless and persecuted by Christians and Moslems for nearly 2000 years. Furthermore, the large number of laws in the Hebrew Bible concerning the treatment of lepers and those with sores demonstrates that the Israelites were far from being blessed with unparalleled good health. And archeological evidence indicates that in ancient Israel the infant mortality rate was as high as fifty percent.

Edward T. Babinski [See the Bible for all of the cases mentioned above, except for the archeological evidence concerning ancient Israel’s infant mortality rate. For the latter see, Drorah O’Donnell Setel, “Abortion,” The Oxford Guide to Ideas & Issues of the Bible, ed. by Bruce Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (Oxford University Press, 2001)]

Which "God" Should A Classical Theist Believe In?

According to a detailed survey performed by Baylor University researchers, the type of god people believe in can predict their political and moral attitudes more so than just looking at their religious tradition.

Researchers found that none of the "four gods" dominated among believers. The data showed:

• 31.4 percent believe in an Authoritarian God, who is very judgmental and engaged
• 25 percent believe in a Benevolent God, who is not judgmental but engaged
• 23 percent believe in a Distant God, who is completely removed
• 16 percent believe in a Critical God, who is judgmental but not engaged

Source: Baylor University

USA Today breaks down more information about those political and moral attitudes which are associated with each of the four types of God:

The Authoritarian God (31.4% of Americans overall, 43.3% in the South) is angry at humanity's sins and engaged in every creature's life and world affairs. He is ready to throw the thunderbolt of judgment down on "the unfaithful or ungodly," Bader says.

Those who envision God this way "are religiously and politically conservative people, more often black Protestants and white evangelicals," Bader says. "(They) want an active, Christian-values-based government with federal funding for faith-based social services and prayer in the schools."

They're also the most inclined to say God favors the USA in world affairs (32.1% vs. 18.6% overall).

The Benevolent God (23% overall, 28.7% in the Midwest) still sets absolute standards for mankind in the Bible. More than half (54.8%) want the government to advocate Christian values.

But this group, which draws more from mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews, sees primarily a forgiving God, more like the father who embraces his repentant prodigal son in the Bible, Froese says. They're inclined (68.1%) to say caring for the sick and needy ranks highest on the list of what it means to be a good person.

The Distant God (24.4% overall, 30.3% in the West) is "no bearded old man in the sky raining down his opinions on us," Bader says. Followers of this God see a cosmic force that launched the world, then left it spinning on its own.

This has strongest appeal for Catholics, mainline Protestants and Jews. It's also strong among "moral relativists," those least likely to say any moral choice is always wrong, and among those who don't attend church, Bader says. Only 3.8% of this group say embryonic stem cell research is always wrong, compared with 38.5% of those who see an authoritarian God, 22.7% for those who see God as benevolent and 13.2% who see God as critical but disengaged.

The Follies of Faith (part II of II)

Faith is a very deep and personal thing, a psychological thing, and even when classes of believers are a part of the same religion, there tends to be a side of them that understands that God is somehow communicating with each of them on a personal level. Faith, and the so-called “inner-leadings,” nudgings, and woo-ings of God for a person to do this or that, are far too strong to ignore. Believers not only hold to the guiding authority of the Bible, and other creed books, but believe God leads the believer individually. Most Christians are crazy about the idea that God directs them by the Holy Bible, but most won’t deny that God exerts an additional influence, a direct influence upon the human heart in a mysterious and unknown way. They might call it by different names. It is "divine providence" to some and "the witness of the Spirit" to others, but it's all about the same in the final analysis.

For instance, an average Christian might be “led” of God to put her child into a private school, as opposed to a public one, or God might providentially “urge” a man to attend a type of church with a more or less emotional atmosphere. Of course, God ends up “wooing” every religious person to do this or that, and every other contradictory and mutually exclusive thing, depending on which religious sect the person is from. To deny God the power to tickle your heart a little is “boxing God in,” as I remember several preachers referring to it. So most modern Christians consider God to be operational doctrinally by the Bible alone (together with the Church in the case of Catholics), but personally by a more nebulous luring of the Almighty himself.

These inner-leadings can become downright bizarre. Take, for instance, the case of Rolando Del Campo. 12 years ago, Rolando’s wife was experiencing an intensely difficult labor. When the possibility became likely that his child may not survive the delivery, Campo pleaded with God in prayer that if he would allow his daughter to live, he would crucify himself 15 times. Yes, actually crucify himself just like Jesus (ropes, scourgings, nails, crown of thorns, the whole gamut!)! Well, to make a long story short, his daughter lived, and Campo is almost through fulfilling his vow at the time of this writing. To date, he has undergone public and bloody crucifixions some 12 times. His fellow believers in his community support him in the endeavor and gladly participate. In fact, he is a roll model, a man of great faith. Who can deny that he is? After all, he was “led” by God to make such a demanding sacrifice. So "led" was he to get the favor of God that he shot right past the accomplishments of ol' Jeebus himself! But while Campo's story may appeal to less educated and more superstitious Catholics with highly ascetic tendencies, many are not as taken in by it.

Most modern, sophisticated Christians think such behavior bizarre and just plain sick! They might even quote Colossians 2:23, which speaks against asceticism being substituted as a form of godliness, "Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh." But try telling Mr. Campo that he was wrong. Try telling him that he was vainly hurting himself. Try cracking open a bible and sitting down with him for a one hour bible study and showing him how pattern-istic God is, and how he wants us all to conform to the words of a lambskin covered holy book and attend a church twice on Sundays and once on Wednesday nights. Your message will not get through to him. Campo's world of faith opened up for him when he found his daughter healed. It was all the vindication and proof he needed for his understanding of Christianity to be validated. Maybe harming our bodies is ordinarily bad, but for him, God was demanding he fulfill his promise, just like Jephthae, who offered up his daughter to the Lord (Judges 11:30-39), though this was ordinarily not considered acceptable, and just like Isaiah, who was commanded to prophecy naked before Israel for one year (Isaiah 20:1-4), even though the rest of us must always wear clothes (Genesis 3:21) and dress modestly (I Timothy 2:9). So we see how faith is not a strictly biblical thing. It is an intimate corporeality, a quest for answers and self-worth in the absence of it. One need not have a deep understanding of the bible to have a strong faith experience, one that can be as real to that person as his own name.

After nine years in the ministry, this I have come to know: there is no such thing as a normal faith experience! Religious experiences come in all shapes, sizes, and colors, and some even have their own levels of priceless, knee-slapping comedic value.

I know a woman who believed God was with her because her eyes swelled up in a bout of hay fever while she was working out in a field one afternoon. I once knew of a man who believed Jesus Christ would hang out in his bathroom and occasionally pop out to say, "hi." On a missionary trip, I ran into a Pentecostal woman who said Jesus convinced her to quit using drugs after a two hour long chat, which took place "in the Spirit." I once spoke with a fine Baptist gent who believed he was "led of the Lord" to play a game of golf to make the most of his off day. Another man on a mission trip told me he was shot at because of his faith. He was right in the way of three bullets and would have been killed, but the Holy Spirit put up a force field, deflecting them. A Community Church preacher recently told me he knew his religion was true because he got a testicle twisted, and after saying a little prayer and sleeping it off, he woke up as good as new!

One of the most memorable conversations was with an evangelist who told me the Lord was leading him to stand on a particular street corner and preach. After several hours of only encountering two people who wouldn't bother to stop and listen to him, the man came to be convinced that the Spirit was now telling him to minister at another spot. When he moved to the second location, he ended up baptizing one young lady. I have often wondered why the Holy Spirit did not lead the man there in the first place!

Yes, I too enjoy a good rolling belly-laugh at such flabbergasting sentiments, but these experiences are no laughing matter to the people who experienced them. Of this, there can be no doubt; you can quote mom and dad's favorite book all you want, but in the end, it’s the religious experiences that matter, ones that make us feel good and important, and at the center of God’s miracle-working universe! Every preacher I know at some time or another has heard the saying, "I didn't get anything out of that sermon." Of course, that is always said about the sermons that don't stand within the limits of the believer's mental comfort zone. Just goes to show us how once those warm and toasty feelings of spirituality are gone, religion ceases to have meaning to us.

But if Campo's religious experience is still too drastic an example for you, then consider what happened on an ordinary Tuesday morning in Fresno, California in 1995. It was just business as usual at the local International House of Pancakes off of Highway 99, when the Virgin Mary appeared on a waffle, covered in maple syrup. The entire restaurant was astonished and shared in extolling this holy experience as a true miracle. One truck driver who had stopped in explained his being there a miracle in and of itself! How wonderful it was for the Blessed Virgin to deem them worthy of her appearing cross-eyed, with a mashed-in forehead on the breakfast plate of a nice Catholic lady that fine day! It is an experience they (and now the world, unfortunately) will never forget. For so many Catholics worldwide with just the right kind of faith to look for and expect these sorts of things, a miracle was done! No one else noticed this miracle except people who already believed in it before it happened, but that never stopped the faithful from believing anything. Mary has always been very creative in where she chooses to appear: under a Chicago highway, on a frying pan, an ironing board, a tree, a tent, a mosquito net, a patio deck, etc. Just let imagination run wild, and some time or another, the Blessed Virgin will be descending from heaven and making a surprise appearance in your neck of the woods…if you have faith in her!

The religiously drugged world is moved to tears by men and women of great faith, by sobbing masses of pious believers, who burn incense in honor of the keeper of the stars, who carry eerily decorated crosses and gory crucifixes down the streets in a parade of self-inflicted mourning, but I am not impressed at all. I don’t mourn because of the faithful. I mourn for them.

Why are the faithful doing these things? Why are they so feverishly putting themselves out for the sake of their heavenly caretaker? Because of an undying faith in a non-existent deity, a deity with the character of a monster in a Hollywood horror flick, the same abuser of mankind who manages always to leave us in the dark about just what he wants from his creation. Any deity who demands that a servant of his agree to be crucified 15 times before he will agree to save his daughter’s life, even though it costs that deity absolutely nothing to do so with no strings attached, is an unscrupulous fiend. No matter the sacrifices and devotion God gets from his many devout pupils, he remains content to watch us befuddled mortals put on dazzling displays of faith, and then maybe…just maybe…he will see fit to answer our prayers and bless our lives. If going through life with such a haphazard outlook is not folly, I don’t know what is.

(JH)

Exapologist Now Has His own Blog!

Check it out!

How to Write a Philosophy or Ethics Paper.

[Written by John W. Loftus] Here are the guidelines to writing a Philosophy or Ethics paper that I use for my classes:

A philosophy paper is a defense of a thesis, in which the thesis is explained and analyzed, arguments are given in support of the thesis, possible objections to the thesis are stated and examined, and responses are given to the objections. A philosophy paper thus has five parts (which I will expect you to follow). Include a sentence outline of your argument. 1. The statement of the thesis. 2. The analysis and explaining of the thesis. 3. The arguments in support of the thesis. 4. The examination of objections to the thesis. 5. The response to the objections. When choosing a thesis statement I want you to argue against a particular author with whom you disagree. Your chosen topic must be one discussed in our philosophy/ethics textbook--no exceptions. Read essays until you come across a philosophical essay with which you disagree. Then defend your point of view against the criticisms of that essay. Research into other authors to help you in your debate. 1) The Thesis is a statement that makes some clear, definite assertion about the subject under discussion. Be sure to begin your paper with a thesis statement showing what you will attempt to show, and how you will do this. Let me know which sentence is your thesis statement by labeling it as such. Be specific. Don’t just say you will examine the question at hand. A philosophy paper is very much like debating on behalf of, or against a position. You should state that a particular author with whom you are debating is wrong in certain areas, and that your position is better. If the subject is the existence of a Supreme Being you might want to defend: a) The teleological argument for the existence of God shows that a designer God exists; b) It is highly unlikely that a good God exists given the amount of evil in the world; or c) Human beings are incapable of knowing whether there is a Supreme Being. Inadequate thesis statements include: a) Why I believe in God; b) The Quest for God; or c) God in Contemporary Thought. These statements do not assert anything--they are topics. The first one above “Why I Believe in God” is a personal report of how you feel or believe, which is not a philosophical argument. When writing about the topic of Abortion good thesis statements are: a) Abortion should be legally wrong under all circumstances; b) A woman should have the absolute legal right to have an abortion; and c) Abortion should be illegal except to save the life of the mother. Inadequate ones include: a) Abortion pro and con; b) The scientific status of the embryo; and c) The legally of abortion in America. 2) The analysis and explaining of the thesis. Here you need to explain just what you wish to defend. In the case of Abortion you will need to distinguish between legal problems and moral problems--are you arguing both? Clarify what circumstances, if any, abortion is morally wrong. Can it be morally wrong yet not legally wrong? At this stage you are not really arguing your case, just explaining what you mean by your thesis statement. This sets the stage for the rest of your paper, for the reader can then judge how well you’ve defended your thesis by how you interpret it. In the case of a Supreme Being, are you arguing for (or against) a loving God, a creator God, or the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent benevolent God in the Bible? Again, be very specific. Remember, the bigger the claim, the harder it is to defend it. 3) The arguments in support of the thesis. Here is the heart of the paper where you argue your thesis. You must offer reasons (arguments) to support your thesis statement that are intended to persuade someone who disagrees. Just ask yourself, “If I didn’t already believe my thesis, would these reasons convince me that it was true?” In the case of a Supreme Being you may want to defend the cosmological argument, the teleological argument or the moral argument for the existence of God. Just defend one of them, not all of them, thank you. In the case of Abortion you might try to defend the absolutist thesis that abortion should always be legally wrong. Here you would have to argue that abortion takes an innocent human life. You would have to show that it is human life and it is immoral to take a human life no matter what the circumstances. You would also have to defend a legal principle which defends the right to legislate on this and other similar moral issues. 4) The examination of objections to the thesis. The difficult trick here is to research and state the strongest possible objections to your thesis. Don’t just put up some cream-puff objections that anyone can knock over! There is nothing that wins a reader over more than to have the author say, “Now someone may object, but what about this, and this” when that is just what the reader is thinking, and then having the author come up with really plausible replies to the objections. Here you will have to seriously deal with a philosophical author who disagrees with your viewpoint. Allow that author to speak. Use “the principle of charity” that states we should present the best possible interpretation of an author’s argument for our debate. Otherwise we end up attacking a charicature of his or her argument rather than the argument itself (known as “the fallacy of the straw man”). As a research paper I will expect you to utilize the arguments and counter-arguments learned in class, class readings, and outside readings. 5) The response to the objections. Having stated the objections, answer them and then you are done! As before, use all the skills at your disposal to convince someone who disagreed with your viewpoint. [You may combine part 4 with part 5, answering objections as you go.] At the end of your paper offer a summary paragraph of what you have shown in your paper. Footnotes can be placed at the end of the paper. You will be graded based in descending order upon: 1) how you defend your thesis statement, 2) clarity of thought and presentation; 3) your research, and only if it becomes noticeable, 4) grammar and spelling. While a survey of positions on a particular topic can be helpful, you must show how one position offers criticisms of the other, and not merely state that they are different (which is obvious). Your use of the Bible, the Koran, and so on, should be very limited. While religious teachings may be the source of your beliefs, you are being asked to defend them with philosophical reasons. Again, pick an author or topic that you find in our textbook or that we discuss in class with whom you disagree. Describe the author’s position you wish to evaluate in some detail. Then evaluate it by using the help of other philosophers who have written about it, without neglecting you own informed arguments. ------------------------------------------------- Adapted from Robert Wolff’s About Philosophy, (pp. 425-437) by John W. Loftus.

The Atheist Experience Show/Blog Link

The Atheist Experience is a weekly live call-in television show sponsored by the Atheist Community of Austin, TX. This link takes you to the independently-run blog that features contributions from current and former hosts and co-hosts of the show. I've added the link in our sidebar. Enjoy.

Richard Dawkins Interviewed on The Colbert Report

Best opening line, ever:

My guest tonight is a scientist who argues there is no God...and you know what? He'll have an eternity in hell to prove it!

Get the QuickTime .mov video from the RichardDawkins.net site or see the interview at YouTube.

Will God Answer This Prayer, Part 2

This weekend my Dad did visit and had his prayer session. He didn’t ask either Jon or me to pray with him, he just wanted to pray. Many predictions made by the commenters in my previous post turned out to be true. Before my Dad started praying, we asked him what he expected. We told him if Christianity were false, we would expect nothing to happen. We asked him if he expected God to act and he wouldn’t commit.

Of course nothing happened. My brother and I sat while my Dad prayed. He prayed for about an hour and 45 minutes. About then, my brother asked if he could watch a football game with the sound off. My dad said yes and I went and got lunch. After I brought lunch my Dad was ready to watch some football.

The episode did give us a chance to talk to our Dad. We tried to explain why we took this as evidence that Christianity isn’t true. Of course this episode is not proof that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, but inductive reasoning doesn’t get to a proof. You examine data in light of one hypothesis verses that data in light of another hypothesis. The data of this past weekend fits the hypothesis “Christianity is false” perfectly. It didn’t fit my Dad’s hypothesis that “Christianity is true and God is active in our lives.”

Later we pressed our Dad for any example of an answered prayed. He talked about impressions he received while praying. He really couldn’t give any concrete examples of answered prayer. My mother mentioned that some how when some people were depressed, people called them on the telephone. Sometimes the calls were at odd hours. Needless to say, Jon and I were unimpressed.

At another point in the weekend, the conversation turned to how fear can be a great motivator. I certainly think it is in my Dad’s case. He can’t even entertain the idea that Christianity is wrong for fear of the eternal consequences. I tried to get my Dad to look at Pascal’s wager from another angle. I asked him suppose Samuel lied about God ordering the death of the Amalekites because of the sins of their ancestors (see here). Why would he accept this slander given that God had given him the ability to discern right and wrong. He had no answer.

That is pretty much where things are. Was it worth it? I did end up wasting a couple of hours, but we remain cordial. My Dad seems afraid to consider the possibility he might be wrong. I don’t think this weekend did anything to assuage his fears. I think he will merely adjust his theology. I am not unhappy that I did this. But now that I’ve gone through this exercise, it is very unlikely I am going to do this again.