New Book Out: "Debating Christianity: Opening Salvos in the Battle with Believers"
Well well now, it looks like someone else put out a book in my name! 😉
Debating Christianity: Opening Salvos in the Battle with Believers.
Well well now, it looks like someone else put out a book in my name! 😉
Debating Christianity: Opening Salvos in the Battle with Believers.
Step #1: Assume What You Believe is False!
One way to do this, if you really want to know, is to assume what you currently believe is false. That is step #1. Step #2 is to demand the sort of evidence that a judge would allow in court. Step #3 is to produce that evidence or give up what you currently believe. No excuses. No double standards.
There are exceptions, like disputes over beauty, or other subjective preferences, but the exceptions cannot be the rule.
Should We Be Accountable To God?
An apologist asked me this question:
"Do you think that if a creator created us that we should be accountable in some way to this creator?" My answer:
No. If a creator exists we have no obligation to him if we are given metaphysically free self-determination. He can impose such a thing on us, but that's something he should negotiate with us. God has no right to command us to do good without providing good reasons for being good. And if those reasons are indeed good ones we should be able to discover them without him having to command them.
No one should be above the law, not even the lawmaker. That's why a kingship model of God in the Bible is offensive, as found in the story of Job, since kings could do whatever they could get away with doing. If a god exists he must be subject to his own laws. "Thou shall not kill, lie or steal" as they apply. By contrast the social contract is a negotiated one. Democracy is a participatory type of government.
If a creator god wants to be praised or thanked he should earn it. Now of course, we would give praise to him and thank him for life. But we should only praise and thank such a god as his creation is a good one, and his deeds in the world are good ones.
No. If a creator exists we have no obligation to him if we are given metaphysically free self-determination. He can impose such a thing on us, but that's something he should negotiate with us. God has no right to command us to do good without providing good reasons for being good. And if those reasons are indeed good ones we should be able to discover them without him having to command them.
No one should be above the law, not even the lawmaker. That's why a kingship model of God in the Bible is offensive, as found in the story of Job, since kings could do whatever they could get away with doing. If a god exists he must be subject to his own laws. "Thou shall not kill, lie or steal" as they apply. By contrast the social contract is a negotiated one. Democracy is a participatory type of government.
If a creator god wants to be praised or thanked he should earn it. Now of course, we would give praise to him and thank him for life. But we should only praise and thank such a god as his creation is a good one, and his deeds in the world are good ones.
The Elephant in Richard Carrier’s Room: A Lesson for NT Scholarship By Joseph Atwill
I co-edited the book "Varieties of Jesus Mythicism" with my friend Dr. Robert M. Price. In comes Dr. Richard Carrier, also a friend of mine and peer-reviewed author of a very important book on Jesus mythicism. These two friends of mine have personalities that are almost opposite of each other. Bob is a gracious person when it comes to disagreements. By contrast Dick is, well, a dick. :-) He's someone who holds no punches such that there were authors who didn't want him included in our book, despite being the first peer-reviewed author of an important peer-reviewed book on Jesus Mythicism.
Carrier recently reviewed our mythicist book. He liked some chapters and trashed some others. So I wrote a defense of it, LINK. He did write a blurb for our book though:
By the way, I want to know about the peer-review process when it comes to Carrier's book on Jesus. Please tell us Dr. Carrier! If anyone takes a minute to search for it, there are varying methods and goals in peer-review. What is not promised is that the book is setting forth something true and factual. It only means, at best, that an author has dealt with all of the most important objections.
I know that Sheffield Phoenix Press is a highly esteemed scholarly liberal book publisher. I also know publishers want provocative books that sell well (despite any claim otherwise), since money is indeed a factor. This is not to impugn Sheffield Phoenix Press, and its editors, or any of its authors, including Carrier, since it's very significant that a mythicist got a book published by this publisher! [Atheist scholar Hector Avalos also published two books with them]. But peer-review does not mean the particular reviewer (or committee) thinks what Carrier wrote is true. Yes, we should definately read what Carrier writes. We just don't need reminded that his work was peer-reviewed so often, nor does it mean Carrier's particular treatment is the end of all Jesus mythicism studies, or that Carrier gets to be the hall-monitor for every mythicist who writes on the same subject.
As I said in an earlier post, I don't care much at all with how the Jesus character originated. What I know is that the Jesus in the four gospels did not exist. I said so in my Preface. I also said each and every one of the theories presented in the book are possible. That's my starting point. Possibility is good enough.
With that in mind I'm posting what Joe Atwill sent me in response to Carrier. I did not solicit it, but I welcome it.
Carrier recently reviewed our mythicist book. He liked some chapters and trashed some others. So I wrote a defense of it, LINK. He did write a blurb for our book though:
Mainstream experts mostly already agree the miraculous Jesus didn’t exist, but what about a merely human Jesus? This anthology usefully exhibits the full gamut of doubting even that, from the absurd to the sound. Some contributions are not credible, but some are worth considering, and several are brilliant, indeed required reading for anyone exploring the subject. The book will be absolutely necessary for any future Jesus mythicist scholar. - Dr. Richard Carrier, peer-reviewed author of On the Historicity of Jesus.Having previously been called a "doofus" when it comes to Bayes Theorem, I know the sting of a review by Carrier. In my defense I myself had a peer-reviewed paper published on Bayes Theorem at Internet Infidels, where the vice-President said it was one of the best papers he ever had the pleasure of reading and approving! Carrier still has not responded to it, but if he does, he may overwhelm me with words and links galore, burying me in so much work I won't be able to respond to it all, if I do. Yet, I'm sure I have basically refuted his case. No, Bayes is not the tool for assessing miraculous claims, which by their very nature are impossible to take place in the natural world, by means of the natural world. I have argued that Bayes cannot and should not be applied to claims which are nonsense, and that miraculous claims in the ancient Biblical past are all nonsense! They are all nonsense because there is absolutely no credible evidence for any of them. Lately I offered some additional thoughts on Bayes.
By the way, I want to know about the peer-review process when it comes to Carrier's book on Jesus. Please tell us Dr. Carrier! If anyone takes a minute to search for it, there are varying methods and goals in peer-review. What is not promised is that the book is setting forth something true and factual. It only means, at best, that an author has dealt with all of the most important objections.
I know that Sheffield Phoenix Press is a highly esteemed scholarly liberal book publisher. I also know publishers want provocative books that sell well (despite any claim otherwise), since money is indeed a factor. This is not to impugn Sheffield Phoenix Press, and its editors, or any of its authors, including Carrier, since it's very significant that a mythicist got a book published by this publisher! [Atheist scholar Hector Avalos also published two books with them]. But peer-review does not mean the particular reviewer (or committee) thinks what Carrier wrote is true. Yes, we should definately read what Carrier writes. We just don't need reminded that his work was peer-reviewed so often, nor does it mean Carrier's particular treatment is the end of all Jesus mythicism studies, or that Carrier gets to be the hall-monitor for every mythicist who writes on the same subject.
As I said in an earlier post, I don't care much at all with how the Jesus character originated. What I know is that the Jesus in the four gospels did not exist. I said so in my Preface. I also said each and every one of the theories presented in the book are possible. That's my starting point. Possibility is good enough.
With that in mind I'm posting what Joe Atwill sent me in response to Carrier. I did not solicit it, but I welcome it.
The Elephant in Richard Carrier’s Room: A Lesson for NT Scholarship
By Joseph Atwill
Richard Carrier has written a critique of two of the parallels I discussed in the chapter I wrote for "Varieties of Jesus Mythicism." SOURCE I wish to respond.
World War I: Why Didn't It Put an End to Belief in God?
A personal, loving, competent god is out of the question
When we study episodes of colossal suffering in human history, we have to wonder: “How did belief in a good, powerful god survive these experiences?” The masses of people affected would have been more than justified in telling their priests to get lost. “The theology you’ve been peddling is all wrong.” The Black Plague of the 14th century, which brought horrible suffering and death to perhaps a third of the population from India to England, should have meant the end of personal theism, i.e., belief that a loving god manages the world, indeed, keeps close tabs on every person on earth. Unfortunately, critical thinking was not a common commodity at that time, so the church got away with preaching that human sin was the cause of the plague; god was getting even. This is stunningly bad theology, the embrace of supernatural evil, as Dan Barker has put it: the loving god had disappeared.
Largest-ever map of 56,000 galaxies is demystifying the universe's expansion
Here's a map of 56,000 galaxies! It's estimated there are between 100 to 200 billion galaxies. We're in such a small little tiny part in the universe! We know so very very little. To believe there's a god who transcends all time, who knows what's going on in every planet of every galaxy, who created it all in an instant for his glory and our worship, is ludacris! LINK
Mark Mittleberg On Five Science and Logic Arrows That Point to the Christian Faith, Part 17
Arrow 1: Design in the universe points to an intelligent designer. A great book on this is by Dr. Abby Hafer, The Not-So-Intelligent Designer: Why Evolution Explains the Human Body and Intelligent Design Does Not. She also wrote one chapter for each of my anthologies The Case against Miracles and Christianity in the Light of Science. Consider also David Hume's criticisms of the design argument.
In Defense of "Varieties of Jesus Mythicism"
I knew this anthology of ours would suffer from the criticisms of the uninformed and the informed. So let me share the back-story of how it came to be, and how it was envisioned, in order to stave off some unjustified criticisms. Here's a link that introduces the book, which includes the contents, blurbs, and something about the authors. Here's an Amazon link to it.
Robert M. Price and I had talked about doing such a book earlier, and I knew he had been working on it with other contributors. Then he shot me an email on Nov 23, 2019, saying:
Bible god Is Not a god ANYONE Would Want
...except those who are okay with supernatural evil
I was a Bible nerd even in my high school days, and continued to be one in college, when I made the decision to go to seminary. What a thrill that was: to study the Bible and God at the graduate level. But early in my seminary years I learned a troubling lesson—from my theology professors themselves: it is impossible to come up with a coherent theology of the Bible. For the simple reason that the Bible’s ideas about god are an incoherent, uncomplimentary mess. Theologians themselves know that there are a thousand and one embarrassing Bible verses, so many of them relating to what Bible god is like and wants. This is one of the reasons that Christianity itself has fractured into thousands of different brands: so many disagreements about its god.
The Demon, Matrix, Material World, and Dream Possibilities
New essay of mine at Internet Infidels, "The Demon, Matrix, Material World, and Dream Possibilities". Link
Robert Conner Interviewed On His Book, "The Jesus Cult: 2000 Years of the Last Days", by Derek Lambert of MythVision
Click here for that program. In other exciting news, check out Derek Lambert's upcoming live program 3 Christian Debunkers Expose The Christian Cult!
A Pop-Quiz for Christians, Number 5
Reading the Bible to spot the incoherence of theology
Many years ago I met a young man who had been raised in an evangelical Bible-belt family. He told me that a common way to greet friends was, “How is your walk with the Lord going today?” Perhaps this derives from the old hymn, I Come to the Garden Alone, with the lyrics, “And he walks with me, and he talks with me, and he tells me I am his own…” They know that Jesus is their friend. Since the Bible is god’s own word—without error or flaw—these are the Christians most likely to actually read the Bible. Inevitably, however, they run into Bible verses and stories that undermine, and even destroy, the Jesus-is-my-friend concept. Hence there are thousands of Christian apologists—including some very famous ones—whose mission in life is to spin the alarming Bible texts in the most positive ways, making everything “come out okay.”
Christian “truth” in Shreds: Epic Takedown, Number 9, continued
There’s no way to verify exactly which Jesus is in Christian hearts
Just how many humans on Planet Earth “feel Jesus in their hearts”? Devout Jews and Muslims probably have no use at all for this common Christian claim; they feel “close” to their god—whatever that means—with Jesus playing no role whatever. But never mind, many Christians feel Jesus so intimately, so closely, that they proclaim proudly that they even “belong to Jesus.” They’re pretty sure that this Jesus who owns them is, beyond any doubt, wonderful. For those who read the Bible, however, this Jesus may be hard to find, indeed may be cancelled by so many texts that preachers don’t read from the pulpit, that artists don’t depict in stained glass.
Mark Mittleberg On The Evidential Path to Faith: "Truth is What Logic and Evidence Point To" Part 16
If there's one thing to be known about about Randal Rauser it's his desire to approach apologetics in new ways, which can be seen in his essay, The Top 5 Problems with Contemporary Apologetics. I think what Rauser is looking for can be found, to a large degree, in Mark Mittelberg's book, Confident Faith: Building a Firm Foundation for Your Belief. Mitleberg doesn't just regurgitate the methods of apologetics, (i.e., evidentialism, classical, presup...), and he's not in debate mode. Instead, he writes in a winsome conversational manner. He even shares his personal story. However, Mittelberg seems to be a tribalist, and he's definately a fundamentalist, something Rauser is against. Anyway, 3 out of 5 ain't bad! Even though I disagree vehemently with Mittelberg, I find him to be refreshing.
Reflections On Plantinga's "Refutation" of the Logical Problem of Evil
We did not deal with the Logical Problem of Suffering (or Evil) in my recent anthology, God and Horrendous Suffering. It's said Alvin Plantinga answered atheist philosopher J.L. Mackie's Logical Problem of Evil argument. Mackie even acknowledged that he did. Here are some reflections on it.
First, Plantinga didn't do anything significant by arguing it’s logically possible God exists given suffering. Possibilities don’t count; only probabilities do. All we need to say is that it’s extremely improbable for God to exist given suffering. But that says it all!
Second, the real issue is whether or not a theistic God is probable given suffering. It's not significant to say such a God is still possible. All kinds of strange things are possible, which is an extremely low standard. Show that it's probable God exists given suffering, and that would be impressive.
Third, Plantinga did not argue with integrity when throwing up an illegitimate ad hoc hypothesis that all natural evil is caused by Satan, something Richard Swinburne pointed out. Ad hoc hypotheses are illegitimate since their sole purpose is to save a proposition from refutation. So Plantinga did not honestly answer Mackie.
If we throw out illegitimate ad hoc hypotheses then the logical problem remains. The kill or be killed law of predation still has no resolution, nor do other natural evils. For this problem must be solved with integrity for it to be solved at all.
Lastly, Dr. Kyle Johnson has argued it's impossible to have a justified belief in demons. So if it's impossible to have a justified belief in demons then Plantinga's Free Will Defense fails. But wait! See below for more...
First, Plantinga didn't do anything significant by arguing it’s logically possible God exists given suffering. Possibilities don’t count; only probabilities do. All we need to say is that it’s extremely improbable for God to exist given suffering. But that says it all!
Second, the real issue is whether or not a theistic God is probable given suffering. It's not significant to say such a God is still possible. All kinds of strange things are possible, which is an extremely low standard. Show that it's probable God exists given suffering, and that would be impressive.
Third, Plantinga did not argue with integrity when throwing up an illegitimate ad hoc hypothesis that all natural evil is caused by Satan, something Richard Swinburne pointed out. Ad hoc hypotheses are illegitimate since their sole purpose is to save a proposition from refutation. So Plantinga did not honestly answer Mackie.
If we throw out illegitimate ad hoc hypotheses then the logical problem remains. The kill or be killed law of predation still has no resolution, nor do other natural evils. For this problem must be solved with integrity for it to be solved at all.
Lastly, Dr. Kyle Johnson has argued it's impossible to have a justified belief in demons. So if it's impossible to have a justified belief in demons then Plantinga's Free Will Defense fails. But wait! See below for more...
Christian “truth” in Shreds: Epic Takedown 9
“…the most effective refutation of the New Testament remains the New Testament…”
For centuries there have been epic takedowns of Christianity. Secular and scientifically minded thinkers have noted the inherent flaws of theism in light of biology, astronomy, cosmology, comparative religion—to name just a few disciplines. Dan Savage once said that he didn’t lose his faith, he saw through it. Why doesn’t this happen far more often than it does? There is such a huge mound of evidence that Christianity is false; we are tempted to yell at believers, “Please snap out of it!” We may be tempted as well to urge devout folks to examine the insights offered by biology and astronomy, to deepen their understanding of how the world/cosmos actually works. But so many of these folks are profoundly science-shy. Actually, many have been coached to be science-hostile.
The Demon, Matrix, Material World, and Dream Possibilities
Below is Appendix C from my book, Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End (Pitchstone Publishing, 2015), pp. 257-271. You're welcome! Given the influence of Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig, I doubt very much believers have heard these issues discussed like this before. I share it in hopes you'll like what I write enough to read the whole book.
The Demon, Matrix, Material World,
and Dream Possibilities,
by John W. Loftus
Oh the Irony: Jesus Pre-Existed, but May Not Have Actually Existed
Theology collides with the standards of historical verification
The vast differences between the gospels of Mark and John are a tip-off that the Christian message was confused from the very beginning. How did such divergent depictions of Jesus emerge—and why were they both included in the New Testament? It must have been church politics, which would be no surprise; in Paul’s letters we find references to quarreling and infighting. What a sorry state of affairs, moreover, that most churchgoers today wouldn’t be able to list/discuss the distressing ways in which Mark and John differ.
I have stated many times that the author of John’s gospel is guilty of theology inflation. That’s what happens when theology imagination runs wild, in the absence of objective evidence about god(s). And in the ancient world there were many mythologies and superstitions available to fuel imaginations.
Mystical Faith? Reviewing Mittelberg's "Confident Faith" Part 15
In his apologetics book, Confident Faith, Mark Mittelberg is writing sentences and chapters on examining his religious faith from the luck of the draw of childhood and cultural indoctrination. I think he acknowledges the problem fairly well. The question I wrestle with is how his brain can allow him to understand the problem, yet utterly fail to honestly deal with it, as is obvious here. So his book is little more than a 287 page example of confirmation bias in action.
At least Mittelberg can be credited with acknowledging the problem. But then, apologists can admit this problem, along with the twin problems of horrendous suffering for a good god, and of believing a virtually impossible miraculous biblical event took place, yet go on to write as if they didn't acknowledge these problems at all. It's because their brains will not allow them to truly acknowledge THE FORCE OF THESE PROBLEMS, no matter how accurately they are described. Cognitive biases are like viruses of the mind that won't let them consider the force of these and other problems for their faith.
William Lane Craig by contrast, doesn't think there's a childhood and cultural indoctrination problem at all, because he says
At least Mittelberg can be credited with acknowledging the problem. But then, apologists can admit this problem, along with the twin problems of horrendous suffering for a good god, and of believing a virtually impossible miraculous biblical event took place, yet go on to write as if they didn't acknowledge these problems at all. It's because their brains will not allow them to truly acknowledge THE FORCE OF THESE PROBLEMS, no matter how accurately they are described. Cognitive biases are like viruses of the mind that won't let them consider the force of these and other problems for their faith.
William Lane Craig by contrast, doesn't think there's a childhood and cultural indoctrination problem at all, because he says
"The Bible says all men are without excuse. Even men who are given no good reason to believe and many persuasive reasons to disbelieve have no good excuse, because the ultimate reason they do not believe is that they have deliberately rejected God’s Holy Spirit. Therefore, the role of reason in knowing Christianity is true is to be a servant. A person knows Christianity is true because the Holy Spirit tells him it is true, and while reason can be used to support this conclusion, reason cannot overrule it." [Craig, Apologetics: An Introduction, p. 22.].Craig says, "I am asserting that not only should I continue to have faith in God on the basis of the Spirit's witness even if all the arguments for His existence were refuted, but I should continue to have faith in God even in the face of objections which I cannot at that time answer." SOURCE.
The Knights Templar: "a monastic order that would have a license to kill."
I'm reading an interesting book I got at a Good Will store. Described below is how the barbaric Norsemen polytheistic gods gave rise to the Knights Templar monastic order.
I don't think anything shows the cultural influence on Catholicism more than the rise of "a monastic order that would have a license to kill." See for yourselves. This point is masterfully made by David Eller in my anthology, The Christian Delusion.
A One-Two Punch: Christianity Out Cold
Too many resurrected gods, and too much suffering
Chances are, there are no Catholic priests who, from the pulpit on Sunday morning, will urge their parishioners to study the Book of Mormon: “Maybe the Mormons have it right, and we don’t.” Chances are, there are no Southern Baptist preachers who will suggest that, for a month, everyone in the congregation should go to a Catholic Church: “Maybe the Catholics are following true Christianity.” Chances are, no Methodist ministers will stand in the pulpit and advise that everyone should study the Qur’an—read it cover to cover: “Maybe Islam is the one true religion, after all.”
The Intuitive Faith Path. Reviewing Mittelberg's Book "Confident Faith" Part 14
On January 2018 I started a series of posts on Mark Mittelberg's book, Confident Faith. The first post introduced Mark and his book right here. [See the Tag "Mark Mittelberg" for more]. I stopped reviewing his book when I got busy on my final three books [See Link.]
So I'm back to Mittelberg. To briefly rehearse, Mittelberg begins his book in Part 1, "Six Paths of Faith", by speaking about approaches, or methods readers adopt to embrace their respective faiths (remember, *cough* he says we all have faith):
1) The Relativistic Path: "Truth is Whatever Works for You"
2) The Traditional Faith Path: "Truth is What You've Always Been Taught"
3) The Authoritarian Faith Path: "Truth Is What You've Always Been Told You Must Believe"
4) The Intuitive Faith Path" "Truth Is What You Feel In Your Heart"
5) The Mystical Faith Path" "Truth Is What You Think God Told You"
6) The Evidential Faith Path: "Truth Is What Logic and Evidence Point To"
"This is crucial" he says, "because the method (or methods) you use in deciding what to believe has a huge bearing on what those beliefs will actually be, as well as how confident you'll be in holding on to them." (p. 9) "Most people never consider this" he goes on to say. "They just arbitrarily adopt an approach--or adopt one that's been handed to them--and uncritically employ it to choose a set of beliefs that may or may not really add up." (p. 10)
To his credit, Mittelberg does something intellectually respectful, that William Lane Craig does not do. Mittelberg discusses other ways of knowing the truth about faith and religion. Craig participates in debates about apologetics but he only defends his own particular view in them. It's like he's forever in debate mode!
So far I only got to method 3. Given my emphasis lately on William Lane Craig's Spirit Guided Epistemology, it's time to compare and contrast Craig's views with Mittelberg's.
So I'm back to Mittelberg. To briefly rehearse, Mittelberg begins his book in Part 1, "Six Paths of Faith", by speaking about approaches, or methods readers adopt to embrace their respective faiths (remember, *cough* he says we all have faith):
1) The Relativistic Path: "Truth is Whatever Works for You"
2) The Traditional Faith Path: "Truth is What You've Always Been Taught"
3) The Authoritarian Faith Path: "Truth Is What You've Always Been Told You Must Believe"
4) The Intuitive Faith Path" "Truth Is What You Feel In Your Heart"
5) The Mystical Faith Path" "Truth Is What You Think God Told You"
6) The Evidential Faith Path: "Truth Is What Logic and Evidence Point To"
"This is crucial" he says, "because the method (or methods) you use in deciding what to believe has a huge bearing on what those beliefs will actually be, as well as how confident you'll be in holding on to them." (p. 9) "Most people never consider this" he goes on to say. "They just arbitrarily adopt an approach--or adopt one that's been handed to them--and uncritically employ it to choose a set of beliefs that may or may not really add up." (p. 10)
To his credit, Mittelberg does something intellectually respectful, that William Lane Craig does not do. Mittelberg discusses other ways of knowing the truth about faith and religion. Craig participates in debates about apologetics but he only defends his own particular view in them. It's like he's forever in debate mode!
So far I only got to method 3. Given my emphasis lately on William Lane Craig's Spirit Guided Epistemology, it's time to compare and contrast Craig's views with Mittelberg's.
In the Face of Brutal Reality, How Does Christianity Survive?
So many human calamities, so much suffering
.jpg)
For most of us—Christians and nonbelievers alike—it was hard to get into anything resembling the Christian spirit in December 2012. On the 14th of that month, a gunman killed twenty students and six teachers at the Sandy Hook School in Newtown, CT. The nation was in shock, grieving. Ten days later, at a Christmas Eve dinner, at the home of a Catholic friend, she said—during grace, referencing the massacre—“God must have wanted more angels.” I had to resist the temptation to throw my drink in her face. If any Catholic theologians had been present, they would have swung into action, to perform an exorcism, to get rid of the demon that had invaded her brain. Theologians work overtime to explain why their caring, powerful god wasn’t able to stop the gunman. Here was a devout Catholic suggesting that her god had engineered the killing to get more angels. This is a symptom of catechism-induced brain death.
The Abject Failure of Christian Apologetics.
A great many Christian theologians don't think highly of apologetics, following in the footsteps of Karl Barth who thought natural theology was a failure. In their colleges there is no apologetics department, or apologetics classes! According to them, natural theology is a failure. God is his own witness. Only God can reveal God. Revelation from God can only come from God, or as Barth himself said, "the best apologetics is a good dogmatics". [Table Talk, ed. J. D. Godsey (Edinburgh and London, 1963), p. 62].
Immanuel Kant's statement speaks for a lot of them: "I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (Critique of Pure Reason, bxxx)
In my book, The Case against Miracles I wrote a chapter called "The Abject Failure of Christian Apologetics." In it I show how 80% of apologists reject the requirement for evidence (i.e., Evidentialism) in favor of four other methods. The best explanation for why they've come up with different methods of defending their faith is because they themselves don't think the evidence is good enough.
Immanuel Kant's statement speaks for a lot of them: "I have found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" (Critique of Pure Reason, bxxx)
In my book, The Case against Miracles I wrote a chapter called "The Abject Failure of Christian Apologetics." In it I show how 80% of apologists reject the requirement for evidence (i.e., Evidentialism) in favor of four other methods. The best explanation for why they've come up with different methods of defending their faith is because they themselves don't think the evidence is good enough.
The Awful Controlling Damning Lying Calvinist God
As the editor of God and Horrendous Suffering, which is highly recommended from important philosophers of both sides of this debate, I also wrote the chapter titled, The Awful Controlling Damning Lying Calvinist God. If you want to see the mental contradictory contortions needed by Calvinists (and Muslims) to exonerate their god from the origin of evil, I recommend this video by Edouard Tahmizian, Vice President Of Internet Infidels Board.
William Lane Craig's Advice: "Quit reading and watching the infidel material you’ve been absorbing."
But given the existence of world-wide religious diversity Peter Boghossian tells the naked truth: "We are forced to conclude that a tremendous number of people are delusional. There is no other conclusion one can draw." He says, "The most charitable thing we can say about faith is that it's likely to be false." [Source]. No wonder Boghossian goes on to make a difference between sitting at the adult table from sitting at the children's table. People like Craig, no matter how highly he's regarded, or how brilliantly he uses empty rhetoric without substance, are not allowed at the adult table for discussion until they disavow faith as a method for attaining truth about the world, it's workings, and origins. By contrast, as I repeatedly stress, Doubt Is The Adult Attitude. If there is a way to know the truth then doubt is the means to achieve it, and science repeatedly delivers the goods.
Rene Descartes speaks for us when he wrote:
"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."Now consider what Craig wrote on October 21, 2013, in answering a Christian who was in the throes of doubt, due to the writings of David G. McAfee. He or she wrote:
Enough Already with this Holy Spirit Crap
…unless there’s reliable, verifiable, objective data
Sometimes I dream weird, surreal, even alarming stuff. When I wake up, I wonder how in the world my brain mixed/garbled so many different elements from my memories. I have to be fully awake before I realize I’m back in reality. My bedtime routine always includes a glass of wine, so maybe that provides some of the fuel! My brain had been busy for the hours I was asleep. But what it if wasn’t just my brain? Is it possible that I was getting input from the spiritual realm? Belief in an afterlife probably arose because people saw deceased friends and relatives in their dreams—so, wow, they weren’t dead after all.
There have been a lot of foolish, even dangerous ideas passed along by people who claim to have heard from the spiritual realm, via dreams, visions, hallucinations. These are the currencies of religions. Commonly, a religious seer just has to describe his vision to an audience of his/her choosing, and voilà , people follow in awe of this “person of god.” Christians claim that a third of their god is indeed a holy spirit. (Holy ghost has gone out of fashion!) They insist that their spirit is the truly holy one, and that it is at the top of the hierarchy.
The Fatal Flaw In William Lane Craig's Psychic Epistemology
William Lane Craig has said, "Communicating my understanding of the proper basicality of certain Christian beliefs grounded by the Spirit’s witness has proven to be extraordinarily difficult." Source. Craig also said, "What we know is that people make up their minds for all sorts of non-rational reasons unrelated to the evidence." Source.
Craig should listen to himself. Complexity is needed when obfuscation is the goal. Craig should pay heed to the author of Colossians who wrote: “See that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy" (2:8)!! Brilliance in the servitude of obfuscations, special pleadings, red herrings, and non-sequiturs has nothing to do with an honest search for truth.
Let's take a look at Craig's podcast on Religious Experience: Subjective or Objective?:
Craig should listen to himself. Complexity is needed when obfuscation is the goal. Craig should pay heed to the author of Colossians who wrote: “See that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy" (2:8)!! Brilliance in the servitude of obfuscations, special pleadings, red herrings, and non-sequiturs has nothing to do with an honest search for truth.
Let's take a look at Craig's podcast on Religious Experience: Subjective or Objective?:
It is very important to understand that the witness of the Holy Spirit is not just a subjective religious experience. It is a witness which God himself bears with our spirit. It produces an awareness of the truths of the Gospel, assurance of salvation, conviction of sin, things of this sort.
-----------
It is the claim that you can know that God exists and that Christianity is true wholly apart from arguments simply through the inner testimony of God to your heart. So don’t think of this as an argument from religious experience. Rather, it is the claim that for the person to whom God bears witness by means of this spiritual testimony, such a person can know with confidence that Christianity is true because of the witness that God bears to him.
-----------
The fundamental, ground level way in which I know my faith is true is through this inner self-authenticating witness of God’s Spirit which assures me that I am a child of God. That entails, of course, then, that God exists and the great truths of the Gospel are correct.
On Plantinga and Craig's Psychic Epistemology
 |
| William Lane Craig's Favorite Hymn! |
Plantinga and Craig are prime examples of what philosopher Stephen Law said, “Anything based on faith, no matter how ludicrous, can be made to be consistent with the available evidence, given a little patience and ingenuity.” (Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2011), p. 75. Or as anthropology professor James T. Houk said, “Virtually anything and everything, no matter how absurd, inane, or ridiculous, has been believed or claimed to be true at one time or another by somebody, somewhere in the name of faith." (The Illusion of Certainty. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2017), p. 31.
In what follows is an excerpt from my chapter 6, "The Abject Failure of Christian Apologetics" in The Case against Miracles (pp. 190ff).
In what follows is an excerpt from my chapter 6, "The Abject Failure of Christian Apologetics" in The Case against Miracles (pp. 190ff).
A Pop-Quiz for Christians, Number 4
The questions are getting tougher
Wouldn’t it be cool if Christians could settle their differences? What an embarrassment that they can’t agree on what their god is like and how he/she wants to be worshipped? Isn’t 30,000-plus different Christian brands a scandal? I’ve known strident evangelicals who are certain that Catholics are their worst enemy.
Wouldn’t it be cool if Christians could suppress their urge to build more churches? Does the world really need more? There is so much hunger and poverty: why not put funds where they’re desperately needed? Yes, Jesus was a carpenter—supposedly—but was that an endorsement of construction-without-end?
Wouldn’t it be cool if Christians were in the habit of binge-reading their Bibles? Aren’t the gospels, especially, supposed to be the word of their god? If the devout really believed that, wouldn’t they be able to quote wide swaths of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John by heart?
William Lane Craig Utterly Fails In Searching For Truth Given the Human Propensity To Fool Ourselves
Craig falsely claims there is a distinction between knowing Christianity is true and showing Christianity is true. He might legitimately say he knows he didn't do a crime he's accused of, since he knows he didn't do it despite the available objective evidence. But it is irrational for him to claim he knows Moses led the Israelites across the bottom of the Red Sea, or that a virgin birthed god's son, or that a savior arose from the dead regardless of any historical evidence. But that's what he's claiming when defending his Christian faith. He said:
Cognitive biases are known for giving people permission to confirm our biases despite the fact they are false. So we must bring our reptilian brains to heel by demanding sufficient objective evidence that would convince an outsider. The mother of all cognitive biases is confirmation bias. It prohibits people from honestly seeking the truth.
In my book The Outsider Test for Faith I argue we should approach our own (usually) indoctrinated religious faith from the perspective of an informed skepticism. This is something Craig utterly failed to do, and he utterly fails to tell others to do so in their search for religious truth:
A believer who is too uninformed or ill-equipped to refute anti-Christian arguments is rational in believing on the grounds of the witness of the Spirit in his heart even in the face of such unrefuted objections. Even such a person confronted with what are for him unanswerable objections to Christian theism is, because of the work of the Holy Spirit, within his epistemic rights—nay, under epistemic obligation—to believe in God.” [Craig, “Classical Apologetics,” in Five Views on Apologetics, ed. Steven B. Cowan (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), p. 35].There are two major reasons to reject what Craig says. In the first place he's deceiving himself, and secondarily he's giving Christian believers permission to deceive themselves.
Cognitive biases are known for giving people permission to confirm our biases despite the fact they are false. So we must bring our reptilian brains to heel by demanding sufficient objective evidence that would convince an outsider. The mother of all cognitive biases is confirmation bias. It prohibits people from honestly seeking the truth.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. LINK.We must question everything. That's the adult attitude. Be adults in your thinking. Children believe whatever they're told. To blindly believe whatever you're told is likely to produce false confidence in false ideas. You must require and even demand evidence sufficient for the claims being made. Period!
In my book The Outsider Test for Faith I argue we should approach our own (usually) indoctrinated religious faith from the perspective of an informed skepticism. This is something Craig utterly failed to do, and he utterly fails to tell others to do so in their search for religious truth:
Field of Dreams MLB Game Will Remind Me Of Baseball Great Tom Loftus
On Thursday, August 11th, baseball fans will watch as the Chicago Cubs take on the Cincinnati Reds in the second installment of the Field of Dreams event at 7:15 p.m. ET on FOX. It will be played in Dyersville Iowa, located in Dubuque County. My great grandfather Tom Loftus was a lifelong resident of Dubuque, and was buried there.
John Pregler is a baseball historian who has written about my great grandfather Tom Loftus. Tom was a Major League Baseball player, manager, co-owner with Albert Spalding of the Chicago Cubs (Orphans), and one of three men who founded the American League (with life long friend Charles Comiskey, and Ban Johnson).
Pregler sent me a message recently, saying: "I'll be thinking of Tom Loftus this Thursday (8/11). One of seven men to manage both the Reds and the Cubs, and the only man to manage in 4 different major leagues. And he is buried 24 miles from the Field of Dreams. Both teams will drive by his cemetery and would be able to see his grave, if they knew he was there, rooting them both on. I've tried in vain to get MLB and FOX Sports to recognize this fact, but crickets."
I responded, "A movie script should be written about this."
John Pregler is a baseball historian who has written about my great grandfather Tom Loftus. Tom was a Major League Baseball player, manager, co-owner with Albert Spalding of the Chicago Cubs (Orphans), and one of three men who founded the American League (with life long friend Charles Comiskey, and Ban Johnson).
Pregler sent me a message recently, saying: "I'll be thinking of Tom Loftus this Thursday (8/11). One of seven men to manage both the Reds and the Cubs, and the only man to manage in 4 different major leagues. And he is buried 24 miles from the Field of Dreams. Both teams will drive by his cemetery and would be able to see his grave, if they knew he was there, rooting them both on. I've tried in vain to get MLB and FOX Sports to recognize this fact, but crickets."
I responded, "A movie script should be written about this."
How Should Atheist Critics and Counter-Apologists Be Ranked?
On Facebook Ryan Downie deservedly recommended Johnathan Pearce's book, The Nativity: A Critical Examination. Then this comment by Pallmann appeared. I found his profile picture (with Tim McGrew) on Facebook (see below). Let it be said clearly that Tim McGrew and his wife Lydia McGrew are philosophers who are fundamentalists. What they believe is based on an alleged inerrant Bible. Anyone who is biblically literate should know there is no reason to be a Christian fundamentalist.
Regardless, what Pallmann said is something McGrew would say, which isn't bad. It's kinda nice to be grouped with Sean McDowell, J. Wallace Warner and Pearce. I'll take that! I suppose so does Pearce!
I'm just not a fan of his last words, that my (our) work is "...far from the best." I might have been okay with him saying my work is "...not the best", since I could name better critics than me, people who write for my anthologies, and those who write blurbs for them. What I want to know is if Sean McDowell and J. Wallace Warner are okay with Pallmann saying they are also "...far from the best", since that's the comparison.
"HUME ON PROOF AND MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY" by John W. Loftus
What follows is the Appendix to my anthology The Case against Miracles (pp. 551-560). I consider several parts of that book to be a major defense of David Hume. I know there is some debate on Hume, but what Hume said on miracles withstands the criticisms leveled at him. They come from both Christian apologists and philosophers (as one would expect), but also from some atheist philosophers, like Michael Martin (Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, pp. 194-196), Michael Levine (The Cambridge Companion to Miracles, pp. 291-308), and Graham Oppy (Arguing About Gods, pp. 376-382), who strangely says "Hume's argument against belief in miracle reports fails no less surely than do the various arguments from miracle reports to the existence of an orthodoxy conceived monotheistic god" (p. 381). Agnostic/atheist John Earman thinks Hume's argument is an Abject Failure (as seen in his book by that title). And while J.L. Mackie defends Hume against some objections, even he thinks Hume's argument needs "improvement" (p. 25) by being "tidied up and restated" (p. 17) due to "inaccuracies" (p. 27), with one part he calls "very unsatisfactory" (p. 23).
Here's a brief introduction to the debate on miracles LINK. Now for my Appendix:
Here's a brief introduction to the debate on miracles LINK. Now for my Appendix:
5 Things That Disqualify People As Trusted Experts In Religious Matters
1) Denying the need for sufficient objective evidence. Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig have argued that Christian believers do not need objective evidence for their faith. So they are disqualified from being experts in religious matters. They are clearly deluded no matter how brilliant their rhetoric is. Other Christian believers disagree with them on this, even highly noted apologists Norman Geisler and Paul Moser. If Geisler and Moser cannot be convinced then why should anyone else?
2) Rejecting the need to overcome the cognitive biases keeping us away from the truth. The only way to overcome these biases is to require sufficient objective evidence for truth, period. I wrote a post on Why Doubt Is The Adult Attitude And How Science Helps Us. In it I have complied a long list of books that prove this point. The evidence is overwhelming that our brain is uninterested in the truth, but rather primarily concerned in protecting its host. So we must require sufficient objective evidence for what we think is true. Plantinga and Craig brazenly eschew an objective standard that applies to everyone with Reformed Epistemology!
3) Rejecting the non-double standard requirement to approach all religious faiths with the same standard, as an outsider, a nonbeliever. Here is a primer on why we need it. Anyone who rejects this is not worthy of our trust as an expert.
4) Rejecting, denying, or denigrating science in general. The highest degree of trust we can have is when there is a consensus among scientists about an issue. See these posts for more.
5) Refusing to accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution disqualifies someone from being an expert in religious matters. That's because evolution has a significant bearing on religious matters. If anyone rejects evolution they are ignorant, willfully ignorant, and unworthy of trusting as an expert. Evolution is an issue that has achieved a consensus among scientists around the globe from those working is different fields. Start reading Charles Darwin's, On the Origin of Species. Then read the books by Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, and Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.
Do not just read the works of Christian creationists, who themselves were indoctrinated to believe what they do. Go to the source. Compare the evidence yourself. Along this same line read Robert M. Price and Edwin Suominen's wonderful book, Evolving out of Eden. They will show you the inescapable implications of evolution: There is no original sin, no need for a savior, and no need for salvation.
Agreed? If not you're in too deep.
2) Rejecting the need to overcome the cognitive biases keeping us away from the truth. The only way to overcome these biases is to require sufficient objective evidence for truth, period. I wrote a post on Why Doubt Is The Adult Attitude And How Science Helps Us. In it I have complied a long list of books that prove this point. The evidence is overwhelming that our brain is uninterested in the truth, but rather primarily concerned in protecting its host. So we must require sufficient objective evidence for what we think is true. Plantinga and Craig brazenly eschew an objective standard that applies to everyone with Reformed Epistemology!
3) Rejecting the non-double standard requirement to approach all religious faiths with the same standard, as an outsider, a nonbeliever. Here is a primer on why we need it. Anyone who rejects this is not worthy of our trust as an expert.
4) Rejecting, denying, or denigrating science in general. The highest degree of trust we can have is when there is a consensus among scientists about an issue. See these posts for more.
5) Refusing to accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution disqualifies someone from being an expert in religious matters. That's because evolution has a significant bearing on religious matters. If anyone rejects evolution they are ignorant, willfully ignorant, and unworthy of trusting as an expert. Evolution is an issue that has achieved a consensus among scientists around the globe from those working is different fields. Start reading Charles Darwin's, On the Origin of Species. Then read the books by Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, and Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.
Do not just read the works of Christian creationists, who themselves were indoctrinated to believe what they do. Go to the source. Compare the evidence yourself. Along this same line read Robert M. Price and Edwin Suominen's wonderful book, Evolving out of Eden. They will show you the inescapable implications of evolution: There is no original sin, no need for a savior, and no need for salvation. Agreed? If not you're in too deep.
Jesus Doesn’t Want You to Fact-check
The Bible is a fact-checker’s nightmare
We are able to get along in the world to the extent we grasp the importance of fact-checking. Whether it’s buying a house, a new appliance, insurance, or checking out colleges for the kids, we usually aren’t satisfied with taking the word of the salesman. We’re willing to do some research to find out the quality of the product or service. Even if it’s deciding what movies to watch, why not read the reviews?
But this same level of scrutiny is seldom applied in the realm of religion. Those brought up in religious environments—Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Mormon, Jewish, or whatever—are not usually encouraged to challenge or question the “truth” imparted by parents and religious authorities. Indeed, religious indoctrination from an early age is meant to guard against the invasion of doubt or skepticism: “Here’s our god’s honest truth, hold fast to it your whole life—if you know what’s good for you!”
Stripped of its Philosophical Support William Lane Craig Sounds Bizarre: Consider The Holy Spirit's Role In Him Believing The Virgin Birth Tale
Believers need to think for just one minute. Think about what should be the case, but isn't. Then you'll realize that if Christian belief is indeed reasonable, Christian intellectuals should tout the virtues of reason. But they betray themselves. See Case #'s 1 and 3 here. For the bottom line is that Craig's faith has become an intrinsic defeater to all defeaters against it. Reason is secondary at best(!) If reason and faith stand in conflict then according to Craig, "it is reason that must submit to faith, not vice versa.” [Craig, Apologetics: An Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), p. 21.] Craig quotes the Bible as an authority on this, saying,
The Failure of Van Tillian Presuppositional Apologetics
Guest Essay Written by Cat_Lord:
1.
Introduction
Throughout the course of Christian history, there have been many and various attempts to argue for the truth of Christianity. In this post, I will discuss one popular form of apologetic argumentation named presuppositionalism. The main points I want to write about are what this apologetic is as it relates to Cornelius Van Til, its relationship to what are called “transcendental arguments” in the philosophical literature, give examples of how presuppositionalists often proceed with their argumentation, and finally point out some problems with this apologetic.
Jaco Gericke: Fundamentalism on Stilts: A Devastating Response to Alvin Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology
[First published 12/12/09] Dr. Jaco Gericke is a philosopher of religion and a biblical scholar to boot. He has written what can be considered a refutation of Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology. Gericke tells me, "The trouble with Craig and and Plantinga is that their philosophy of religion conveniently ignores the problems posed for their views by the history of Israelite religion. They might as well try to prove Zeus exists. People sometimes forget 'God' used to be Yahweh and it is possible to prove from textual evidence that 'there ain't no such animal.'" Dr. Gericke writes:
Not so long ago I was so irritated by a book of Alvin Plantinga's that I wrote a rebuttal from the perspective of a biblical scholar who happens to know what goes on in the philosophy of religion. It concerns the foundations of Plantinga's views and can be applied to William Lane Craig as well. Their philosophy may sound complex and formidable but if you know both the philosophy of religion and also the history of religion their smarts ain't nothing but Fundamentalism on Stilts.Anyone who is biblically literate should know there is no reason to be a Christian fundamentalist. So with that in mind, below is a summary of Gericke's important points and a link to his pdf article. Enjoy!
Is Belief In Plantinga's God Properly Basic? Dr. Matt McCormick Responds in Three Talks
In the Preface to his monumental book, God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God [Cornell University Press, 1967], Alvin Plantinga tells us what he aims to do in it. He begins with these words: "In this study I set out to investigate the rational justification of belief in the existence of God as He is conceived in the Hebrew-Christian tradition." Now there isn't anything particularly wrong with examining the rational justification of any given religious tradition. But I think it's very important to discuss what that tradition is. There is a great amount of diversity in it. Furthermore, I think it's also very important to place any discussion of the rationality of religious beliefs into a global perspective. There is a great amount of religious diversity around the globe.
So it's fairly obvious to the rest of us that Plantinga will be special pleading his case for his type of fundamentalist Christianity. I have argued in chapter 7 of my book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist, that all apologetics is special pleading. If you watch the best magicians, they fool us. The better they are the better they fool us! That's also how apologists work. The better they are the better they fool us! Whether consciously or not, apologists bamboozle us with mind tricks. You have to pay attention to what they are doing, how they are doing it, notice what they're leaving out, consider how things could be different, and refuse to be distracted by other things.
Back to Plantinga's Preface:
So it's fairly obvious to the rest of us that Plantinga will be special pleading his case for his type of fundamentalist Christianity. I have argued in chapter 7 of my book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist, that all apologetics is special pleading. If you watch the best magicians, they fool us. The better they are the better they fool us! That's also how apologists work. The better they are the better they fool us! Whether consciously or not, apologists bamboozle us with mind tricks. You have to pay attention to what they are doing, how they are doing it, notice what they're leaving out, consider how things could be different, and refuse to be distracted by other things.
Back to Plantinga's Preface:
Q #237 "Is Appeal to the Witness of the Holy Spirit Question-Begging?" A Primer On Plantinga's Religious Epistemology by William Lane Craig
Bill Craig answers questions on his website Reasonable Faith. This one was published on October 31, 2011: Q #237 "Is Appeal to the Witness of the Holy Spirit Question-Begging?"
Christian “truth” in Shreds: Epic Takedown 8
21 faulty ideas, doctrines, and faith practices
Pick a church, any church, and wait outside on a Sunday morning for people to come out of the service. You’re there to do a survey: ask random folks to describe their religion: “What are the basics of your faith?” Chances are, you’ll hear something like this: “Our lord and savior is Jesus Christ. He taught his followers how to lead righteous lives, and he died on the cross to save us from our sins. He resurrected from the dead on Easter morning, and now lives with God in heaven. His resurrection means that he overcame death, and we too will have eternal life if we believe in this amazing victory.” Of course, there will be many variations of this affirmation, since there are so many different—and differing—versions of Christianity.
More On William Lane Craig's Personal Testimony
Previously I had examined Bill Craig's personal conversion testimony right here. Well now, in a podcast released on July 18th 2022, he tells us something very important about it. A guy named Kyle is struggling with doubt and asked him this question:
Christianity is not just a set of propositions that one holds, but it's a faith-practice, a way of life. With that in mind, wouldn't the smart thing to do is require very high epistemic standards before one decides they will dedicate their life to Christ? If you're going to live for Christ then wouldn't it be smart to actually meet Jesus Christ in person or even talk to his mother Mary or an angel? I know you often mention the witness of the Holy Spirit as a way that one can have direct access to God but I have done meditative prayer and deep meditation for years upon years and nothing has come up in terms of God speaking to me directly where I know it wasn't just my own imagination. Many of my fellow Christians have had similar concerns on this also. This is perhaps my biggest struggle and I cannot seem to get it out of my head as it is causing me to abandon the Christian life because I cannot have high epistemic confidence that Christianity is true. Kyle, United States.Craig responded by saying:
Robert M. Price Shows William Lane Craig's Apologetics Is a "Sham"
The following is the text of a portion of their 1999 Ohio State University debate on the question “Did Jesus of Nazareth Rise from the Dead?” the audio of which was published on October 17, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1vaqsnhgJY. This text was published as an Appendix in my book, Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End.
In 1981 William Lane Craig Admited "the Christian faith does not stand or fall on the evidence for the resurrection."
William Lane Craig has admitted from the very beginning of his writing career that the historical evidence for the resurrection is not the basis for the Christian faith. Historical investigation into the evidence itself is not the reason for knowing, or for showing, Jesus arose from the dead. By extention, evidence itself is not the reason for knowing, or for showing Christianity is true. This makes Craig's whole apologetic work a sham. For saving sinners is all up to his god to do. Craig's god does not need apologetics to get that job done. Evidence is not needed. Historical research is not needed. Craig is not needed. Only belief is needed (unto salvation) and it does not have to be reasonable faith(!) based on sufficient evidence.
If this is true one might say, "No wonder there isn't enough evidence to accept the Christian faith!" Or, conversely, "Apologetics is logically fallacious empty rhetoric without substance." Craig's apologetics may be used by his god to convert sinners, but his god doesn't need apologetics to do this. His god already has an alleged inspired book of writings and the alleged spirit of the trinity to convert people. Since conversion is god's task, Craig's entire work ends up being written for believers who are already converted to strengthen their faith. But then it always has been that way. Anselm said it best, so let me translate what he said: "Faith seeks evidence"; "Faith seeks reason"; "Faith seeks data."
One must consider what could be the case, but is acknowledged by Craig that it isn't the case. What if there were sufficient evidence for Christianity? What then? Well, then Craig would not have to make excuses in advance for the fact that the evidence is insufficient to rationally accept the Christian faith. That's what! He's admitting the evidence is lacking, in advance, even before he presents it with all the research he can muster.
The following text comes from Craig's book The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000): pp. 7–8.
If this is true one might say, "No wonder there isn't enough evidence to accept the Christian faith!" Or, conversely, "Apologetics is logically fallacious empty rhetoric without substance." Craig's apologetics may be used by his god to convert sinners, but his god doesn't need apologetics to do this. His god already has an alleged inspired book of writings and the alleged spirit of the trinity to convert people. Since conversion is god's task, Craig's entire work ends up being written for believers who are already converted to strengthen their faith. But then it always has been that way. Anselm said it best, so let me translate what he said: "Faith seeks evidence"; "Faith seeks reason"; "Faith seeks data."
One must consider what could be the case, but is acknowledged by Craig that it isn't the case. What if there were sufficient evidence for Christianity? What then? Well, then Craig would not have to make excuses in advance for the fact that the evidence is insufficient to rationally accept the Christian faith. That's what! He's admitting the evidence is lacking, in advance, even before he presents it with all the research he can muster.
The following text comes from Craig's book The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000): pp. 7–8.
William Lane Craig: "Christian belief is not based on the historical evidence." In fact, it's not based on evidence at all.
Let's examine what Craig says:
A vast majority of the human race down through history don't have the training, the time, and the resources to conduct a historical investigation of the evidence for Jesus. If we insist on a historical, evidential foundation for faith, then we consign most of the world’s population to unbelief. To me this is unconscionable. Therefore, if one’s religious beliefs are to be rational, there must be some other basis for them than the evidence. We are therefore not dependent on historical proofs for knowledge of Christianity’s truth. Rather through the immediate, inner witness of God’s Holy Spirit every person can come to know the truth of the Gospel once he hears it. Through an existential encounter with God Himself every generation can be made contemporaneous with the first generation of believers.LINK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)