Sir_Russ Dismantles Victor Reppert On Ridicule

Vic complains about the commenters here at DC, saying they attack him. They most certainly attack his ideas. By contrast his commenters personally attack atheists and have little substance beyond that. So compare them to what sir_russ wrote below. There is some snark going on in it, but his reasoning and writing are very good.

Read more »

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).

Dr. Victor Reppert Is Our Gullible Person of the Day, Part 2

These are Vic Reppert's two atheist talking points:

Here is my real point, which I think has gotten lost here.

There are two atheist talking points that don't mix. Here they are:

1) Look, guys, if God would just give us evidence of his existence, we'd believe in him. The only reason we don't believe is because he hasn't provided evidence of his existence.

2) God of the gaps arguments are always wrong. Any gap in our naturalistic understanding of the world should be dealt with by waiting for science to produce a naturalistic explanation, not by appealing to God.

But anything God might do to reveal his existence could be dismissed as a gap, thus leaving the atheist unaffected. The ban on god of the gaps arguments would allow the atheist to escape no matter what God did to convince us of his existence.

Read more »

The One True Faith: Just How Many of Them Can There Be?

If only we had a way to test them all…

In the small, rural mid-western town where I grew up—and long before my arrival—the Christian souls had been sorted into Protestant and Catholic camps; I was in the former. Naturally, this was well after the eras of armed combat, so folks got along quite well despite the religious chasm. There were frictions, of course: Protestant kids were taunted by Catholic kids that they were going to hell: only followers of the Pope had the lock on heaven. But the insults were returned; one Protestant woman, whose nephew had become engaged to a Catholic woman, with wedding to be in her church, refused to attend because she had no intention of “setting foot in that heathen temple.”

If there was anything that both camps shared it was certainty. We knew that we were right, and those on the other side were wrong. And they knew that they were right, and we were wrong. This certainty was guaranteed by faith.

Read more »

Understanding the Mind of a Deluded Intellectual: Lessons from Victor Reppert

Dr. Victor Reppert responded to my post On Priors, Biases and Probabilities. It's just a comment but there are lessons to be learned from it that help us get inside the mind of a deluded intellectual like him.

Read more »

Victor Reppert Again. I Swear Christians Have Stunted Imaginations

It's as if they cannot even conceive of anything different than what they believe. I showed this with regard to Richard Swinburne in The End of Christianity.[By the way, that is a damned good book even if I say so myself]. Victor is defending the "truth" but also the ridiculousness of the three-tiered world that is required in order to believe Jesus ascended into heaven (i.e. the sky). How does he do it? He rhetorically asks: "And if God is going to show first-century people that he went to heaven, how would you suggest he go about doing it?" My response:

Vic, this is easy. Jesus could have predicted he will disappear into the spiritual realm from whence he came. He could have said he will disappear at high noon the next day from off Mt. Olives. Then the next day when the crowd arrived, he would say goodbye and then *poof* he's gone.

Again, you can't make this shit up. No wonder we reserve the right to ridicule his beliefs along with how he defends them. His brain is made stupid by his faith, I'm sorry to say.

An Open Question to Victor Reppert About the OTF

I just cannot seem to disabuse him of his inconsistent position. He said:

Read more »

Tertullian's Paradox; Insufficiency of both Reason & Scripture; C.S. Lewis & John Calvin; Victor Reppert & Paul Manata

The less people know about some things the more they argue over them. And what do Victor Reppert (of the blog Dangerous Idea) and Paul Manata (of the blog Triablogue) actually "know" about the things they are discussing -- things that constitute some of the most heavily discussed and unresolved debates throughout centuries of Christian theology and philosophy?

In this case Paul (the Calvinist) and Vic (the C.S.Lewis-ian/Arminian) toss at each other grandiose concepts and words that have a core of incomprehensibility not only in and of themselves, but also in the different ways different thinkers have conceived of them relating to one another:

God / nature
omniscience / free will
predestination / free will
divine goodness / human goodness (or lack thereof w/ exception of "common grace")

Both Vic and Paul remain "certain" that any incomprehensibilities in each case accord with their religious/philosophical words and definitions to a far greater degree than the words and definitions of the other fellow's alternate system of explanation.

All of which reminded me of something Bernard Williams, a Christian philosopher, wrote in his essay, "Tertullian's Paradox":

"If the Christian faith is true, it must be partly incomprehensible. But if it is partly incomprehensible, it is difficult to see what it is for it to be true..."

He continued...

"It follows further... that it is difficult to characterise the difference between belief and unbelief [especially, I might add, in the sense of believing--or not believing--in philosophical & biblical explanatory systems propounded by other Christians--E.T.B.]."

Read on as I fan the flames and even explain how arguments from both Catholic and Protestant thinkers over the centuries, when combined, have helped create more agnostics...

There are (and have been) so many differences between Christians in matters of theology, philosophy, liturgy, spiritual regimes, buzz words, and other practices, that Christianity ought to be called "Christianities," a term preferred by some scholars. In fact a spectrum of systems exist for interpreting the Bible and for determining it's authority on various matters, and even further diversity exists in respect to interpreting the history of competing Christian dogmas and traditions over the centuries -- in order to determine what authority each holds -- and in order to "find God's will."

No doubt the hunt for "God's will" via interpreting holy books, dogmas, and traditions is endless and exhausting which explains why so many Christians feel relieved to leave such a hunt up to their pastor, or up to the Sunday School lessons their church receives in booklets sent from their parent institution, or up to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, or up to the living patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox church, or up to the guy with the weird haircut hawking "holy hankies" on TV.

I know it's exhausting because I tried and sought and prayed and read and read and continue to read up on the topic. So let's pour more oil on the fire of Vic and Paul's dialogue, and start by asking them both why they aren't Catholic? It's the single biggest Christian Church in the world. Nearly as big as all Protestant denominations combined. And it has what it calls "apostolic authority" going back to an apostle whom Jesus himself picked as a rock of faith to whom things on heaven and earth would be loosed, and they say that apostle picked others, etc. And here's the kicker, Catholics continue to use every reasonable, rational and historical argument in order to deny something near and dear to every Protestant, the sufficiency and perspicacity of Scripture. Instead of such a belief, Catholics teach that...

SCRIPTURE ALONE IS INSUFFICIENT

...which is also one of the things that Francis Beckwith, president of the Evangelical Theological Society, concluded last year before converting to Catholicism and leaving the presidency of that Protestant organization. Judging by his conversion (as well as that of Cardinal Newman's during the Victorian era which stunned England) Catholic critiques of the Protestant belief in "Sola Scriptura," are handy at helping to raise questions in the minds of conservative Protestants. Arguments between Catholics and Protestants on this matter even resemble the ones between freethinkers and conservative Protestants over the question of biblical inerrancy, and may help some Protestants grow a bit more moderate, even a bit more agnostic. See these articles for instance:

Ecclesiastical Authority in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition
by James Roger Black, Ph.D. in "Ancient Religions of the Eastern Mediterranean"

The headings in Dr. Black's paper include:

"Scripture alone is not a sufficient guide to faith and practice...
"Scripture is not self-defining...
"Scripture is not self-authenticating...
"Scripture is not self-interpreting...

"The Reformation principle of 'sola scriptura' -- i.e., reliance on 'Scripture alone' -- is not taught in Scripture itself, was not held by the early Church...

"The commonly cited biblical proofs of sola scriptura do not actually teach what they are alleged to teach...

"Both Jesus and the Apostles made use of -- and even appealed to the authority of -- the oral traditions, deuterocanonical and extracanonical writings, and varying textual recensions of their day."

See Black's article for the examples he cites beneath each heading. And see Dave Armstrong's articles as well:

Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

The Perspicuity ("Clearness") of Scripture

The Old Testament, the Ancient Jews, and Sola Scriptura

Are All the Biblical Books "Self-Attesting" and Self-Evidently Inspired?

Or check out this book: Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura ed., Robert A. Sungenis

Naturally if "Sola Scriptura" fails then Protestant's will be forced to recognize or at least look into Catholic claims of divinely-directed growth of dogma and traditions, not to mention centuries of miraculous and visionary experiences.

And here's where it beomes PROTESTANTISM'S turn to aid in leading more people toward greater agnosticism. Protestants over the centuries have gone through each miraculous tale propounded by the Catholic church with a fine-tooth comb and found them wanting. On the miracles reported to have taken place in the early church Rev. Dr. Conyers Middleton (18th century British Anglican clergyman, Cambridge graduate and author) says, regarding the early church fathers who reported them:

"I have shown by many indisputable facts, that the ancient fathers, by whose authority that delusion was originally imposed (that miracles existed in the early church), and has ever since been supported, were extremely credulous and superstitious; possessed with strong prejudices and enthusiastic zeal, in favour, not only of Christianity in general, but of every particular doctrine, which a wild imagination could ingraft upon it; and scrupling no art or means, by which they might propagate the same principles. In short; they they were of a character, from which nothing could be expected, that was candid and impartial; nothing but what a weak or crafty understanding could supply, towards confirming those prejudices, with which they happened to be possessed; especially where religion was the subject, which above all other motives, strengthens every bias, and inflames every passion of the human mind." [Conyers Middleton (1749), A FREE INQUIRY INTO THE MIRACULOUS POWERS WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE SUBSISTED IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH FROM THE EARLIEST AGES THROUGH SEVERAL SUCCESSIVE CENTURIES. Reprinted (1967). New York: Garland Publishing. Preface, pp. 21-22.]

Then in the 19th century one can read the Protestant theologian (and father of modern inerrancy), B. B. Warfield, to see how he debunked Catholic miracles and resurrection stories in his famous work, COUNTERFEIT MIRACLES. Which just goes to show, as Dr. Robert M. Price (an ex-fundamentalist Protestant), wrote, "The zeal and ingenuity of conservative evangelical scholars in dismantling the miracles of rival Christian groups (and exploding rival interpretations of Scripture used to support such miracles), is worthy of the most skeptical gospel critic."

In the 20th century after the worldwide rise of Pentecostalism, the conservative Protestant, George W. Peters, dismantled stories of "resurrections" that allegedly took place in the 1970s during the Pentecostal revival in the Phillipines. His book was titled, INDONESIA REVIVAL: FOCUS ON TIMOR(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), Chapter 4, "The Miracle Phenomena of the Revival," pp. 57-85. Other conservative Protestants have dismantled claims of miracles allegedly performed by Pentecostal televangelist Benny Hinn, including his claim, now withdrawn, that he had "raised someone to life."

This brings us to a Catholic book by Father Albert J. Hebert S.M., RAISED FROM THE DEAD: TRUE STORIES OF 400 RESURRECTION MIRACLES. Father Hebert claims many resurrection miracles have been performed by Roman Catholic saints. Naturally Protestants like Middleton, Warfield, and Peters are not going to simply allow Catholics to believe that their Church has a preponderance of resurrection miracles vouchsafed by God. They are going to question whether any such myriad of miracles ever took place, using every possible reason, rationalization or inkling of doubt in their minds.

But then one must ask how those same Protestants, so willing to employ every reason and rationalization at their disposal to deny Catholic miracles -- chalking them up to gullibility, blindness, folk tales, myths, legends, or the result of living in ignorant and superstitious times -- expect modern day people to believe every last miracle in the Bible instead?

On what historical grounds can the miracles of Protestantism's "enemy," the Catholic Church, be rejected without also rejecting or at least questioning heartily those found in the N.T.? If Father Hebert is correct then the miracles he enumerates serve as evidence of God's approval of the Roman Catholic Church's status as true church of God. And the miracles Father Hebert documents happened much more recently than those reported in the Gospels, and they are reported by people about whom we know more than is known about the Gospel writers. So what do we really know of the anonymous writers of the Gospels that assures us that they would not make use of whatever stories or pious legends were being spread about by others living in such a superstitious era?

Hence,
CATHOLICISM critiques the sufficiency of Scripture,
while
PROTESTANTISM critiques other Christian's beliefs in the movement of the spirit within their church (which was the Catholic church for centuries).

And that's but one reason why I remain agnostic concerning such matters. *smile* For a few others read,
If It Wasn't For Agnosticism I Would Know WHAT to Believe,
and,
Agnosticism: Reasons to Leave Christianity

Ed
( Edward T. Babinski )

Christian Scholars Are Defending Me? Now I Know I'm Doomed! ;-)

In writing to Jeffrey Jay Lowder who is the co-editor and contributor to the best skeptical book so far on the resurrection of Jesus, Christian philosopher Victor Reppert used me as a contrast with the “so-called” New Atheists:

I think the New Atheists are doing things which are a fundamental betrayal of the basic rules which must underlie all discourse concerning matters so serious as religion. It affects people like John Loftus, who has some interesting ideas, but invariably ruins the possibility of serious discourse with him by propagandistic tactics. A kind of atheist fanaticism is brewing, which undermines the very process which makes atheist-theist dialogue at all rewarding. Link

David Marshall, a Christian apologist who has written several books defending his faith, said:

Read more »

On The Meaning of Life, Heaven & Hell: Victor Reppert & Edward T. Babinski

Christian philosopher Victor Reppert wrote at his blog: "What God created us for, and what will fulfill us for an eternity is, according to Christianity, eternal fellowship with Himself. If atheism is true, that kind of satisfaction isn't in the cards for anybody. That said, I think Christians make a mistake in saying that life has no meaning if Christianity isn't true. Christianity offers a meaningful life in this particular sense, but atheists can have a meaningful life in many other senses, which should not be denied by theists."

If I may comment on Vic's statement (and those of others who responded at his blog)...

...I take the view that though Vic wrote "eternal fellowship with God" was "the meaning of life," what he was probably more concerned with was the question of the "duration of life," rather than its "meaning." In fact I'd even say that when Vic wrote, "eternal fellowship," he was more concerned with the "eternal" part rather than the "fellowship" part.

Why do I say this?

No matter how you dress up the idea of the "meaning of life" the desire for a longer healthier life is one that we all share, sans all the poetry and heavenly vision talk. Such a simple basic desire is even reflected in the question that Jesus was asked a number of times according to the earliest written Gospels, namely, "How may I inherit eternal life?"

Secondly, concerning the "fellowship" side of Vic's speech, I suspect that having friends and knowing the joy of being with them is something both Vic and I take more for granted than living "eternally." Vic and I already practice "fellowshipping" of a very human sort with people of a wide variety of beliefs and consider it less of a miracle than say "eternal life." I could for instance attend church with Vic, or pray with Vic, and/or he could simply spend time together with me enjoying each others company and friendly banter, and share food, music, films, books, a game of chess, etc. (Speaking of "fellowshipping," a recent poll published in Christianity Today or Christian Century mentioned that even among Evangelicals, most do not put "attending church" at their list of favorite things to do. So most Evangelicals are like most people in general in that respect.)

My point is that "eternal life" is a miraculous wish, but spending quality time with people of different beliefs is something we each do everyday at work, at school, even in our own families where beliefs may differ, but love and "fellowship" of a very human sort, remains. So people of a wide variety of different beliefs are able to enjoy the other "fellow," especially in the U.S.

Unfortunately, many non-U.S. countries are filled with people whose ethnicity continues to regulate their lives, including their language, food, religion, and choice of marriage partners, with rival ethnicities being viewed with suspicion, or sometimes, hatred.

In contrast, in the U.S. people of different ethnic persuasions are uncommonly free to eat what they like, read and watch and speak what they wish, even marry people of completely different religions, and even disagree or change their religion, even within the same family. Take for instance John Wilson, editor of Books & Culture (a magazine published by Christianity Today International, whose flagship magazine was founded by Billy Graham), and who recently mentioned that he and his fellow "Evangelicals are... notoriously riven by disagreement over matters large and small, from the particular translation of the Bible that should be used to the political implications of the Gospel, from the flavor of music most conducive to worship to the role of women in ministry. No wonder a new evangelical denomination or quasi-denomination is born every day;" to which Wilson added, "[Never]underestimate the fluidity of religious identities. My wife and I have four children, all of them raised in an evangelical setting. The two oldest, ages 36 and 28, stopped going to church when they were about 16. We pray that they will return. Our third child — after graduation from Graham’s alma mater, the evangelical Wheaton College in Illinois — converted to Catholicism along with her husband, also a Wheaton grad, who was home-schooled in a self-described fundamentalist family in Texas." [John Wilson, "God Fearing," essay in The New York Times, Nov. 12, 2006]

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

NOTE ON "ETERNAL FELLOWSHIP"

If Christianity is true then isn't THIS life here on earth the most exciting point in all of eternity for each human being because only here is where the Christian experiences the excitment of "escaping damnation" and "finding salvation?" It's relatively clear sailing after that according to Christian theology. Or to use an analogy, if Christianity is true then even an "eternity" in heaven seems like an eternal drag on a cigarette after all the "action in bed" is over.

To put it yet another way, see the following conversation, based on something that the famous Rev. Spurgeon really said:

Reporter: But Rev. Spurgeon, What will we do in heaven for eternity? Won’t we get bored?

Rev. Spurgeon: Nonsense. We will joyously sing and meditate on the sufferings of Christ that made the miracle of our salvation possible. As for myself, I could sing and meditate on the wounds round Jesus’s head for a billion years. Then focus on the wounds on his scourged back for the next billion. Then the wound in his right hand for a billion more, the wound in his left hand for a billion, the wound in his side for a billion. Then the wounds in his feet, each foot for a billion years.

Reporter: So, you’re saying there’s nothing worthy of a Christian’s time and devotion, nothing worth looking at, or singing about, for all eternity, except Jesus and his wounds?

Rev. Spurgeon: That’s exactly what I’m saying.

Reporter: So, ah...What’s hell going to be like?

E.T.B. (based on actual replies of Rev. Spurgeon)
____________________________

When Robert Ingersoll heard how Rev. Spurgeon planned to spend billions of years in heaven just staring at Jesus’s wounds, Ingersoll said, “I bet he even takes great delight in reading the genealogies of the Old Testament.”

The Best of Robert Ingersoll, Robert E. Greeley, Ed.
____________________________

AND WHAT ABOUT THOSE IN HELL? ANOTHER EQUALLY BANAL ANSWER FROM A THEOLOGIAN

An article in Christianity Today (“Hell’s Final Enigma,” April 22, 2002) by Rev. J. I. Packer (professor of theology at Regent College in Vancouver and executive director of the aforementioned magazine) addressed the question, “How might those in heaven feel about those in hell?” The people in hell will include fellow human beings with similar joys, fears, and life stories to those in heaven, and Christians have been taught they ought to love others with an “unconditional love” and “forgive seventy-times-seven times.” So how can heaven truly be bliss for Christians if people whom they have grown to know and love (and care for) on earth are burning in hell?

Reverend Packer replied that heaven’s occupants would be busy loving each other and praising God. (I wondered if he meant that in the same sense as “winning teammates patting each other on the back for eternity?”) He added that their attention would be focused on heavenly glories. (I wondered if he meant that in the same sense as children so immersed in playing an entrancingly beautiful video game that they cannot be distracted by any actions or thoughts outside of the game?) Then, after having described how heaven’s occupants would feel about God, heaven, and each other, Reverend Packer finally replied to the original question of “How might heaven’s occupants feel about those in hell?” The Reverend’s reply consisted of ten words: “Love and pity for hell’s occupants will not enter our hearts.”

But doesn’t such a reply beg the question? What kind of “heart” could find neither “love nor pity” entering it, knowing that the greater portion of mankind, including former wives, children, and friends, were all suffering in hell?

Perhaps Rev. Packer’s next column should be about how to reconcile the following two statements, the first one being his own:

“Love and pity for hell’s occupants will not enter our hearts”

“Love is patient… it keeps no record of wrongs… It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails… These three remain: faith, hope and love.” (1 Corinthians 13:4,7,8,13--NIV translation)

E.T.B.
_________________________

According to the book of Revelation, Heaven is an eternal praise service; a service of compliment or flattery. God sits on his throne, attended by twenty-four harp-playing elders (Rev. 5:8) and some other dignitaries pertaining to his court, and looks out over his miles and miles of tempestuous worshippers, and smiles, and purrs, and nods his satisfaction northward, eastward, southwards; as quaint and naive a spectacle as has yet been imagined in this universe, I take it. It is easy to see that the inventor of this image of heaven did not originate the idea, but copied it from the show-ceremonies of some sorry little sovereign state up in the back settlements of the Middle East somewhere.

Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth
____________________________

Is it possible that an infinite God created this world simply to be the dwelling place of slaves and serfs? Simply for the purpose of raising orthodox Christians? That he did a few miracles to astonish a few of them? That all the evils of life are simply his punishments, and that he is finally going to turn heaven into a kind of religious museum filled with Baptist barnacles, petrified Presbyterians and Methodist mummies?

Robert Ingersoll
____________________________

Have you ever been awakened early in the morning by a Jehovah’s Witness? Maybe you’ve been accosted by a crazy street preacher with a megaphone? You turn on your TV, and there’s Tammy Bakker, Jerry Falwell, that Reverend Scott guy who never sleeps. Has it ever dawned on you that heaven might be a very annoying place?

My brother Mike has always been--and still is--the most annoying religious person I’ve ever known. He thinks homosexuality is a sickness. He believes that all Jews will burn in hell. He thinks women belong in the home. Mike’s one of those people who has to talk to God, because nobody else can stand him.

One Thanksgiving Mike told me, “You know, Ricky, I’m really worried about you! I’m beginning to think that you might not go to heaven!” I leaned toward him very calmly and said, “Mike, I don’t want to go to heaven. You know why? You’re gonna be there!”

Rick Reynolds, Only the Truth is Funny
____________________________

The experts on Heaven disagree about which conglomeration of religious believers will qualify, but they always seem to think that they personally belong to that elite group.An eternity with people that conceited seems intolerable to me.

Robert Anton Wilson, “Cheerful Reflections on Death and Dying,” Gnoware, February 1999

It's Preposterous That Victor Reppert and David Marshall Believe in Allah

I'd like to note a reoccurring theme among Christian apologists. David Marshall has said with regard to Judaism that it is a true religion. He also claims:

Either God is one, many, or not at all. But one doesn't need to choose between Yahweh, Elohim, theos, Allah, and Shang Di: the one only-existing Creator God is recognizable under many aliases. Link

So also claims Dr. Reppert about Allah:

I believe that Allah exists. Allah is the Arabic word for God, just as Dios is Spanish for God, and Dieu is French for God, and Gott is German for God. I am a theist, therefore, I believe that Allah exists. No problem.

But all of this is simply empty rhetoric with no substance at all. Neither one of them are Orthodox Jews or Muslims so why would they say this?

Read more »

Apr-Jun 2012 Index

This is the index of posts from April to June 2012. It is a work in progress, as it takes an inordinate amount of time to do. Hopefully, after a while, the whole backlog of DC's catalogue, so to speak, will be much easier to peruse.

One suggestion would be to use 'ctrl+f' (the find shortcut) to search for a term. For example, if you wanted to find posts on the 'Kalam' or 'Reformed Epistemology', you could press ctrl+f and put 'kalam' or 'reformed' into the box and it will highlight the terms of the page so you can easily see the posts on this and other index pages with relevant terms that you might be researching. Alternatively, use the search bar in the sidebar.

Read more »

John Beversluis Has Died at the Age of 86, But He Will Speak from the Grave!

John Beversluis was 86 years old when he recently died. His life was lived between these two days, November 10, 1934 and May 22, 2021. From his obituary we read:

John received his Ph.D from Indiana University and his Bachelor of Arts from Calvin College. He taught Philosophy and Ethics at Butler University (Indianapolis, IN), Emory University (Atlanta, GA), California State University, Fresno, Clovis Community College, Monterey Peninsula College, the University of the South (Sewanee, TN), and Grand Valley State College (Allendale MI). He participated in three National Endowment for the Humanities seminars for College Teachers: at the University of Illinois (Urbana, IL), the University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Texas. He presented papers at the American Philosophical Association, various universities in the United States, and at Oxford and Cambridge in the United Kingdom. While at Oxford he also presented several papers to the Oxford C. S. Lewis Society. His publications include works in the areas of Ancient Greek Philosophy (focusing on Socrates and Plato), the Philosophy of Religion, Kantian Ethics, and Philosophy and Literature. SOURCE.

In 2008 I got to know John in an exchange of emails. I had contacted him about his masterful book, C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion: Revised and Updated, which had just been published by Prometheus Books (PB) on November 29, 2007. I had bought it and loved it. Let me tell you this interesting story.

Read more »

Victor Reppert Now Says He Doesn't Have Faith!

John: I am quite frankly prepared to admit that, given your definition of faith, I have no faith. Damaging admission? Not. Link.

I know what he's saying so don't think I'm claiming otherwise. My definition of faith is that it's a leap over the probabilities. It fills in the gap between what is improbable to make something more probable than not without faith. As such, faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities. What Reppert is saying is that he doesn't have faith that leaps over any probabilities. He doesn't have faith, the only kind that exists among believers of all stripes and sects. He just doesn't have it. There are no gaps in the probabilities that need to be filled in. His is a reasoned conclusion that all reasonable people should accept. His is a reasoned religion, just like deism, but he concludes much more than any deist could ever do. He thinks with me that faith in my sense is indeed superfluous, irrational, unnecessary, and even dangerous. He thinks that in the end, when pressed, he should think exclusively in terms of probabilities after all! He's claiming this is what he does when embracing the Christian faith. *cough*

Once again folks, this is the kind of intellectual gerrymandering we expect from believers. When pressed against the wall they will say anything to get out of any problem that calls into question their faith. Stephen Law is right: “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, p. 75). It reminds me of a story:

Read more »

Jeff Lowder is the Devil in Disguise

[Edited in November of 2015: Read the following link to see how my disputes with Jeffery Jay Lowder ended up. I finally came to the opinion that Jeff Lowder is a dishonest person and a hypocrite. Other posts of mine about him can be read by clicking on the tag "Lowder" below. I think people should beware of him. You can see these traits only partially in what I wrote in the post below. I know he appears to be a nice guy. But appearances are deceiving. He's not. He will step on people to get his way. I never expected how true it was to say Lowder is the devil in disguise. He disguises himself for the purposes of almost pure self-promotion and financial gain. It took a personal conflict between us for me to see who he really is, but sometimes it takes that when someone such as he disguises himself so well as to persuade intellectuals that his motives are pure and that he's their equal when he is not.]

Jeff Lowder has been dogging my steps so to speak, first by commenting on Vincent Torley's response to a post of mine, saying: "It seems to me that Torley clearly has the upper hand in this exchange so far. As a debate judge, I would 'flow' the entire 'debate' to Torley up to this point." What exchange? An exchange demands a response then counter-response. Up until that point I had merely written one blog post. And just as I counter-responded that Torley couldn't even read, neither could Lowder. What gives? Now he's over at Randal Rauser's blog playing the "devil's advocate" against me. Let me state for the record that I despise the devil and his advocates. The devil should advocate for himself.

So I want to respond to Lowder and issue an open challenge to him. Victor Reppert once placed my approach between the extremes of PZ Myers (a new angry atheist) and Jeff Lowder (an old respectful atheist). I think Reppert is right. I am the golden mean between two extremes. I'm golden ya see. ;-) And I want to pull Lowder in my direction in what follows.

Read more »

Victor Reppert Just Cannot Ignore the Force of the Outsider Test for Faith

Dr. Reppert keeps trying to chip away at my argument in The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF), and there's a reason why. There's a force to it he cannot ignore. Inside his head one side says there's got to be something wrong with it. The other side comes up with something, anything, to deflect the force of it so he can continue believing. You would think if he's demolished it there would be noting left to say, right? But his other side keeps thinking about it, wondering if there's something to it, and subsequently false about his faith. In Vic's post, titled "The Outsider Test for Human Rights, or OTHR" he said,

We might ask what evidence there is that rights exist. You have a feeling that everyone ought to be treated equally. Isn't that just your social conditioning? If you grew up in India, and were raised to believe that people occupy different positions in the caste system based on the Law of Karma, wouldn't you think that the idea that everyone was created (or evolved?) equal was slightly ridiculous? LINK.

In the comments I wrote,

As the person who has named and argued for the OTF, let me say that an OTHR is merely asking for a justifying reason for embracing this or that human right. Since no religion passes the OTF this means the justification for human rights must be found in secular reasons based on whatever evidence is available. The OTHR does not automatically entail people will agree, but it does offer a standard that reasonable people should embrace.

If nothing else, since people without religion are demanding to live under secular democracies, a secular democracy is probably the best way to eventually achieve a consensus about human rights, even though it's far from perfect.

I answered this type of objection previously. Just substitute "Human Rights" in place of "Moral/political views" in what I wrote here. Until next time...

Quote of the Day, By Faisal Saeed Al Mutar On Ridicule

Let's put ridicule into perspective. Faisal Saeed Al Mutar lectures on Muslim issues around the world. His focus is on Islamic problems in the Middle East and how they can be solved. On Facebook he wrote: "If you hold ridiculous beliefs, your beliefs deserve to be ridiculed. You have rights, your beliefs don't."


Now Victor Reppert has gone on record as stressing ridicule is unwarranted. So what does he advocate when it comes to Muslim militancy? A lot of us, me included, don't know that much about Islam. But we know killing and maiming others is wrong. Does Vic really think ridicule should not be used by us against these Muslims? Most of us don't really know any other way to express ourselves. I think ridicule can open the Muslim mind up to consider arguments to the contrary. It can be the grease that helps unscrew the mental bolts that shut off a reasoned discussion of their faith. And if Reppert can see this with regard to the faith of others, then he should have no principled objection to the use of ridicule itself.

Christian Apologists Must Denigrate Science and Scientists Themselves

That's right. I've said this before. Anything apologists can do to denigrate science is what they'll do to defend their faith. That's why there is the science vs religion debate in the first place. That's why creative science had to fight an uphill battle against church censure and threats of violence. Case in point is Victor Reppert in disputing the results of the social sciences which have confirmed several biases we have as human beings, especially cognitive bias [<---READ THE LINK!] which has conclusively shown us we believe what we prefer to believe and when faced with contrary evidence we actually dig our feet in deeper into what we believe, depending on our vested interests. Now why does he feel the need to dispute these findings without offering any counter-evidence? It's because he has faith, that's why. Faith can be used to trump almost any evidence and if not, then just denigrate science--or scientists themselves. Hey, don't believe me? Then read what he said:

Read more »

Reppert on Ridiculing One's Opponents.

One of the most intelligent Christan bloggers is Victor Reppert who recently commented on those who comment on Christian and atheist blogs. To see all that he said go here. I totally agree with him when he wrote: "I really dislike ridicule, from either side of the fence." He also said, "I consider the ridicule heaped on atheists that I see on some blogs to be a bad witness." I think the same as he does when it's the atheists who are doing the ridiculing. I'm not saying there isn't a place for some of it in some forums specifically addressed to the proverbial "choir" for venting and/or entertainment purposes. It's just not something I pander to here at DC from either side of the fence.

Presuppositional Apologetics

Van Tillian presuppositional apologetics were looked down upon and dismissed by every Christian professor I had when in seminary. This, by itself, says something. So I never paid that much attention to it. I'll make some comments about it before too long though, but I don't know when as of yet.

Suffice it to say that a Muslim could make much of the same presuppositional case on behalf of Islam. The fact that no Muslim does this doesn't mean that a Muslim couldn't do this, because he could. But if a Muslim did offer a presuppositional apologetic, there would be no way to know whether the Muslim or the Van Tillian is right, since there is no common ground, except for the rules of logic and reasoning, which both sides would claim support their religious viewpoint. These two views would be considered "incommensurable" with each other. Even though both views couldn't be right, they could both be wrong.

Speaking of presuppositional apologetics, see what Victor Reppert said about a debate in this link:

"What happened here? I read this debate and thought that Wilson was exposed as someone who, in the last analysis, had no arguments whatsoever." --Reppert.