David Marshall's Number One Deepity: "All scientific knowledge depends upon human testimony."

In what follows is a smack-down of the entire edifice of David Marshall's apologetics (not that he will be convinced of course). Christian apologist David Marshall has repeatedly argued that "All scientific knowledge depends upon human testimony." He does so to put the vinyl siding of scientific respectability over the rotting wood of his faith. He rhetorically asks, "How many eyewitness testimonies were confirmed by DNA evidence?" His point is that DNA evidence doesn't confirm eyewitness testimonies, but rather that the human testimonies of scientists confirm the DNA evidence. That's because they saw it and they interpret it for the rest of us. This is crucial for Marshall's defense of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus, and the claims of miracles in today's world. Human testimony is what both science and his faith depend on for truth. If we can know from the human testimonies of scientists the truth about the world, then we can also know from human testimonies the truth about the Easter Event and miracles in the modern world.

What's there not to understand atheists? Checkmate!!

Read more »

Why David Marshall is not a Biblical Scholar

An Apologist should not be confused with a "Scholar"

The recent post about David Marshall’s lack of expertise, when compared to Matthew Ferguson, points to a broader issue of who counts as a “scholar.”  

Since some of my posts were referenced in that discussion, let me just add my own comments on why David Marshall would not qualify as a scholar of the Gospels, while Matthew Ferguson would.

In general, a scholar is one who, at minimum, has the equipment needed to verify independently the claims made in the relevant field.  Usually, it is standard to have undergone some certification process as reflected in graduate degrees and peer reviewed published work. Self-proclamation as a “scholar” is not standard academic procedure.

In the case of biblical studies, one needs, at minimum, the ability to evaluate the primary biblical sources independently. That, in turn, means that one must have the ability to read biblical texts in the original languages.

Read more »

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 »

A Refutation of David Marshall's Book Rebuttal of My OTF, Part 3

This should be my final post refuting Dr. David Marshall's “rebuttal” to my book The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF). Marshall's book, How Jesus Passes the Outsider Test: The Inside Story,is really bad. In fact, it's so bad I'm using the word "refutation" for what I'm doing in these posts. If I'm largely successful then it also says something about Dr. Randal Rauser, that he will say and endorse anything in order to defend his Christian faith. No educated intellectual worthy the name would have written Marshall's book. No educated intellectual should think it's worthy of any kind of a blurb either.

Read more »

A Refutation of David Marshall's Book Rebuttal of My OTF, Part 2

I've decided to write more than just one post about Dr. David Marshall's “rebuttal” to my book The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF). I will attempt to show why Marshall's book, How Jesus Passes the Outsider Test: The Inside Story,is really bad. In fact, it's so bad I'm using the word "refutation" for what I'm doing here. I hardly ever use that word because refutations are usually unachievable in these kinds of debates. So let's continue, shall we?

Read more »

David Marshall's Latest Book, Little Ado About Something

Coming shortly may be the last two posts of mine for a little while, apart from brief announcements and quotes. I am fully engaged in writing another book, due March 31st. I'm also in the process of editing another anthology, on science and Christianity, with about ten authors on-board so far. At least, that's what I should be doing rather than blogging (we'll see). Be sure to subscribe so you don't miss anything from us here at DC.

Before turning my full attention to those tasks I need to show why David Marshall's book is anything but "Much Ado About Nothing." Randal Rauser has endorsed it with a blurb. I will attempt to show why Marshall's book is really bad. If successful then it says something about Rauser, that he will say and endorse anything in order to defend his Christian faith. No educated intellectual should think Marshall's book is worthy of a blurb. No educated intellectual worthy the name would have written it.

Now this isn't to say Marshall's book is worthless. It has little ado rather than much ado. For Marshall is a Christian apologist who embraces The Outsider Test for Faith with a few caveats (OTF). I'm minimally thankful for this. But that's it. Stay tuned. The second post will be forthcoming soon.

David Marshall's Challenge About Women Under Christianity

Recently I was reminded that Marshall has challenged me to debate whether Christianity has helped or hurt women:

Resolved: That the Gospel of Jesus has done more to help more women than any other teaching in the history of Planet Earth. I challenge you, John. I issue this challenge assuming that John is sincere, and because millions of other people agree with him that Christianity has harmed women terribly. LINK.

Marshall sounds just like Muslim apologists for their terrible track record against women though. I don't have to rehearse that record since Marshall agrees with me about it. But lookee here at a Muslim apologist for Women in Islam. As an outsider I see no difference between them in that both are attempting to whitewash away the facts.

Loftus also recommended three feminist books about how terrible the Bible was to me. But that's a lame response. My argument is historical, not primarily exegetical: that the Gospel of Jesus has in historical fact improved life for billions of women around the world.

Notice first, Marshall thinks that providing book references to read on this issue is lame. I'm at a loss to know what to think of this. If I were to engage him in this debate I'd be quoting from them. So why not just read them? Why is a debate needed when I can provide book references where those arguments are made by people who know the issue better than I do? Second, Marshall said these references were written by feminists, as if that discredits them as not being objective about the issue. In truth, these references come from biblical scholars and/or theologians. Third, Marshall wants to focus on Jesus in the Gospels rather than the whole of biblical revelation, or so it seems clear to me. Why exclude the Old Testament or the writings of Paul?

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 »

Thinking Critically vs Skeptically

[Edit 1/2/2015: This is another post in my series, "Do You Want To Be A Christian Apologist?" This is number 17 in the series, which are tagged with the words "Christian Apologetics" below, seen in reverse chronological order. So, let's say you want to be a Christian apologist, someone who defends the Christian faith. Then what must you do? The 17th thing you must do is make a distinction between thinking critically and thinking skeptically and focus on the former to the exclusion of the latter. ]

There shouldn't be a difference between thinking critically vs skeptically, for to think critically is to think skeptically, and vice versa. So why do I write about this? The answer in a word: Faith. Believers can and do think critically, especially the best of the best, like Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne and William Lane Craig. Other notable Christian scholars are Paul Copan, Randal Rauser, Victor Reppert, David Marshall, and Matt Flannagan who regularly engage in apologetics against atheists like me. But they are not truly critical thinkers since they do not think skeptically.

Teaching students to be critical thinkers is very important but teaching them to have a skeptical disposition is more important. Critical thinking should lead to this disposition. The problem is that faith is a critical thinking stopper. It builds up a wall that stops believers dead in their tracks. They dare not go beyond it to the proper conclusion when applying the standards of critical thinking. Now I taught critical thinking classes as a Christian believer. So I know exactly what they are doing. Norman Geisler, one of the leading Christian apologists who defends the indefensible, even co-wrote a book with Ronald M. Brooks titled, Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking.I don't know enough about the leading defenders of other religious faiths, but I suspect in their universities they teach critical thinking classes from textbooks they have written too. And I expect we would all agree with what they teach and write, except for some of the examples they use to illustrate a particular logical rule.

So what's the problem? Faith. Faith stunts one's critical thinking skills. It prohibits a person of faith from applying the set of critical thinking skills we all agree about. You can see this by how they argue, which I am documenting here. What believers do is to defend their faith rather than look critically at it, no matter what the intellectual cost. 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). If Christian apologists could think logically, without the perceived need to defend their religious sect's faith, they would see they are not thinking consistently critically.

In the hopes I can help nudge them along this road I recommend reading Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn's college textbook, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age.There are newer, more expensive editions of this book than the one I linked to. But look inside this one then choose which edition at which price you can afford. But get it. You will see what I mean when I say there is no distinction between critical thinking and thinking skeptically. They are one and the same. That's why I argue faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities. I say believers operate by double standards. They do not think critically, in the sense I just wrote about and which this book could help show them. When we say the party of agnosticism and atheism is one of reason and science we mean it. We invite believers to the adult table, where an adult conversation can be had.

Is Timothy Keller Clueless, Self-Deceived, Or Another Liar For Jesus?

This is another post in my series, "Do You Want To Be A Christian Apologist?" This is number 16 in the series, which are tagged with the words "Christian Apologetics" below, seen in reverse chronological order. So, let's say you want to be a Christian apologist, someone who defends the Christian faith. Then what must you do? The sixteenth thing you must do is to deceive your audience, lie if necessary, in order to defend your faith. [See also the tag "Liars for Jesus" for other examples]. I have hesitated to say this before, in the cases of William Lane Craig and David Marshall, but when Randal Rauser did this my eyes were opened. Here's another clear example with Timothy Keller's book, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.His book is quite popular, ranking in the top ten "apologetics" category of books on Amazon for several years now. However, Bryan Frances, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Fordham University, outs him as either clueless, self-deceived or a fraud, in the Introduction of his book, Gratuitous Suffering and the Problem of Evil: A Comprehensive Introduction.See for yourself:

Read more »

David Marshall’s Use and Abuse of Anthropology: Émile Durkheim and Australian Aborigines

Émile Durkheim

In his recent debate with Richard Carrier, David Marshall made the following claims (Debate video):

“Not only is Christianity reasonable in that it makes practical sense to believe it, and that Christians have always reasoned to and for their faith. There are also good reasons to believe -- good evidences -- that Christianity is true. Let me give three, briefly. (1) Miracles. (2) Anthropology, a God that transcends particular cultures. (3) New Testament criticism -- the person of Jesus” (apx. 10:18-10:32 on YouTube video).

For his anthropological evidence, Marshall principally cites the claims of Émile Durkheim (1858-1917), the putative father of modern sociology, on the religion of Australian aborigines. 

Having received my undergraduate degree in anthropology, and having undertaken a year of graduate work in anthropology, at the University of Arizona, I was curious to see what Marshall’s powerful “anthropological” argument would be.

Not surprisingly, I found that Marshall blatantly misrepresented Durkheim.  In addition, his discussion of Durkheim shows that he is poorly read in the anthropological debates surrounding the nature of the religion of Australian aborigines.

In particular, I will show that:

A. Durkheim did not claim that all cultures believe in a Supreme being.

B. Durkheim did not even claim that all Australian cultures believed in a Supreme Being.

C. Durkheim’s interpretations were challenged from the beginning, and are now widely rejected.

D. Christianization or misinterpretation of native terminology remains a viable explanation for the reports quoted by Durkheim that show any belief in a “Supreme God.”

E. Multiple cultures, or even all cultures, having similar concepts of God does not demonstrate the perception of some transcendent reality.

Read more »

Astounding Ignorance From Christian Apologist Carson Weitnauer

You wouldn't think a co-editor of a book titled, True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism,could be so unreasonable or utterly ignorant about atheism, but he is. The prerequisite for offering criticisms of atheism is to understand it. Let's explore his ignorance, below:

Read more »

David Marshall and Guillermo Gonzalez: How Untruth Becomes Gospel Truth

My post on “Craig versus McCullagh”  noted William Lane Craig’s inconsistency in using “consensus” as a measure of the validity of an historical claim. See Craig v. McCullagh.

When the consensus agrees with Craig, then he deems consensus as a sound barometer of truth. But when the consensus does not agree with him (e.g., the acceptance of evolution by some 99% of scientists; the consistent use of non-supernaturalism by nearly all academic historians), then he deems consensus as something akin to the Party Line of totalitarian regimes.

Part of my response to Craig showed that, if there has been anything akin to a Party Line, it has been one administered by Christian institutions that have disemployed, persecuted, and killed scholars that did not agree with orthodox positions for about the last 2,000 years. 

Read more »

*Sigh* On David Marshall's Review of My Book: The Blind Leading the Blind

Over at Amazon.com Dr. David Marshall, a Christian apologist, author, lecturer, debater and editor, reviewed my new book, The Outsider Test for Faith.I find it strange that it's one of the most helpful "reviews" so far (as of this writing). Since Marshall has edited his review in response to my criticisms I'll edit this post as well. Let me just say I think I already effectively dealt with all of his so-called "substantive" objections in my book, all of them. In fact, he repeats a few of his arguments as if he didn't even read the book. What intellectuals must do, rather than repeat an original argument, is to respond to the objections. It's called offering counter-arguments. He didn't do what an intellectual is required to do. As far as I know, he may not even know that he didn't do this.

In fact, this isn't a real review at all. It's a hatchet job. It wouldn't even marginally pass as a book review in any magazine. It's a knee jerk reaction to the things I wrote of Marshall's arguments in my book instead. In his "review" he's more interested in offering a response to them than reviewing the book as a whole. Since Marshall mischaracterizes me I have seven things to say for starters:

Read more »

Science Denialism in Congress is Rampant and Appalling

We've been talking with David Marshall who denigrates and/or denies science in favor of his ancient holy book. So in order to highlight what we're talking about, Maria Maltseva, of Skeptic Ink Network (SIN), recently interviewed Dr. Donald Prothero who speaks to that issue. He tells us of some "scientific illiteracy and science denialism that are appalling enough by themselves, but even scarier is the thought that they come from the members of the House Science and Technology Committee!" Enjoy.

Quote of the Day, by David Marshall

Actually, John, I would say that almost all scientific evidence COMES TO US as historical evidence. Science is, in effect, almost a branch of history, as it transmits knowable and systematically collected and interpretted facts to our brains.

What then? Does the fact that you're not a scientist, and therefore have to trust what scientists say, entail that you don't have to trust science when it contradicts what you find in an ancient pre-scientific holy book based on the supposed historical evidence? Historians do not have at their disposal very much evidence to go on in many instances, especially the farther back in time they go. A miracle cannot be investigated scientifically since if it happened then the past is non-repeatable. Science however, progresses in the present with experiments that can be replicated in any lab anywhere on the planet. The only reason you want to bring science down to the level of the historian's very difficult but honorable craft is because you need to believe your faith-history is on an equal par with scientific results, only you place it above science because you say science is a branch of history, and not the other way around. You are therefore an ignorant science denier. You could become informed. You could visit a lab. You could notice the consensus of scientists on a vast number of areas. But no, you'd rather stay in your ignorance in order to believe in talking asses and that a sun stopped and moved backward up the stairs. Science or faith it is, and you choose faith. I choose science. The divide could never be more clearer.

Christian Apologist David Marshall On Science

David Marshall opines, “Those who make wild claims about the scientific method often base their arguments not on good human evidence, but rumor, wild guesses, and extrapolations that would embarrass a shaman.” [From The Truth Behind the New Atheism, pp. 28-30] This sentence of his expresses a such very low view of science and its method that one wonders if he is Amish. People of faith must denigrate science in at least some areas, simply because science is the major threat to their faith. That’s the nature of faith. People of faith must deny science. To maintain their faith believers must remain ignorant of science. Yes, scientists have made mistakes in the distant past, but Marshall cannot possibly say this with a straight face about modern science. Yet he did.

Should We Think Exclusively in Terms of Probabilities or Not?

Christians cannot agree on a definition of faith because faith cannot be consistently defined except that it is an irrational leap over the probabilities. They cannot agree on a definition because they refuse to admit this about faith. It's what they think best describes all other religious faiths except their own. It's what I think of all of them. I'm just more consistent. Faith can be described as a body of doctrine of course, but the word "doctrine" in the religious sense is "a codification of beliefs" best described in a creed. And a "creed" is a statement of faith shared by a religious community. There is no getting around these facts. A creed is a doctrinal statement of faith of a religious community. Faith is what all religious adherents accept and promote. Yet faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities.

Most all modern Christian definitions of faith are not biblically based. Others are irrelevant or superfluous. But regardless of they way they define faith I want a straight-up answer from Christian apologists like Drs. Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser and David Marshall who haunt these halls (it is the Halloween season ya know). Should we think exclusively in terms of probabilities, or not? If so, then why can't you admit faith is irrelevant, unnecessary, superfluous, unreasonable, irrational, and dangerous? If not, then why not? Come on boys, pony up. Put up or shut up!

For our lesson today let's look at what Jesus said about faith, and compare it with what Reppert said about it.

Read more »

What Contrary Evidence Troubles Me?

Davis Marshall asked me three questions:

What existentially difficult questions do you even admit face you, as an atheist? What contrary evidence troubles your confidence? Do you dare confess?

Let me take the last one first. I think he is probably "projecting" onto me. That line of psychological reasoning goes like this: "Since I have secret doubts then John probably does too." I'm not presuming to know this about him, but I suspect it's true. Perhaps he'll say that having doubts is a good thing, since he could claim it to be a mark of an open-minded person. Nonetheless, I have no trouble telling people what I think. He knows this. Perhaps that's why he asked. But he envisions me secretly fearing hell, worrying that if I am wrong I'm doomed, or worrying whether I'm doing a good thing by arguing against Christian faith, or that I hide some facts that support faith whenever it's inconvenient to do so. So in obliging his request what follows isn't a confession. I have no secret or hidden questions so there is nothing to "confess." This doesn't mean I know everything. I am continually learning as I go, and I have a lot of unresolved questions about the Bible, theology, and the history of the church. I have a lot of philosophical questions, the kinds that science can solve in principle, if not outright. I have questions about whether there will ever be a grand unified theory of everything, concerning the ultimate origins of everything, of human self-awareness and consciousness, and questions about metaphysical free-will, and the nature of ethics. They all interest me but they are not my specialty.

Read more »

Give Drs. Rauser and Marshall a Big Welcome!

Christian apologists Drs. Randal Rauser and David Marshal seem to have conspired together to comment here as a tag team in a wrestling match against me at DC. Why? Because I have "a big audience," said Rauser in a comment, an audience of atheists, agnostics and skeptics. And so it seems with Marshall as well. Give them a big warm DC welcome. No, seriously, I welcome them. Now I don't want to be over-run with Christian apologists, but I suppose they will be met with more atheists who want to debate them over the issues that divide us. So I would welcome this too. Just be careful when it comes to my involvement. Don't assume that if they have the last word that I cannot answer them, and don't expect me to have the time to answer them either, since I now have a second job (I had told my readers this might be necessary for a long time, and the time has come. I'm tired of living on a meager income). I'd like to say some additional things about this development, if it's something that will continue into the future (and of this I don't know).

Read more »