This occurred on DagoodS’ blog. His words will be in blue.
* * * * *
However, I am not interested in “challenging his [i.e., my] first premise” for three reasons: 1) We approach “first premises” differently. Not that one of us approaches it correctly, and the other incorrectly. Just differently. (Welcome to human diversity!) He appears to claim predispositions prohibit a person being convinced by the evidence;
I’ve explained this at least three times now; maybe four, but you don’t grasp it for some reason. Let me do it again, briefly, then:
I never said that it prohibited a person from changing their mind; only that it is a profound factor involved in the process and certainly not one that can be ignored or minimized, as you have been doing, in your rush to extol the glories of evidence (something I never disputed in the least, being an apologist by trade, with a blog called Biblical Evidence for Catholicism).
I peel it back a layer by claiming it is evidence that change one’s predispositions.
I say it is both: it’s symbiotic. But obviously I place a higher relative emphasis on first premises than you do.
Every day I attempt to change a person’s mind regarding their position. I do not, in my career, say, “Gee, Opposing Counsel. You are predisposed against my position [not exactly a surprise!], so I can’t change your mind.” Nonsense—I point out evidence strong enough to cause the person to change their mind. Same way when we try to convince others to vote for our candidate, or what restaurant to eat at, or what stocks to buy in our portfolio.
Of course. Since I don’t dispute this at all, it is irrelevant to this particular dispute on the relative importance of presuppositions and predispositions.
Moreover, legal disputes about wordings in contracts or what acts occurred or didn’t occur and how they relate to the law are quite different from disputes about abstract ideas and Christian theology.
I honestly cannot think of another situation in life where one attempts to persuade another person, and doesn’t utilize evidence. I cannot think of any other situation where one would claim predispositions are a bar to being convinced.
Then you have quite a bit of pondering to do. Go read some Socrates. You can’t lose by doing that.
I do think bias and prejudice and predispositions can inhibit one’s analysis of evidence. Both bias for and bias against. So Dave Armstrong’s point has some validity. I’m just uncertain there is anyway to change another person’s bias without using evidence.
So you acknowledge something in what I am saying, and I don’t disagree with your point at all, as far as it goes, so we’re not nearly as far apart as you suppose.
2) All I wanted to discuss was the Resurrection, and it would seem regardless of Dave Armstrong’s first premise—he agrees with me. So why should I argue against it? grin
Not sure what this means . . .
Although not completely clear (more on this in my third point), it would seem he believes the historical evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Resurrection happened. That it also requires a change in one’s predisposition [there’s that “first premise” thing] which requires God to intervene with grace and faith.
Christians believe that grace and faith are required to believe in any Christian doctrine (or miracle), and they come ultimately from God. That is Christianity 0101 and we can’t pretend that this is not the case simply because we are talking to atheists who reject those categories. We are what we are, and Christian worldview is what it is. I’d be a lousy apologist if I told you otherwise, because it wouldn’t be honest.
In other words, without a nudge from God—one can’t be convinced by the historical evidence alone that the Resurrection happened.
Since you have to believe in God, it seems to me, to believe in a miracle in the first place, that would appear to me to be the inexorable conclusion. If you deny the existence of the God Who performs the miracle, then how in the world can you believe in the miracle? It’s a matter of simple logic. All of these things stand or fall together. If you believe in God, you believe in such things as faith (in the very act of believing) and grace (the power to believe). I think the historical evidence is sufficient if there is no bias that precludes it from the outset from being compelling. But in many cases (not all) such a bias is present, and it is decisive against believing it.
It logically follows from a solely historical approach, the Resurrection is not plausible.
I’m not saying that. I am saying that there are always factors beyond abstract, coldly logical, facts-based historiography. As you know, there are even many theories of how to do historiography, so the philosophical realm always enters the equation (just as it necessarily does in physical science).
The same thing I am saying. Only by adding a theological element [that can only come from God] could one believe the evidence.
You are putting a slant on it that I do not place there. You’re molding my view into a caricature of what it actually is. And let me hasten to add that I don’t think you are being deliberately dishonest. You just don’t grasp fully what I am saying and so you “repeat” my view back incorrectly and inaccurately. I’ve already explained it several times, including in person, but you don’t yet comprehend what I am saying. And so one wonders after a while why that is.
On a quick side note, I personally think this is a terrible approach to take with deconverts. The last thing we wanted to hear when going through the pain of doubt is that the only way to relieve the doubt would be to have God intervene.
I didn’t say it was the only way; I simply said that in Christian thinking, one can never dismiss faith and grace from the overall picture. I think atheism requires far more faith than Christianity does (faith defined broadly as belief in axioms that one cannot absolutely prove).
And since the deconvert is still going through the doubt, that means God is choosing to not intervene, meaning the deconvert is screwed.
He is in trouble if he chooses to reject what he knows to be true. The problem with most atheists is that they don’t believe what has been shown (from our perspective) to be true. They truly, honestly do not accept the belief, and I say that it is usually because of false and illogical thinking they have picked up somewhere along the line. We are what we eat.
3) I have historically had a very difficult time keeping Dave Armstrong consistent. I could point out even more monster discussions where it takes numerous comments to nail down his position, and even then he continues to waffle back and forth as convenient.
Right. All this shows me is that again you did not grasp the nuances and subtleties of my position. It’s all quite consistent. You may disagree, but it is consistent (just as I say atheism is usually profoundly consistent if one accepts its first premises, but I reject those).
Personally, I think it comes from the “Cut. Paste. Pound.” style he utilizes in internet communication—resulting in a constant search for contrary positions, but that eventually conflict his own stance.
You’re entitled to your theory as to my alleged profound inconsistencies. It’s a ridiculous, desperate one, but I do greatly enjoy it for its entertainment value.
Like I said, when he doesn’t use this style—in person—he is far more enjoyable.
With nine talkative people in a group I never have time to pursue any one line of reasoning that I would set forth to a 50th of the depth that I can do in writing. That is why writing is the best medium to do that. In person, socratic dialogue only works if there are two people and both are willing to do it and to stay on a very particular, focused topic.
Is the historical evidence sufficient to conclude Jesus physically resurrected from the dead?
We’ve been through this three times now (including a careful explanation in person two nights ago). Go read what I said again. This is not some game where you get me to incriminate myself “on the stand” by an inadequate short answer. It’s a serious philosophical issue. I’ve explained it over and over, and your asking the simple question yet again, shows me that you continue to not comprehend what my position is. But I have already stated it repeatedly. So just go read it!
Thanks, Dave Armstrong,
According to your comments in the monster thread, the historical record is not sufficient—one must also have a certain will, faith and grace.
So you agree with my second point—the historical evidence by itself is not sufficient. Now, I do believe it logically follows that a supernatural explanation is therefore not plausible, based upon the historical evidence itself, and here you disagree.
Can you explain how the historical record is not sufficient to conclude the Resurrection, but it is more plausible to conclude a Resurrection? I would think “more plausible” is a higher or equal standard to “sufficient.”
I have written about all this “evidence” [i.e., the place of premises] stuff at length. It is too complex to summarize briefly. You can put it in whatever box you like.
I haven’t entered into a discussion of the evidence [for the resurrection] itself; only factors that influence how one interprets that evidence.
We’ve been talking about two different things all along, and neither wants to talk about what the other wants to discuss.
Why one believes in the Resurrection would be for a great variety of cumulative reasons (just as I would say about Christianity in general or theism itself).
As I have said before and stated to [his atheist friend] Jon on my blog a few minutes ago, if you guys read the best Christian defenders of the Resurrection from an apologetic standpoint, you will be unpersuaded by me, because they are the experts and I haven’t delved that deeply into Resurrection apologetics myself. I always recommend that folks go read the best arguments they can find if they are really interested in something.
At least give it your best shot by reading the best the opponent has to offer. And on this topic, that certainly isn’t me. I have other areas I specialize in and emphasize.
I like the man (DagoodS), and he has said some nice stuff about me, too, I see. He showed kindness to me at the meeting, asking about the job I lost and how the search for a new one was going. I like most of the people in this atheist group. They are a friendly bunch and a lot of fun to gab with. I have a great time at the meetings (I’ve now attended four).
He seems to want to go so far with me, and then gives up. I apparently exasperate him. That’s fine. Obviously, I have another interpretation of all that. :-)
I’ll be critiquing more of his stuff, time-permitting. It’s very time-consuming because there is a significant amount of error and illogical thinking, so one has to definitely have a large block of time available to do the hard work of demonstrating why this is the case! :-) It’s always much harder to refute an error than to assert it. Takes much more laborious time and effort.
* * *
We had a further exchange in DagoodS’ combox (1-7-11):
And then one day we learn it [Christianity] is wrong . . . And then one day, someone comes along and removes the ring.
How can you change such a massive belief-structure in “one day”? And (not to beat a dead horse, but . . . ) how do you switch in one day without deciding to all of a sudden reverse your premises upon which your prior belief-system was built? In one fell swoop you have to reject many scores of individual Christian tenets. That occurs at the presuppositional level.
You’re again making my argument about the primacy of premises over against particular evidences. The latter play a very important role, but when the rubber meets the road, and one converts to Christianity or deconverts away from it, premises are always primary.
That’s how the atheist can all of a sudden adopt a whole new set of atheist assumptions and beliefs following from them. It’s a switch from one to the other because you put on a set of new glasses; a new filter, and you see “everything” differently with them on.
You keep making flimsy arguments of this sort and I’ll be more than happy to show how the reasoning fails. Perhaps one day you’ll try another tack in opposing Christianity and the Bible. This one ain’t workin’ very well. :-)
This blog entry was not about you, not for you, not to you.
Never said it was. If I am not supposed to comment on your blog unless the post under which I comment is “about” or “for” or “to” me, just let me know! I don’t see anyone else here held to such an absurd standard.
Therefore (unsurprisingly) you completely misunderstand it, and once again fail to support your claim regarding predisposition changing before evidence convinces.
And just as unsurprisingly you miss my entire point. Who said I was trying to support my claim? I was asking you to explain your view, but you took a pass, obfuscated, and engaged in obscurantism.
I’ll give you a hint: It is our predisposition towards Christianity—emotional, intellectual, familial, societal, or environmental or a combination of these—that causes us to wrestle with it. If we weren’t predisposed toward it, we wouldn’t have to wrestle!