May 28, 2021

May 28, 2021 By

Atheist anti-theist polemicist Jonathan MS Pearce wrote in his screed, “Debunking the Exodus II: A Ridiculous Story with Ridiculous Claims” (5-19-21):

They came out of the Sinai Peninsula to take over cities and take their homeland away from the Canaanites. Which was nice. [Little to absolutely no evidence of this.]

The red font is his own. He explains that “writing in red” signifies why he thinks “the claim is entirely improbable”.

As usual, Jonathan leaves himself wide open to refutation, provides no scholarly back-up (I guess we are supposed to stand in awe of his bald claims regarding Israeli archaeology, as if they couldn’t possibly be disputed by anyone), and almost makes the elementary debate mistake of claiming a “universal negative.”

Joshua’s Altar on Mt. Ebal (?) / Shechem

I wrote about one strong piece of archaeological evidence in 2014, right before I visited Israel: Joshua’s Altar on Mt. Ebal: Findings of Recent Archaeology (7-22-14). The article is very extensive, but to briefly summarize: Moses wrote about a future altar on Mt. Ebal, which is near the present city of Nablus in the West Bank (biblical Shechem). Joshua 8:30-35 describes it. Sure enough, there is a stone structure up there that seems to look very much like an ancient Israelite altar (the design of which is described in the Bible). Pottery sherds on the site were dated to the early part of Iron Age 1 (1220-1000 B.C.): precisely the period in biblical chronology during which the Israelites conquered Canaan. The primary excavator, Dr. Adam Zertal, wrote:

[T]the bones, which were found in such large quantities in the filling, were sent for analysis to the zoology department of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The bones proved to be from young male bulls, sheep, goats and fallow deer. . . . The first chapter of Leviticus describes the animals that may be offered as sacrifices. A burnt offering must be a male without blemish (Leviticus 1:3). It may be a bull (Leviticus 1:5) or a sheep or a goat (Leviticus 1:10). The close match of the bones we found in the fill with this description in Leviticus 1 was a strong hint as to the nature of the structure we were excavating.
*
. . . 942 bones were examined, representing 50-100 specimens. These were attributed to four kinds of animals: goats, sheep, cattle, and fallow deer. The latter is a light-spotted animal which inhabited the woodlands of our country in antiquity. Examination of the sex and age of the animals revealed that all those that could be diagnosed were young males, approximately one year old. This correlates remarkably with the laws of sacrifice in the book of Leviticus [1:1-3] . . . 
*
With respect to the Mt. Ebal altar, . . . all the scientific evidence fits very well with the Biblical description. The three main factors that correlate precisely are the period, the nature of the site, and the location. (“Has Joshua’s Altar been Found on Mount Ebal?”, Biblical Archaeology Review XI [1985], pp. 26-44)
Notice that not a single pig or wild boar bone has been found on the site (and they did inhabit this area). The Jews were forbidden in Mosaic law from eating the meat of pigs. They were permitted to sacrifice and eat all these other animals, including deer (Dt 14:4-5). Dr. Zertal added in a comment from November 2004:
Reputable scholars have suggested that the entire story of the conquest is nothing more than a later, etiological tradition which sets out to account for various manifestations in the light of mythological traditions and folklore. Recent extensive archaeological surveys of the central hill country, however, reveal clearly the process of Israelite settlement as a major settlement movement of the era (1250-1100 b.c.e.). Hundreds of newly-founded, small settlements were established within a short period throughout the hilly allotments of the tribes of Manasseh, Ephraim and Benjamin. The settlers used a characteristic type of pottery and their houses were generally built on a three- or four-room plan.
Smithsonian Magazine took note of Dr. Zertal’s claims in May 2006. As one would expect, the article shows a marked bias against the site as Joshua’s altar, described in the Bible, and cites skeptical archaeologists at the end. But it’s notable that Israel Finkelstein, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University (probably the most well-known archaeologist of this school), admitted (in the article) that “There’s definitely an Iron I site there, and there may even be evidence for cultic activity.”
*
So even he agrees about the date and the possible sacrificial nature of the rocks. If the structure fits the description in the Bible of a Hebrew altar, and hundreds of bones are found near it (minus pigs), is that not significant hard evidence? It would sure seem so.
*
Hazor
Joshua 11:10-13 (RSV) And Joshua turned back at that time, and took Hazor, and smote its king with the sword; for Hazor formerly was the head of all those kingdoms. [11] And they put to the sword all who were in it, utterly destroying them; there was none left that breathed, and he burned Hazor with fire. [12] And all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua took, and smote them with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded. [13] But none of the cities that stood on mounds did Israel burn, except Hazor only; that Joshua burned.
The material following (except for the blurbs about archaeologists) is from: Eero Junkkaala, Three Conquests of Canaan: A Comparative Study of Two Egyptian Military Campaigns and Joshua 10-12 in the Light of Recent Archaeological Evidence (Finland: Abo Akademie University Press, 2006).
In the Late Bronze Age Hazor was the largest city and the most dominant city-state in Canaan. This has been confirmed both by the
archaeology and by several ancient historical sources. . . . 
*
In Yadin’s excavations the areas where Late Bronze II – Iron Age I excavations took place are Areas A, B, BA, all of them in the Upper
City. A Late Bronze II level was also found in Areas H and 210/A1 in the Lower City. The large Late Bronze Age city (Strata XV-XIII) was totally destroyed at the end of the period, probably in the second third of the 13th century. . . . 
*
The question of who destroyed Canaanite Hazor and who were the inhabitants of the first Iron Age town is controversial. Following Yadin’s project it seemed clear that both were Israelites. Aharoni claimed, the same as Yadin, that, “the total destruction of Hazor and the attempted Israelite settlement conforms well to the biblical tradition that the city was demolished by the Israelites”. . . . 
*
According to Ben -Tor, the most probable possibility is the Israelites.
*
Rafael Frankel, who recently carried out surveys in Upper Galilee [see the book], came to the same conclusion. He maintains that “in the case of the conquest of Hazor too, the archaeological finds ostensibly correlate with the biblical description: a Canaanite city was totally destroyed and a small Iron I village was built upon its ruins.” (pp. 230-231, 233-234)
Notable Israeli Archaeologists
*
Biographical blurbs for archaeologists mentioned above and below:
Amnon Ben-Tor (born 1935, Hebrew: אמנון בן-תור) is an Israeli archaeologist and professor emeritus of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is known for his excavations of Tel Hazor, and for his middle of the road approach to biblical validity considering the unified kingdom of David and the conquest of the land of Israel as probably true, though shaped by theology. In 2019 he was awarded the Israel Prize for archaeology. (Wikipedia)

Yigael Yadin, original name Yigael Sukenik, (born March 21, 1917, Jerusalem—died June 28, 1984, H̱adera, Israel), Israeli archaeologist and military leader noted for his work on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Yadin, the son of an archaeologist, was educated at Hebrew University (M.A., 1945; Ph.D., 1955). He was a member of the Haganah military organization from 1932 to 1948 and served as chief of the general staff of the Israel Defense Forces from 1949 to 1952. He was also deputy prime minister, 1977–81. Yadin, who was a leader of major archaeological expeditions in Israel, including those at Haẓor (1955–58; 1968), the Dead Sea Caves (1960–61), and Masada (1963–65), became professor of archaeology at Hebrew University in 1959. He received the laureate of Israel prize (1956) and the Rothschild humanities prize (1964). (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Yohanan Aharoni (Hebrew:יוחנן אהרוני)(7 June 1919 – 9 February 1976) was an Israeli archaeologist and historical geographer, chairman of the Department of Near East Studies and chairman of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel-Aviv University. . . . Aharoni studied archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and began to teach there in 1954. By 1966, he became a professor at the university. However, in 1968, he moved to Tel-Aviv University and became chairman of the Department of Near East Studies and chairman of the Institute of Archaeology. Aharoni participated in many excavations, including Ramat Rachel, Tel Arad, Tel Be’er Sheva, Tel Hazor and Lachish. He also studied ancient roadways in the Negev, and participated in the discovery of the Bar Kokhba caves while surveying and excavating the Dead Sea region in 1953. (Wikipedia)

David Ussishkin (Hebrew: דוד אוסישקין; born 1935) is an Israeli archaeologist and professor emeritus of archaeology. . . . He studied archaeology and Jewish History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem between 1955 and 1966. Received his B.A. in 1958, his Master of Arts degree in Archaeology and Jewish History in 1962 (with distinction) and his Ph. D. in 1966. His Doctoral Thesis on “The Neo-Hittite Monuments, their Dating and Style” was written under the guidance of professor Yigael Yadin.[2][3] Beginning in 1966 and until his retirement in 2004 he taught archaeology of Israel and Hittite art at the University of Tel Aviv, receiving full professorship in 1985. (Wikipedia)

***

Lachish

Joshua 10:31-32 And Joshua passed on from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish, and laid siege to it, and assaulted it: [32] and the LORD gave Lachish into the hand of Israel, and he took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah.

Lachish was one of the most important city-states in southern Canaan at that time. . . . Level VII, dated to the 13th century BCE, was destroyed by fire. . . . 
*
According to Ussishkin, “the biblical description (in Josh. 10:31-32) fits the archaeological data: a large Canaanite city destroyed by fire; absence of fortifications, enabling the conquest of the city in a swift attack; and complete desertion of the razed city explained by the annihilation of the populace. . . . 
*
Comparing the results of Hazor and Lachish a similar story can be found, although there is a little difference in the date. In both sites a strong Late Bronze Age city collapsed and the poor Iron Age I settlement appears after the destruction, that is, soon or after the occupational gap. Later the Israelite Iron Age II city is built on the site. The destruction of Hazor is dated to the 13th century and Lachish in the middle or last part of the 12th century. The next habitation starts at Hazor probably in 11th century and at Lachish in 10th century. (Junkkaala, ibid., pp. 235-236, 238)
Bethel
Judges 1:22-25 The house of Joseph also went up against Bethel; and the LORD was with them. [23] And the house of Joseph sent to spy out Bethel. (Now the name of the city was formerly Luz.) [24] And the spies saw a man coming out of the city, and they said to him, “Pray, show us the way into the city, and we will deal kindly with you.” [25] And he showed them the way into the city; and they smote the city with the edge of the sword, but they let the man and all his family go.
*
The last Late Bronze Age town was destroyed by fire. According to Albright and Kelso, this took place sometime about 1240-1235 BCE. They do not tell how they arrived at this date, possibly it comes from Yadin’s dating about destruction of Hazor.  . . . 
*
Some later scholars have agreed with this conclusion. After the destruction of a Late Bronze Age city the first Iron Age I occupation was poor and quite different in material culture. According to Amihai Mazar, “this is one of the few cases where archaeology might confirm a conquest tradition”. Finkelstein in 1988 also agreed that at Bethel there was a prosperous Canaanite city replaced by the Israelites at the beginning of Iron Age I. He added, however, that the date of the destruction had mainly been based on historical, nonarchaeological considerations. According to Finkelstein’s study in 1988, Bethel is one of the earliest Israelite settlement sites, together with Mount Ebal, Giloh, Izbeth Sartah, Beth-zur, Tell el-Ful, and Tell en-Nasbeh.
*
Comparison with Hazor gives similar results. The dating of Late Bronze Age Bethel’s collapse is not exact, but it may be around the same as the one at Hazor, late in the 13th century BCE. The material culture of the Iron Age I inhabitants seems to be quite different from the previous one. (Junkkaala, ibid., pp. 238-239)
Conquered vs. Unconquered Canaanite Cities
*
Junkkaala draws his conclusion about these cities that are mentioned in the Bible in conjunction with Joshua and the Israeli conquest and subsequent settlement:
This study has included 29 sites, which have been divided into two main categories: the “conquered cities” and the “unconquered cities”. The first category has been subdivided into three groups: excavated cities, surveyed cities and others. In all of the “unconquered cities” excavations have been carried out.
*
Two questions were asked concerning each of the sites: were they inhabited in the periods in question (Late Bronze Age II, Iron Age I and II), and can we know something about the cultural backgrounds of the inhabitants. In most cases it could be determined that the culture was influenced either by the Coastal Plain culture (C) or the Hill Country culture (H). The third possibility was the Sea People culture (mostly Philistines, P). . . . 
*
The list of the “conquered cities” contains 19 sites. 12 of them have been excavated, 5 have been surveyed and 2 neither have been carried out. In 10 of the 12 excavated cities C-culture dominated in the Late Bronze Age II and in 3 of them (Ai, Arad and Makkedah) there was no identifiable settlement in that period. The cultural change between the Late Bronze Age II and Iron Age I can be seen in all of the sites, although in some it is not very obvious. This change does not happen simultaneously, in Ai the H-culture begins in Iron Age I as in almost all the other cities in this group, but Arad and Makkedah have no settlement until Iron Age II.
*
In 8 of the 12 excavated sites the new settlers seem to represent H culture. . . . 
*
The list of the “unconquered cities” contains 10 sites, all of which have been excavated. C-culture dominated in all the sites in Late Bronze Age II. In the Iron Age I the same culture (C) has been found in at least 4 of them and P-culture or its variations in 5 of them (Gezer, Jarmuth, Dor, Aphek, and Achsaph). . . . 
*
The conspicuous difference between the archaeology of the “conquered” and the “unconquered” cities is that in the former ones the H-culture begins during Iron Age I (although not commencing simultaneously), and in the latter it only starts in Iron Age II. (pp. 299-300)
This is strong archaeological confirmation of the biblical descriptions of the conquest. Remember that Pearce stated that there was “Little to absolutely no evidence” of the conquest of Joshua and settlement of new Israeli residents.
*
In “The Date of the Conquest” (Westminster Theological Journal 52.2 [Fall 1990]: 181-200), Bruce K. Waltke summarizes archaeological data about Israeli settlement in Iron Age I:
The sudden emergence of hundreds of new sites by pastoral nomads in Iron I contrasts sharply with the reduced number of sites in LB in comparison with MB. Kochavi [72] wrote: “During the Late Bronze Age, and especially towards its end, new small unfortified settlements are known. However, with the beginning of the Iron Age, they suddenly appear by the hundreds.” I. Finkelstein [73] elaborates:

Altogether only 25-30 sites were occupied in the Late Bronze II (c. 1400-1200 BC) between the Jezreel and Beer-Sheva valleys. Human activity was confined mainly to the large central tells…. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that many additional Late Bronze sites will be discovered in the future, because it is difficult to overlook such major settlements. Other regions were also practically deserted during the Late Bronze period…. In Iron I there was a dramatic swing back in the population of the hill country. About 240 sites of the period are known in the area between the Jezreel and Beer-Sheva valleys; 96 in Manasseh, 122 in Ephraim… and 22 in Benjamin and Judah. In addition, 68 sites have been identified in Galilee, 18 in the Jordan Valley and dozens of others on the Transjordanian plateau.

In addition, numerous, widespread, and catastrophic destructions separate the markedly different and more sophisticated “Canaanite” Late Bronze Age, and the cruder “Israelite” Iron Age. Moving from north to south these cities are, Hazor (Tell el-Qedah), Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesellim), Succoth (Tell Deir Alla), Bethel (Beitin), Beth Shemesh (Tell er-Remeileh), Ashdod (Esdud), Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir), Eglon (Tell el-esi), and Debir or Kiriath-Sepher (Tell Beit Mirsim or Khirbet Rabud). Of these cities, four are specifically said to have been destroyed by Joshua: Hazor (Josh 11:10-11), Lachish (Josh 10:31-33), Eglon (Josh 10:34-35), and Debir (Josh 10:38-39); Bethel is said to have been taken by the house of Joseph (Judg 1 :22-26).

The force of this argument is further enhanced by certain negative evidence. Some cities which the biblical sources exclude from the conquests have on excavation shown no signs of destruction in the thirteenth century.

These include Gibeon (el-Jib) (Joshua 9), Taanach (Tell Taaannak) (Judg 1:27), Shechem (Tell Balatah) (Josh 24), Jerusalem (el-Quds) (Josh 15:63; 2 Sam 5:6-9), Beth-shean (Tell el-husn) (Judg 1:27-28), and Gezer (Tell Jezer) (Josh 10:33). Following the destructions at Hazor, Succoth, Bethel, and Debir (possibly also Gezer and Ashdod), unfortified and architecturally simple, even crude, settlements appear. (pp. 197-198)

[72] M. Kochavi, “The Israelite Settlement in Canaan in the light of Archaeological Surveys,” Biblical Archaeology Today (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985), 55.

[73] I. Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society 1988), 39.

See also:
*
*
There are a host of problems and difficulties in this larger archaeological question yet to solve, and archaeologists differ in many ways, with several schools of thought about this “Israeli Conquest” alone (which is why I didn’t include in this survey, for example, Jericho: it’s too inconclusive).
*
Archaeology is often a speculative and inexact science. But I submit that there is enough verification in the above information to establish that the Bible was (yet again) substantially accurate in its claims, and certainly enough to counter Pearce’s claim that there is “Little to absolutely no evidence” of Joshua’s conquests.
*
***
*
Photo credit: Stone structure on Mt. Ebal (Joshua’s altar?). Photograph by Daniel Ventura, 18 June 2007 [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]
*
***
*
Summary: Various summaries of archaeological findings are presented in order to scientifically verify the biblical claims regarding Joshua’s conquest of Canaan, found in the book of Joshua.
*
***
May 27, 2021

May 27, 2021 By

The material formerly here has been re-worked, modified, and edited and is now included only in my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (Catholic Answers Press: March 15, 2023)

 

***

Photo credit: The Israelites Leaving Egypt (c. 1828-1830), by David Roberts (1796-1864) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

 

May 27, 2021

May 27, 2021 By

Atheist anti-theist polemicist Jonathan MS Pearce wrote in his screed, “Debunking the Exodus II: A Ridiculous Story with Ridiculous Claims” (5-19-21):

The Israelites mark their own doors as a symbol to the angels of death to Passover [sic] their houses so that only Egyptian firstborns die. [God is obviously not omniscient since he does not know where certain people live, and needs symbols so as not to accidentally kill the wrong people.]

The red font is his own. He explains that “writing in red” signifies why he thinks “the claim is entirely improbable”.

Exodus 12:13 (RSV) The blood shall be a sign for you, upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. 

Exodus 12:21-27  Then Moses called all the elders of Israel, and said to them, “Select lambs for yourselves according to your families, and kill the passover lamb. [22] Take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood which is in the basin, and touch the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood which is in the basin; and none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning. [23] For the LORD will pass through to slay the Egyptians; and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to slay you. [24] You shall observe this rite as an ordinance for you and for your sons for ever. [25] And when you come to the land which the LORD will give you, as he has promised, you shall keep this service. [26] And when your children say to you, `What do you mean by this service?’ [27] you shall say, `It is the sacrifice of the LORD’s passover, for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Egypt, when he slew the Egyptians but spared our houses.'” And the people bowed their heads and worshiped. [cf. many passages about the Passover ritual]

First of all, this is obviously a religious ritual. People have lots of religious rituals, and most of them claim to hearken back to the instructions of a God or gods (as here). Passover is in fact, the central annual ritual and holy day for Jews, and has been since the time of Moses and the Exodus. It’s such an entrenched ritual that I had a Jewish atheist woman tell me (in person) that she and her larger family observe all of the Jewish holidays.

I saw how another atheist man, with whom I have had several debates (and met as well; just said “hi” to him again online a few days ago), wrote about how he loves to go to Christmas Eve services. He believes nothing that is talked about in those. But — atheist or no — he loves the ritual, as virtually all human beings do. We like routine and continuity, and annual observances. They give us warm fuzzies and a sense of much-needed community. It’s an important part of life.

We have Thanksgiving in America, and Halloween, and searching for Easter eggs at Easter. We celebrate the fall harvest in various ways (as the ancient Hebrews also did in a religious way).  We celebrate patriotic holidays like the 4th of July in America. We honor and celebrate the war dead and veterans (Memorial Day / Veteran’s Day), and parents, and (in effect) people on their birthdays. Christians annually rejoice about when Jesus was born, and when He rose from the dead. Atheists join in on most of these, or join with some qualifications. But they do join.

So that’s one thing. God communicated this to His chosen people, so that it would be a unifying ritual for them, for all time, and so they would (most importantly) remember what God did for them. That’s a good thing. Gratefulness is a big part of human life, and it extends in the highest sense to God, for those of us who believe in Him as the Creator of the universe and the central purpose for our existence. It’s good to be thankful and to remember good things done for us. Atheists (lacking God) may “thank” lady luck or sheer happenstance or chance, when wonderful things happen to them, but they do thank, too, being human.

Secondly, from the exegetical perspective, the text nowhere says what Jonathan cynically assumed. Biblical exegesis is about what the “ridiculous” Bible passages actually assert. We can’t just read anything into them that we like (which is called eisegesis). But Jonathan — in his infinite “biblical wisdom” — did just that, because he doesn’t give a damn about proper exegesis, or respecting the Bible at all. He approaches it like a butcher approaches a hog.

As a general bit of advice: I would urge Jonathan (next time) to actually locate something in a biblical text, before lashing out at it, in his misguided zeal to make Christians (and Jews) look like clueless idiots and fools.

The passages in question never say a word about God not knowing how to find the houses of the Hebrews, let alone His supposed lack of omniscience (i.e., knowing everything). Putting blood on the lentil and doorposts was an act of religious faith and piety. God is God and we are human beings. He doesn’t need to be informed of anything. We do things for our sake.

It would be, for example, like a mother or father telling three little children of theirs to pin a star to their shirts if indeed they cleaned their rooms. Then at dinnertime the parents can reward them if they see the stars (knowing that they can verify the clean rooms simply by looking). The stars are not for the parents, but for ritualistic and reward purposes, for the kids. That’s how God is.

My third point (already just illustrated by analogy) is that it’s well-known (for those who actually seriously study the Bible), that there are things pertaining to how God condescends to us, called anthropomorphism and anthropopathism. The Bible itself clearly teaches it, as I show at length (follow the link). I wrote about it:

Anthropopathism is a fancy word for the attribution of non-physical human emotions and passions to God. The related term, anthropomorphism, is the attribution of physical human properties (or animal properties such as wings) to God. Most Christians — of any stripe — recognize the metaphorical nature of the many anthropomorphisms in Scripture since they agree that God the Father is a spirit. But there is some debate about anthropopathism.

The traditional Christian view (Catholic, Orthodox, classical Protestant) holds that God is immutable, impassible (without human passion or emotion), so that it would be impossible for Him to “repent” or “change His mind.” This is also inconsistent with omniscience. . . . 

God “condescends” to the limited understanding of human beings, by expressing many truths about himself analogically (as compared to human actions and emotions) so that we can understand Him at all. Otherwise, we would not be able to comprehend a Being so startlingly different and distinct from us and greater than we are. Thus, the passages (in this framework) that say He doesn’t and cannot change are to be interpreted literally, while the ones stating the opposite are to be interpreted figuratively or metaphorically or anthropopathically.

That’s exactly what is going on in the Passover practices. God communicated to an ancient largely nomadic / agricultural and not formally educated people in simple terms that they could understand. Moses told them: “when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door” (Ex 12:23); and speaking for God: “when I see the blood, I will pass over you” (Ex 12:13). It’s simply the usual “concrete” Hebrew manner of communicating a deeper truth through analogical example: “if we observe this ritual in obedience, God will spare us.”

Fourthly, God’s omniscience would soon be taught plainly enough in the Hebrew Scriptures:

1 Chronicles 28:9 …the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every plan and thought.… (cf. 1 Ki 8:39; 2 Chr 6:30; Ps 44:21; Is 66:18; Ezek 11:5)

Psalm 147:5 Great is our LORD, and abundant in power;  his understanding is beyond measure. (cf. Job 36:4; 37:16; Is 40:28; 46:10; 48:3)

The people didn’t necessarily have to understand that at first. It was an abstract, complex concept that would take a bit of doing to be able to grasp. The ancient Hebrews were not oriented by philosophy as the ancient Greeks were. But just because they didn’t yet understand it, it doesn’t follow that it was untrue.

Pearce again shows that he doesn’t have a clue about these matters (very well-understood in Christian and Jewish circles), in what he says about God “hardening” Pharaoh’s heart. He writes in the same terribly argued article:

God hardens Pharaoh’s heart. [The only way to understand this claim is 1) The Pharaoh would not have said no, would have said yes, and so God changes his mind so that he can then punish all of Egypt for the Pharaoh’s wicked denial; or 2) God was not sure whether Pharaoh would say yes or no, so God makes sure of him saying no. Therefore, God is not omniscient. God is either evil or not omniscient and evil. He sets up the whole situation SO THAT he could punish Egypt.] . . . 

Pharaoh allows Moses to get out of Egypt quickly. [Evidence of the Pharaoh exercising his own will, freely.] . . . 

Whilst the Israelites are in the desert, God hardens the Pharaoh’s heart AGAIN, so that he chases them with his army. [Free will again foiled with huge consequences. God has again set up a scenario where thousands upon thousands would end up dying, not because Pharaoh was bad, but because God MADE him bad, or choose in such a way.]

I’m glad Pearce uses so much red ink in this paper. The red basically means that he is spewing falsehood much more than he usually does, and as such, can serve as a helpful warning for those readers who actually care about proper research and truth; they’re like a traffic sign warning about a bump or multiples curves coming: “lots ‘o’ lies comin‘!”

I dealt with this years ago. Thankfully, this issue of God “hardening” Pharaoh’s heart is probably the best possible one to illustrate exactly what I am saying, because the Bible offers explicit explanations (most of them right in this same book of Exodus), which make it clear that it uses both literal and metaphorical language for the same thing. I have written at length about the issue twice:

Reply to a Calvinist: Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart (10-14-06)

God “Hardening Hearts”: How Do We Interpret That? (12-18-08; expanded on 1-4-17)

I wrote in the second article:

God allows such people their freedom to rebel, which in turn entails the devil getting in there and making things worse (just as God allowed the devil to tempt Job: Job 1:12). So in a sense to say that “God did so-and-so” when He simply allowed it to take place, is an assertion of God’s overall Providence. God is asserting that He is in control. There is also a strong sarcastic element in this sort of biblical concept (that we see in Job and often in the prophets), as if God were saying, “okay; you don’t want to follow Me and do what is best for you? You know better than I do about that? Very well, then, I’ll let you become blind and deluded. See how well off you’ll be then.”

Strictly speaking, that isn’t how God thinks or acts, but it was an anthropomorphism to help practical, concrete, non-philosophical Hebrew man be able to relate to the mysterious, transcendent God.

The bottom line is that men harden themselves in rebellion and God allows it. 

Then I proved that this is the case (in the Bible) by giving examples of both metaphorical / anthropopathic (God causing this “hardening”) and literal statements (man bringing about his own hardening, in free will):

God “Causing” it [Metaphor / Anthropopathism]

Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.

Exodus 7:3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, . . . (cf. 7:13-14, 22)

Exodus 9:12 But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them; as the LORD had spoken to Moses.

Exodus 10:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them,

Exodus 10:20 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go.

Exodus 10:27 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let them go.

Exodus 11:10 Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh; and the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land.

Exodus 14:4 And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, . . .

Exodus 14:8 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh . . .

Exodus 14:17 And I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians . . .

Deuteronomy 2:30 But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him; for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, . . .

Joshua 11:20 For it was the LORD’s doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be utterly destroyed, and should receive no mercy but be exterminated, as the LORD commanded Moses.

Isaiah 63:17 O LORD, why dost thou make us err from thy ways and harden our heart, so that we fear thee not? . . . 

Man Causing it [Literal]

Exodus 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart, . . . (cf. 8:19)

Exodus 8:32 But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and did not let the people go.

Exodus 9:34 But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet again, and hardened his heart, he and his servants. (cf. 9:7, 35)

Deuteronomy 15:7 you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother,

1 Samuel 6:6 Why should you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? . . .

2 Chronicles 36:13 He also rebelled against King Nebuchadnez’zar, who had made him swear by God; he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the LORD, the God of Israel.

Job 9:4 who has hardened himself against him, and succeeded?

Psalm 95:8 Harden not your hearts, as at Mer’ibah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness,

Proverbs 28:14 . . . he who hardens his heart will fall into calamity. . . . 

Thus, once again, in the act of trying to make the Bible and God Himself look ridiculous, irrational, and arbitrary, Jonathan MS Pearce winds up (“poetic justice”!) proving precisely these same things about himself: along with also removing any possible doubt (I already had none, after 29 times debating him in writing) that he is profoundly ignorant when it comes to anything biblical. The above is just a little bit above elementary information for Bible students (like a second course on a subject in college). But for Pearce, it may as well be hieroglyphics or rocket science.

All I can do is try to educate him. Pray for the man: that God would open his eyes and give him the grace to forsake his atheism, or, failing that, for him to at least stop misrepresenting the Bible and Christianity.

***

Photo credit: [Wycliffe Bible Translation: “A Conversation About Passover”]

***

Summary: Atheist anti-theist polemicist Jonathan MS Pearce again shows his rank ignorance of biblical exegesis, in vainly attempting to take a hatchet to both God’s omniscience & Passover.

***

May 26, 2021

May 26, 2021 By

The material formerly here has been re-worked, modified, and edited and is now included only in my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (Catholic Answers Press: March 15, 2023)

 

***

Photo credit: Lldenke (5-1-00). Natural tar seeps at the McKittrick Oil Field, in California: western San Joaquin Valley. [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license]

***

 

May 26, 2021

May 26, 2021 By

Atheist anti-theist polemicist Jonathan MS Pearce wrote in his screed, “Debunking the Exodus II: A Ridiculous Story with Ridiculous Claims” (5-19-21):

A new Pharaoh took up office and did not know Joseph (his brothers and all). [Is it likely that he would have NO knowledge of the second in command of his own country who single-handedly saved them from famine and who famously translated dreams as prophecies?]

The red font is his own. He explains that “writing in red” signifies why he thinks “the claim is entirely improbable”.

Exodus 1:8 (RSV) Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.

Jonathan casually assumes that this is right after Joseph died, and to be fair, the text just two verses earlier referenced that event. But we still must read in context. The Bible (like a lot of literature: both fiction and non-fiction) often makes great leaps in time without necessarily noting it.

But in any event, the text shows what general time-period Exodus 1:8 refers to, if one will simply keep reading 17 more verses (the original Hebrew Bible had neither chapters nor verse numbers): though there is also an indeterminate period of time within the narrative:

Exodus 1:11-12 Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them [“people of Israel”: 1:9] with heavy burdens; and they built for Pharaoh store-cities, Pithom and Ra-am’ses. [12] But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad. . . . 

Exodus 1:15 commences the story that leads in an unbroken narrative to the birth of Moses. He is put into a basket in the Nile (2:3), and named  (2:10). 

The other internal clue we have that there is considerable time between Joseph’s death and Moses’ birth, is the genealogy laid out in Exodus 6:14-27. Charts of Moses’ ancestry (there are many) are very helpful to visualize the time involved. From it we learn that Levi (Gen 29:34), Joseph’s brother (Gen 30:23-24), bore Kohath (Gen 46:11), Kohath bore Amram (Ex 6:18), and Amram, Moses (Ex 6:20).

Therefore, Joseph is Moses’ great uncle, but three generations removed (brother of his great grandfather, Levi). A wonderful article by Charles F. Aling at Christian Answers.Net (“Is the Biblical story of Joseph in Egypt verified?”), describes the relationship in time of Joseph and Moses:

[T]wo major positions exist regarding the date of Joseph among serious students of the Joseph Story who accept its historicity. The majority of such modern scholars date Joseph to the Second Intermediate Period of Egyptian history [Hyksos period], ca. 1786-1570 BC (Vergote 1959; Kitchen 1962; Stigers 1976), . . . 

This view is based primarily on two assumptions: first, that the so-called Late Date of the Exodus (during the reign of Ramses II) is correct, and second, that the rise to power of an Asiatic can best be placed during a period of Egyptian history when his fellow Asiatics, the Hyksos, controlled the government. . . . 

If the Exodus occurred in the 13th century BC, and the Sojourn lasted approximately 400 years (430, according to Exodus 12:40), Joseph would belong in the 17th century BC. But if the Exodus took place in the 15th century BC, Joseph’s career would be shifted back to the 19th century BC, during the days of the 12th Dynasty of the Middle Kingdom. . . . 

I personally hold to an early Exodus. My only point is that one’s view on the date of the Exodus is a determiner of one’s date for Joseph.

REFERENCES

Kitchen, K. 1962 Joseph. P. 290 in New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1966 Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Stigers, H. 1976 A Commentary on Genesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Vergot, J. 1959 Joseph en Egypte. Louvain: Orientalia et Biblica Lovaniensia.

Encyclopedia Britannica (“Moses”) informs us that he “flourished 14th–13th century BCE”. It takes the late date view of the Exodus: “the most probable date for the Exodus is about 1290 BCE.” Therefore, Moses’ birth was “probably . . . in the late 14th century BCE.” The latter is deduced from the Bible’s statement (Ex 7:7) that Moses was eighty in the year of the Exodus, which would makes his birthdate around 1370 BC, his death in 1250 BC, and Joseph’s lifetime in the 17th c. BC.

Robert I. Bradshaw, in his article, “Archaeology and the Patriarchs” notes about the time of Joseph:

There is no direct evidence of Joseph’s administration available from archaeology. However, a number of incidental features of the Joseph narrative (Gen. 37-50) have been shown to be consistent with the Hyksos period. The price of 20 shekels was the average slave price in the 18th century BC (cf. Gen. 37:28), later the price rose until it was 40-50 shekels in the 15th-14th centuries. The technical terms used in Pharaoh’s court (‘Butler’, ‘Baker’), as well as court (Gen. 41:14) and prison procedure and etiquette have been shown to be accurate. The Vizier of Egypt was known as the “Sealbearer of the King of Lower Egypt” (cf. Gen. 41:42) and the gold chain sanctioned “a Vizier’s control over regulation of food supply.” (Gen. 41:42).

In the previous paragraph he estimated the time of the Hyksos rule of Egypt to be “c. 1700-1550 BCE.” It’s difficult to find any material where anyone makes an educated guess as to the date of Joseph’s death. In any event, we know from the Bible that three generations separate him from Moses. And we know that some time elapsed between his death and the new “hostile” king:

Exodus 1:6-7  Then Joseph died, and all his brothers, and all that generation. [7] But the descendants of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong; so that the land was filled with them.

Verse 7 sounds to me like a generation or two, just as 1:12 sounds like a good chunk of time: “the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad.” Then after whatever this period of time amounts to, we get the birth narrative of Moses, whom we know is three generations younger than Joseph.

The “chronological question” — to sum up — then becomes: “how much time passed (implied) in the narrative between Joseph’s death and this new king, and between the period of Israelites multiplying, to the time of Moses?” In any event, when all these things are considered and factored in, there is clearly a significant interim time period (though it’s hard to nail down exactly how much) between Joseph’s death and this new anti-Israeli king-Pharaoh, which would and could easily account for him not “know[ing]” him.

It’s not like the text says that Joseph died, and the next day the new king took power, and had already forgotten all about Joseph (that would be the typical frivolous atheist caricature of Scripture). There are long time periods mixed in, as shown. Jonathan assumes there are none, but I see no good reason to agree with him. This is yet another non-issue; much ado about nothing.

***

Photo credit: Joseph in prison interpreting dreams, by Ferdinand Bol (1616-1680) [Flickr / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license]

***

Summary: Atheist Jonathan Pearce mocks the biblical presentation of “Pharaoh Didn’t Know Joseph” based on the data of Exodus 1:8. But if one reads the context, the “problem” vanishes.

May 25, 2021

May 25, 2021 By

Atheist anti-theist polemicist Jonathan MS Pearce wrote in his screed, “Debunking the Exodus II: A Ridiculous Story with Ridiculous Claims” (5-19-21):

The “sons of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly, and multiplied, and became exceedingly numerous, so that the land was filled with them” – they started to populate Egypt with “Israelites”. [Even though that term is an anachronism since the nation did not exist yet] [red coloring in original]

Nice try. I literally refuted this in two minutes. I went right to Encyclopedia Britannica (“Israelite”), where we are informed:

Israelite, descendant of the Hebrew patriarch Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel after an all-night fight at Penuel near the stream of Jabbok (Genesis 32:28). In early history, Israelites were simply members of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. After 930 BCE and the establishment of two independent Hebrew kingdoms in Palestine, the 10 northern tribes constituting the kingdom of Israel were known as Israelites to distinguish them from the southern kingdom of Judah.

There is not a word there about “the [Israelite] nation” until 930 BC (right after Solomon’s death) and the establishment of the northern kingdom of Israel (which disappears c. 721 BC when the entire northern kingdom was conquered and assimilated by Assyria). The gap in time is about a thousand years (Jacob having lived in about the 20th century BC). Before these times, Israelite meant “member of the tribe descended from Jacob”. It would be like when I refer to the “Armstrong clan” that comes, of course, from Scotland. The name “Jew” comes from the southern kingdom of Judah, which survived the Assyrian invasion.

Other dictionaries concur:

: a descendant of the Hebrew patriarch Jacob

specifically : a native or inhabitant of the ancient northern kingdom of Israel (Merriam-Webster)

a descendant of Jacob, especially a member of the Hebrew people who inhabited the ancient kingdom of Israel. (Dictionary.com)

“Israelite[s]” appears in the RSV in Genesis 32:32; 36:31; Exodus 9:7; Leviticus 24:10-11 in the Torah, three times more before there ever was a king (Judges 6:3; 20:21; 1 Samuel 2:14), and ten more times in the 39 agreed-upon Old Testament books. Thus, out of eighteen appearances, eight (44%) are from the period before the “children of Israel” had a king.

“People of Israel” / “children of Israel”, etc. appear many more times, but the meaning is the same. The following passage shows this “tribal” / “clan” / “descendants” meaning very clearly:

Exodus 1:1-7 (RSV) These are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt with Jacob, each with his household: [2] Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, [3] Is’sachar, Zeb’ulun, and Benjamin, [4] Dan and Naph’tali, Gad and Asher. [5] All the offspring of Jacob were seventy persons; Joseph was already in Egypt. [6] Then Joseph died, and all his brothers, and all that generation. [7] But the descendants of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong; so that the land was filled with them.

This is the basis for the twelve tribes of Israel (Levi was split up into Manasseh and Ephraim). These tribes are all “Israelites” because they descended from Israel (the new name God gave Jacob). We see, in turn, these tribes leading to groups named after one of the twelve: Levites, Benjaminites, Danites, Asherites, Gadites, etc.

So where does Jonathan come up with this silly claptrap that anachronism is involved in eight Bible passages with “Israelite[s]” before The ancient Jews ever became a kingdom or nation? Well, I suspect one or more of three things:

1) sheer biblical and theological illiteracy;

2) unwillingness to look up the definition in a dictionary, as I did;

3) likely having seen / inherited this charge as one of the collected “chestnuts” of atheist anti-biblical polemics, treasured and cherished through the centuries as purveyors of “gotcha” moments, to be thrown at Christians whenever occasion arises.

***

Photo credit: [Pinterest.com]

***

Summary: Where does this claptrap of anachronistic “Israelites” come from?: 1) biblical illiteracy, and/or 2) inheritance of this charge as one of many collected “gotcha!” tidbits of atheist polemics.

***

May 20, 2021

May 20, 2021 By

Jonathan MS Pearce is a prominent online atheist. He runs the blog called A Tippling Philosopher. I have had several dialogues with him, where he is perfectly civil. But his comboxes are a completely different story. Yesterday he put up a post where once again he called for civility in his comboxes. He wrote:

So it’s that time of the month where I am having to talk about commenting again. We have got to a situation where Bert [co-blogger on the site] is getting a little bit frustrated (and that is probably understating it a good deal), and I am even receiving a couple of unsolicited messages about it from randoms. . . . The comment threads here are active. And that is great. But they could be more productive and civil.

I would like polite and civil discourse. But I would also like high-level discourse. And this is where the tension arises. We have two problems:

1) That which is said in the first place.

2) That which is said in reply. . . .

So, what am I asking? Please please simply deal with the ideas and do no[t] attack the person. I am as guilty as the next person in this regard. Fellow skeptics – we should be convincing people to our frame of mind. If they are not ready, attacking their personality forcefully and without civility will not work in our favour.

There should be two courses of action:

  1. Robust and well-formed and evidenced argument.
  2. Ignore them.

If people are exhibiting trollish behaviour, think about what they are seeking – attention. Don’t give it to them. . . .

Anyway, over the next few months, I will be developing a new comments policy. I am going to think long and hard about how best to approach this. As with every moral scenario, it is all about the goal. What do I want? What do I want my gaff to be? What do I expect of my commenters and why?

In the meantime, let’s ALL think about the way we interact, who we are appealing to, who we think our audience is, and why we say what we say in the way we say it.

As the old Chinese proverb goes, if there is a solution, there’s no point getting angry; if there is no solution, there is no point getting angry.

Easier said than done, right? But still…

I hate to be a “wet blanket” over against a worthy cause, but I replied there:

Too little too late for someone like me, who has already become completely fed up with not just the double standards in moderation of this forum, but those of all atheist forums I have ever seen (and, to be fair, almost all Christian forums, too; this is a problem of nonexistent or inherently flawed moderation across the board).

Jonathan had said that he was happy I and other Christians were here, so it wouldn’t be an echo chamber. A few other people (amidst the general clamor, stench, and din) said that I offered a few things of substance now and then, too.

I do commend him for at least seeking a higher (albeit ethically rudimentary or elementary ) ideal, but I don’t believe it’ll ever happen in fact. Atheists simply have too much hostility towards Christians. If they aren’t allowed to express that, soon this won’t be an “echo chamber”, but rather, a ghost town.

Many Christians have had it with ubiquitous atheist verbal diarrhea. I ain’t alone, believe me. Any atheist who actually wants discussion with theists and Christians will soon have to seek it almost exclusively on our sites (I predict).

Now people can blast me as a hypocrite since I already said I had left. Go ahead. Ignore Jonathan’s advice. This is simply an exception (so don’t try to interact with me). I have been trying to have a discussion with atheists for far too long (though there were a few here who could actually sustain an amiable and rational discussion, as I have happily acknowledged), so — patience exhausted — I have now moved on to other areas of my apologetics (and there are many).

Best wishes in trying to find educated Christians (able to engage in real and substantive dialogue), who are willing to endure the ridiculous nonsense that always ensues within minutes. But I suppose you can always find masochists and contentious folks who actually enjoy ludicrous exchanges.

There are atheists who have become fed up with all the incessant mudslinging and lack of substance, too. I mentioned two of them in articles below. One who goes by the nickname “DagoodS”: a worthy opponent with whom I have had several dialogues and met in person as well, gave up on these discussions, just as I have, for the same reason. He wrote:

I still review some theistic discussions and websites, although I very, very rarely post, and even then, it quickly fades to nothing. . . .
I stopped arguing because I became bored. It was interesting for a while, and I had a huge passion for it. . . .
*
[T]he internet became a cesspool of vicious war where it was no longer sufficient to have the best argument; you MUST call the enemy (and every person who disagrees in the slightest is an enemy), every name conceivable, the worst vermin who ever lived, and the most idiotic person walking the face of the earth. It is not enough to disagree-you must destroy. . . .
*
So I have moved on from the internet. Still enjoy lurking and keeping up to date. Still read the memes and the pithy snopes-debunked quotes on Facebook or twitter. But I stay out. . . .
*
Why I have disappeared from internet Christian debates? Because I am busy pursuing other interests with my wife, my family, my friends and my life. (2-27-18)

Of course, he is talking mainly about how Christians treated him. I never denied that many Christians online act like morons and jerks (especially to atheists and leftists). That’s why I already stated above that Christian comboxes are almost as bad as atheist ones, and I rarely visit them, either. Both sides have to realize that the unethical behavior is a disgrace, and to cease doing it. Where DagoodS and I fully agree, as an atheist and a Christian apologist, is that one ought to simply be able to have normal discussions, without the rancor and (as he put it) “cesspool of vicious war.”

It didn’t happen on Jonathan’s blog. I had hoped beyond hope that it could and would. Now Jonathan’s blog partner Bert has had enough of it. I think atheists would do well to learn from my experience and now my decision to leave and cease attempting dialogue with atheists (at least for some time if not indefinitely), and also the report of a thoughtful, articulate atheist like DagoodS. I think Jonathan truly does desire good discussion to occur. But it never will without a “no tolerance for B $” moderation policy. Take it for what it’s worth . . .

“DagoodS” made the move from anti-theist atheist (always trying to prove us wrong and show how silly we supposedly are) to what might be called a “pro-active atheist.” I highly commend him for that, as far as it goes. Rather than concentrating on the negative, he is simply living (and enjoying) his life as an atheist and letting Christians live theirs.
 
I respect that. Me: I have sought to find common ground with atheists: to be ecumenical: to show that we are not anti-science and anti-reason or anti-evidence and that we have many of the same basic human goals as atheists do. It hasn’t worked (the hostility and massive misunderstandings are too great), and I am left hyper-frustrated and disgusted yet again. When idealism dies it’s an ugly and very sad thing.
*

Related Reading

*
*
*
*
*

***

Photo credit: [Pexels.com / Pixabay / CC0 license]

***

Summary: JMS Pearce is one of many atheists who have claimed that their comboxes will be civil and free of [innumerable] insults. My reply: this virtually never happens, and it won’t this time, either.

***

 

May 10, 2021

May 10, 2021 By

Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog, A Tippling Philosopher. His “About” page states: “Pearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.” His words will be in blue.

This is my seventh piece on Doubting Thomas and the issue of a supposedly “unfair” God, in response to Jonathan. I’ll be replying in the near future to additional papers of his on the same general topic. See the previous installments:

Pearce’s Potshots #17: Doubting Thomas & an “Unfair” God [3-17-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #18: Doubting Thomas & Evidence [3-18-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #19: Doubting Thomas & a “Mean God” [3-19-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #20: Unfair Meanie God & Unfree Will [5-7-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #21: Sufficient Evidence for Theism [5-8-21]

Sociology: Undeniably, Religion Makes Us Better Human Beings (Pearce’s Potshots #22) [5-10-21]

*****

This is a reply to Jonathan’s article, On Ridiculous Christian Apologetics, and Whether Mercy Is Undeserved (5-6-21).

Once again, I’m not making other people’s arguments; nor do I necessarily (or, likely) agree with all of them (even when they come from friends). I’m not here to defend other arguments made. I am making my own responses (as a professional and full-time Catholic apologist these past 19+ years).

Here’s the thing. I cannot make any sense at all of a god who would randomly assign mercy (or grace or whatever).

Me, neither. He doesn’t do either. He gives enough of each that is needed for a life situation (on earth, in time) or for the purpose of salvation (our life after this earthly existence). Both depend on our free will responses to them. We can spurn both, and we can reject Him, because He gives us that choice, as free creatures and not mere robots, who necessarily always do what He wants us to do. See, for example:

John 14:27 (RSV) Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

2 Corinthians 9:8 And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work.

Ephesians 2:4-10 But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, [5] even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), [6] and raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, [7] that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. [8] For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God — [9] not because of works, lest any man should boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Philippians 4:13 I can do all things in him who strengthens me.

Philippians 4:19 And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

Hebrews 4:16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

1 Peter 5:10 And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, establish, and strengthen you.

Let’s exemplify this. Imagine someone – Jessica – is an absolute angel all their life. A real paragon of Christian moral virtue. They make a misstep at the end of their life and God punishes them for their misstep. You could argue that they deserve mercy. But God does not give them mercy. Now take someone else: Hitler. Imagine this man is evil all their life and does nothing to repent and certainly nothing to deserve mercy. However, since, as people like Luke claim, God doles out mercy to those undeserving of it, we have a scenario whereby God gives this Hitler chap mercy and forgives him (perhaps grants him a space in heaven), but Jessica gets nothing and ends up going to hell.

Of course this is the silly, caricatured view of God’s grace and mercy, and of salvation. It’s thrown out to make Christianity look ridiculous. But I’ve rarely seen any intelligent, educated Christian, who knows his or her faith, talk like this in my 44 years as a serious Christian. God of course would give Jessica all the mercy she needs to be saved. All indications in the Bible are along those lines.

Take, for example, the parable of the prodigal son. He goes and splurges this father’s money and lives like a degenerate, then he repents and comes back and the father welcomes him with open arms (while the obedient son is jealous). The father represents God, of course.

But Jessica does need to repent. In Catholic moral theology, if her sin near the end of her life is a grave, mortal sin, it could result in damnation if unrepented of. But certain conditions also have to be met for that. It has to be classifiable as a grave (“mortal”) sin (one that, in its very nature, separates one from communion with God), and she has to have full knowledge that it is a serious sin, and a full consent of her will.

In many situations, one or more of these don’t apply, and so the sin would not in and of itself send her to hell, so to speak. This is how Catholicism (the largest portion of Christianity by far, and the only “version” before the 11th century) sees it.

It’s theoretically possible that Hitler could have repented and could have therefore obtained salvation, but this is exceedingly unlikely, since observation shows us that people who get to that extreme level of evil and wickedness almost always do not repent. That’s why it’s a silly example, because its likelihood is vanishingly small. But sometimes evil people do repent. The apostle Paul persecuted and killed Christians before he repented. King David committed adultery with a man’s wife and even arranged to have the husband killed. He repented.

John Newton (1725-1807) was a slave trader; he later repented and wrote Amazing Grace. On the other hand, the Bible gives the examples of Kings Solomon and Saul, who fell into serious sin at the ends of their lives and seem not to have repented. Peter repented for denying Jesus. Judas did not repent for betraying Him.

The above scenario is far more of a problem for atheists; along the lines of what I have called the “problem of good.” People like Hitler and Stalin and Mao (tyrants / mass murderers) do their thing their whole lives, causing misery for countless millions: never being held accountable in human courts; never paying a price for their evil. In atheism they go to their graves and cease to exist forever, like everyone else. There is no “cosmic justice” at all. Millions live miserable, deprived lives and that’s all they have: with no glorious afterlife. This is the problem of good: little ultimate justice or meaningfulness to our lives: especially in proportion to how much we suffer and have few positive experiences.

But in Christianity the scales are evened out in the end. The ones who suffered or were poor, or who lived entire lives in slavery or serfdom, if they follow God, get rewarded with a blissful eternity in heaven (and even peace and joy in this life, despite all). The evil tyrants get the punishment they richly deserve: in hell. No one has to end up there. They chose to sin and reject God and to not repent. So God gives them what they (in the final analysis “want”: an eternal life apart from Him, in abject misery.

Jonathan thinks that is a problem? I don’t. I think a world that includes Hitler but no cosmic justice is the nightmare world; the inexplicable state of affairs that should lead anyone who truly thinks that is how it is, to despair. If we want to know what God is like; how much He loves us, we look at Jesus, Who showed us what a righteous life looks like, how a good person acts, and Who died so that we might have eternal life.

The genuine reality for such apologists is that mercy is undeserved.

Yes it is. None of us deserve it. But because God loves us so much (just as a mother or father love their wayward child), He gives enough mercy and grace that is needed in each life, for salvation. The only catch is that we have to repent, devote our lives to serving Him and loving others,  and stop committing serious, mortal sin. This is God’s love:

Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Does the Bible teach that non-Jewish Gentiles (an equivalent of sorts to today’s atheists) automatically went to hell? Not at all. Here is how John the Baptist and Jesus treated Roman soldiers or centurions who came to them:

Luke 3:14 Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”

Luke 7:2-9 Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death. [3] When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave. [4] And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, [5] for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue.” [6] And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; [7] therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. [8] For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, `Go,’ and he goes; and to another, `Come,’ and he comes; and to my slave, `Do this,’ and he does it.” [9] When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”

As such, Jessica deserves mercy but doesn’t get it and Hitler doesn’t deserve it but gets it.

Yes, in Jonathan’s hypothetical, absurd scenario that doesn’t represent biblical or Christian teaching on the topic at all. It’s merely a silly, self-serving “example.” I’ve provided verses that establish what the Bible actually teaches about God’s love and mercy and forgiveness. And there are many more.

Firstly, what is the point? If we don’t know -vas humans – who actually gets and who doesn’t get mercy, then what is a point of mercy anyway?

We do know. God gives it to anyone who asks for it, in enough measure to accomplish His desire: that they live fulfilled joyful lives on this earth, and unfathomably joyful, happy, sin-free, suffering-free lives for eternity in heaven. God makes everything right in the end. It’s just and fair and loving: all in equal measure.

It looks like something that just serves a weird random purpose for God. And I mean random in the truest of senses since he is apportioning mercy randomly. There is nothing we can learn from this, there is nothing to better ourselves. There is just a blind assertion that God doles out mercy to those who do not deserve it, and sometimes to those who do; it is random.

Sheer nonsense. He loves us all and provides sufficient grace for salvation, for all: apportioned individually, as the need arises, with the particular needs and circumstances of each person taken into account. At the same time, He forces no one to come to Him. They have to do so of their own free will (enabled beforehand by His grace).

Is this how God wants us to be? Are we to learn that people should not get what they deserve? That hard work “deserves” nothing? That being lazy can “deserve” everything? That there is no such thing as just deserts in the context of an existent god?

This is nonsense and gobbledygook, as related to Christianity, But it fits perfectly within atheism and its insuperable “problem of good.”

This is classic skeptical theism. We cannot know the mind of God but there might be a reason why God is random. 

God is not random at all. I deny the premise. In fact, He is the furthest in the opposite direction from “random” as can be imagined. The results in eternity are based on how we react to His free offer of grace and salvation. There is no randomness in that.

What would have been far better is for Bill Gates to have analysed humanity and doled that $1 billion out to those who deserve it more. And from this, other people could learn valuable lessons – both about what to do to deserve that billion dollars (or some of it) and change our behaviour accordingly, and what to do if we were in the same position as Bill Gates in working out how to make the world a better place and apportion our money accordingly.

Exactly. That’s much more analogous to what God does.

I have absolutely no compunction in saying that this sort of Christian apologetic thinking [i.e., what he has been critiquing: this “randomness” business] is utterly ridiculous.

I totally agree, and would make an even stronger statement: it’s blasphemous as well.

***

Photo credit: geralt (10-7-18) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: Atheist Jonathan M. S. Pearce struggles to understand God’s true mercy & grace, but he unfortunately seems to have been further confused & set back by some lousy Christian apologetics.

May 8, 2021

May 8, 2021 By

Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog, A Tippling Philosopher. His “About” page states: “Pearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.” His words will be in blue.

This is my fifth piece on Doubting Thomas and the issue of a supposedly “unfair” God, in response to Jonathan. I’ll be replying in the near future to additional papers of his on the same general topic. See the previous installments:

Pearce’s Potshots #17: Doubting Thomas & an “Unfair” God [3-17-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #18: Doubting Thomas & Evidence [3-18-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #19: Doubting Thomas & a “Mean God” [3-19-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #20: Unfair Meanie God & Unfree Will [5-7-21]

*****

This is a reply to Jonathan’s article, Do We All Have “Sufficient” Evidence to Believe? (4-28-21).

I have been having an ongoing argument over whether or  not God is unfair in unequally distributing evidence over time and place in the world, thus giving people unequal opportunity of access to belief in God, of access to God and God’s love. . . . 

Let me analogise.

Proposition: I have a litre of petrol. It is sufficient fuel to get me from Portsmouth to Southampton.

Scenario 1: I put the litre of petrol in my Ford Focus, the only car I own, and drive from Portsmouth to Southampton. The proposition is true.

Scenario 2: I put the litre of petrol in my Ford Focus, the only car I own, but the car has a fuel pump leak. I get halfway from Portsmouth to Southampton. The proposition is false.

Scenario 3: I put the litre of petrol in my Volkswagen Passat diesel, the only car I own, and attempt the drive. The car breaks down. The proposition is false.

Scenario 4: I put the litre of petrol in my Humvee, the only car I own. The vehicle gets halfway there. The proposition is false.

Scenario 5: I have no car. I am going to walk and use the petrol as fuel. I drink the petrol and die. The proposition is false. Or I don’t drink it and try to walk. But I can’t do it because I have multiple sclerosis. The proposition is still false.

The proposition that I have sufficient fuel to get me from Portsmouth to Southampton is true if and only if (considering these scenarios) I can drive, have a working Ford Focus, put the fuel in that car, and drive that vehicle. In all other scenarios, I do not have sufficient fuel to get from Portsmouth to Southampton. Therefore, the blanket use of “sufficient” is erroneous.

The analogy (and Jonathan’s overall argument) assumes, of course, that the evidence of God is of a one-dimensional, “one-size-fits-all”, single quality and quantity. It’s not. I do not assume that there is one kind of evidence that God offers, and/or that He offers the exact same amount to every human being.

This is a ridiculous notion that I reject every bit as much as Jonathan does (but with even more passion, because I think it is a blasphemous conception of the true God). I made this clear in one of my summary statements from my past papers on this topic that Jonathan cited in his article presently being critiqued:

I think God does provide sufficient evidence (of all sorts) for every human being, but human beings have various mechanisms by which they rationalize such things away or reject them. [bolding added now]

In my reply dated 3-19-21 I reiterated this in stronger terms:

He considers each person in their uniqueness and communicates to them enough for them to know (taking into account their particular background and outlook) that He exists and that He gives grace for salvation, and indeed is the key to human joy and fulfillment, and happiness. . . .

People have many many different outlooks and presuppositions; therefore, lesser or greater needs for particular forms of evidence and proofs and indications of any given thing (not all of which are empirical). God meets each of them where they are at (this is what we Christians believe). You’re critiquing our view as inconsistent and incoherent, and I keep saying you are mistaken as to what it is in the first place. You have to get it right before you set out to criticize it. [bolding added presently]

Jonathan, by contrast, caricatures my view, by characterizing it as God giving one “litre of petrol” [we Americans would say — less charmingly — “one gallon of gas”] to everyone, period. No distinctions are made for anyone’s situation being different. That was never my argument (it may be someone else’s, but not mine; nor, I submit, that of almost all informed Christians and different schools of Christianity throughout history).

Jonathan can keep caricaturing it, if he thinks that is an argumentation method that is impressive or effective or “sufficient” [pun intended], but it won’t do. In debate or dialogue, one has to deal with the actual opposition argument. Jonathan ludicrously caricatures my argument above as follows:

What Dave is erroneously saying is that 10 units of evidence that the moon landings never happened is sufficient for Harry to believe in the conspiracy theory; therefore, 10 units of evidence is sufficient for Julie.

But Julie is a scientist and a skeptic whose uncle worked on the NASA team. 10 units simply isn’t sufficient for her.

This is skeptical thinking 101.

There are all kinds of theistic evidences or arguments, and many that are not empirical. Here is a partial list of articles (from my first response on this topic) where I have dealt with this:

Is Christianity Unfalsifiable? Is Empiricism the Only True Knowledge? [5-6-17]

Must Christianity be Empirically Falsifiable?: in Order to be Rationally Held? Positivist Myths and Fallacies Debunked by Philosophers and Mathematicians [7-14-10]

Science, Logic, & Math Start with Unfalsifiable Axioms [1-6-18]

Theistic Argument from Longing or Beauty, & Einstein [3-27-08; rev. 3-14-19]

Dialogue with an Agnostic: God as a “Properly Basic Belief” [10-5-15]

Non-Empirical “Basic” Warrant for Theism & Christianity [10-15-15]

Atheist Demands for “Empirical” Proofs of God [10-27-15]

One of my favorite arguments for God and theism is what is called implicit knowledge, or tacit knowing or innate knowledge (or what recently canonized Cardinal Newman called the “illative sense” in his brilliant 1870 tome on the philosophy of religion, An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent (hugely influential on my own views). I attempted to describe these aspects in popular or nutshell fashion, in my own words in a 2015 dialogue with an atheist:

Virtually no one comes to initial faith in Jesus or conversion to Christianity through apologetics (and I know this firsthand, due to my own 34-year apologetics efforts, as both a Protestant and Catholic). I didn’t, myself. It is an interior spiritual experience or awareness which is key.

Lots of things are determined on a non-rational basis, such as choice of food, favorite colors for a room or clothes, picking a marriage partner, what determines the friends we pick out, the music we like, appreciation of nature or artistic beauty . . .

We don’t say that all of that is UNreasonable, simply because rationality is not the sole or primary determinant of those choices. It’s simply “other” than rationality. Matters of the heart or artistic taste are that. But I don’t see people running around chiding others for having a “blind faith” in Beethoven or the color blue or lovely sunsets or a preference for petite brunettes with big beautiful eyes (characteristics my wife has). We don’t call poets irrational simply for being poets. Yet poetry is a very subjective, often non-logical endeavor.

Likewise, religion is one of those things that function mostly on a basis of things other than reason and logic per se, while not necessarily being illogical or unreasonable.

Atheists say that Christians are anti-science merely because we also believe in God and think there are other epistemological considerations and ways of determining truth, like philosophy, and other philosophies besides the narrow atheist bubble-world of empiricism and logical positivism.

I would submit that most atheists don’t become so by virtue of cold, calculated logic. The reasons are usually highly subjective and emotional: they’re sick and tired of Christian rules, or they see Christians as hypocrites or sexually repressed or authoritarian or puritanical in a nauseating way, or they view them as opposed to science or reason.

These are all primarily subjective and emotional reasonings; ones of passion and defensiveness and being fed up. And they are the reasons we observe times without number in atheist rhetoric. The “reasons” for your atheism are manifest in what you guys talk (and complain) about. Atheists talk far more like disgruntled former employees or husbands / wives than dispassionate, objective philosophers.

And atheist reasonings and logical arguments are mostly accepted after the fact as well, just as Christian apologetics resonates far more with existing Christians than to non-Christians. This is how most people (theists and atheists alike) operate.

In a sermon in 1840 (while still an Anglican), “Implicit and Explicit Reason”, Newman laid out his basic thesis:

Nothing would be more theoretical and unreal than to suppose that true Faith cannot exist except when moulded upon a Creed, and based upon Evidence; yet nothing would indicate a more shallow philosophy than to say that it ought carefully to be disjoined from dogmatic and argumentative statements. To assert the latter is to discard the science of theology from the service of Religion; to assert the former, is to maintain that every child, every peasant, must be a theologian. Faith cannot exist without grounds or without an object; but it does not follow that all who have faith should recognize, and be able to state what they believe, and why. Nor, on the other hand, because it is not identical with its grounds, and its object, does it therefore cease to be true Faith, on its recognizing them. . . . True Faith, then, admits, but does not require, the exercise of what is commonly understood by Reason.

Reason, according to the simplest view of it, is the faculty of gaining knowledge without direct perception, or of ascertaining one thing by means of another. In this way it is able, from small beginnings, to create to itself a world of ideas, which do or do not correspond to the things themselves for which they stand, or are true or not, according as it is exercised soundly or otherwise. One fact may suffice for a whole theory; one principle may create and sustain a system; one minute token is a clue to a large discovery. The mind ranges to and fro, and spreads out, and advances forward with a quickness which has become a proverb, and a subtlety and versatility which baffle investigation. It passes on from point to point, gaining one by some indication; another on a probability; then availing itself of an association; then falling back on some received law; next seizing on testimony; then committing itself to some popular impression, or some inward instinct, or some obscure memory; . . . And such mainly is the way in which all men, gifted or not gifted, commonly reason,—not by rule, but by an inward faculty.

Here, then, are two processes, distinct from each other,—the original process of reasoning, and next, the process of investigating our reasonings. All men reason, for to reason is nothing more than to gain truth from former truth, without the intervention of sense; to which brutes are limited; but all men do not reflect upon their own reasonings, much less reflect truly and accurately, so as to do justice to their own meaning; but only in proportion to their abilities and attainments. In other words, all men have a reason, but not all men can give a reason. We may denote, then, these two exercises of mind as reasoning and arguing, or as conscious and unconscious reasoning, or as Implicit Reason and Explicit Reason. And to the latter belong the words, science, method, development, analysis, criticism, proof, system, principles, rules, laws, and others of a like nature.

Faith, then, though in all cases a reasonable process, is not necessarily founded on investigation, argument, or proof; these processes being but the explicit form which the reasoning takes in the case of particular minds.

For more along these lines, see: Implicit (Extra-Empirical) Faith, According to John Henry Newman [12-18-15]

There are (agree or disagree) many different arguments for God and Christianity. Even atheists and other skeptics acknowledge at least that the arguments exist, though they disbelieve in them. Here is one such book that lists 50 arguments.

In my earlier installments I argued at length about the factor of various reasons why people don’t believe: in theistic arguments or in any other sort of argument. Jonathan seems to completely ignore this relevant factor in the equation. There can be as many invalid or unsound reasons to not believe a theistic argument or tenet of Christianity as there are invalid or unsound reasons (so atheists contend) to believe in theism or Christianity. Human beings are not infallible rational machines, incapable of error in many sorts of ways.

Christians have developed all sorts of arguments regarding “salvation outside of Christianity / the catholic Church” through the centuries. This aspect of our views has been grotesquely caricatured as well. I have explained how, in the Christian, biblical view, an atheist absolutely can be saved if certain conditions are present:

Are Atheists “Evil”? Multiple Causes of Atheist Disbelief and the Possibility of Salvation [2-17-03]

New Testament on God-Rejecters vs. Open-Minded Agnostics [10-9-15]

This is not some new thing in Christianity or Catholicism in particular (some would say it was “new” after Vatican II: 1962-1965). It goes back at least as far as St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Fr. Alfredo M. Morselli clarifies this:

I call up here a distinction by St. Thomas:

    a) “Unbelief by way of pure negation” (infidelitas secundum negationem puram) in case a man may “be called an unbeliever merely because he has not the faith” “in those who have heard nothing about the faith”; this Unbelief is not a sin -and b) “Unbelief by way of opposition to the faith” (infidelitas secundum contrarietatem ad fidem) when “a man refuses to hear the faith” (S.Th II II, 10,1 c); this Unbelief is a sin.

The fact that “unbelief by way of pure negation” is not a sin, is not only a Thomist concept, but it’s also a verity of faith: St. Pius V condemned the proposition “Infidelitas pure negativa in his quibus Christus non est predicatus peccatum est” (D +1068) (= Purely negative unbelief, in those whom Christ was not preached to, is a sin).

I am reasonable and I do demand more evidence. Furthermore, I would be so bold as to add that I demand more evidence precisely because I am sufficiently and arguably proficiently reasonable.

Yes, according to your experience, your abilities to reason, premises you have accepted, bias of predispositions and presuppositions, what you have read (and correctly or incorrectly understood) in atheist and Christian defenses and explanations, emotional factors, history of personal suffering and pain; these and many other factors put you in the place you are in.

Now the question is: how does God approach Jonathan M. S. Pearce or any other human being? The biblical revelation informs us that he desires for all men to be saved (universal atonement). This is not universalism: where all human beings are saved, but rather, a scenario where God gives all an equal chance to be saved, given what they know, and their unique life experience.

Thus, God would do all He can to save you (Jonathan), because He loves you and wants you to have joy and peace in this life and eternal bliss in union with Him in the next. He will use any and all means to make this happen (possibly including my feeble efforts in this very paper). He will incorporate into this effort His omniscient knowledge of what you require, etc.

But what you habitually ignore are the non-intellectual factors of human hardheartedness, rebellion, rejection of truths and facts, bias, prejudice, stubbornness, contentiousness, the effects of sins like pride and bitterness and lust, believing we have no inherent need of God (and many others). You simply say, “I have sincerely asked for evidence and God has provided insufficient evidence; therefore, I don’t believe.”

Fair enough, but of course we would have to examine and unpack all that. Why did you reject evidence #1 and #2 and #3 and #30, etc. Were your reasons sufficient. Were they based on caricatures even of what Christianity claims or God in the Bible claims?, etc. The abundance of felt reasons for the rejection of theism and Christianity are only as good as they can hold up under scrutiny. They are not strong simply because they are numerous. The same thing applies to the numerous theistic arguments.

So given that there is a range of 0% to, say, 99.9% evidence for the Christian god, from an Amazonian tribesperson living 2500 years ago to Thomas poking the resurrected Jesus’ body, somewhere in that range is a theoretical sweet spot where every “reasonable person” should believe in the Christian god.

Part of this evidence that is accessible to every human being is what St. Paul explains:

Romans 1:19-20 (RSV) For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;

As I have documented in past installments, this evidence of the observable universe in its marvels and wonders was more than sufficient to cause even hard-nosed and brilliant scientists like Einstein and Hume to arrive at belief in pantheism and deism, respectively (both things other than atheism).

So we have evidence of among the most eminent philosophers and scientists being swayed by what may be described as a version of the old teleological argument (from design). It ain’t just ignorant, gullible fundamentalists who think the earth was created in six literal days and is 6,000 years old, who come to belief in such a manner.

In the next chapter, Paul talks about how a person is saved based on what they know. This is the “differential” which enables me to make my argument based on what we know about God from what Christians believe is His revelation:

Romans 2:6-16 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. [11] For God shows no partiality. [12] All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

So someone who was brought up in a staunchly Islamic household (A), or a very atheistic household (B), will require different levels of evidence to believe in the Christian god than someone who was brought up in an evangelical household in Bible Belt America (C). This much should be pretty obvious. The evidence sufficient for C is vastly different than for A and B.

Yes, exactly! Thanks for belaboring the obvious.

We both have different desires about whether a god exists,  . . . 

Desire being one of those non-intellectual, non-empirical reasons . . . And these desires might include outright hostility to God or anything that requires allegiance to a set of moral rules, as a result of which one has to change their behavior. Aldous Huxley was actually honest enough (with himself and with others) to admit this, observing that atheists like himself had sexual desires that Christianity interfered with, so they chucked Christianity (I did largely the same as a red-blooded, nonconformist adolescent).

God is functional and when we replace a god with other things that do the same functional job, we have no need for a god in a psychological sense. 

Precisely! This is almost an exact definition of what we Christians call idolatry: replacing God in one’s life with something else that they in effect “worship” or (to put it another way) place high in the scheme of things: very high in priorities as to what guides one’s life.

And out of our desires and functional requirements emerges confirmation bias. A, B and C will evaluate exactly the same evidence with very different metrics and outcomes.

And the questions then become: “why?” and (immediately after), “for what solid reasons does x accept or reject belief y?” It’s not a foregone conclusion that various reasons atheists provide for atheism are cogent or plausible, anymore than every reason Christians give is so. Each thing stands or falls on its own.

Again, I cannot stress this enough, that same amount of evidence is not sufficient for those three different people above. In this case, it is sufficient for C but not for A and B.

I’ve already agreed with this over and over, to no avail. But I’ll do it again now, hoping it’ll be grasped and that perhaps this time it will achieve a different result.

Theoretical sufficiency is simply not a robust enough benchmark to apply across humanity. When both of my interlocutors here talk about “sufficient”, what they really mean is “theoretically sufficient for someone who is just like me”.

The world doesn’t work like that.

I can’t speak for the other person, but this is almost the greatest conceivable opposite of what my view is. So we must wonder: how is it that Jonathan can characterize my view with such wild inaccuracy? How does that work? He’s neither dense nor stupid. To the contrary, he has a very able and lively intellect.

Every junior high debating class in its first session learns that the first rule of debate is to understand your opponents’ view even better than they do themselves. Jonathan can’t even get to first base in understanding what I am saying. This causes him to spin his wheels and endlessly repeat himself, which may masquerade as an effective argument, but is not in the slightest. We can’t even begin this discussion until he correctly, accurately understands my premises.

One can only keep trying . . .

***

Photo credit: Nick Youngson [The Blue Diamond Gallery / CC BY-SA 3.0 license]

Summary: Jonathan M. S. Pearce chips away at the concept of sufficient evidence for theism, but unfortunately he grotesquely caricatures what my argument actually is & dismisses the straw man.

***

 

May 7, 2021

May 7, 2021 By

Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog, A Tippling Philosopher. His “About” page states: “Pearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.” His words will be in blue.

This is my fourth piece on Doubting Thomas and the issue of a supposedly “unfair” God, in response to Jonathan. I’ll be replying in the near future to several additional papers of his on the same general topic. See the previous installments:

Pearce’s Potshots #17: Doubting Thomas & an “Unfair” God [3-17-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #18: Doubting Thomas & Evidence [3-18-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #19: Doubting Thomas & a “Mean God” [3-19-21]

*****

I am responding to Jonathan’s article, What Is Fairness? Tackling Verbose Stoic’s Mission. (3-23-21). In this paper (and in the coming related ones), I will not reply to everything: as I usually try to do, as my standard methodology. Rather, I will respond if I think I have something to offer, and if Jonathan’s argument doesn’t venture into abstract philosophical territory that I find 1) boring, or 2) technically over my head.

I will not, for example, argue (at any length) the matter of human free will: which I take as entirely self-evident to everyone. Jonathan denies it, and is (far as I can tell) a hard determinist. So that false and absurd assumption underlies all of his thoughts about God. I won’t argue it. I think it’s stupid and a waste of time.

Moreover, I am defending the God as revealed in the Bible because this is the God that Christians believe in, follow, and have faith in. I can hardly defend (and have not the slightest interest in defending) that to which I am not committed. I believe in God and Christianity for a host of reasons: a matter of cumulative impact and force. I obviously can’t go through all of them here. But it’s not blind faith. It’s not without “evidence.”

Jonathan is critiquing Christianity; not mere theism (let non-Christian theists defend that if they wish; it ain’t my burden). We have to have some specifics about what God is like, and the best place for that is His purported revelation: the Holy Scripture. I will not defend its inspiration, which I accept based on many different reasons. I will assume it throughout. I am defending the biblical God. Believe in Him or not, at least that gives us objective and concrete propositions to agree or disagree with.

If Jonathan is critiquing something that he construes as “God”: with various characteristics, he must get those notions from somewhere. Many notions about God in the atheist mind are arbitrary and subjective mush; pulled out of a hat. But they also smuggle in distorted caricatures of what was once the biblical God. Occasionally they correctly understand the actual characteristics of God, obtained from the Bible.

In the absence of evidence, I wouldn’t mind communication from God as to the reasoning for this.

Precisely! Setting aside what he thinks is “evidence” and what isn’t (a whole ‘nother huge issue), it’s clear that he allows some discussion of purported revelation to enter into the discussion.

The least persuasive mechanism is some apologist on the internet telling me why God “might” do something because it is “perhaps” the case, “probably”.

Exactly! I totally agree: the least persuasive mechanism is some anti-theist atheist with an axe to grind on the Internet telling me why God “might” or might not do something because it is “perhaps” the case, “probably” or because he thinks so, (based on ?????).

So, yes, one of the fundamentals for any belief – unicorns or a fair god – is evidence. Blind faith doesn’t cut it. 

I agree again. Our problem with atheist conceptions of “evidence” is that they are far too (arbitrarily) constricted. They usually presuppose that empiricism is the be-all and end-all of epistemology (untrue) and that non-empirical reasons for belief are immediately invalid (also untrue). And they presuppose a materialism that disallows God and the miraculous / supernatural from the outset.

That argument is a self-defeating one for atheists, anyway, as I have contended many times. Fideism (blind faith) is a tiny minority position in Christianity. As such, it’s not worth any further consideration.

And even if that faith is based on other components outside of the fairness debate, since I call into question all of those ancillary or unconnected claims, then just asserting God is fair based on your (as I see it, erroneous) faith is not persuasive for me.

And even if your lack of faith and hostility to faith and God is based on other components outside of the fairness debate, since I call into question all of those ancillary or unconnected claims, then just asserting God is unfair based on your (as I see it, erroneous) hostility to faith is not in the least bit persuasive for me.

I do not adhere at all to this sort of doxastic voluntarism (doxastic [pertaining to belief] voluntarism is a position whereby one believes that they have voluntary control over what they believe), as I have said elsewhere: On the Argument from Reason: Doxastic Voluntarism.

Then why bother writing such papers, if you have no control over what you believe? It’s not even you writing it. In effect, there is no “you.” It’s meaningless. You “write” something that doesn’t come from a free, uncoerced mind (centered in that brain in your head) and I’m supposed to “respond” in the same supposed way: as if that makes any sense or can explain anything? This is the sort of nonsense that led Nietzsche at length to the insane asylum. I’m sure his thoughts even then made more sense than the ludicrous slop he wrote when “sane.”

We don’t choose to believe, belief is a conclusion from a whole bunch of things going on behind the scenes.

Gotcha. You didn’t choose atheism (also a belief — far blinder than ours — and yes, a worldview too). If you “have” to be that because who knows what? causes you to be, why bother engaging in dialogue with a Christian who only is what he is because who knows what? causes them to be? The whole thing is ridiculous. You are caught in your meaningless bubble.

But since my side makes sense and is rational, I have something meaningful to actually write about (which is why I’m writing). And (ultimately) I have the joy and peace of the Gospel to offer undecided readers: a positive, fantastic, life-transforming message.

I can’t “decide” to – to make myself – believe the moon is made of cheese or merely “choose” to take on any other such position. 

You can’t decide anything if you don’t have a free will and an independent mind to do so. The very idea of philosophy is an utterly useless, futile exercise in such a scenario. All your words are literally meaningless. Why can’t you see this? Get out of your bubble!

We have the following choices:

  1. God doesn’t exist.
  2. God exists but is not omni, including that God is not so interested in this belief scenario, or is a deistic god.
  3. God is omni, but has a greater good to consider in not allowing equality of access to God.
  4. We are missing something and this really is prima facie fair in some way.

I reject all four. I believe that God possesses all the “omnis” and that all human — in the final analysis — have equal access to Him: in terms of ability and opportunity to be saved. The choice is up to each individual whether he or she will follow or reject God.

Why would God, knowing that this is how my brain works, want to make it even harder for me to believe than for Dave Armstrong?

I deny that He does so. You have adopted various false and absurd beliefs and premises through the years that make it harder for you to believe in God (building a castle on sand; a house of cards), and then you irrationally blame Him (a Being whose existence you deny) for that. Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?  It’s just like atheists blaming this nonexistent / purely imagined “God” for evil [that they have a huge problem of even defining in their worldview] . . .

All I can tell you that I presently do not believe in God.

Yeah, we gathered that.

I used to but I don’t any more.

And I would have to learn about the process by which this evolution happened, to critique it and show how you adopted various false premises along the way that led you to your present abyss. I’ve never seen a deconversion story yet that didn’t contain basic errors as to what Christianity and/or God were in the first place. In other words, it is always a rejection of a straw man, not the thing itself.

I would need a lot more evidence to flip me. I am in a position whereby the rational arguments for atheism are that much stronger than for theism that evidence, for me, would need to be much, much greater (obviously and, well, evidently) than for Dave Armstrong. 

I would need a lot more evidence to flip me (back to my old “practical atheism”). I am in a position whereby the rational arguments for Christianity are exponentially stronger than for atheism, so that evidence, for me, would need to be much, much greater (obviously and, well, evidently) than for Jonathan M. S. Pearce.

And yes, there will be psychological heuristics and biases and mechanisms at play here for both of us.

Of course; and many more factors as well: too many to even count.

But God should be taking this into account when apportioning me the evidence.

He takes all into account for everyone. It’s all part of the equation.

Nothing said in this has convinced me that God is fair. The only way you could do this is to:

  1. Argue for consequentialism (fine by me, but I am an atheist. How does that square with God?).
  2. Establish that there is a greater good for the unfairness.
  3. Persuade me of a really reasonable – probable – hypothesis of what this greater good might precisely be, and show me why it is the most probable explanation fo[r] the data. In other words, possibiliter [e]rgo probabiliter is not good enough.

#2 is true if we put “unfairness” in quotation marks: meaning that we wrongly perceive to be unfair what actually isn’t in the long run. Once the notion of an eternal heaven of bliss / perfect happiness is part of the equation, everything changes. That easily makes up for any suffering and evil we experience in this world. It’s only the atheist worldview that has insuperable difficulties, in that there is no cosmic justice and no ultimate meaning or purpose to life. Heaven is the answer here. It’s what changes the entire discussion.

This would also need to square with all the other arguments and evidence I have against the existence of (Omni-)God.

They can be shown to be erroneous . . . and then what do you do? Invent further objections?

***

Photo credit: Nick Youngson [The Blue Diamond Gallery / CC BY-SA 3.0 license]

***

Summary: Preliminary reply to several aspects of this topic of the “unfair meanie God”. I also tackle the crucial question of whether human beings have a free will, or are merely programmed robots.

 

Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
What Religion Does Taylor Swift Practice?
Sticking the Corners
2
Have You Ever Wanted to Hear...
Beloved
3
Does God Make People Suffer?
Reflections in the Knight
4
Church Joyfully Welcomes U.S. Navy Chaplain...
The Pursuit of Holiness
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
Faith, Apologetics, and the Strange Case of Father...
St. Augustine (354-430) vs. "Faith Alone"
Catholics, Culture, And Community
We Should Take Hell Seriously
The Music of Life
John Chrysostom (c. 345-407) vs. "Faith Alone"
view all Catholic blogs