Problem of Good: Childkilling & Genocide (Logical End of Atheism)

Last updated on: April 9, 2021 at 2:34 pm By Dave Armstrong

This (socratic) dialogue came about on my blog. Words of agnostic DC Kurtz will be in blue.

*****

What is your own definition of “good” and how do you (philosophically and logically) arrive at it?

Secondly, I propose a test case, in order to challenge your view of ethics and right and wrong. I will state it, ask your opinion, and then follow up with (equally important and necessary ) socratic questioning, in order to bolster my point of view (or modify it, as the case may be).

Do you think that partial-birth abortion is moral and should be protected by law? If so, why? If not, why?

For those who may not know what this is: it is the extraction of a full-term baby up to its neck, out of the womb, for the purpose of sticking scissors into the back of his or her neck, removing the brain, so as to kill [murder] an otherwise perfectly healthy would-be newborn child.

Some may be unaware of the legality of this. Full-term abortion was legal in America (one of very few — less than ten — countries to allow it) since January 22, 1973, based on the second case handed down the same day: Doe v. Bolton.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 prohibited this diabolical procedure. In 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart: a 5-4 decision (Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia). The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Souter, Stevens, and Breyer.

Somehow, despite this decision (I don’t understand how it is legally possible), blue states (such as New York) are still enacting laws upholding the “right” to kill full-term babies, whether or not through this method (there are others as well). Probably at least 80% of the American people oppose such a ghastly, brutal, heartless procedure. But the Supreme Court upheld it from 1973 to 2007, and now many state laws do.

Moreover, many liberals are in favor of the legality of killing a baby that was intended to be aborted, but survived. Such a baby would be struggling to live on a table in some “clinic” and can be killed at will, if the mother assents. This was, in fact, the on-the-record position of all the Democrat nominees for the Presidency (which includes Biden) in the 2020 election, excepting Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

Do you agree with that? If so, why? If not, why?

My daughter-in-law gave birth to our second granddaughter early on Easter morning. Her picture was posted above in this combox. If I lived in certain states today, my daughter-in-law could have decided she didn’t want this child, and could have opted for the above procedure. Even the child’s father (our son) would have no say in it at all, Of course we wouldn’t, either, even if we (or anyone whatsoever) agreed to accept the child and raise her. The child would be killed under those laws.

Do you agree with that? If so, why? If not, why?

After you answer, I will assuredly have more questions. And (be forewarned) it’ll be a long process to illustrate why I think Christian morality is the only rational, sensible, and moral course, and why atheist / agnostic moral systems are inevitably relativistic and arbitrary, leading to many moral outrages enshrined in law, including this monstrosity of partial-birth infanticide. These are not simple discussions, They are very complex. So they take time.

We have long since surpassed the Nazis in terms of sheer numbers of murders and heartless, merciless brutality of the most savage kind. We have no business looking down our noses and feeling superior to them, seeing what we allow to take place with the sanction of law at the highest levels.

***

I also wrote on another thread:

Modern, supposedly “enlightened” humanity has the toughest time figuring out the self-evident truth that slaughtering a helpless, defenseless child and ripping him or her from limb to limb or burning him or her to death or removing his or her brain right before delivery (that’s partial-birth “abortion”) is self-evidently wrong and savage and inhumane and barbaric.

Every age has its glaring, incomprehensible moral blind spots. It was slavery in the 19th century in America, racism and anti-Semitism in 20th century America and Germany, genocide in Germany, Russia, China, Turkey, Cambodia, and other places, and abortion in our own time.

***

I believe partial-birth abortion is good because the autonomy of the individual to exercise their will in search of satisfaction of desire is paramount. Abortion, in my view, is an act of self-defense against an unwanted intruder. All romantic notions aside, a fetus is a parasitic organism that only takes from the host mother without giving anything back and with no regard to her consent. It’s existence becomes an assault on the body of the host mother the moment she no longer consents to it. Personhood is irrelevant here- a fetus has no more of a right to a woman’s body than a fully-formed and developed adult human. Indeed, the only justifiable reason for banning abortion is because a non-lethal procedure for removing unwanted fetuses exist. The father and his family do not get to take the physical burden of the fetus and its parasitism, as willing as they may be. The burden lays on the host-mother, so the choice lays with her.

1. You act as if there is no responsibility whatever towards a human being that might be created by engaging in sexual acts: as if people are so ignorant and “animalistic” that they either don’t know that a new life could be created, or if they do know, simply don’t care: up to and including killing this new person that has come about. That’s not ethical. It’s as selfish and non-loving as anything I can imagine. It’s the law of the jungle. It’s on the level — indeed on a lower level — than, say, a mother bear eating her own cub or a male bear stealing another bears’ cubs and eating them. But they are just acting on instinct. Human beings know much better than that. We have to learn to commit and rationalize away such evil as you describe.

2. How do you define a person?

3. How do you define a human being?

4. At what point does a person acquire the right to life? And on what non-arbitrary basis does this right exist?

5. At what point does a human being acquire the right to life? And on what non-arbitrary basis does this right exist?

6. Newborn babies are even more “parasitic” (to use your chilling term) than babies in the womb. He or she “only takes from the host mother without giving anything back and with no regard to her consent.” And he or she does so to the father as well. They are more or less completely helpless and dependent on parents or other caretakers to survive at all. By your reasoning, parents ought to be able to murder their newborn child, too, on the same basis: it only takes and takes and demands. All the more so for a sick child.

7. If sexuality entails no regard or responsibility whatsoever for a new person created by engaging in it and their inherent rights as a human being: up to and including murder of such a child, then on the same “ethical” basis, you have justified all sorts of similar exploitation of other human beings, for the sake of your own demand for absolutely unlimited sexuality and pleasure (in your words: the “paramount” nature of “satisfaction of desire”) without consequence.

Therefore, on the same basis, sexual trafficking and sexual slavery is justified, so is pedophilia, rape, continued sexual abuse of a minor or anyone else. The other person is only good for being exploited for our own selfish ends. And why stop at sexual exploitation? Other human beings can be used for any number of evil ends, up to and including killing them. This is the justification of every genocide that has ever occurred.

8. Such reasoning also utterly obliterates the golden rule (“do to others as you would wish them to do unto you”), which is a bedrock principle of ethics that is held in common by virtually every society and belief-system in the world and the history of the world.

9. Not only does a person who can believe such ghastly, evil things believe she “owns” her child (like a slaveholder owns a slave), but such ownership extends right to the process of being born. The child must be killed, in this “reasoning”. It’s utterly unacceptable for he or she to be born and have a normal human life. He or she cannot and will not be given up for adoption: to the millions of couples who would love to cherish and take care of him or her. That’s unacceptable. Instead, she has to be tortured and murdered, and this is even called “good.” This is as evil and wicked of an act as can be imagined. I can’t think of anything more evil and morally revolting.

10. To top it off, in the atheist worldview, this earthly existence is all a human being has. There is no afterlife. It’s this life and then obliteration and annihilation. So in killing one’s own child, one deprives him or her of their entire earthly life and existence. The child was conceived due to sexual pleasure; the parents take no responsibility for that, and murder their own child and deprive him or her of their entire independent existence. This is using and exploiting another human being to the maximum degree imaginable.

11. How you explain why a full-term baby ought to be murdered (and your calling such a brutal and inhumane, barbaric act “good”) is as illustrative of the logical end-results of atheist ethical reasoning as can be imagined. How you answer these probing questions (that all arise because of the stand you have taken) will be even more so.

1. Before the main crux can be discussed, a distinction first has to be made that a mother bear eating her cubs is unprovoked, but a woman terminating a fetus is in response to the fetus’s unwanted presence in the body.

The woman had sexual intercourse. Anyone with the IQ above that of a pencil eraser knows that the possible result of that is the procreation of another human being (that’s why we refer to “the reproductive system”. What are we reproducing? Human beings . . .). If such a woman doesn’t want a child, then she ought to refrain from doing the thing that is the only way that brings it about.

A bear acts on instinct: having no higher moral compass. A human being knows better than to do such a barbaric, inhumane thing, based on the golden rule. That’s why human beings can potentially be far more good and saintly than the animals, but also far more wicked, as in the present case, because the higher a being is on the moral scale, the lower it can fall and be corrupted.

And I think that issue of parasitism is worth revisiting, because it creates a contradiction: there is nothing conventionally ethical about the existence of a fetus. It exists parasitically, only taking from the host mother and never giving back.

It exists because the mother chose to engage in the act that by its nature and fundamental purpose, brings about the existence of another person in the first place. Once the person exists, quite obviously, he or she is now the responsibility of those who procreated him or her. As I stated, a newborn is even more parasitic than a preborn baby. But you have ignored that: as you have most of my direct questions.

It is by all accounts a thief, taking her vitality without her consent. It is an inherently selfish being.

By all immoral and amoral accounts it is. The selfish being is the mother (with or without the father’s consent) who could torture and murder the person she helped create. You have it exactly backwards. The preborn baby is utterly innocent: having had no say in its own creation. You argue (I must say this) exactly as the Nazis did about the Jews: they were “vermin” and a parasite on superior Aryan society. Therefore, they could be exterminated at will. If one could be, then so could six million. Likewise, if one child can be murdered, so can 60 million plus be murdered, by the acceptance of the ghastly notion of “a life unworthy to be lived” and the utter rejection of any level of sexual responsibility whatsoever.

And so from there, we spiral into what I and others such as Thomas Hobbes feel is the natural state of existence- the stereotypical “law of the jungle”, a state of all against all. But unlike Hobbes, I don’t think authority can cure this condition, nor do I think a cure exists. The state as Hobbes describes it does not alleviate all-against-all, but merely privileges one or more actors over everyone else.

Precisely. This is what atheist / agnostic “morality” boils down to every time. Thanks for making my case for me. You couldn’t be doing a better job at it than you are doing.

2. Personhood I think is defined by a current or former conscious mind, the ability to experience consciousness and actively respond to it.

We don’t apply this criterion when we determine that a person has died. It’s simply heartbeat and brain waves. Your definition would deny the personhood of comatose people. But seeing how you have argued about babies, it’s likely that you would have no problem knocking off comatose people as “selfish” and “parasites” as well. On what objective basis is even your woefully inadequate definition established?

3. Humanity is simply being an organism that is a past, present, or future member of homo sapiens.

This includes preborn children, who possess every essential attribute of born people, and only require nutrition and time to become what you and I are.

4-5. At no point does an inherent right to life actually exist. The state can, will, and does kill on a whim.

Yes they do. This was the mentality of Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and every other tyranny and oppressive state that ever existed. It’s easy for you to sit there and casually say such bone-chilling things, since you’re not residing in a Gulag or a concentration camp, or sitting under a guillotine, waiting for the “reasoned” and godless almighty state to do you in.

Even in scripture, God has no hesitation at deploying lethal force if he desires to.

God as Creator has the prerogative to judge (and He judges justly and fairly). He’s not in the same category as we are, and we’re not perfectly good, like He is.

There is no fundamental, inherent guarantee against a premature end.

Based on what?

6. The mother has an option not to feed a fully-formed and birthed child. She has non- directly lethal alternatives to acquiescing to the child’s desires.

Yes. She can enlist a liberal blue state to kill her child after it has been born, so she is free from the outrageous burden of taking care of it. Or she can be a moral, compassionate human being and give her child to one of millions of couples who would be all too happy to care for him or her.

In the case of abortion, there is no non-lethal method of terminating a fetus. We cannot safely extract a fetus from the womb and allow it to grow to term externally of its host mother. There are non-lethal options to end parenthood, but no “clean” way out exists for pregnancy itself.

No choice but murder. What a wonderfully “enlightened” and progressive moral system . . .

7. Correct, this is the unsettling reality as unearthed by Gilles Deluze and Felix Guattari with their conception of desiring-production, and taken to the horrifying conclusions by Nick Land and subconsciously explored by Cormac Mccarthy in Blood Meridian. We are irrational creatures primarily governed by a complex system of desires which in turn produce more desires, compiling onto each other. Human existence is inherently disordered because existence itself is disordered. This is the overarching problem I posed then- how do people with two diametrically different views of the way of the world debate ethics?

I can’t sensibly debate ethics with a person who thinks exactly like a Nazi or Stalin or an ISIS terrorist does (as you do). All I can do is expose the self-evident wickedness of such thinking: to people who haven’t deliberately obliterated the image of God inside of them and their own consciences.

8. The “golden rule” is primarily a system of deterrence above all else. It’s a flawed method which has been demonstrated time and time again not to actually work, in part because of the inherent power imbalances created by states and other practical attempts at solving the human condition.

Right. Somehow I expected that you would somehow find a way to resist as fundamental and universally agreed-to moral precept as this. I do credit you for at least taking atheist moral thinking to its logical conclusion: the murder of hundreds of millions perfectly justified and considered “normal.” You make Aztec human sacrifice rituals look like a kindergarten picnic.

9. You keep jumping straight from conception to birth and overlooking the nine months in between, wherein the host mother is effectively bound and constrained by the living thing inside of them, eating away with no option for relief save termination. The value of abortion lies in the fact that it is the only way out of an unwanted pregnancy.

10. At no point is the fetus (while still human, a fetus is not yet a child) actually used. Nothing of value is derived from its existence by the host mother.

This simply repeats the same atrocious thinking you have already chillingly expressed. Mengele and Eichmann would be mightily impressed.

11. I think your understanding of ethics is rooted in the idea of a fundamentally ordered and rational world. You start with a basic understanding of a universal order and build from there. But on the other hand, my conceptualization of ethics begins with the opposite, the recognition that existence is disordered and irrational. You start at 1, I start at 0. If the outside world is irrational, illogical, and fundamentally insane, what ethical sensibility can be derived from it? There is nothing, of course. It exists as philosophical white noise. All that remains is the self, the singular essence unique to one’s own consciousness. If there is nothing sane, coherent or just about the world around us, we must instead look inward. And when we look inward what we see is desire, the driving force behind all else. Our feelings and thoughts are products of our desires. Even our reasoning is derived from our desire. Ergo, in constructing my personal ethical model, I start with my own personal desires.

This is as perfect of an explanation of atheist nihilism and despair as I have ever seen. Thank you at least for making it so clear to my readers that this is what we are dealing with today.

You ignore direct reply to many of my socratic questions, which is not unexpected, because it’s always that way, and is ultimately why Socrates himself was killed. He had to be shut up at all costs.

***

Clarifying note (I must add this because it comes up every time): I am not contending any of the following:

1) that atheists are always immoral,

2) that atheism always leads in fact to an immoral, wicked system akin to the Nazis, etc.,

3) that individual atheists are invariably always more wicked in behavior than individual Christians,

4) that atheists as a class care nothing for ethics and morality,

5) That all atheists are moral relativists.

One can see this in my response to an atheist on the thread, BensNewLogin. My initial challenge at the top was directed to him as well. But he responded very differently, He stated: “I agree with SCOTUS; viability is a good test. . . . I am no fan of abortion. I would like to see it, as Bill Clinton put it, safe, legal, and rare.” This is a vastly different outlook than that of DC Kurtz. So I replied to him in an entirely different manner:

You agree that partial-birth abortion is wrong. Glad to hear that. Because of that, you wouldn’t have to answer most of my questions that I asked DC Kurtz in my large-scale reductio ad absurdum / socratic inquiry. The burden is on him to defend it as “good” (his own description) and justified based on “satisfaction of desire” which he considers more “paramount” than the value of each human life.

DC Kurtz, on the other hand, defends even partial-birth abortion as “good” and ghoulishly describes an unwanted preborn child as “a parasitic organism that only takes from the host mother without giving anything back” and as a “thief” and (with the utmost unawareness of the supreme and sickening irony) an “inherently selfish being.”

BensNewLogin is far more humane and compassionate, while DC Kurtz literally argues like a Nazi, in effect defending their monstrous crimes and evil (since his own “moral” positions are indistinguishable from their own). BensNewLogin is, I would argue, less logically consistent, while DC Kurtz is consistent according to what I call “diabolical logic” while being wickedly immoral. He consistently follows his premise to their logical and evil end-result. G. K. Chesterton once noted that the madman is not illogical; to the contrary, he is one who thinks that logic is all there is.

And that gets back to my clarification. I don’t maintain (here or anywhere) that all atheists are wicked or that they all (or many of them) come to the chilling conclusions that DC Kurtz arrives at. That’s just stupid. What I say is that nihilism, despair, and (in practice) widespread abortion and genocide are the logical end-result of atheist relativist moral thinking. I don’t say all atheists and agnostics are relativistic (#5 above), but that system of thought is the logical end of how most atheists or agnostics think about morality and ethics. And what it logically, consistently (not necessarily actually) leads to is a Nazi-like outlook of genocide and partial-birth infanticide.

***

Related Reading:

The “Problem of Good”: Great Dialogue with an Atheist (vs. Mike Hardie) (+ Part Two) [this is my favorite debate ever, with anyone] [6-5-01]

Dialogue w Agnostic/Deist on the “Problem of Good” [7-18-18]

The “Problem of Good”: Dialogue w Atheist Academic [9-11-19]

Problem of Good: More Difficult than Problem of Evil? [4-3-21]

Problem of Good: Further Discussions with Atheists [4-5-21]

***

Photo credit: my second granddaughter (born on Easter Sunday 2021) at two or three days old. According to most Democrat politicians in the US today, including all but one of the Democrat candidates for President in 2020 (Tulsi Gabbard), and the law in many blue states right now, she could have been murdered at this age (or right before birth, by having her brain removed after being delivered up to the neck), if only she survived a botched abortion because her mother didn’t want her, and refused to give her up for adoption. This is how low we have sunk. We’re far worse than the Nazis were, because we know better. And God won’t allow such heartless, utterly cruel barbarity to continue forever before He judges it. If He incinerated the United States to ashes like Sodom and Gomorrah tomorrow, no one would have the slightest grounds to disagree with His justification for doing so.

***

Summary: I contend that (as part of the “problem of good”) nihilism, despair, and (in practice) widespread abortion and genocide are the logical end-results of atheist relativist moral thinking.

***

How Anti-Theist Atheists “Argue” Online (I.e., Insult)

Last updated on: March 18, 2021 at 9:35 pm By Dave Armstrong

I got these examples from Jonathan MS Pearce’s A Tippling Philosopher blog, from four different comboxes with many hundreds of comments each: made between 3-11-21 and 3-18-21. Links will be provided. I am only documenting what they say about me; not every Christian or otherwise non-atheist who dares to enter their sublime hallowed, oh-so-academic and intelligent environs.

I’ve allowed a measure of the “PG-13” language. It almost had to be let through in order to illustrate the utter idiocy and worthlessness of all of these comments. So be forewarned.

*****

Proverbs 1:22 (RSV) How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 15:2 . . . the mouths of fools pour out folly.

Proverbs 18:2 A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

Proverbs 26:11 Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool that repeats his folly.

Luke Breuer: Curiously enough, Tippling actually manages to keep a lot of insults down to a reasonable level, such that actual discussion can keep happening. And this without uniform groupthink, . . . (3-14-21)

***

HairyEyedWordBombThrower:

Still fishing for clicks, you hack? Go away. We’re not giving you any traffic, so I hope those Communion wafers have all the required vitamins and minerals, because no clicks means no MONEY. (3-15-21)

Davie-poo, stop lying. We HAVE replied, often at great length. Then you, in your predictably cowardly fashion, block / ban / rewrite the comments as necessary to make you the hero. YOUR KIND no longer have the ability to goad us into following you back. Ain’t it great? ;-) (3-15-21)

Fishing for clicks like the beggar you are. Worse, a beggar who thinks he’s a prince, a The Prince and the Pauper-style, jumped-up cretin ‘prince’. (3-15-21)

Davie-poo, YOU make the positive claim, YOU provide evidence. We just don’t believe you because
– You *haven’t* provided evidence
– You’re a demonstrated honorless lying cretin. (3-15-21)

Dishonorably lying, blocking those who counter your assertions, rewriting comments to retroactively show you to be ‘right’…. the list goes on, Davie-poo. (3-15-21)

Oh, I know YOUR KIND demand we deny reality and allow ourselves to be abused and browbeaten with your lies… but we’re under no obligation to comply. (3-15-21)

You’ve blocked / banned / removed any contesting views, no matter how respectfully addressed. Get over yourself, or at least have the honor, courage, and general decency to not lie and then double down on your Big Lie. (3-15-21)

I see you’re still raging against your insignificance. We don’t want you to go away *mad*, just go away. And we won’t visit any more than we *have*, which is why you infest our spaces with your scrofulous presence. (3-13-21)

You’re a pathetic, needy, lonely liar who tries and constantly FAILS at taunting any of us to give your page any hits. Why don’t you just go martyrbate with YOUR KIND and leave us good people here in peace? (3-13-21)

You just want to plaster your hateful authoritarian agitprop like manure on somebody else’s property. (3-15-21)

YOU have and do support Nazis. Not our problem. Get over your hate and prejudice. (3-13-21)

You’re dodging an answer, as the answer you’re itching to give would condemn yourself. And concerning just and fair moderation of fora… pot, meet kettle. YOU PERSONALLY are the least just, least fair, *most* thin-skinned weakling bully that I’ve seen in Patheos. (3-13-21)

Poor Davie-poo. IF he answers honestly, he’ll be exposed as the fascist authoritarian power-lusting scumbag that he is. (3-13-21)

Davie-poo, when you fly in, purposely try to create bad feeling to bait denizens of those fora to follow you back to your own path etic, forlorn, deserted blog for clicks, shit in the punchbowl, etc… why SHOULDN’T you be banned as a sociopathic danger to civil discussion? What makes you think you have a right to soil somebody else’s private property? Why do you hate the free market of ideas and free enterprise, complete with rules to exclude those obviously dealing in bad faith? (3-13-21)

Dave, (sadly) you’d be AMAZED at how little we care about what you believe. You’re a crybully wasting the time of everybody in this thread, and need to fix yourself, rather than lashing out at those of us who HAVE freed our minds of the supernatural terrors that still bedevil you. (3-13-21)

Poor pathetic Davie, mining for clicks and relevance again. We know you’re a liar who just wants traffic…. so I’ll do my best to make sure nobody wastes time on your martyrbating hypocritical blog. (3-17-21)

Liar. You pontificate, then either insult / misdirect / derail, or, if it’s on your own moribund blog, you deceptively edit and delete posts that aren’t amenable to such selective editing, and block those who have valid arguments that you can’t counter . . . (3-18-21)

Ignorant Amos:

You’re lying again. We know how to tell, your hypothetical mouth is moving. (3-15-21)

Bwaaahahahaha… what a cretin. You’ve banned those who attempt to defend at your dump, ya dishonest lying louse. (3-13-21)

What a lying for Jesus piece of pish, is Armstrong. (3-13-21)

Liar, liar, pants on fire. (3-13-21)

You’ll burn in Hell brother, so will you brother…see ya’ll down there.. (3-13-21)

What a lying bastard. You banned Bob Seidensticker when he went to your shitehole to respond to your dross. You were subsequently banned at Cross Examined because you banned Bob for doing that very thing you accuse him of not doing here, not hearing from him again. Now you engage in bad mouthing him, when it is you who is the chickenshite cowardly bastard who can’t hack it. I don’t think Jonathan MS Pearce should be giving you a platform for spewing this lies and slander. (3-14-21)

Well it gets very lonely in his wee “panic room” of a shite blog where he goes to hide, and where saying anything he decides is contentious, which is just about everything that is in disagreement with his nonsense, gets one the the banhammer. With nothing but a handful of toady arselickers for company in his own house, it’s understandable he can’t maintain his flounce for any noticeable length of time. (3-14-21)

He’s the proverbial “legend in his own lunchtime”, isn’t he? (3-14-21)

Ya lying piece of shite. (3-14-21)

So still a very disingenuous louse, if not technically a liar. (3-15-21)

He lies about lots of other stuff, so I’ve no reason to trust his honesty where there is ambiguity. (3-15-21)

And that is a loada lies, and demonstrably so. (3-14-21)

90Lew90:

I’m sure your six readers will be along presently. (3-12-21)

I can assure you that the level of tolerance in comments here far exceeds anything Armstrong allows. Dave, meanwhile, has me blocked and banned for daring to challenge him on his site. I should add, he locked and banned me after creating two whole posts on his blog out of our exchange, thus precluding me from replying. That’s how Dave rolls. Very poor show. (3-12-21)

It says a lot more about his ego than his readers. His books are all self-published and he has no readers. (3-12-21)

Your project of trying to show the truth of the Bible “from a Catholic perspective” just betrays that you haven’t shaken off your evangelical perspective which is decidedly un-Catholic and you’re missing the point of Catholicism by trying to stitch your evangelicalism into it. Poorly. (3-11-21)

You appear to know almost nothing about the Catholicism you have adopted and profess, and have gotten yourself a soapbox from which to wave around your ignorance of it, . . . your attempted racket, ahem, ‘blog’, ‘Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, With Dave Armstrong’. The title on its own smacks of self-promotion; life lessons from your burnt out local radio host. . . . You’re the kind of person who would be a priest if you thought there was money in it and you could still have sex. . . . you appear to have spent more time studying how much tax-deductible cash you can get for the “papers” you publish on your blog. . . . Apart from your constantly begging for money all over your posts, redirecting to more of your posts for clicks, and plugging your 50 self-published books, the detail you provide here is all about how people can give you income on which you don’t have to pay tax. As a dubious bonus, we’re treated to an unflattering picture of you looking every bit the pea-brained burnout (perhaps you thought you looked like a kinda cool “family man” or something), still aiming for that one big money maker. . . . You include in your “qualifications” your “literary resume”. Give me a break you venal little &%$@#. (3-13-21)

You’re here to drive traffic to your blog. (3-13-21)

Armstrong comes here solely to drive traffic to his own blog. (3-13-21)

Frankly, the man doesn’t know Catholicism at all, and to read one or two of his articles is enough to leave one feeling somewhat sullied. He’s applying his former Protestant, evangelical approach in a kind of Christianity where it has no place. (3-13-21)

democommiescrazierbrother:

I just took a look at his facebook page, wottan#%$@&*%. One might be forgiven for thinking it’s more “griftin’ teh roobwazee than prinicipled apologetics*. * I’m not sure if it’s like intermarriages between matter and anti-matter but, I do think that, “principled apologetics” is prolly an oxymoron or contradiction in terms. (3-12-21)

Bob Seidensticker:

In short, you’re too much trouble. Wading through the bile to find an interesting point has been too much work. (3-14-21)

WCB:

You ban everybody who does that. That is why nobody over at your black hole site does it. Banned1 Banned! Banned! (3-14-21)

You are not that good as an apologist. And when anybody starts demonstrating that on your site, you ban them. (3-13-21)

Armstrong is an apologist. Not much of a theologian, but theology is not his mission. One of the reasons to play with people like Armstrong is to see what he has been peddling to the world. So we can be sure that we atheists are not using bad arguments that do not apply to people like Armstrong. Debunking Dave is not hard really. (3-17-21)

If Dave won’t seriously discuss these issues with me, it is because I bring up issues he has no easy, glib apologist’s argument that can win the day. This is all off the apologist’s beaten path, with the usual canned answers, an my posts are designed to be that way. . . . Playing the apologist game is not new with me, and Armstrong is not much different. (3-17-21)

JMallett:

You: Nobody wants to play with me!!! This could be a hint that maybe, just maybe, you aren’t that good at your job. (3-11-21)

Tiresome drivel. (3-16-21)

Grimlock:

Lots of Patheos Catholic blogs with more commenters. Not to mention more interesting and civilized commenters. (3-15-21)

im-skeptical:

You stand in proud defiance of truth and reality. (3-13-21)

Raging Bee:

You’re the only one who doesn’t see the debunkings and rebuttals you routinely get. (3-14-21)

Maybe he should be banned from this one too, since he’s banned nearly all of us from his blog while taking advantage of Pearce’s tolerance to hog attention here — while blocking and ignoring most of the people he’s badgering here. That’s both unseemly and unfair. I don’t mind letting people with such opinions comment and argue here, but hypocritical dishonest behavior like Dave’s should not be tolerated. (3-17-21)

TheMarsCydonia:

I am unsurprised that after all these years that you believe there one iota of fair moderating practices in your forums. (3-13-21)

You do say a lot of things to avoid having rational or objective discussions whenever you’re called out… (when you don’t outright ban people). (3-13-21)

3lemenope:

He bragged of his great patience after giving up with someone over the course of a couple of exchanges. I’m not against blocking as a rule–it’s a tool with a purpose, and very helpful for preserving bandwidth for non-trolls–but this guy thinks of his own thin-skinned hair trigger banning reflex to be the height of patience and deliberation. That kind of distorted self-perception is weird almost to the point of parody. (3-13-21)

It certainly isn’t my fault that you literally stand in common cause with ‮sizaN‬, Fascists, nihilists, and neo-Confederates by supporting Trump and the modern GOP. That’s your problem. It’s just compounded by your unwillingness to notice or acknowledge that the people you stand next to, by choice, are the very worst people. Maybe you’re just an angel in a sea of demons, bringing the light of conscience to pandemonium. But it isn’t likely. And when you try to dress up the vile movement you willingly associate with as something of actual intellectual pedigree, like conservatism in its primary descriptions in the annals of political history and political science, I’m gonna call you out on that shit. (3-13-21)

Fmr ATrealDonaldTrump ��:

People like Armstrong illustrate that there are “Conservative Cafeteria Catholics” as well as liberal “Cafeteria Catholics. (3-15-21)

Neko:

&%#$ Armstrong, he banned me for accusing him of being an apologist for the insurrectionist party, i.e., the Trumpist GOP, which is nothing less than the *^&%$#@%$ truth! (3-14-21)

John Loftus [cited by “WCB” who apparently asked him why he wouldn’t respond to my critiques]:

Yes [Dave was banned], because he is ignorant and obnoxious. It’s the obnoxious part that was too much. (cited on 3-13-21)

al kimeea:

I’ve read of your behaviour to valid criticism, so no traffic for you. (3-18-21)

RoverSerton:

Funny how you go to sites like this for interaction since you have ZERO comments on your dark spot on the internet. Since you ban everyone that you can’t refute, it must be a lonely lonely place to live. (3-18-21)

Lark62:

You’re nothing but a dishonest hack begging and pleading for clicks. Everyone outside your small collection of sycophants knows you’re pathetic. (3-17-21)

Here he cannot ban anyone and everyone who hints at disagreeing with him. He cannot bear to have anyone point out his inadequacy. (3-17-21)

Ya know what? I don’t give a tinker’s dam about what King You thinks “doesn’t fly.” Pathetic hacks terrified of actual conversation are in no position to the judge whether an argument “succeeds.” (3-17-21)

Illithid:

If you wanted open-minded, rational interaction, you wouldn’t ban people from your blog for specious reasons. (3-16-21)

***

The Atheist Obsession with Insulting Christians [9-15-15]

Angry Anti-Theism Strikes Again! (“Dave Armstrong is Delusional”) [3-31-17]

Illogical Angry Atheists: Five Typical Examples [7-21-17]

Not Many “Angry Atheists” Online? You be the Judge [7-22-17]

Atheist Blogs Delete & Block Insulters & Idiots, Too! [7-31-17]

Why I Blocked Anti-Theist Atheist Bob Seidensticker [8-8-18]

Hysterical Frenzy vs. Me on Atheist Seidensticker’s Blog [8-10-18]

Atheist Eloquently & Admirably Denounces Anti-Theism [4-12-19]

Anti-Theist Atheist Snobfest & Insult Extravaganza [12-7-20]

Atheist Blogger Renounces Angry Anti-Theist Obsessions [3-16-21]

***

Photo credit: Philippe Gillotte (9-7-10) [Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license]

***

Summary: I document a classic “feeding frenzy”: a regular, time-honored tactic of anti-theist atheists, who collectively decide to lie about & slander a person (me in this case), sans any semblance of rational arguments.

***

Pearce’s Potshots #18: Doubting Thomas & Evidence

Last updated on: March 18, 2021 at 2:00 pm By Dave Armstrong

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.”

Jonathan wrote a paper entitled, “The Double Standards Involved with Doubting Thomas” (3-16-21). I replied with Pearce’s Potshots #17: Doubting Thomas & an “Unfair” God (3-16-21). I also responded at length to two other atheists in his forum, on the same topic: Debate w Atheists: Doubting Thomas & an “Unfair” God (3-17-21). Jonathan has now counter-responded with Doubting Thomas: A Response to Catholic Dave Armstrong (3-17-21), to which I now reply. His words will be in blue.

*****

I will leave aside the dubious historicity of this pericope, especially given that it is merely a response to the Pauline theology of a spiritual resurrection (each successive Gospel renounces the Pauline theology more and more, with John having Thomas prove that Jesus is not just resurrected spiritually, but very much bodily too).

What else is new? The atheist of course has to doubt the genuine nature of anything in Scripture (on inadequate grounds) and has to (by some immutable law of the universe) engage in worthless speculation about origins and purpose (with no supporting evidence presented, let alone plausible evidence), including a flat-out falsehood about St. Paul supposedly teaching a “spiritual resurrection only, and not a bodily one.

I dealt with this latter question, not just once, but twice, in engaging atheist polemicist Bob Seidensticker, who has chosen to utterly ignore 72 of my critiques. With this baggage (three major false premises), Jonathan proceeds to provide some sort of cogent, coherent analysis of the passage.

Instead, let me return to my original point, which is just a corollary of this asserted incident: that the great St Thomas only ended up believing in Jesus’ resurrection when presented with first-hand sensory experience of it (such that the apparent eyewitness testimony of his fellow disciples was not enough).

That’s no kind of “point”; it’s merely the assertion of a self-evident fact.

Yet, for an awful lot of modern potential and actual Christians (and all people throughout time, from Amazonian tribespeople to someone born in Riyadh in the 1600s), there is a completely unfair distribution of evidence. Thomas is afforded far more evidence so that he eventually believes (and becomes a saint, no less) than I can ever hope for or reasonably expect. If the end result of judgement (and heaven or hell) is based on my belief decision (or in Amazonians’ cases, there is no Christian option in their “decision”), then this seems even more unfair.

And I have thoroughly replied to this charge twice. We’ll see if Jonathan actually interacts with my arguments.

Dave Armstrong, a fellow Patheoser, though on the Catholic channel, often baits me to respond, and this time I have accepted. He replied to my short piece, saying on my own thread:

Perhaps some folks will have the intellectual courage, and/or curiosity, and/or open-mindedness to actually rationally interact with my argument this time, rather than engage in crazed, mindless personal attacks, such as massively, obsessively took place in two recent threads. One person already has, which is wonderful.

“Bait” has a decidedly negative connotation. It doesn’t describe how I have acted towards Jonathan at all. Merriam-Webster online defines it as:

to persecute or exasperate with unjust, malicious, or persistent attacks

to try to make angry with criticism or insults

Jonathan has replied to some five or six of my critiques in the past. Then he just stopped. I complained a bit (which was not “baiting”: but simply inquiring as to why he stopped). He explained in a long post that he was very busy and had some health problems, too. I fully accepted that, appreciated the clarification, and wished him the best. Since then I have simply informed him out of courtesy that I have replied to one of his articles. If he wishes me to cease doing that, too (and/or leave his forum if I upset the apple cart too much), I’ll be happy to comply.

My words above were not directed to Jonathan (because he doesn’t engage in such personal attacks), but to many other people on his forum who can do nothing but insult when it comes to me. I was registering my strong protest against that. Jonathan apparently has no problem with such personal attacks at all and allows any conceivable personal attack to be aired on his forum. So I rebuked it in no uncertain terms.

I’m looking for intelligent, probing, challenging discussion, not mud pie fights and urinating matches. The personal attacks from others against me continue full force on his blog, in several comboxes. I ignore them, block the people who do it, and once in a while make a protesting statement such as the above. I am certainly entitled to express indignation at such nonsense (like virtually any other human being would also do).

To give just one example of hundreds, Steven Watson, underneath this latest article from Jonathan, stated: “Armstrong is in the grip of an irrational delusion, he is a loony.” You get the idea. This is the sort of comment Jonathan has no problem permitting on his site. On my blog, on the other hand, if someone made a ridiculous comment like that about a particular atheist, he would be immediately banned. So we have vastly different opinions as to the nature of constructive and civil discussion.

So — nice try Jonathan — now we get back to the actual topic at hand.

This is ironic since he has, as you shall see, failed to interact with my actual points.

Nonsense. I responded by attacking Jonathan’s false premises. This is what socratics always do (and I am a socratic). Then the charge comes back that this is not a response. It certainly is: just on a deeper level than the person critiqued wants to deal with. In my other debate with two of Jonathan’s friends on the same topic (linked above) I go into, much more depth. Blanket statements like this that are untrue, do not help the debate proceed forward. But Jonathan does interact with my arguments to some extent.

His defences of this are as follows:

“Because you have seen Me, have you now believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

Did you notice the last verse there? The Thomas incident was not regarded by Jesus as normative, but rather, a special act of mercy that was not “epistemologically required.” Jesus thought it wasn’t necessary, and criticized Thomas at the end for his undue doubt. He did it because He loved Thomas, and we all do many things that aren’t required for our loved ones.

Irrespective of whether Thomas was somewhat chastised here, the point remains entirely the same: Thomas was afforded far more evidence, and went on to be a foundational member of the church and have some kind (one is pretty sure) of union with God, which appears to be one of the goals that God has set for humanity.

This still doesn’t establish that:

1) empirical evidence is the be-all and end-all regarding evidences for God’s existence,

or that

2) all human beings must receive the same sort of visitation from Jesus, lest it is “unfair” that they received less verification, which is “required” for them to properly decide the “God question”,

or that

3) God hasn’t provided sufficient evidence of His existence to each person in many different ways (not just empirical).

It is the many unspoken premises lying beneath this charge that I attack as false.

I still don’t remotely get to cross or even approach that evidentiary threshold or benchmark. All I get is a bunch of people telling me a particular book is true, amongst a whole collection of holy books and revelations from other people and cultures and religions around the world, and the assertion that this one alone is the one.

And that’s it.

That’s not “it” at all. There are all kinds of Christian arguments. These have a cumulative effect.

I cannot be convinced by personal revelation, since Muslims and Hindus have them too.

This is considered some sort of “argument”? Obviously, one has to consider the Christian arguments for why the Bible is a uniquely inspired document, and indeed, God’s revelation. There are hundreds and hundreds of them. One way to show that it is plausible to believe that the Bible is inspired is to shoot down alleged “contradictions” in its pages. I recently did that with 59 alleged “contradictions” regarding Jesus’ Resurrection, in response to one of Jonathan’s articles. When a point of view is that consistently wrong, it shows that something is seriously awry. No one took it upon themselves to make any sort of direct reply. Instead, I received an avalanche of personal insults.

And philosophical arguments can only really get you to atheism, or deism or theism, as large umbrellas. The Bible is what gets you to Christianity.

Correct. And that’s why I devote my time in atheist venues mostly to defending the Bible: understanding this very thinking, and knowing that going round and round with philosophy accomplishes virtually nothing. Jonathan (like many atheists) insists on taking his shots at the Bible, and I reply with counter-arguments. He’s now playing on my field when he does that. If that’s what he wants to do, more power to him. I’m here. Bring it on.

And that is very poor evidence indeed. Unknown authors, writing in unknown times and places that we can only guess at, with unknown sources, unverified and unverifiable, writing with evangelising agendas ex post facto, with no historiographical pedigree.

It’s shockingly poor evidence.

These are just blanket hostile statements, not arguments, and as such, deserve no further consideration.

And I can supposedly go to hell on the back of whether I choose to believe that very low-level evidence (let’s call it 5%) and St Thomas (the Apostle) gets to stroll through the pearly gates, one assumes, on the back of not believing (assuming the Gospels are true here) with a level of, say, 90%, and Jesus then reversing this unbelief (in the Resurrection, and thus Jesus’ divinity, and thus the atonement – not that he actually would have understood this at the time, I wager) by getting Thomas to poke him, and raising the evidential threshold to 95%!! (I am somewhat making these figures up to illustrate my point).

This is just a more colorful way of reiterating the original assertion, which is shot-through with demonstrably false premises. It’s simplistic thinking. He does (thank God for small favors!) eventually start dealing with my actual arguments.

Armstrong claims my position is based on three premises that he refutes:

1) The notion that empiricism is the only way to verify or prove anything, as if there are no other ways of knowing.

2) The denial that God is already known by observing the universe, as Romans 1 states.

3) The idea that every atheist would immediately believe (and respond exactly as Thomas did) if only they had the “100% sure!” experience of Thomas: with the risen Jesus standing there, bodily, so that he could touch Him.

Thanks for putting these words into my mouth, but the first two doesn’t really apply to Thomas – or at least all equally get him to Judaism, or some theism.

At any rate, the first two are either nonsense or straw men, or both.

Hogwash. The entire issue as atheists see it, is the alleged “unfairness” of Thomas receiving such a crystal-clear evidence of the risen Jesus, thus allowing him to more easily believe that Jesus is God, and (obviously) that God does exist. This is empirical evidence through-and-through, entailing the evidence of senses and the experience of touching a physical, alive-again Jesus Who had just been killed. So atheists complain about how this is so terribly “unfair!” God is such a meanie and a brute, to be so absurdly unjust in how He presents evidence for Himself.

My denial that empirical evidence is the only evidence or any way to reliably know anything undercuts this whole notion, because then it’s not the only way God can reveal Himself. That’s the false premise. Jonathan needs to prove first of all that empiricism is the cat’s meow, epistemologically speaking. Instead, he chooses to ignore that (the elephant in the room) and merely assert that my brining it up is “nonsense or [a] straw [man]”. I then get into willful rejection, another factor that Jonathan ignored in his presentation, as if will plays no part in the choices all human beings make on a variety of issues.

(3) is a false analogy since Thomas was not an atheist. Thomas has just been in godmanspirit’s ministry. Either he already believed Jesus was God (almost certainly not the case) or that he was a Messiah (much more likely, though it must be remembered that this whole event recorded here almost certainly never happened). Then, after all the crazy stuff that supposedly happened, and all the claims of his fellow disciples that this would have entailed, he still didn’t believe. (It is worth reinforcing here that the theology of this piece is not primarily about epistemology, but about the form of Jesus’ resurrection to fight off the theology we see Paul discussing with the Corinthians).

Whether he’s an atheist or not, his example is being used to assert that God is “unfair” and that God ought to make similar appearances to atheists en masse.

Thomas was, according to the Gospel, afforded a level of evidence I will never get, and nor will (or has) any other human, I would argue, in the history of Christianity.

Exactly. This is the point I just made (I am replying as I read).

Thomas got to be in Jesus’ gang, and then touch his resurrected body whilst conversing with him (God).

Yep.

I’ll ignore the long tirade of articles Armstrong offers to attack my apparent sole reliance on empiricism (as if, as a philosopher arguing all day long about all sorts of things, that empiricism is my single only route to epistemological conclusions).

Scholars offer footnotes for further reading: if anyone desires to do so. I offer my own articles. Somehow this is objectionable and Jonathan describes a collection of related links as a “tirade.” It’s laughable. The argument that was made was entirely of an empirical nature. An utterly empirical experience (Thomas’s) is used to try to indict God for unfairness and “double standards.” That requires a prior analysis of empiricism and noting that it’s not the sum total of all knowledge. Many many atheists think that it is. If Jonathan doesn’t (welcome to the club) then he needs to formulate non-empirical arguments with regard to Doubting Thomas and atheist unbelief.

His claims about point (2) are pretty naive:

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. . . .

Not only is this just asserted nonsense that also gets you to every other religion, but it has nothing to do with the point in hand: Doubting Thomas and the varied apportioning of evidence for the Christian god to all humans throughout time.

So I will ignore this and his defence of it.

I explained this in my related dialogue, linked above:

I was presenting how the Bible itself views this issue of God being “fair”; and how it views evidence and how God is known. The critique in the OP is of the Bible. If Jonathan didn’t want it to be [at least partially] a biblical discussion then he shouldn’t and wouldn’t have ever introduced the Doubting Thomas story into it. Since he did, I explain why it doesn’t fly (from our Christian perspective).

If I critique atheism, then you can explain your view (that I don’t accept, just as you don’t accept ours). If you claim the Christian view is unjust or insufficient or incoherent / inconsistent in some way, then the Christian quite logically responds by showing how this isn’t (internally) the case.

I’m not citing the Bible to try to convince atheists of anything: only to explain why the atheist critique of Christianity in this instance doesn’t succeed (being based on insufficient understanding of what the biblical teaching is in the first place).

It’s Jonathan who exercises double standards. He reserves the prerogative to enter into the territory of biblical interpretation by giving his two cents’ about Doubting Thomas and the implications of the story for atheists, but if I come back and attempt to explain it from a Christian perspective (getting into the wider area of unbelief), then he wants no part of it. In effect, then, he seems to think that an atheist can comment on the Bible, but if a Christian does, it’s “naive” and “nonsense” and only fit to be ignored.

To which I reply: if you’re gonna bring up the Bible, don’t be surprised that a Christian will 1) defend the Bible, and 2) comment upon related passages in it that are relevant to the point. Jonathan thinks God is unfair, and this passage is evidence (he thinks) of that. We show how it is not and show how the biblical Christian outlook, rightly understood, is not an unfair system at all. That’s completely relevant to the discussion. But Jonathan has this double standard whereby only atheists can do biblical exegesis. If the Christian apologist (who obviously knows nothing about the Bible) deigns to do the same thing, it’s “naive” and “nonsense”. It’s just dumb. Unless atheists are called on these unsavory and illogical techniques of “argument” they will keep doing it.

His defence of point (3):

As for #3, many atheists — if not necessarily Jonathan — casually assume that pretty much every atheist and skeptic would respond as Thomas did. Jesus thought quite otherwise…

He misses my point. I am not really bothered whether I would react the same or differently to Thomas. My general point is that all sorts of people react differently to the same level of evidence, and all sorts of people get different levels of evidence. It’s all a bit of an unfair mess.

How is it unfair? Jonathan has to establish that there is no other kind of evidence that people receive (Christians assert that there are hundreds of such evidences, of widely different sorts). And he has to establish that all atheists are completely objective, impartial, rational machines, in which there is no slightest shred of resistance to truth or evidence when presented; no bias, no willful rejection, no irrational emotionalism, etc., etc. ad infinitum.

All of these factors and more have to be discussed in order to plausibly make this grand charge of UNFAIRNESS of that wascally wascal: God. In other words, it’s a vastly more complex issue than he makes out. But atheists are masters at simplistic, one-millimeter- deep arguments against the Bible and Christianity.

Imagine I have a class of 30 children to whom I give a test. All 30 children have different brains, knowledges, abilities and thresholds, etc. I give them a test of 100 questions, and declare that the children who fail to get 70/100 will get detention. Children who get 70 will get a special treat.

I then give them a test.

Except, I also give out different cheat sheets to everyone ranging from 0 points of help to 90 points. Each child either gets no extra help or gets some kind of leg up to getting closer to that 70 point success. Some people, like little Thomas, get a cheat sheet with answers worth 95 points. Lucky him.

Poor Alice, who is not very clever (due to her genetics and troublesome environment) gets a cheat sheet with 0 points of help, and gets 16/100 and detention.

We could actually make this more accurate: some children are given trickster cheat sheets, like our Saudi student, Mo, who gets a sheet that actually tells him wrong answers, and leaves him with 35 points less than he would have got. He gets 50, and receives a detention.

This is my analogy to explain the point.

All of this assumes what it needs to prove: that the empirical evidence of the Thomas incident is somehow the whole ball of wax as to proofs for God. It’s simply not. The fact that the analogy has Thomas receiving 95 points out of a 100 on his cheat sheet, absolutely illustrates that Jonathan thinks such an empirical proof comprises at least 95% of the evidence or proof of God. Thanks for making my point for me, Jonathan! It still remains to be proved that, somehow, empirical evidence is 95% of all the evidence that can be mustered up in theistic proofs.

And, in my previous piece, this was my potential theistic wriggle:

Perhaps, as a teacher, I actually take in the answers, don’t announce to anyone the results until the end of the school day whereby, after plugging their results into a matrix that calculates an outcome based on (1) abilities, (2) environment, (3) cheat sheets, and (4) their results and spits out their end mark, I enforce on them a detention or a reward.

That would need some unpicking and looks rather like some kind of deterministic algorithm, the results of which, as a teacher, I knew in advance anyway. In other words, creating the test is pointless. What it would actually look like is everyone getting the same marks since the algorithm would have to be fair: there would be no child who would have their environment, genetics, cheat sheet or anything else over which they have no control giving them an advantage or disadvantage.

The only fair option for an OmniGod designing and creating all humanity from nothing is to give everyone the same chance; and when we control for causal circumstances, this translates to the same score.

Again, this is circular reasoning. An empirical-only epistemology is assumed from the outset (without proof and seeming oblivious unawareness of the massive amount of reasoning against such a naive epistemology). It’s assumed that there is no other form of evidence that can be used to prove the existence of God and offer a way salvation to all, etc. This (surprise!) leads to the conclusion already preordained from the outset by false and hostile premises: God is unfair.

Yeah: the straw-man “God” set up in such a silly mind game is what is unfair, because the whole thing is rigged from the outset with stupid, false premises. In my “tirade” of links that Jonathan blew off, I explain how and why it is a false premise, for all who are interested in hearing the reasons why. It’s not just me saying it (which I wouldn’t use as a basis for any claim). The literally logically absurd views of empiricism-only and logical positivism were destroyed philosophically by the early 50s at the latest by philosophers like Michael Polanyi and others. I’m surprised it took that long, or that these silly views ever took hold among serious thinkers in the first place.

Armstrong doesn’t get all of this, it seems; he is happy merely taking the opportunity to have some pop shots:

Jonathan, like most atheists, completely overlooks the prideful, stubborn and irrationally defiant aspect of atheism (and indeed of the human race, generally speaking). St. Paul wrote about that, too…

But lest atheists (or anyone) think that therefore no atheist can be saved, this is not Paul’s position, either, as he clarifies in the next chapter:

Therefore, an atheist can possibly be saved, and there is a big biblical distinction between the not-convinced seeker after truth and the outright rejecter of God. But they can’t be saved if they know God exists (are conscious of that belief) and reject Him and His free offer of grace and salvation. How much one “knows” is obviously the key. And only God knows that for any given person. It’s not for other persons to judge that or to condemn people to hell. They don’t have nearly even knowledge to make that determination.

Lovely, but almost nothing to do with the point at hand.

It has everything to do with the topic at hand: which is the alleged unfairness of God. I took pains to show that in the biblical, Christian view, God is not unfair at all (and even he indirectly acknowledges this by saying “Lovely”). Atheists routinely assume that the Bible and all Christians teach that all atheists (and indeed all non-Christians) go to hell and that they are uniformly wicked. I explain that both things are false and that God is infinitely more merciful and “fair” and just than the caricature that typically floats around in atheist circles.

But Jonathan is blinded in his Ultra-Empiricism as the be-all and end-all of (I guess) everything in the universe; every philosophical or theological proposed “difficulty.”

Thomas decided not to believe; he rejected God. But God gave him special treatment. Why can’t he do that for everyone else?

This again assumes what it is trying to prove: empirical proofs are all there is; therefore, since Thomas “got” this one; all others must, too, lest God be an unfair moron and arbitrary tyrannical monster. But if the premise is false, so is Jonathan’s conclusion. He hasn’t shown the slightest inclination to more deeply analyze or scrutinize his premises. I know, it’s scary and intimidating to do so, but this is the duty of thinkers.

This is not about what it would take to make any given person believe, but about that some people throughout history are supposedly afforded huge amounts of evidence, whilst others suffer terribly from divine hiddenness, perhaps being brought up in Saudi Arabia or the Australian outback in the 1500s. Some get those cheat sheets with 50 extra points, others are set back -30.

This is incoherent. To say that Thomas (and others like him) receive “huge amounts of [empirical] evidence” is necessarily also asserting that those who didn’t receive “Thomas-like” evidence were treated shabbily. Therefore, such assertions are indeed also dealing with “what it would take to make any given person believe.” The very claim of “unfairness” presupposes this.

I should think that at some point atheists would tire of their own viciously circular arguments with utterly unexamined premises. These may satisfy and titillate those in the choir and echo chamber, but they certainly don’t impress anyone outside of it.

Armstrong finishes off with:

Lastly, atheists manage to believe many extraordinary things without much proof (or even understanding) at all.

Whaaaaat? Examples please. Otherwise what can be asserted without evidence can be summarily dismissed without any.

Of course I proceeded to explain what I meant, with examples and a link (which Jonathan cited, so I have no idea why he thinks I didn’t do so.

Why should they place the existence of God in a category all its own? For example, I have written about how atheists in effect “worship” the atom (this paper raised such a huge ruckus that I had to do a follow-up paper to explain the nature of the satire), and attribute to it virtually every characteristic that Christians believe God possesses: it supposedly came from nothing (this one not a trait of God), managed to have the inherent capability to evolve and create and bring about everything we see in the universe, including consciousness, life, the galaxies, etc.

This is what Jonathan cited from my reply, that he just claimed I didn’t explain. If you can figure out this chain of reasoning, please let me know.

Nothing to do with the point at hand.

It has everything to do with the point at hand. It’s claimed that God must provide ironclad “evidence” (of course as atheists define the term) of everything related to God and Christianity, lest He be brutally “unfair.” We say that He does, but in ways in addition to those atheists concentrate on. My point here is one of “epistemological hypocrisy.” That is: atheists certainly don’t apply such a “strong” criterion to everything they believe.

And so (to provide an example) I mentioned my notorious “atomism” paper: that ruffled the feathers of scores and scores of atheists: with nary a single one at the time even understanding the nature of the satirical points I made in the article. This is what happens when one is deeply entrenched in the bubble of groupthink. If one doesn’t interact with outside critiques, they get to the point where they literally can’t even comprehend any other view. This is what atheism often does to otherwise sound minds.

I won’t get sidetracked onto why there is something rather than nothing. Why is God as a brute fact any more reasonable than the universe as a brute fact? God + universe fails Ockham’s Razor compared to the universe alone as brute fact.

He should, at some point, for his own (intellectual and spiritual) good.

These are extraordinary attributes. And why do atheists believe in them? Well, they have few ultimate reasons to explain it, but it’s the only alternative they think they have to admitting that God exists and that He created, designed, and upholds the universe. If you want to reject God: concerning Whom there are many evidences and arguments that have been rationally and seriously discussed for thousands of years, then you go instead to a blind faith position: the atom (and a larger materialism) can do anything: including creating itself from nothing (a self-evidently absurd position that science has long since rejected).

G. K. Chesterton observed”: “if men reject Christianity, it’s not that he believes in nothing, but that he believes in anything.”

Drivel and nothing to do with my point.

It relates to it in a way that I have explained, in my original reply and now.

All told, my point still stands and it would be nice to see Dave actually address it.

[EDIT: which he only decided to do, a little bit, in another comment on my thread, which I will address next.

EDIT 2: It seems like Geoff Benson came to the same conclusion.]

I have addressed his “point” and argument in the greatest depth, analyzing it from every which way, including the premises beneath it. This is now my third time doing the same thing. Eric’s arguments in Jonathan’s combox were more in-depth and of a constructive nature in terms of progressing in dialogue, in my opinion. I replied to him and Geoff in my other related dialogue. But Jonathan has essentially simply put his head in the sand and plugged his ears about the glaring faults of his own argument, and ignored virtually all of my counter-argument. This won’t do. But it’ll impress his echo chamber (as it always does).

***

Photo credit: wilhei (4-13-15) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: This is now my third go-around, discussing the same issue: whether God was “unfair” to give Doubting Thomas so much more “evidence” than almost everyone else. False PREMISES . . .

***

Reply to the Nonsense of “Atheists Have No Worldview”

Last updated on: February 13, 2021 at 2:37 pm By Dave Armstrong

I recently observed:

Our beloved atheist critics are constantly informing us lowly, ignorant Christians that atheism itself is, alas, not a formulated position, but only the absence of a position (belief in God). It’s not a worldview, etc. I wish I had a dime for every time I’ve heard that. It’s not true, but we hear it all the time. (2-2-21)

Lo and behold, on the very next day, Dr. Richard C. Miller, put up on the notorious Debunking Christianity website (which just banned me again for merely noting that I had refuted one of the big shots there: Dr. David Madison, 44 times, with no reply back) the article, The “Atheist” Misnomer. We shall examine his arguments. His words will be in blue.

Atheist. Let us problematize the term just for a moment, shall we? In classical Greek etymology, the alpha prefix denoted sheer negation, precisely equivalent to the Latin “non.” “Theos,” of course, meant “deity” or “god,” and the Greek suffix “-ismos” became applied in Latin and, as such, pulled up into early English, conveying “adherence toward” or “belief in.” So, an atheist is one who is not a theist, that is, one who does not hold a belief in the existence of any deity.

No one doubts that that is the literal meaning of the word. It doesn’t follow, however, that the atheist believes nothing in a positive sense, or that he or she possesses no worldview or sets of beliefs. They certainly do (as virtually all sentient human beings do, whether they acknowledge it or not). Someone wisely said: “the most dangerous philosophy is the unacknowledged one.”

We often find in the false rhetoric of Christian apologists and of Christian pseudo-intellectuals the claim that atheism is itself a belief.

Technically, “non-belief in God” is not a belief, but a rejection of another; I (and we) agree. However (and it’s a huge “however”), atheists do highly tend to hold to certain beliefs, whether they will acknowledge them or not. And these beliefs do in fact add up to a particular worldview held by the vast majority of atheists. Briefly put, most of them are philosophical materialists, empiricists, positivists, methodological naturalists, enraptured with science as supposedly the sole valid epistemology: making it essentially their religion (“scientism”): all of which are objectively identifiable positions, that can be discussed and either embraced or dismissed.

So it’s not so much that we are saying that there is an “atheist worldview” per se. Rather, we make the observation (from long personal experience, if one is an apologist like myself) that every self-described “atheist” will overwhelmingly tend to possess a particular worldview (whatever they call it or don’t call it) that is an amalgam of many specific, identifiable things that themselves are worldviews or philosophies or ways of life.

Whatever one thinks of the above analysis, it remains the case that atheists call themselves atheists, and that it is highly likely that they will hold to one or more the (usually clustered) belief-systems outlined above. And they will often be blind to the fact that they are doing so, and will talk in terms of their simply following “science” and/or “reason” (with the implication that the non-atheist usually does not do either or is fundamentally irrational or “naive” or “gullible” simply because they reject atheism). Dr. Miller reflects this annoying and condescending attitude as well, when he writes:

We may as well call ourselves the adrogonists or the alephrechaunists, inasmuch as the very identity “atheist” tacitly legitimates the patently ridiculous, as though a genuine rational debate exists between two opposing sides. To carry on with non-belief in fairies, leprechauns, ghouls, gods, angels, genies, or phantoms is merely to be reasonable, not to stake a position in any legitimate debate to be waged in society. The moon is not made of green cheese, and the dismissal of such a “Mother-Goose” characterization of reality does not earn one the tag “a-green-cheese-moonist,” but merely one who is “reasonable.”

For, belief in mythology is and always has been a conscious, willful indulgence, not a compelling, evidence-driven conclusion; the latter we instead properly term “knowledge.” So, when it comes to the matter of deities, in a more honest world we “atheists” instead would be known merely as the reasonable (in the most literal sense of the term), that is, those compelled by a mental construction of reality determined rather exclusively by evidence and reason.

I cannot count how many times and contexts I have come across this ridiculous claim, a claim akin to smokers alleging that non-smokers are also themselves smokers.. Ummm.. huh? No. By very fundamental definition, atheism entails no belief. Indeed, the term affirms nothing other than the negation. By comparison, in the phrase “The man is not a bingo player,” we affirm nothing about the man, except what he is not!

Again, the word does this, but I’m not discussing a mere word; I’m talking about what atheists do in fact believe, and asserting that atheists hold to beliefs and belief-systems (usually quite predictable ones at that). In other words: atheists are just as likely to hold worldviews as anyone else.

In like fashion, the appellation “atheist” stamped upon us has served as a rhetorical misnomer, the binary recessive determined by exclusion vis-a-vis the dominant group, to follow the parlance of Jacques Derrida. Where else do people play such a game with language? Atheism is a non-group, a namespace only by negation.

This is downright comical; as if atheists don’t massively choose to call themselves this name? They could reject it if they like. They’re free to do so. No one is forcing them at gunpoint to use this name for themselves. They could use “agnostic” (and many do, but it is a less certain and less dogmatic outlook), or they could use a word like “humanist” (which a number of them also do). But the fact remains that lots and lots of atheists show no reversion to the term atheist. Quite the contrary, they proudly embrace it.

For heaven’s sake, on the very website where this essay was published, if one looks at the top, we see John Loftus’ books in a photograph: one of which is Why I Became an Atheist (which I have critiqued ten times: with total silence back from Jittery John: he of explosive disposition on the few occasions where we actually interacted).

One can peruse book titles with “atheism” in them at Amazon. The late Christopher Hitchens (a very famous and influential atheist indeed) edited a book entitled, The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever. Loudmouthed anti-theist atheist Dan Barker authored the modestly titled volume, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists. I could note a guy like “DagoodS” whom I have met in person and have debated many times. He used to be very active also at Debunking Christianity. He exhibits no aversion to the term “atheist” at all, and write a post there called “Why is an atheist an atheist?” (1-11-07), in which he opined:

But ask an atheist why they are an atheist, and most times the person is so ready to respond to why the atheist is incorrect in her reply; they literally cannot wait for the poor person to stop talking. . . .

But get into this field, and I have people everywhere almost giddy with the joy of informing me why I am an atheist, regardless of what I say. Yes, sirree! . . .

You want to know why an atheist is an atheist. Ask him. . . .

See, people become atheists for as many and varied reasons as people do just about anything else. Yes, some do because of an emotional reaction. Some are born in atheist homes.

One could easily go on and on, with scores of further examples, but it quickly becomes ridiculous and an insult to everyone’s intelligence.

In conclusion, here are some of the many things that atheists en masse believe:

1) that matter exists.

*

2) that he or she exists.

*

3) that matter can be observed according to more or less predictable scientific laws (uniformitarianism).

*

4) that we can trust our senses to analyze such observations and what they mean (empiricism).

*

5) in the correctness of mathematics, which starts from axioms as well.

*

6) in the laws of logic, in order to even communicate (not to mention argue) anything with any meaning at all.

*

7) in presupposing that certain things are absolutely true.

*

8) that matter has the inherent “God-like” / in effect “omnipotent” capability of organizing itself, evolving, inexorably developing into all that we observe in the entire universe. There is no God or even any sort of immaterial spirit that did or could do this, so it has to fall back onto matter. The belief in this without any reason whatsoever to do so is what I have written at length about as the de facto religion of “atomism.”

*

9) that the universe began in a Big Bang (for who knows what reason).

*

10) that the universe created itself out of nothing (for who knows what reason), but it’s deemed more rational than the Christian believing that God is an eternal spirit, Who created the universe.

*

11) that science is the only method by which we can objectively determine facts and truth (extreme empiricism + scientism).
*

I’m sure I could come up with many more things if I sat and thought about it a while, but this is more than sufficient to demonstrate my point: atheists (as people) have worldviews, even though the word atheism itself merely means “rejecting a belief in God.”

And that’s what we lowly, despised apologists are saying. If it’s disagreed with, then I’m more than happy to interact and defend this paper. Have at it!

***

Photo credit: geralt (1-23-21) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Christian Apologetics Methodology: Similarities with Science

Last updated on: February 5, 2021 at 1:09 pm By Dave Armstrong

Christian apologetics is neither dishonest, a “stacked deck”, nor an “evidence-free” methodology, simply because the apologist assumes the truthfulness of Christian beliefs before he or she starts. The fact is that both philosophy and science (as well as mathematics) start from axioms or unproven premises and move on from there.

Modern science (especially since Darwin) commences with unproven or incompletely proven hypotheses and then seeks to disprove them (philosopher of science Karl Popper is notable for having stressed this idea of falsifiability).

As an example, today the big rage and cutting-edge of cosmology is dark matter and dark energy. I have recently written about these, in an analogical argument regarding God being a spirit (that is, a non-material entity just as scientists now tell us 68% of the universe is). Very little is known about either at this point, yet they are the hypotheses at present that scientists are seeking to bolster with observation and hard evidence.

So it is a methodology not completely unlike apologetics: a prior proposition is accepted, at least provisionally, without sufficient evidence to make it absolutely certain. Scientists then test it and see if it withstands the actual evidence. I do much the same thing as an apologist tackling proposed atheist “contradictions” in the Bible. I start with the faith assumption that the Bible is inspired and internally harmonious.

Atheists say that is poppycock and then provide me with 1001 “contradictions” that I get to spend entire days grappling with (which I actually enjoy: at least in particularly patient moods). This would be similar to the notorious “anomalies” in scientific hypotheses and theories that scientists grapple with. If I can defeat each of these contradictions with a plausible counter-reaction, then this backs up — or more accurately, establishes logical consistency with — my original Christian hypothesis.

I don’t think that’s any more questionable or intellectually dishonesty than scientists attempting to falsify hypotheses, to see if they can withstand scrutiny. They start out with a certain point of view just as I do.

I’m not saying it is an exact analogy (few are), but it is enough of one to establish my point and defend myself and my methodology as a Christian apologist. Everyone holds unproven axioms or premises that they regard (whether provisionally or by stronger opinions) as unquestionable. And they proceed accordingly.

There are many such laws regarded in this way in science; for example, the three laws of thermodynamics or biological evolution. Anyone who questions either gets the fifth degree as an anti-scientific troglodyte. They function (in practical effect) as scientific dogmas, just as we Christians have our root premises held in faith, but not contrary to reason (the Bible is inspired); therefore these alleged “contradictions” should have counter-arguments which can defeat them.

I start with the premise that the Bible is internally consistent. I don’t have “proof” of that from reason, of such a nature that it convinces one and all of its truthfulness. But what happens as an apologist is that once I refute literally hundreds and hundreds of these claims (in effect, testing or examining my hypothesis), then I am more confident — in reason — that my faith premise is indeed true, because it has withstood all that onslaught.

Atheists do the same thing. They start with a premise that the Bible is uninspired and is simply a collection of fables, old wives’ tales, legends, etc., of ancient ignorant and primitive people who have little to teach us sophisticated moderns. Then they read these old dusty atheist collections of biblical contradictions and get confirmed in their original suspicions and gut instincts.

Then the reactions (or lack thereof) of Christians further confirm them, because almost all Christians are woefully uneducated in apologetics and cannot defend their views rationally. So the atheist sees that and concludes: see! Christians are ignorant, anti-intellectual and anti-science. Glad I ain’t one of ’em and have been liberated . . .”

What I do as an apologist is aggressively tackle these objections, interact with them and their defenders (as the case may be), present both sides on my blog in a dialogue format, and let readers decide who presented a better, more believable case.

Apart from what I have observed about methodology, I think that is far more honest and open than atheists gathering together in forums, simply cheerleading each other and rarely interacting with serious opposing Christian arguments.

***

Photo credit: geralt (1-27-21) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Pearce’s Potshots #13: Resurrection “Contradictions” (?)

Last updated on: February 2, 2021 at 12:23 pm By Dave Armstrong

*****

I am replying to Jonathan’s paper, “Contradictions in the Resurrection of Jesus Accounts” (1-31-21), which is apparently actually written by one David Austin, but in any event, wholly endorsed by Jonathan. It starts out with the usual laundry list of 18 alleged contradictions in the biblical accounts, in a neat little chart. This stuff makes the anti-theist atheist Bible bashers drool. They love it.

Most of these sorts of “alleged contradictions” are simply recycled from some prior standard “playbook” atheist volume, which may even be a few hundred years old. I highly doubt that most atheists actually sit reading the Bible, to come up with these bogus “contradictions.” That’s why most of these things never cross most Christians’ minds (including my own): because you have to work very hard to notice them in the first place.

Atheists most assuredly do not love it, however, when Christians refute their bogus biblical claims. I have done so scores of times, and it’s almost always so easy — usually involving the simplest of logical errors — that I have come to enjoy these challenges quite a bit; gives me something fun to do. Answering all 18 points in the chart only took me a few hours. Readers can view the chart at the link above. I shall respond to each point by number below.

1) “Women at Tomb“: Not contradictory because in questions of numbers of people said to do something or be somewhere, etc., an actual logical contradiction requires exclusionary clauses such as “only x, y, and z were there and no one else” or “only three people witnessed incident a.” None of the Gospel texts do that here; hence, no demonstrable contradiction (see Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1; Lk 24:1-10; Jn 20:1). Some atheists who concede this logical shortcoming will nonetheless (rather desperately) go on to argue that it is still a “contradiction” in some sense because, after all, the texts don’t all say exactly the same thing.

Unfortunately, that’s not how logic works, and it is ridiculous and downright unrealistic to “demand” that four separate accounts written by as many people must report what was seen in identical fashion; otherwise, the ubiquitous atheist cry of “contradiction!” will raise its ugly and obnoxious head.

2) “Guards at the tomb“: Not a contradiction merely because Matthew mentions this and the other three Gospels don’t. Arguments from silence prove nothing. A true contradiction would require one or more of the other three to say something like “the tomb was unguarded.” That‘s a direct contradiction. It would be nice if once in a while atheists could actually produce one of those. As it is, they make fools of themselves all the time with these pseudo-“contradictions” that aren’t at all. It’s embarrassing.

One would think that logic (like fresh air, cute puppies, and the joy of ice cream) is something where Christians and atheists could readily agree with each other. But sadly, that’s not the case: at least not in the “1001 biblical contradictions” sub-group of anti-theist atheists. They wouldn’t know a real contradiction from a hole in the ground.

3) “Time of women’s visit“: the descriptions in RSV are “toward the dawn . . . [they] went to see the sepulchre” (Mt 28:1) [David Austin describes it as “day was dawning”], “very early . . . they went to the tomb when the sun had risen” (Mk 16:2), “at early dawn, they went to the tomb” (Lk 24:1) — clearly no contradiction so far — “; then we have: “Mary Mag’dalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark” (Jn 20:1). A plausible resolution is to posit that John describes an earlier visit of Mary Magdalene only. She then would have gone back with other women (since she is mentioned in all four accounts — as the chart notes in #1 –, but alone only in John 20:1).

The inevitable atheist objection might then be: “well, then why didn’t the text say it was an earlier visit?” Because it doesn’t have to. It’s a silly demand. They would simply be describing different visits to the tomb. It would be like my saying, “my daughter got up and ate breakfast” [and shortly after I went off to work], and my wife [stay-at-home mom] saying [referring to the same morning], “my daughter and her brother ate brunch together.”

Though the two accounts don’t reference each other, they don’t contradict at all. Our daughter ate two meals; one being alone and the other not. But in fact, in the Gospel of John the text does show Mary visiting alone (20:1), then running to tell the disciples the tomb was empty (20:2), and then after “the disciples went back to their homes” (20:10), being outside the tomb again, weeping (20:11) and then seeing the risen Jesus (20:14-17) and then going to the disciples and telling them she saw Jesus risen (20:18).

4) “Reason for visit“: Matthew says two women “went to see the sepulchre”; that is, they wanted to see if it was left as it was when Jesus was laid there: in order to apply burial spices. What other reason would there be? Mark and Luke mention the intent to anoint Jesus’ body. Matthew doesn’t contradict that. It simply (arguably) describes it in different terms. John gives no reason, but again, the logical thing is to assume it is referring to anointing of the body. They wanted to get it done as soon as the sun came up. It was Jewish ritual. In April 2019 I refuted atheist Bob Seidensticker (one of 71 unanswered times) regarding Jewish burial spices. I made a humorous (but quite apt) analogy in that paper, relevant to this section:

First of all, just because John does not state the reason why Mary went to the tomb, it doesn’t follow that no reason existed. This is not a contradiction. . . . One might say, by the same token: “Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Bob Seidensticker went to the bathroom”. Did he go there for “no reason” too? Or is it reasonable to assume that he must have had some reason, which was not stated in this particular description, but also is not that difficult to surmise? Maybe an additional account (say, Bob’s diary) could conceivably inform us that he went to empty his bladder, comb his hair, and brush his teeth (and perhaps also to spend a minute admiring a sophist in the mirror).

Austin noted twice that John stated that the body was already anointed. But it’s plausible to hold that the women thought it was hastily or insufficiently done after the crucifixion, for lack of time, since it was getting dark. So they went again (after the Sabbath day was over). It’s just another trumped-up faux-“contradiction” that is not at all. One wearies of this. Believe me, as an apologist who deals with this all the time, it’s far beyond frustrating by now. On the other hand, I’m delighted to have these golden opportunities to demonstrate the bankruptcy of anti-theist attempts to tear down the Bible and Christianity.

5) “Stone rolled away“: Matthew seems to mention it as occurring in the women’s presence; the other three Gospels portray it as having already happened when they got there. Catholic apologist Karlo Broussard ably tackles this one:

Once again, the objection makes a false assumption—namely, that Matthew is intending to assert that the women witnessed the angel rolling away the stone. But a close examination of the text proves otherwise. First, as A. Jones argues in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, the entire passage concerning the angel, the stone, and the guards who “trembled and became like dead men” (Matt. 28:2-4) seems to be a parenthetical statement. It’s unlikely that the women would have conversed with the angel while the guards laid there as if dead.

*

Furthermore, the details concerning the angel and the stone are introduced with the Greek conjunction gar: “And behold, there was a great earthquake; for [Greek, gar] an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it” (28:2, emphasis added). Such an explanatory conjunction is used to introduce a clarification of a previous part of the sentence. For Matthew, the angel rolling away the stone is his explanation for the earthquake, not to assert that the women witnessed a stone-moving spectacle.

*

This answer could be further supported by Matthew’s use of an indicative mood in the aorist verb tense of ginomai: “And behold, there was [Greek, egeneto] a great earthquake” (28:2, emphasis added). The aorist verb tense in the indicative mood usually denotes the simple past. So a possible translation is “an earthquake had occurred,” implying the women didn’t witness it. Even the angel’s descent can be described as having already occurred, since the aorist participle katabas (“descended”) can be translated with the English past perfect: “for an angel of the Lord had descended” (28:2; ISV, emphasis added). (“Biblical Resurrection Reports Are Not ‘Hopelessly Contradictory’ “, Catholic Answers, 7-11-17)

6) “Earthquake“: Only Matthew mentions it, but this is explained in the explanation provided for #5 above. It was a past incident.

7) “Angels/men seen at the tomb“: Again, the explanation in #5 accounts for the uniqueness of Matthew’s account (angel sitting on a rolled-away stone). The various reports of angels’ actions are not necessarily contradictory at all. Angels are (in the biblical view: believe it or not), extraordinary supernatural creatures, and they do lots of appearing and disappearing. Austin makes an issue out of Matthew and John referring to “angels” but Mark and Luke calling them “men.” But he notes that in Luke they were later referred to as “angels” (24:23).

And that’s because both terms are used for angels. In Genesis 19, for example, “two angels” visit Lot (19:1), but in the same passage they are also called “men” twice (19:10, 12) and then “angels” again (19:15) and “men” again (19:16). In Judges 13, this interchangeability is striking, with reference to an “angel” (13:3, 6, 9, 13, 15-18, 20-21) and “man” (13:6, 10-11): referring to the same being.

8) “Did women/woman enter tomb?“: Mark and Luke say they did. Matthew and John don’t. But to contradict the other two reports, they would have to outright deny that it happened. And of course they don’t do that, so (sorry, guys!), no contradiction is present. Matthew strongly implies that they did, however, because the angel says to them, “Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead . . .” (28:6-7).

9) “Did disciple[s] visit tomb?“: John says Peter and John (“the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved”: John’s humble terminology to refer to himself); Luke says “Some of those who were with us [i.e., apostles: 24:10, 13] went to the tomb” [24:24]. It doesn’t specify Peter, as Austin claims, but it might be taken as strongly implied by “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” (24:34). No contradiction so far (by the same logical criteria I have repeatedly explained, here, and many times to atheists in the past).

Matthew doesn’t specifically say, but it says that the women “ran to tell his disciples” (28:8). Now what would you do if you were Jesus’ disciples — in despair over His crucifixion — and were told that He had risen from the dead? Of course, you would run to the tomb to see, which is exactly what Luke and John report, and which Matthew surely strongly insinuates. Austin presupposes the view that Mark 16:9-20 is not actually part of the Gospel. For a great refutation of that, see Dave Miller: “Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?” Apologetics Press, 2005 [link] ). But either way, Mark 16 (long or short) doesn’t specifically say that a disciple went to the tomb. But it doesn’t deny it, either, so it is the good ol’ notorious argument from silence again. So: no problem in the final analysis.

10) “Did disciple[s] enter tomb?“: John says Peter and John did; the others say nothing (argument of silence and thus, no contradiction). To not mention something is not the same as a denial. If I don’t mention that the sun came up this morning, it doesn’t follow that I denied it. If I forget to say “I love you” to my wife one day, I highly doubt that she will conclude that I don’t, based only on that. This kind of “reasoning” is just dumb. It’s unworthy of any thinking person.

11) “What did disciple[s] see?“: Luke and John saw “linen” cloths in the tomb. Matthew and Mark are silent; so no contradiction. Atheists seem to not realize that the four Gospels are obviously complementary to one another. No single one of them is required to report every jot and tittle of an event. They differ (but don’t contradict) just as any four witnesses of a crime usually will report or emphasize different aspects of the truth of what occurred, and perhaps miss some details that other witnesses saw. All of them together, if consistent, verify each other’s claims.

Likewise, what one Gospel doesn’t mention is usually mentioned by another. In fact, this silly chart bears strong witness to that, even in its dumbfounded opposition to biblical inspiration and harmony. I’m sitting here (as always) having my faith in biblical inspiration strengthened, because the critical objections are so ridiculously weak and non-substantial. This is the blessing of apologetics.

12) “Did women/woman meet Jesus?“: Since Mark and Luke are silent on this aspect, they can’t contradict. Austin attempts to make hay out of the women grabbing Jesus’ feet and worshiping Him in Matthew, but Mary Magdalene later being told “not to touch” Jesus in John 20:17. A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament explains this:

Touch me not (mh mou aptou). Present middle imperative in prohibition with genitive case, meaning “cease clinging to me” rather than “Do not touch me.” Jesus allowed the women to take hold of his feet (ekrathsan) and worship (prosekunhsan) as we read in Matthew 28:9 . The prohibition here reminds Mary that the previous personal fellowship by sight, sound, and touch no longer exists and that the final state of glory was not yet begun. Jesus checks Mary’s impulsive eagerness (A T Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, John 20:17).

Almost all more recent English translations reflect this more specific (prolonged, more intense) sense of touch: *

RSV: hold

*

TEV / NIV / NRSV / Beck: hold on to

*

NAB: holding on to

*

ESV / NKJV / Weymouth / Barclay / Goodspeed / NEB / REB / Jerusalem / Knox / Amplified: cling

*

NASB / Williams / Wuest / Moffatt: clinging

So (guess what?), no contradiction again.

13) “What did Jesus say to the women/woman?“: Mark and Luke are silent; Matthew and John say two different, but not contradictory things. So to be contradictory, one or both would have to say, Jesus said only [whatever]. But they don’t.

14) “Where was 1st Jesus appearance to Disciples?” Mark doesn’t say. The others don’t indicate that their account was the “first” appearance (Austin baldly assumes this to be the case), so different harmonious chronologies are entirely possible to construct (and a “contradiction” impossible to undeniably construct).

15) “Where was 2nd Jesus appearance to Disciples?” Matthew and Mark are silent, and so irrelevant. John doesn’t specify that there were no visits in-between the two he mentions, and “first and second” can only apply to his version itself (not to the other Gospels), even if we assume that the two mentioned are directly chronological. The same factors apply to Luke’s account.

16) “Where was 3rd Jesus appearance to Disciples?” Only John mentions a third in his own account, but this doesn’t prove that it is the third time, period. My replies to #14-15 apply here too. These challenges get easier the more they continue! It’s pretty tough to come up with 18 fake biblical “contradictions”; not even one having any validity or force. Whoever devised this list surely flunked logic (assuming he even took it: and that’s a huge assumption).

17) “When did the Disciples receive the ‘Holy Spirit’?“: Matthew, Mark, and Luke are silent. But as Austin notes, Acts [2] places it 50 days later (and most Christians believe Luke wrote Acts). John 20:22 has Jesus visiting ten disciples (minus Thomas and the fallen Judas) and bestowing on them (“receive“) the Holy Spirit. Acts 2 is a completely different public event, with tongues of fire and speaking in tongues. There is no contradiction present. Here they (disciples and any others, too) are described as being “filled with the Holy Spirit” (2:4). Apples and oranges. An apple doesn’t “contradict” an orange.

18) “When & where did Ascension happen?“: only one mentions it, so how can it be a contradiction? Acts appears at first glance to conflict with Luke (which would be a self-contradiction), but there are adequate explanations for this. I have already dealt with this topic. *

[to be continued]

***

Photo credit: geralt (8-18-16) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Loftus Lies #23: Hypocrisy Re Deconversion Stories

Last updated on: January 19, 2021 at 11:18 am By Dave Armstrong

Atheist author and polemicist John W. Loftus wrote an article entitled, “The Evidential Value of Conversion/Deconversion Stories. Reviewing Mittelberg’s “Confident Christianity” Part 7″ (2-22-18). I will be responding to his arguments regarding atheist deconversion stories (which tell of how and why one left the Christian faith). His words will be in blue.

*****

I want to digress a bit for this post to discuss the value of personal conversion/deconversion stories. [Nomenclature: A conversion story is one which an atheist or nonbeliever becomes a Christian. A deconversion story is one in which a Christian becomes a non-believer or atheist.] . . .

Mittelberg never tells any Christian-to-atheist deconversion stories. He just tells atheist-to-Christian conversion stories (plus Antony Flew’s story). Should we fault him for not telling any deconversion stories? Yes, I think so! For it means he’s not offering readers any evidence to consider, but rather trying to persuade them to believe based on the conclusions others reached. His faulty line of reasoning goes this: since atheist person X became a Christian, you should too. Why should that matter? He had asked readers to follow the evidence for themselves. But by putting forth several stories of skeptic/atheist conversions to Christianity he’s not actually presenting any objective evidence for the readers to consider. Instead, he’s presenting the conclusions of others about the evidence, which is arguing by authority, the very thing he questions later. He had also asked readers to follow logic. But by adopting the conclusion of others just because they adopted it is not logical. Why not just present the evidence? The stories are a propaganda technique designed purposefully to persuade.

In any case, if Mittelberg considers atheist-to-Christian conversion stories as some kind of evidence, he needs to share a few Christian-to-atheist deconversion stories, or else, explain why the later deconversion stories have very little, or no evidential weight to them! If he’s honest that is. If nothing else, he should provide an Endnote acknowledging this additional issue with a reference for readers to look up. But then, who said apologetics was an honest enterprise? Not me. Not from what I see.

This is absolutely fascinating. I say that specifically because I have my own history of interaction with John Loftus, and of dealing with many atheists, whose deconversion stories I have critiqued. I’ve done quite a few of these through the years (including John’s). One can check out the section “Atheist ‘Deconversions'” on my Atheism web page, plus other critiques of atheists to whom I’ve devoted sections on that page.

I can testify (no pun intended!) that absolutely nothing makes an atheist (at least of the anti-theist variety) more angry than having some Christian critique their deconversion. They especially hate and despise any insinuation at all that they may have left Christianity out of ignorance and false premises, rather than the claimed massive increase in knowledge and rationality.

Anthony Toohey is one of the few atheists who has ever troubled himself to reply back to one of my critiques (twice; I link to his second counter-reply). And of course, he is very personally hostile (the virtually universal response to my critiques). First, he refers to me as “simply a self-educated Catholic schlemiel with a blog,” then pours out the inevitable avalanche of personal insults:

Dave is just being the aforementioned jerk . . . habit of inserting the worst assumptions into every gap he can find rather than make an honest attempt . . . offensive and puerile tactics of belittling the writer because of what he imagines in the spaces rather than respond to what he actually reads in the words . . . Dave’s dishonesty . . .

Then he concludes:

The main takeaway is that Dave is reading a deconversion story, and is mystified that in 2,701 words he can’t find a book full of arguments as to why Christianity is not to be believed. And he trashes John [Loftus] for it. John calls him stupid. I don’t think he’s far from the mark there, if we’re being honest. John’s challenge is for Dave to put his money where his mouth is and actually read the damn book. Dave won’t.

Believe me, this is absolutely typical of responses to critiques such as those I have offered. Most won’t write an entire counter-response, but there will be snipes in comboxes, and then feeding frenzies, where a bunch of atheists decide to go on the attack and anything goes. Note, however, how Anthony claims that I supposedly “won’t” read John Loftus’ book about his deconversion. Therein lies a tale, and is the main focus of this paper.

I first critiqued one online version of Loftus’ deconversion way back on 10-15-06. This is how Loftus responded:

You are an idiot! You never critiqued my whole deconversion story. Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. Other than that, you can critique a few brief paragraphs or a brief testimony, if you want to, but that says very little about why someone left the faith. You walk away thinking you have completely analysed someone’s story. But from where I sit, that’s just stupid. That’s S-T-U-P-I-D! If you truly want to critique a deconversion story, then critique mine in my book. I wrote a complete story there.

Dave, I can only tolerate stupidity so long.

I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. It’s a complete story. A whole story. It’s mine.

Do you accept my challenge?

At the time I declined. Here is an abridged version of my explanation why:

1) First of all, why would you even want to have your book critiqued by someone whom you routinely call an “idiot,” an “arrogant idiot,” a “joke,” a “know-it-all,” and so forth? I’ve never understood this.

2) It is a hyper-ludicrous implication to maintain that deconversion stories are immune to all criticism simply because they are not exhaustive. It’s embarrassing to even have to point this out, but there it is.

3) I have already long since taken up your “challenge.” I said many weeks ago that if you sent me your book in an e-file for free, I’d be more than happy to critique it. I won’t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. I actually try to comprehensively answer opposing arguments, not just talk about them or do a mutual monologue. You railed against that, saying that it was a “handout.” I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.

4) One wonders, however, with your manifest “gnashing teeth” attitude towards me, what would be accomplished by such a critique? You’ve already shown that you can’t or won’t offer any rational counter-reply when I analyze any of your arguments.

Loftus, around this time, made a challenge to a Protestant who had critiqued his shorter deconversion story:

Again, are you going to read it [his book, Why I Am an Atheist] and critique it for yourself? Hey, I dare you! I bet you think you’re that smart, don’t ya, or that your faith is that strong – that you can read something like my book and not have it affect your faith.

If Christianity is true, then you have nothing to fear. But if Christianity is false, then you owe it to yourself to get the book. Either way you win.

And even if you blast my book after reading it here on this Blog, I’ll know that you read it, and just like poison takes time to work, all I have to do from then on is to wait for a personal crisis to kill your faith.

Want to give it a go? The way I see you reason here makes me think it’ll make your head spin with so many unanswerable questions that you won’t know what to do.

But that’s just me. I couldn’t answer these questions, so if you can, you’re a smarter man than I am, and that could well be. Are you? I think not, but that’s just me.

Yet one of Loftus’ droning complaints about me is that I am way too confident! I never claimed that someone would inevitably become a Christian or a Catholic Christian upon reading any of my books or many online papers! Then he sent his potshots my way again:

You’re a joke. I’m surprised you have an audience. . . . To think you could pompously proclaim you are better than me is beyond me when you don’t know me. It’s a defensive mechanism you have with people like me. . . . It’s called respecting people as people, and Dave’s Christianity does not do that with people who don’t agree with him. . . . I’m just tired of pompous asses on the internet who go around claiming they are superior to me in terms of intelligence and faith. Such arrogance makes me vomit. . . . self-assured arrogant idiots out there, like Dave, who prefer to proclaim off of my personal experience that they are better than I. (all on 10-16-06)

Six weeks later (11-30-06) he railed against me again:

You are ignorant

you present your uninformed arguments as if everyone should agree with you

Any educated person would not state the things you do with such arrogance.

with you there is no discussion to be had for any topic you write about.

You are the answer man. Everyone else is ignoring the obvious. And that’s the hallmark of an ignorant and uneducated man.

I am annoyed by people like you, . . . pompous self-righteous know-it-all’s

Now you are attempting to defend the arrogant way you argue.

You’re just right about everything, or, at least you always come across that way.

you are an uneducated, ignorant, arrogant know-it-all.

So, anyway, this is how John Loftus: the Great Unvanquishable Christianity-Killer and Self-Proclaimed Very Important Atheist Author replied in this fashion to my critique of his story. Does that strike anyone as confident and assured that he was on the right side of the debate and had the better arguments? Yeah, that was my impression, too.

It was in June 2019 that Loftus friend Anthony Toohey confidently proclaimed that I “won’t” touch Loftus’s book, Why I Became An Atheist (the implication being, of course, that was scared and/or unable to do so). I explained why I didn’t. The main reason was that Loftus refused to send me a free PDF copy of the book, so I could deal with it point-by-point without having to type War and Peace.

But I changed my mind on 9-1-19, writing on Facebook:

I Will be Doing an In-Depth Series of Replies to Atheist John Loftus’ Self-Described “Magnum Opus,” “Why I Became an Atheist.”

I’ve been asking Loftus since 2006 [13 years!] to send me an ebook of his for free to review (while offering him any number of my books for free). He has always refused. I didn’t want to spend any money to buy one.

*

I did a critique of one online version of his deconversion story in 2006. He kept insisting that to properly do such a critique, I had to order his book, where it appeared in its fullness.

*

Lately, he has again acted like such an insufferable, pompous ass, as he has towards me these past 13 years (most recently censoring even bare links of mine to my replies to material on his website), that I decided tonight to purchase this book (revised version).

*

I got it for $7.52 on Amazon, including shipping, for a used / very good condition copy. That won’t put me out. He’s been challenging and insulting me, so very well: I shall now devote my energies to replying to this book.

*

If he is so momentously famous and important as he modestly claims he is, then my replies should get a ton of attention. That would be fine for my purposes, but as always, I’m not in this for the money. I’m simply providing rational replies to objections to Christianity. Whoever reads them, reads them. That’s not up to me. It’s not my concern. My job is to do the best job I can do, according to my capabilities.

Stay tuned!

I then set to work on my rebuttal, over the next ten days. Here it is, in ten installments:

Loftus Atheist Error #1: Intro: “Why [He] Became an Atheist” [9-3-19]

Loftus Atheist Error #2: 16-Page Deconversion Story [9-4-19]

Loftus Atheist Error #3: Scientism & a “Better [Pascal’s] Wager” [9-5-19]

Loftus Atheist Error #4: The Outsider Test for Faith [9-5-19]

Loftus Atheist Error #5: Origins, Flew’s Deism, Anthropomorphism [9-9-19]

Loftus Atheist Error #6: Is God “Love” or a “Moral Monster”? [9-9-19]

Loftus Atheist Error #7: Christian Influence on Science [9-9-19]

Loftus Atheist Error #8: Ancient Jews, “Body” of God, & Polytheism [9-10-19]

Loftus Atheist Error #9: Bible Espouses Mythical Animals? [9-10-19]

Loftus Atheist Error #10: Prophet Jeremiah vs. Mosaic Law? [9-11-19]

So of course, Loftus (full of vim and vigor and supremely confident of his beliefs) would certainly respond to such a vigorous critique, right?: since, after all, he had challenged me and others to do this very thing, and since he had written about a year-and-a-half earlier, regarding another Christian apologist:

[H]e needs to share a few Christian-to-atheist deconversion stories, or else, explain why the later deconversion stories have very little, or no evidential weight to them! If he’s honest that is. If nothing else, he should provide an Endnote acknowledging this additional issue with a reference for readers to look up. But then, who said apologetics was an honest enterprise? Not me.

Alrightey! So he made an honest man of me, and I have attained to the sublime levels of honesty and self-confidence that Jittery John Loftus has attained. So he will certainly defend himself now, right? Wrong! Here it is a year and four months later and I still haven’t heard a peep back from him. He’ still running and insulting, as always with me (these past 13 years). On 1-6-21 on his blog, he wrote about me: “I’ve had dealings with him. He’s obnoxious to the core whether it’s here or on his site. He’s unworthy of our time.” That’s anti-theist atheist-speak for “Man, I don’t know how to rationally overthrow his arguments so I better come up with a personal insult quick and pretend that that my critic’s profound ignorance and jerkhood is why I don’t reply!”

Meanwhile, over the past two years and a few months I’ve also been systematically refuting his associate, Dr. David Madison, a former Methodist pastor who is the dominant writer on Loftus’ blog, Debunking Christianity. He’s been refuted no less than 44 times, with not a single word in reply. Instead, he issued the following jeremiad against me on 9-6-19 (not naming me, but it was clear who he meant, after 35 of my critiques):

This is a time of distress for Christian apologists. These are the die-hards who brag that they are devotees—in a professional capacity, no less—of the ancient Jesus mystery cult. They feel compelled to defend it at whatever cost. But times are changing, and they face challenges unknown to earlier apologists. . . .

So the burden of the apologist has become heavy indeed, and some don’t handle the anguish well. They vent and rage at critics, like toddlers throwing tantrums when a threadbare security blanket gets tossed out. We can smell their panic. Engaging with the ranters serves no purpose—any more than it does to engage with Flat-Earthers, Chemtrail conspiracy theorists, and those who argue that the moon landings were faked.

The five stages of Bible grief provide opportunities to initiate dialogue. I prefer to engage with NON-obsessive-compulsive-hysterical Christians, those who have spotted rubbish in the Bible, and might already have one foot out the door.

So once again, his comrade isn’t following Loftus’ advice, either. Why should he, since Loftus himself doesn’t? The game is to act all confident and triumphant and to challenge some of those ignorant Christians out there to take up the challenge of the deconversion story or the Bible-bashing obsession of a man like Dr. Madison. When someone takes up the challenge, both of ’em do absolutely everything they can to avoid any interaction.

Ten days earlier, on 8-28-19, Loftus himself had changed the rules of engagement for his forum, so as to deal with the huge “crisis” that my actually taking up his own challenge posed:

Some angry Catholic apologist has been tagging our posts with his angry long-winded responses. I know of no other blog, Christian or atheist, that allows for arguments by links, especially to plug one’s failing blog or site. I’ve allowed it for about a month with this guy but no more. He’s not banned. He can still come here to comment. It’s just that we don’t allow responses in the comments longer than the blog post itself, or near that. If any respectful person has a counter-argument or some counter-evidence then bring it. State your case in as few words as possible and then engage our commenters in a discussion. But arguments by links or long comments are disallowed. I talked with David Madison who has been the target of these links and he’s in agreement with this decision. He’s planning to write something about one or more of these links in the near future [he has yet to do so, now almost 17 months later]. So here’s how our readers can help. I’ve deleted a few of these arguments by link. There are others I’ve missed. If you see some apologist arguing by link flag it. Then I’ll be alerted where it is to delete it. What’s curious to me are the current posts he’s neglecting, like this one on horrific suffering. If he tackles that one I’ll allow him a link back.

Can’t be too careful if you get a Christian who is actually refuting your arguments! He must be silenced and mocked and dismissed in whatever way it takes: insults, ignoring, feeding frenzies in echo chamber comboxes, removing links informing your readers that he has refuted your right-hand man now for the 35th time . . .

This is how Loftus and his anti-theist buddy Dr. David Madison actually act! So in light of this revealing background information, let’s get back to Loftus’ post that I was addressing at the top:

What are these conversion stories evidence for? That people change their minds. We already knew this. But it’s worse than that. For as soon as Mittelberg uses conversion stories to bolster his case, it means he has to allow atheists to use their own deconversion stories to persuade people. When he does, it will provoke a debate over which side has the advantage, and Mittelberg will lose the advantage. All by themselves then, the fact that people change their minds provides no evidential weight in and of itself. But upon considering all other relevant things, ex-Christian deconversion stories have the evidential advantage.

Yeah, that’s obviously the case, ain’t it, which must be the reason why Loftus has ignored ten critiques of his book-length deconversion, why his loudmouthed associate David Madison has ignored 44 rebuttals of his relentless Bible-bashing, and why fellow anti-theist atheist Bob Seidensticker (who directly challenged me to take up the burden of answering his charges) has now absolutely ignored no less than a remarkable 69 critiques of mine.

Who could fail to be impressed by this confident performance?: three of the most vocal and influential atheists online have now ignored a total of 123 of my critiques!

There are many Christian-turned-atheist deconversion stories, like those of authors Dan Barker, Hector Avalos, David Madison, David Chumney, Bart Ehrman, Valerie Tarico, Robert Price, Richard C. Miller, Marlene Winell, Edwin Suominen, Joe E. Holman, Stephen Uhl, William Lobdell, Jason Long, Charles Templeton, Kenneth Daniels, Bruce Gerencser, and myself to name a few off the top of my head (apologies to the many others I failed to mention).

Perhaps Mr. John “You’re an idiot!” Loftus can be kind enough to let me know which of these will 1) not become furious if I critique their story, and 2) will actually respond and be willing to engage in written debate? I did critique Joe E. Holman’s story, right before I critiqued Loftus’ own, in October 2006.

To highlight one of the less conspicuous deconversions is Dustin Lawson, a former protege of Christian apologist Josh McDowell. McDowell goes around to churches telling them to try to disprove Christianity. Well, Dustin listened to him and followed his advice! Guess what happened? ;-) Here’s a picture of us together, the apostates that apologists William Lane Craig and Josh McDowell would like to forget!

Thanks for the recommendation. I’ll have to seek out this guy and see if he has more intellectual courage than Loftus, Madison, Seidensticker et al.

Loftus then provides links to three sites that specialize in posting deconversion stories. I have bookmarked them and will be sure to check them out after the kind encouragement of Jittery John. Certainly, all these confident, oh-so-smart and superior atheists will warmly welcome any such challenge to their stories from a lowly Christian ignoramus like me, right?

Our stories are not just personal feel good stuffs. We have the arguments too.

Yeah, they have arguments all right. It’s just that they are terribly weak and I’ve never had any trouble exposing them for how fallacious, fact-challenged, and unconvincing they are. One is never more convinced of Christianity than after one sees how very flimsy and insubstantial the opposing arguments are, and how misinformed so many ex-Christians were of their faith (including Loftus himself) before they made the fateful decision to leave Christianity.

***

Photo credit: cover of John Loftus’ 2012 book from its Amazon page.

***

Miracle of the Sun at Fatima: Brief Exchange

Last updated on: September 15, 2020 at 11:04 am By Dave Armstrong

“VicqRuiz” describes himself as “on the boundary between agnosticism and deism. I find that I am unable to accept either materialist scientism or the idea of a personal God.” His words will be in blue.

*****

Atheists and agnostics usually mean [by “evidence”] “something that leaves a trace in the physical record”. Apologists can mean this, but often they mean “something that would be accepted under legal rules of evidence”. This usually amounts to eyewitness testimony.

A good example would be the supposed 1917 miracle at Fatima. A Catholic apologist may unhesitatingly say that there is sufficient eyewitness testimony to make the case that the sun actually stopped and moved erratically in the sky. A skeptic would ask why, if the sun moved, was it not seen throughout the hemisphere (much less why the orbits of the earth and other planets were not impacted).

Personally, I am willing to accept the possible reality of intangible and supernatural things. However, if the supernatural reaches into 3-D space and time and touches something, it should leave a footprint that can be analyzed.

That miracle need not necessarily have been “astronomical.” God could also have changed the perception of those who saw it. Either one is something other than natural.

[see, for example, my paper on Joshua and the “sun standing still”]

I agree that is a possibility. However, it leaves the several hundred millions (half of the world population ca. 1917) who were not on that hillside in Portugal with the choice of trusting what those several thousand say they saw, or trusting the evidence of their own eyes.

Generally, if several thousand people say they saw the same thing, we trust them [see a collection of Fatima eyewitness accounts]. We trust even one credible witness in court cases. If there are three witnesses saying the same thing, the case is stronger. Thousands? All the more . . .

There are many things that lots of people see, but can’t yet explain. For example, UFOs. The very name is “unidentified.” One need not have any opinion at all on that topic (I myself am agnostic) to recognize that there have been many unexplained sightings.

That’s an argument which I have seen made by a number of apologists, and in fact I discussed it earlier this year with another Catholic apologist (who also happened to be an attorney) on his own blog.

What I am wondering is that if eyewitness testimony of the supernatural is of a quality as to be acceptable in court, whether there is any precedent in American or British courts of such testimony being ruled acceptable.

In other words, if someone claimed that the circumstances of a crime or a tort was influenced by supernatural factors, was that testimony made available to the jury and was it decisive. So far I am unaware of any such case.

I have no idea. But that’s beside my more fundamental point of noting how we (legally, and I think generally) are favorable towards eyewitness testimony (as long as such witnesses are credible).

And my analogy to UFOs also remains intact: we can trust the accounts of people (otherwise credible), of seeing things or events that they themselves can’t explain or interpret. The validity of their testimony doesn’t require them to have an opinion on a “weird” thing that they saw; only evidence that they did indeed see it. Hence, doctors, when they run across a purported miracle, will simply say “science in its present state cannot explain this phenomenon” or some such.

Thus, the eyewitness testimony of the “miracle of the sun” at Fatima doesn’t necessarily (logically) depend on their belief in the apparitions or what Mary was purported to have said. It is valid apart from that (though certainly most people there would have believed it in its “religious” context; according to that prior framework).

Fair enough. We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

***

Exchange on Miracles & Hyper-Rationalism [12-7-15]

Dialogues with Atheists on Miracles [6-8-16]

Does God Still Perform Miracles? (Some Evidence) [5-26-18]

Dialogue w Agnostic on Proof for Miracles (Lourdes) [9-9-18]
*

Miracles, Materialism, & Premises: Dialogue w Atheist [2-20-19]

Miracles & Scientific Method: Dialogue with Atheist [2-22-19]

Atheist Demands for a Miracle to “Prove” God (Dialogue) [2-22-19]

Atheist Desire for Amazing Divine Miracles / Incorruptibles [2-23-19]

***

(originally from 7-3-18)

Photo credit: [public domain / Aleteia]

***

C. S. Lewis Left Christianity Due to Masturbation?

Last updated on: November 20, 2021 at 2:50 pm By Dave Armstrong

Case Study of the Saying, “Heresy Begins Below the Belt”

The above saying expresses the notion that sexual urges and drives and acts (i.e., outside of heterosexual marriage and procreation) run contrary to a theology that defines many of them as intrinsically immoral. Therefore, the person who enjoys these thoughts and acts tends to want to reject the theology rather than their own chosen sexuality. And so they wander off into heresy because of this.

Perhaps the classic expression of this mentality is the famous statement of the English writer and philosopher Aldous Huxley (1894-1963): author of almost fifty books; most notably, Brave New World (1932) and The Doors of Perception (1954). Coincidentally, he died, along with President Kennedy, on the same day that Lewis did. In his 1937 collection of essays, Ends and Means, Huxley wrote:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning – the Christian meaning, they insisted – of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever. [my added italics]

In reading the highly regarded biography of Lewis by his friend George Sayer, entitled Jack: C. S. Lewis and His Times (Harper & Row, 1988), I was surprised to learn that young Lewis (around the ages of 13-15) lost his initial Christian faith — according to Sayer’s account — because of falling into a regular practice of masturbation. This, and what Huxley describes, support my long-time contention as an apologist, that loss of faith and apostasy far too often (if not usually) occur as a result of non-rational processes and urges, rather than Christianity failing the test of serious intellectual examination. Sayer writes on page 31 of his book:

He began to masturbate. One can only imagine the sense of guilt he felt. . . . The habit caused him more misery than anything else in his early life.

Of course, he struggled against it, but the agony of the struggle intensified the sense of guilt. He resolved fiercely never to do it again, and then suffered over and over the humiliation of failing to keep his resolution. His state, he tells us, was that described by Saint Paul in Romans 7:19-24: “. . . for the good that I would do, I do not: but the evil that I would not, that I do. . . . I delight in the law of God . . . but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind. . . . O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”

He prayed, too, and, because his prayers were not answered, he soon lost his faith. . . .

To attain psychological balance, he had to suppress his strong feelings of guilt, a feat he accomplished by rejecting Christianity and its morality. He went in for bravado, blasphemy, and smut, startling and shocking the boys who knew him best.

I’d like to analyze the “philosophical / apologetic” ramifications of this for a moment. I can imagine an atheist or one otherwise skeptical of Christianity (or particularly of Catholic Christianity) saying, “well, how can you blame young Lewis? After all, he sincerely resolved to end his practice, which he [wrongly] felt to be wrong, and sincerely prayed to God for aid in that resolve, and God [assuming for the sake of argument that he does exist] failed him. Is that not, then, God‘s fault, rather than his own?”

Like so many “armchair” garden variety atheist arguments (real or so-called), this one appears only at first glance to have weight and force. As a matter of indisputable fact, there are a number of seriously addictive or obsessive behaviors that human beings willingly begin and fall into, only to find later on that they are in “bondage”, would like to cease, and alas, cannot. Usually at first, it’s not understood that the behaviors will become so controlling and addictive. But once one is caught by the behavior, it’s very difficult to escape.

But whose fault is that? Is it God’s or the person who began the journey into the behavior? I would contend that it’s the latter, and that recourse to blaming God is simply blame-shifting. One can imagine many addictions, whether it is, for example, pedophilia, or smoking cigarettes, or various drug habits, or wife-beating, or gluttony, or rampant sexual promiscuity. Even intrinsically good things can become addictive and destructive; say, for example, that a man wants to read books or do gardening all day long, and as a result, neglects his duty to make a living.

We start these things and then in foolish pride, we want to blame someone else when it’s clear that we are engaged in unhealthy, destructive behavior. God is one such misguided target, because we can always convince ourselves that “God ought to enable me to stop if I ask Him.” Therefore, if He doesn’t do so, we can say that He is either weak or nonexistent. It’s a variation of the old “problem of evil” objection to Christianity.

On the other hand, I am certainly not denying altogether that there is such a thing as divine grace or power to overcome sin and evil. St. Paul tells us that “I can do all things in him who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13, RSV) and that “in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us” (Rom 8:37). I and virtually any serious Christian have experienced this help many times, and indeed, highly successful groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous presuppose that it exists in order to help alcoholics stop drinking.

So I’m not discounting that per se. What I’m saying is that it is unreasonable to demand that God (an omniscient Being infinitely higher than we are, and therefore, obviously often inexplicable to us as a result, as we would be to an ant) do what I want right now; under the pain of being rejected or disbelieved if He does not. God is under no obligation to perform any given miracle or to answer any and every prayer. He does what He does in His own time, for His own inscrutable reasons and providential purposes, and Christianity fully understands this. Biblical prayer is not automatic and unconditional, as I explained to two atheist apostates (Seidensticker and Madison).

The same Bible that contains the above verses also includes the book of Job, in which a most righteous (“blameless”) person terribly suffers for seemingly no reason. The same Paul who wrote those verses, had God turn down his request to remove a “thorn in the flesh” from him. God is not a magic wand or our own personal sock puppet, to maneuver as we will.

All this becomes simply a pretext for a rejection of God that was already present in kernel form. “Either God does X or I’m through with Him!” It’s kindergarten spirituality and rationalization of self-excess or an exaggerated sense of pseudo-“freedom.” It’s the initial sin of Adam and Eve and the devil: choosing their self-will over God’s. Aldous Huxley (admirably) admitted that this was what he was doing.

And I think that young C. S. Lewis (assuming Sayer’s opinion is correct) was doing the same thing, and that it’s irrational and unreasonable, for the reasons stated. Lewis later explained how and why masturbation is immoral (see below).

Why Did God Kill Onan? (Bible and Contraception) [2-9-04]

Dialogue: Why Did God Kill Onan? (Contraception) [2-13-04]

Onan, Contraception, & Two Protestant Bible Dictionaries [2-21-04]

Masturbation: Thoughts on Why it is as Wrong as it Ever Was [3-14-04 and 9-7-05; abridged, edited, and slightly modified on 8-14-19]

Masturbation Remains a Grave Sin (Debate w Steve Hays) [1-6-07; links added on 8-13-19]

Martin Luther Condemned Masturbation (“Secret Sin”) [6-2-10]

Masturbation & the Sermon on the Mount (Talmudic Parallels) [10-18-11]

Biblical Data Against Contraception: Onan’s Sin and Punishment: a Concise “Catholic” Argument [3-7-14]

Bible vs. Contraception: Onan’s Sin and Punishment [National Catholic Register, 5-30-17]

Masturbation: Gravely Disordered According to Catholicism [8-16-19]

Biblical Hyperbole, Masturbation, & Intransigent Atheists [9-3-19]

Debate: Masturbation Okay in Moderation or Intrinsically Wrong? [10-31-19]

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!*

***

Photo credit: original dust cover for George Sayer’s 1988 biography on C. S. Lewis [Amazon book page]

***

Apologetics = Anti-Faith or Absolute “Certainty”?

Last updated on: July 5, 2020 at 1:32 pm By Dave Armstrong

Or, “Does Christianity Reduce to Mere Philosophy or Rationalism?”

There seems to be some erroneous — sometimes almost obsessive — thought around in certain circles (roughly speaking: liberal Catholic ones) that apologetics is supposedly about the obtaining of absolute certainty through reason alone, as if faith has little or nothing to do with it. This is flat-out absurd and is a glaring falsehood (I carefully refrained from using the word “lie” because people get all on their ear).

I’ve been doing apologetics for 39 years now — the first nine as an evangelical Protestant — and have been a published apologist for 27 years and published author in the field (four bestsellers and over twenty “officially” published books) for 18 years. I’ve never seen anyone, to my recollection, who was an actual credentialed apologist (not just a guy with a blog who calls himself one after maybe reading one book), who was stupid and philosophically (or theologically) naive enough to teach such a view.

Even St. Thomas Aquinas: often the whipping-boy for those who foolishly think he taught some kind of “hyper-rationalism”, was clearly a proponent of faith and reason. His project was about a synthesis of orthodox Catholic faith with Aristotelian philosophy, which had been recently revived in 13th-century Europe.

Yet there is this thinking that apologists somehow delusionally pretend that hyper-rationalism is “the way” and that “certitude” is placed higher than God Himself; “absolute certainty” is the idol in their hearts and minds, that faith plays so little of a role in their view that they are actually not far from atheism. Rather than “faith alone” the motto is “reason alone” (so we are told). Those are the stereotypes.

Now I shall proceed to show what orthodox Catholic apologists (folks who actually accept the Catholic faith in its entirety) actually believe and teach: using my own example, since I think I am a rather typical one and in the “mainstream” and have perhaps written more on the topic than any other Catholic apologist operating today (2965 blog articles and 50 books). The following are all excerpts from my writings, with the original date and a link.

*****

And yes, it requires faith, like all Christian beliefs (which, in turn, requires enabling grace). No one denies that. [1997]

It is only the deliberate attempt to denigrate the reasoning process, or the intellect, or mental effort, or “philosophy,” or logic, which undermines what is clearly a biblical viewpoint and creates a false and unbiblical dichotomy between reason and faith. I could go on and on about this, . . . [3-20-99]

Believing Christians and Jews have always possessed “certainty” (I recommend St. John Henry Newman’s Grammar of Assent in this regard [extremely heavy reading: be forewarned] ). It is a rational faith, backed up by eyewitness testimony and historical evidences, and the history of doctrine. It is not mere hyper-rationalistic, Enlightenment-inspired philosophy, . . . No one is saying (or should say) that there is an absolute certainty in a strict philosophical sense . . . [July 2000]

[T]he atheist often demands absolute proof for the Bible’s claims before granting that the Christian has any basis for placing faith in it, that it is God’s inspired word. How an atheist regards any other work as true or false involves largely the same processes, with faith (or, trust, extrapolation, inductive leaps) added onto them. [11-13-02]

Christianity is not philosophy. It may be consistent with true philosophy, and not irrational or incoherent at all (I certainly believe so), but it is something different from philosophy per se. Philosophy simply does not constitute the sum of all knowledge. [3-10-03]

We deny “blind submission” and hold that one can have a reasonable faith and belief that God guides His one true Church. We believe that the one Church which He guides is the Catholic Church. [4-10-03]

When it comes to things like conversion (to Christ or to another faith community) it really comes down to faith. This is how conversion works. We are not computers or machines. We are whole people. Christianity is a faith, and requires faith to adopt (in whatever one of its brands). There is no avoiding this. One can never absolutely prove their system. That is not only true for Christianity but for any thought-system, in my opinion. Faith is also a gift from God and is only received through grace (contra Pelagianism and a religion of works). I think there is a concept of a “reasonable faith” and I certainly seek to follow reason at every turn, because I don’t see that “irrational faith” does anyone any good. A lack of reason can be as harmful as a lack of faith. Some people seem to think that Christianity and personal Christian faith are almost strictly matters of rationalism and making selections, much as one chooses a pair of shoes or what website to visit. This is sheer nonsense. They reduce Christianity to philosophy at various important points, which, to me, smacks of the Enlightenment and a sort of religion possessed by people like Jefferson or Voltaire. [5-13-03]

One ought to always have a reasonable faith, supported by as much evidence as one can find (I thoroughly oppose fideism or “pietism” — which attempt to remove reason from the equation). We accept in faith what appears most plausible and likely to be true from our reasoning and examination of competing hypotheses and worldviews. We are intellectually “duty-bound” to embrace the outlook that has been demonstrated (to our own satisfaction, anyway) to be superior to another competing view. Is that absolute proof? No, of course not. I think “absolute proof” in a strict, rigorous philosophical sense is unable to be obtained about virtually anything. But one accepts Catholicism in and with faith, based on interior witness of the Holy Spirit and outward witness of facts and reason and history; much like one accepts Christianity in general or how the early disciples accepted the Resurrection and the claims of Jesus. [4-25-04]

It requires faith to believe that God will guide His one true Church and preserve it from error, but it is a faith based on what we are taught in the divine revelation, and from Jesus Himself (which is sufficient for me). [6-23-05]

In any event, it requires faith to believe that the Church speaks authoritatively and can be trusted for its theological judgments. You’ll never be able to prove that in an “airtight” sense. [5-18-06]

The same God also revealed that He often refuses to give a sign if the purpose is as some sort of “test.” He wants you to have faith in Him without some absolute proof, just as you have “faith” (i.e., assent without absolute proof) in any number of things that you don’t fully understand. So, e.g., Jesus appeared to “Doubting Thomas” after His resurrection, to “prove Himself.” Yet at the same time, He said, “Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe” (John 20:29). There is more than enough evidence out there to support belief as rational and worthy of allegiance. But God will not be tested in the way that you seem to demand. This is a common biblical motif. [10-11-06]

The fact is, that any Christian position requires faith, for the simple reason that Christianity is not merely a philosophy, or exercise in epistemology. [James] White’s view requires faith; so does the Catholic outlook. One exercises faith in the Catholic Church being what it claims to be: the One True Church, uniquely guided and led by the Holy Spirit, with infallible teaching. Hopefully, one can give cogent reasons for why this faith is reasonable, but it is still faith in the end: reasonable, not blind. [9-4-07]

Christianity is not philosophy. One cannot achieve airtight, mathematical certainty in matters of faith. . . . It requires faith to believe this, and that is what a Catholic does: we have faith that this Church can exist and that it can be identified and located. We don’t say this rests on our own individual choice. It is already there; like “stumbling upon” the Pacific Ocean or Mt. Everest. We don’t determine whether the thing exists or not. And we must believe it is what it claims to be by faith, absolutely. Why should that surprise anyone except a person who thinks that Christianity is determined purely by arbitrary choice and rationalism without faith? That is no longer simply philosophy or subjective preference, as if Christianity were reduced to Philosophy 0101 (where someone might prefer Kierkegaaard to Kant) or the selection of a flavor of ice cream. [10-7-08]

[O]ne can have a very high degree of moral assurance, and trust in God’s mercy. St. Paul shows this. He doesn’t appear worried at all about his salvation, but on the other hand, he doesn’t make out that he is absolutely assured of it and has no need of persevering. He can’t “coast.” The only thing a Catholic must absolutely avoid in order to not be damned is a subjective commission of mortal sin that is unrepented of. [10-21-08]

Christianity is not philosophy: it is a religious faith. It is not contrary to reason, but it does go beyond it. [1-2-09]

Faith by definition means a thing that falls short of absolute proof. I don’t see how Catholics and Protestants differ all that much in this respect. We have faith in things. I think it is a reasonable faith and not contrary to reason, but it is still faith, and faith is not identical to reason . . . this whole discussion of epistemology might be fun and interesting, but again, it overlooks the fact that faith (including Catholic faith) is not philosophy . . . [11-11-09]

I was saying (a variant of what I have stated 100 times on my blog, though I could have stated it more precisely) that religion is not philosophy; Christianity is not philosophy. It can’t be reduced to that. It requires faith. [6-5-10]

This is a mentality of reducing Christianity to mere philosophy rather than a religion and spiritual outlook that requires faith and incorporates innate and intuitive knowledge that God grants to us through the Holy Spirit and His grace. . . . This sort of thinking is post-Enlightenment hyper-rationalism. It certainly isn’t a biblical outlook. [6-8-10]

There are serious lessons to be learned here: along the lines of having an informed, reasonable faith (complete with apologetic knowledge as necessary), and of yielding up our private judgment and personal inclinations to a God and a Church much higher than ourselves. Faith comes ultimately by God’s grace and His grace alone: not our own semi-understandings. Christianity is not “blind faith”; it is a reasonable faith. But there is such a thing as allegiance and obedience to Christian authority, too. When reason is separated from faith or (on a personal level) never was part of it, “faith” (or the unreasonable facsimile thereof) is empty and open to Satanic and cultural attack, and we are tossed to and fro by the winds and the waves: a cork on the ocean of our decadent, corrupt, increasingly secularist and hedonistic culture. [8-9-10]

“Evidence” is not used in this sense to mean “absolute proof.” A hundred times in my writings, I’ve stated that the Catholic notion of “biblical evidence” is not absolute proof, but rather, consistency and harmony with Scripture and a given doctrine, including implicit and indirect, deductive indications. [9-20-11]

My conversion, then, in summary (considered apart from God’s grace; I am talking specifically about my thought processes), was a combination of the cumulative effect of three different “strands” of evidences (contraception, development of doctrine, and the Catholic perspective on the “Reformation”): all pointing in the same direction. This was perfectly consistent (epistemologically) with my apologetic outlook that I had developed over nine years: the idea of cumulative probability or what might be called “plausibility structures.” [2013]

If we have all faith and no reason, that is fideism, which leads to many bad things. If we go to the other extreme and place reason above faith, then we have positivism and hyper-rationalism (the roots of theological liberalism, or sometimes rigorist schism, the radical Catholic reactionary outlook, and many heretical sects which deny the Holy Trinity, etc.), leading to the loss of supernatural faith if unchecked. The balance is a reasonable faith: with faith higher than reason, but a faith that is always in harmony with reason, inasmuch as it is possible, given the inherent limitations of reason. [12-28-13]

We believe in faith first; we don’t have to “solve every problem” before we believe. That’s not Christian faith, given by God’s grace, but man-centered rationalism. There are always “difficulties” and “problems” in any large system of thought. That doesn’t prevent people from believing in the tenets of same. This includes physical science, where there are a host of things that remain unexplained (e.g., what caused the Big Bang; whether light is a particle or a wave, how life began, the complete lack of evidence for life anywhere else, etc.). People don’t disbelieve in the Big Bang because we can’t explain everything about it. Likewise with Catholic dogma. If even science requires faith and axiomatic presuppositions, how much more, religious faith, which is not identical to philosophy or reason in the first place? . . . All of this requires faith, and faith comes through grace accepted in free will. . . . We’d all be in very rough shape if our personal “epistemology” required us to know every jot and tittle of everything before we could believe it. Most things we do or believe in life we don’t fully understand at all. [July 2015]

Christianity requires faith. It’s not philosophy. We accept many things that we don’t fully understand. People do that in many areas of life every day. [10-8-15]

An intelligent Christian position doesn’t maintain “absolute knowledge” but rather, a reasonable faith in God, or belief in Him, that is made very plausible and likely to be true, by arguments such as these, which indeed provide evidence. [10-29-15]

I don’t think any [theistic arguments] provide absolute proof (but I think absolute proof is difficult to attain in any field of knowledge, so no biggie). But that’s not to say the weaker ones fail. My own view for many years now (at least 30) is that the strength of the overall argument for theism and Christianity is in a cumulative sense, adding up to very strong plausibility (like many strands becoming a very strong rope), seeing that all the arguments point in the same direction. [11-6-15]

Like all arguments from analogy, it is one of plausibility, not one of intended “absolute proof.” In fact, I think all the arguments for God are of the same nature. [11-10-15]

Well, it’s a mixture: faith and reason. The appeal to Church history or tradition also requires faith, but it is a reasonable faith, able to be substantiated historiographically. [5-6-16]

The (philosophical-type) believer approaches it from common sense: “If there is such a thing as a God with omni- qualities a, b, c, what would we reasonably expect to see in a man Who claims to be that God in the flesh? What kind of things could or would He do [not absolutely demonstrate according to some philosophical standard] in order for us to credibly, plausibly believe His extraordinary claims?” And when we see Jesus (assuming the accuracy of the accounts on other rational bases, as we do), we see exactly what we would reasonably expect: He heals, He raises the dead; He raises Himself. He calms the sea and walks on water. He has extraordinary knowledge; He predicts the future, etc. It’s more than enough for us to say, in faith: “He’s God.” [5-22-18]

My Opinion on “Proofs for God’s Existence” Summarized in Two Sentences

My view remains what it has been for many years: nothing strictly / absolutely “proves” God’s existence. But . . . I think His existence is exponentially more probable and plausible than atheism, based on the cumulative effect of a multitude of good and different types of (rational) theistic arguments, and the utter implausibility, incoherence, irrationality, and unacceptable level of blind faith of alternatives. [6-18-18]

There are many things we don’t know with absolute certainty (in fact, almost all things, if we want to be strictly philosophical). Catholics believe in a very high degree of “moral assurance” of salvation, but not absolute certainty of salvation. [7-22-18]

It is [an act of faith] insofar as one accepts the possibility of the miraculous and that which cannot be absolutely proven. Since there are many things that can’t be absolutely proven, I don’t think it’s too much of a big deal. [3-27-19]

I would say that, ultimately, God’s existence is not an empirical question, if by that one means, “Can God be proven by empirical arguments such as the cosmological and teleological arguments?” I don’t think that absolute proof is possible, as I have already stated. But those two arguments are still relevant to the discussion; they touch on empirical things, and I think they establish that God’s existence is more likely than not (because they “fit” much better with a theistic world than they do with an atheist world). . . . So does this [Romans 1:19-20] prove that there is a God by rigid philosophical standards? No. But of course, very few things at all can be proven, if we’re gonna play that skeptical “game.” . . . The atheist “explanation” of the existence of the universe is incoherent and implausible, according to what we know from science; the Christian view is plausible and makes perfect sense, even if it is not ironclad proof. Thus, I would say that for one who likes science and interprets the physical world by means of it, theism is the more plausible and believable meta-interpretation or framework. [5-27-19]

What you bring up is something different: “why believe that God is immutable?” I agree with you (I think): this is a teaching that comes from revelation, and Christians accept it on faith on that basis. . . . Is that absolute proof? No. Very few things can be absolutely proven and almost every belief entails unprovable axioms to get off the ground. Christians believe it in faith, based on revelation. And if we do philosophy we think it is reasonable on that basis as well. [7-26-19]

Cardinal Newman’s Philosophical & Epistemological Commitments [10-19-04]

Pascal, Kreeft, & Kierkegaard on Persuasion & Apologetics [9-2-05]

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

The Certitude of Faith According to Cardinal Newman [9-30-08]

Dialogue on Reason & Faith, w Theological Liberal [1-19-10]

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

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

Dialogue: Religious Epistemology (with an Agnostic) [11-17-15]

Implicit (Extra-Empirical) Faith, According to John Henry Newman [12-18-15]

On Mystery & Reason in Theology [4-5-16]

Analogical Reasoning, and Reasoning from Plausibility [5-27-17]

Argument for God from Desire: Atheist-Christian Dialogue [8-7-17]

Dialogue: Has God Demonstrated His Existence (Romans 1)? [9-1-18]

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

Apologetics: Be-All & End-All of the Catholic Faith? NO!!! [7-1-19]

***

Photo credit: St. John Henry Cardinal Newman (my “theological hero”) in 1866: four years before his seminal work of philosophy of religion, An Essay in Aid of the Grammar of Assent [public domain]

***