Exchange: Conservative vs. Liberal Biblical Scholarship

Last updated on: November 30, 2020 at 6:43 pm By Dave Armstrong

Ann, an atheist, commented on my article, Golden Calf & Cherubim: Biblical Contradiction? (11-23-20, vs. Dr. Steven DiMattei), and we got into a serious exchange (though never — by my definition — a true dialogue). Her words (complete from my blog) will be in blue.

*****

This article is a good example of the difference between “Biblical scholarship” (Dr. Steven DiMattei) and “Bible study” (Dave Armstrong.)

“Bible study” tries to prove that its assertions about the meaning of a Bible passage can be proved correct by pointing to another Bible passage.
It takes it for granted that the words of the Bible are factually true, historically spoken, and it just wants to defend one particular interpretation.

“Biblical scholarship” seeks to uncover the origins of the Bible passage and how it demonstrates “the way the contemporary people were thinking.”
There is no special idea that the assertions of the Bible are literally true or describe actual historical events.
Instead, Biblical scholarship sees the passage as a reflection of the historical evolution, the thoughts, the concepts, the philosophy of the people who wrote it.

DiMattei and Armstrong are talking past each other.

It’s a long discussion. You pass over the many internal inconsistencies I point out in his work, and questions about the arbitrary assertions he makes. Since he won’t respond (what a surprise), of course we will be talking past each other. It’s his choice, not mine. I’m confident in my positions; he seems not to be confident in his positions. I’m all in favor of dialogue. Most folks today are not. They want to preach to the choir.

I think there is still something you are not recognizing.

DiMattei does not have a “position” in the way that you do.
He is not preaching for the adoption of his point of view.
Instead, biblical scholarship lays out its research findings among ancient documents as we have them so far.
Then a scholar deduces what the historical significance of those findings may be.
He then presents his deductions to the wider community of fellow scholars in order to introduce this new concept.

These results are necessarily always tentative because more documentary evidence may materialize in the future, or a better scholar may interpret the ones we already have with more learning or a more subtle historical understanding.

In your case, you have come to a conclusion about what God means, and your support is in other parts of the Bible.
New information will not be added in the future, unlike the resources of Biblical scholarship.
Your conclusions are not based on “evidence” — only on “argument.”

There are “many internal inconsistencies” in his work — and that is fine with him — because the documentary evidence he is relying on makes inconsistent claims, which he incorporates into his historical analysis.
He isn’t “preaching” like you are — trying to convince others that (based on the Bible itself), your reading of the words of the Bible is the one God intends.

DiMattei is simply laying out the contents of the documents (in the Bible and elsewhere) that he has researched so far, and describing to other scholars his suggestions about what they they signify historically.

You are talking past each other, not because he does not respond, but because you two are talking about two different topics.

He doesn’t have “believers,” or True Believers™ , or followers.
He has fellow scholars who share or don’t share his proposed suggestions about what the evidence shows so far about what the people of those times used to think and believe.

It’s liberal / skeptical “biblical” scholarship — not the entirety of “biblical scholarship” and its goal is to try to prove that the Bible is not inspired revelation at all, but rather, merely a human document like any other. Those of us who are Christians do not believe that to be the case. But it’s not simply “blind faith” (the liberal caricature of belief) but rather, faith + evidence in a host of ways, in many fields.

If you claim his goal is not to “tear down” the Bible, then tell me: why the extreme emphasis on supposed “contradictions” in the Bible? Why is that so super-important, and where else do we find such efforts? When I refute these, I’m not simply appealing to blind faith. I show internal logical contradictions, which rather defeats his purpose: his attempts at making the Bible contradict itself in every other sentence leads to himself doing so.

Logic is something we can all agree on. He (and many others of his ilk: like Bob Seidensticker, whom I have refuted 65 times, and Dr. David Madison: another 50 or so) have no interest in dialogue because they are not (in my opinion) honest, objective thinkers. If they were serious thinkers, they would grapple with critiques just as all thinkers do. I love to receive serious critiques. I wish I received a ton more than I do.

Rather, they are mere propagandists.

If Dr. DiMattei is such a renowned scholar, where is he teaching now? Where are his articles in peer-reviewed journals? They may exist, but he seems to give no information about them. Does he have more than one book published?

I don’t know this particular person at all, so I am speaking about “Biblical scholarship” as it is distinct from “Bible study.”

Biblical scholarship does not have any “goal” at all — never mind a “goal to try to prove that the Bible is not inspired revelation … but merely a human document like any other.”

Biblical scholarship TAKES IT FOR GRANTED that the Bible actually is merely a human document like any other, and study it (and the preceding legends and myths that it is based on) as an historical phenomenon with historical interest but irrelevant in its religious claims.

The reason that Biblical scholars take it for granted that the Bible is merely a human document like any other is that they study the actual early versions of the myths and legends preceding the versions in the Bible.

We can find exactly similar historical evolution of other kinds of human documents — early versions of fairy tales (and their morphing into the current versions), early developments of Arthurian legends, previous sources of Shakespeare’s plots, early (and increasingly refined) versions of maps …

(Finding early maps as they evolved accuracy is interesting to scholars because it helps locate the dates and places of, for example, expeditionary armies, who return with improved information, thus suddenly changing the maps.)

Naturally if you believe that the Bible is a unique document emanating from an infallible source, you will misperceive the goals of people who blandly refer to documents that contradict your beliefs (such as previous versions of a Bible story in Sumerian documents.)

The interest on the contradictions and errors in the Bible is not an attack on its supernatural origins.
Because they are so familiar with its human origins, no Biblical scholar imagines for a moment that it even had a supernatural origin.

Instead, contradictions and revisions are used as evidence of the historical evolution of the fables of the Bible and how and why they assumed their present form.

For example. the contradictory comments about the spherical nature of the earth are revealing.
Bible passages that know that the earth is a sphere indicate that the author had a Greek education because the Greeks had already discovered that (and even measured the size of the globe.)

Other passages that do not know that the earth is a globe demonstrate that these authors did not have the benefit of a Greek education.
This information is useful in helping the scholars locate the composition of the passage in time and place.

Another example is the story of the walls of Jericho, which was in ruins for centuries before the earliest date the Bible story could have been written.

I am well aware of the nature of liberal / skeptical biblical scholarship. I’ve dealt with it for forty years. It’s you and I who are talking past each other. Steven and I are not because I am talking and he isn’t.

I could write a great deal about conservative / orthodox biblical scholarship and address the many bum raps you have thrown out, but I’m more interested in Steven’s case and his defense of it. With most of the critiques I have made, it matters not if I am a three-toed, green-eyed Rastafarian or an Indian shaman or a Taoist or Buddhist. My critiques deal with internal contradictions in his presentation.

Let me give you an example from another of my recent critiques of Steven’s arguments:

God in Heaven & in His Temple: Contradiction?:

He claimed:

the Deuteronomists would have vehemently disagreed with the Priestly writer’s ideology that Yahweh dwelt among the people. For the Deuteronomist, Yahweh dwelt in heaven. To preserve the holiness of the Temple dwelling, the Deuteronomist claimed that merely Yahweh’s name resided there, not his glory nor presence . . .

I then provided 15 passages from Deuteronomy: all of which contradicted his claim above. Then I wrote about what this would force him to do, to salvage his theory:

He is forced now to say, “well, those are simply non-Deuteronomist portions later added to the book of Deuteronomy . . .” It’s the “answer” to everything (hostile or contrary interpolated texts). But when a particular ploy or theory or fiction is used for every conceivable difficulty, it is soon seen that it is in fact the solution of no difficulty. A thing can explain too much as well as too little. It’s just not plausible. It’s on the level of a conspiracy theory.

This is just one of many problems and difficulties I have raised that Steven — if he is a thinker confident of his convictions — would have to grapple with. He refuses. Those who are of his general opinion almost always refuse to address criticisms. In the case of one guy recently, who writes at the same site I do (Patheos), he threatened to sue me because I critiqued him three or four times.

Nothing you say ameliorates his intellectual duty to address such criticisms.

Most proposed biblical “contradictions” are not at all, by the laws of logic: not some “fundamentalist” prior objection. They don’t hold water. I have dealt with scores and scores of them. You raise a few yourself and bring up other misconceptions. Conservative Bible scholars who accept biblical inspiration are not averse at all to discussing elements of prior stories from regions near Israel that seem similar to biblical ones. One look at my large personal library would quickly disabuse you of that notion. I’ve written (or hosted) several papers that discuss how Christianity “baptizes” many non-Christian beliefs and customs and incorporates them into its beliefs (as did Judaism before it):

Is Catholicism Half-Pagan? [1999]

Is Easter Pagan & the Word a “Pagan Compromise”? [1999]

Halloween Joys & the “Baptizing” of Pagan Customs (Guest Post by Rod Bennett and Mark Shea) [11-1-06; expanded on 10-31-16]

Is Catholicism Half-Pagan, & a Blend of Gospel & Lies? [2007]

You say the Bible teaches a spherical earth in some places and a flat earth in others. This is simply untrue. It doesn’t teach a flat earth at all:

Biblical Flat Earth (?) Cosmology: Dialogue w Atheist (vs. Matthew Green) [9-11-06]

Flat Earth: Biblical Teaching? (vs. Ed Babinski) [9-17-06]

It simply doesn’t teach it. One can be an orthodox Christian like myself or an atheist or anything else, and understand that this is the case: provided they actually study Hebrew culture, how the ancient Hebrews thought and reasoned, and some of the words involved. We are just as interested in finding out what the Bible actually teaches, as the skeptics are (if not more so).

You say (or imply) we are biased and unable to be trusted because we believe in biblical inspiration. That’s like saying that Einstein was biased when writing about relativity because he believed in it, or Newton about gravity or Copernicus about heliocentrism (which is almost as false as geocentrism because the sun isn’t the center of the universe, either), or Madame Curie about radioactivity: because they all firmly believed in those things.

We can just as rightly show that many proposed biblical contradictions are not at all, and that many skeptical claims about what the Bible teaches are equally false and invalid, due to various degrees of illogic, non-factuality, or unfamiliarity with the biblical worldview and proper biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, or various other false premises or wrong turns in reasoning chains.

Bottom line: I have provided plenty of legitimate, serious criticisms of Steven’s work. He ignores them. I let him know that I made them (if he even checks his Twitter page). Instead, you are here defending his general enterprise of biblical skepticism. I enjoy talking with you, but he has the duty to defend his own views, too. If he can’t, then they aren’t worth much: whatever one might be inclined to think of them.

Did you ever notice the “throw-away” bits in The Terminator which demonstrate that dogs recognize Terminators and hate them?

There’s the scene where John and the Terminator call his foster home and hear his dog going ape in the background because a bad Terminator is in his house.
There’s a quick shot of the soldiers in the bunker with a pair of German Shepherds as allies in the fight against Terminators.
There’s the scene where the Terminator is approaching the motel cabin where Sarah is hiding out and a wee little dog is in hysterics barking at the Terminator’s foot (bigger than the whole dog.)
——————–

And here is a scenario that I invented, so please forgive me for not knowing anything about physical geodesy.

Let us imagine that a research post-doc got access to some ultra high accuracy images of earth taken from the ISS.
Following a long effort of the most painstaking precision, he discovers something new about the dimensions of the planet.
(As you many know, earth is not a perfect sphere. It is an “oblate spheroid” for some reason known to the experts.)

In my imaginary story, the researcher is excited because his studies demonstrate that one of the measurements commonly used is actually incorrect by 87 km ± 3 km, and he publishes his findings in a professional journal.
——————–

Now the Terminator is way cooler than I am, so when he got yapped at by a wee little doggie, he didn’t even notice.
Now me — I would have noticed and been amused.

That’s how I imagine the scientist would feel if he was berated by a Flat Earther who conceived of the scientific research paper as an attack on the cult of a Flat Earth — surprised and faintly amused. Not amused enough to respond to the charge that his work was invalidated because it is only withing a tolerance of 3 km, but briefly amusing anyway before he moved on with his science and forgot all about the challenge from the Supernatural realm.
—————–

Your pious beliefs refer to things that are not objectively, empirically, demonstrably true.
In fact, they are objectively, empirically, demonstrably untrue.

Researchers in the area of the dissemination of ancient myths might be interested in tracing the development, the evolution, the spread of the THREE stories of the parting of the waters (Moses, Elijah, Elisha).

Maybe they are interested in the meaning, the reason for writing the two irreconcilable genealogies of Jesus, the point they ancient writers were making.

But the concept that these myths have demonstrable, empirical, objective antecedents cannot be denied.
The evidence exists as physical objects that you can hold in your hand.

Being a “life-long atheist”, it comes as no surprise to me that you take the positions you do. So, for example, obviously you can’t believe the Bible is an inspired infallible revelation from God because there is no God there to form a necessary piece of that puzzle. You may say that causes no bias in you, but it does form a premise that is in stark opposition to the premises I start with — due to reasoning (existence of God; thus the possibility of revelation from Him).

That being the case, you obviously have to adopt by default a position whereby the Bible is not a whit different from any other ancient literature. Ah, but it is massively different, as I have shown in many articles, and many other Christian apologists, theologians, archaeologists, and historians have shown in hundreds of ways.

Here is but one example of many from my paper, Seidensticker Folly #59: Medieval Hospitals & Medicine:

Hippocrates, the pagan Greek “father of medicine” didn’t understand the causes of contagious disease. Nor did medical science until the 19th century. But the hygienic principles that would have prevented the spread of such diseases were in the Bible: in the Laws of Moses. . . .

Hippocrates, the “father of medicine” (born 460 BC), thought “bad air” from swampy areas was the cause of disease.

Mosaic Law and Hebrew hygienic practices, dating as far back as some 800 years before Hippocrates, were far more advanced:

1. The Bible contained instructions for the Israelites to wash their bodies and clothes in running water if they had a discharge, came in contact with someone else’s discharge, or had touched a dead body. They were also instructed about objects that had come into contact with dead things, and about purifying items with an unknown history with either fire or running water. They were also taught to bury human waste outside the camp, and to burn animal waste (Num 19:3-22; Lev. 11:1-47; 15:1-33; Deut 23:12).

2. Leviticus 13 and 14 mention leprosy on walls and on garments. Leprosy is a bacterial disease, and can survive for three weeks or longer apart from the human body. Thus, God commanded that the garments of leprosy victims should be burned (Lev 13:52).

3. It was not until 1873 that leprosy was shown to be an infectious disease rather than hereditary. Of course, the laws of Moses already were aware of that (Lev 13, 14, 22; Num 19:20). It contains instructions about quarantine and about quarantined persons needing to thoroughly shave and wash. Priests who cared for them also were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly. The Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the 19th century, when medical advances discovered the biblical medical principles and practices.

The Bible is no different from any other ancient document? This is but one example. To show that the Bible is not unique here, you would have to show other ancient cultures that had such an in-depth understanding of hygiene and contagious disease. Good luck.

The same sort of thing occurs in many areas: whether it is the sophisticated biblical understanding of creation (ex nihilo) compared to Greek mythology et al, or the spherical earth, or timelessness, etc. The Big Bang theory finally caught up with the biblical teaching of an earth created out of nothing in the 20th century: and that was first introduced by a Catholic priest!

Your pious beliefs refer to things that are not objectively, empirically, demonstrably true. In fact, they are objectively, empirically, demonstrably untrue.

This is a bald assertion; not an argument. If you wish to refute my papers on how the Bible doesn’t teach a flat earth, feel free. If not, mere statements do not sway me because I have actually studied the issue in some depth.

I dealt with the “contradictory genealogies” claim over against atheist JMS Pearce three years ago:

Again, if you wish to dissuade me you’ll have to get into the thick and thin of it and actually interact with my arguments. Bald statements don’t cut it with me. They prove nothing.

Dave, it is my fault that I am not making myself clear.

1) The assertion that the Bible full of claims and anecdotes that are not true is not a BALD assertion.
It is an assertion that is demonstrated with hard physical EVIDENCE.

2) My anecdote about a Flat Earth was intended as an analogy — not an accusation that you believe in a flat earth.
Nevertheless, there are some passages in the Bible that do demonstrate a knowledge that the earth is a sphere, and some passages that show the writer thought the earth was flat.

But it’s silly to get hung up on this error to prove that the Bible is choked full of errors and self-contradictions when there is sooo much low-hanging fruit.

3) I don’t know what you mean by “dealt with” the contradictory genealogies claim, but you certainly did not dissolve the problem by trying to show that it follows the genealogy through the female line or some such thing as that.
If nothing else (and there is a lot else), the very NUMBER OF GENERATIONS cannot be reconciled.

3) You’re correct to point out that “bald statements” prove nothing.
You just don’t admit that ARGUMENTS don’t prove anything either.
Any fool can “prove” anything he wants with “argument.”
That’s why it is not allowed in a court of law.

The only thing that demonstrates anything is EVIDENCE.

4) I don’t want to get into a debate with you that I have been through hundreds of times.
My only interest in posting here is the one I stated in the beginning:
> You are using “Bible study” ARGUMENTS to try to defeat “Biblical scholarship” EVIDENCE.

You say in effect, “When the Bible says XYZ, it means “myXmyYmyZ”, and I know that this is the true interpretation because the Bible says so.”

Biblical scholarship says “This legend originated in Babylon, and here is the physical evidence that shows it.”

I’m puzzled that you’re unable to see the difference.

You’re just repeating yourself now (over and over) and deliberately avoiding any direct interaction with my arguments (which of course include much evidence) so we’re done. I take a very dim view of engaging in exchanges which are not dialogues at all, but mutual monologues. I dialogue, and this is no dialogue.

***

Photo credit: Book of Kells (c. 800), Folio 292r, Incipit to John [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Golden Calf & Cherubim: Biblical Contradiction?

Last updated on: November 23, 2020 at 2:33 pm By Dave Armstrong

vs. Dr. Steven DiMattei

Dr. Steven DiMattei is a biblical scholar and author, formally trained in the New Testament and early Christianity, with M.A degrees in Classics and Comparative Literature as well. Rumor has it that he is an atheist, but I haven’t been able to confirm that on his site. He put up a website called Contradictions in the Bible. It seems inactive now (or he has lost interest or moved onto other things: who knows?), but the themes are things I really enjoy discussing and debating, and his articles are still online for all to see; thus fair game for critique — and stimulating food for thought, too. There is almost nothing I like to discuss and think about more than the interpretation of the Bible. Steven wrote in a post dated 5-7-16:

One of my reasons in choosing the word “defend” to describe my aims as a biblical scholar and author was in part to attract Christian apologists to my work and hopefully to get them to read these ancient texts on their terms and from within their own cultural contexts and to create a conversation around the biblical texts, their authors, and their competing beliefs, messages, worldviews, theologies, etc. As you can imagine this has proven quite difficult, nay impossible. Many Christian apologists and fundamentalists just cannot read, or simply identify, the text on its own terms separate from the beliefs and assumptions about the text handed-down through this collection of ancient literature’s title, “the Holy Book.”

Here I am: an apologist quite willing to engage in conversation. It takes two. So we’ll see if Steven is willing to follow through on his stated desire. I have had my own long history (in almost 40 years of apologetics) of “difficult, nay impossible” attempts to discuss matters with many people who tend to be of a few particular belief-systems, though I have no problem talking with anyone who is civil and can stick to a topic. I don’t just say this, I have a demonstrable record of doing it, which is evident on my blog, with its 1000+ dialogues. But as I said, dialogue takes two, and I would add that it also requires a degree of at least minimal mutual respect. Steven’s words will be in blue.

*****

I am critiquing two related articles of his, on alleged “biblical contradictions”:

#159. The Golden Calf OR the Golden Cherubs? (Ex 32:4 vs Ex 25:18-20, 37:7-9)

#157. Is the festival associated with the Golden Calf a festival to Yahweh OR to other gods? (Ex 32:5 vs Ex 32:1, 32:4, 32:8)

I shall deal with #159 first, because its errors are more basic, groundless, and indefensible.

What is the difference between these golden cherubs and the golden calf? Why is it permitted to fabricate golden cherubs and not the golden calf?

Short answer: because one was intended to be gross idolatry (the calf) and the other was a permitted non-idolatrous religious image, sanctioned by God. I have written about the details of the outrageous and blasphemous idolatry of the golden calf and the nature of idolatry as the Bible defines it:

Is the Mass Equivalent to OT Golden Calf Worship? [1996]

Biblical Idolatry: Authentic & Counterfeit Conceptions [2015]

On the other hand, there are many examples of permitted images in Old Testament worship, including the temple and ark of the covenant (in other words, not all images were forbidden “graven images” or idolatrous):

Veneration of Images, Iconoclasm, and Idolatry (An Exposition) [11-15-02]

Bible on Holy Places & Things [1-8-08]

Bible on Physical Objects as Aids in Worship [4-7-09]

Biblical Evidence for Worship of God Via an Image [6-24-11]

The Bronze Serpent: Example of Proper Use of Images [Feb. 2012]

“Graven Images”: Unbiblical Iconoclasm (vs. John Calvin) [Oct. 2012]

Worshiping God Through Images is Entirely Biblical [National Catholic Register, 12-23-16]

Statues in Relation to Bowing, Prayer, & Worship in Scripture [12-26-17]

Biblical Evidence for Veneration of Saints and Images [National Catholic Register, 10-23-18]

Crucifixes & Worship Images: “New” (?) Biblical Arguments [1-18-20]

Is Worship of God Through an Image Biblical? (vs. Luke Wayne) [11-10-20]

The ark of the covenant, which included the two golden cherubim on top, was never intended to be a representation of God. One can search the Bible in vain and never find the slightest hint of any such thing. God gave elaborate instructions for the construction of the ark and its use. I recently engaged an anti-Catholic Protestant who correctly noted that these two cherubim were not to be worshiped, but that God appeared in the space between the two of them (as the Bible states several times). But there was a permitted image involved (a cloud), as I detailed:

Luke makes a clever and interesting argument that the space between the mercy seat on top of the ark of the covenant, where God says He is present and to be worshiped (despite being surrounded by carved cherubim [angels]) is “empty space” and “imageless space” and “with no image.” But this is untrue, as the Bible informs us:

Leviticus 16:2 and the LORD said to Moses, “Tell Aaron your brother not to come at all times into the holy place within the veil, before the mercy seat which is upon the ark, lest he die; for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.

This cloud was visible, just as in other passages above, like Exodus 13:21; 19:18; 24:16; 33:10 (“the people saw the pillar of cloud”), and others like Numbers 16:42 (“the cloud covered it, and the glory of the LORD appeared“) and Deuteronomy 31:15 (“And the LORD appeared in the tent in a pillar of cloud“). The very word “appear” in Leviticus 16:2 and the last two passages also proves it. God doesn’t just say that He will be “present”, but that He will “appear” in this cloud.

The Bible draws a big distinction between a permitted, non-idolatrous image and idolatrous images deliberately intended to be idols.

Aren’t they both idols? Furthermore, why would Yahweh’s most Holy of Holies contain two golden cherubs? Were these representations of the god? Was the golden calf a representation of the god?

These are remarkable questions: asked by one who is highly educated in Bible study. It’s amazing to have to answer such questions at all. But here I go. I dealt with the golden calf in depth 24 years ago. Here are some highlights:

*****

In Exodus 32:1, the NRSV reads, “Come, make gods for us, who shall go before us……” (cf. 32:23)

Exodus 32:4-5 informs us:

He took the gold from them, formed it in a mold, and cast an image of a calf; and they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation and said, “tomorrow shall be a festival to the LORD.”

It is, therefore, clear that this is idolatry and otherwise sinful, on many counts:

1) It represents not even the one God, but “gods,” so that it falls under the absolute prohibition of polytheism which was known to any observant Hebrew (see, e.g., Ps 106:19-23; cf. Hab 2:18).

2) Nowhere are the Jews permitted to build a calf as an “image” of God. This was an outright violation of the injunctions against “molten images” (Ex 34:17; Lev 19:4; Num 33:52; Dt 27:15: all condemn such idols, using the same Hebrew word which appears in Ex 32:4, 8, 17: massekah).

3) Aaron built an altar before what the people regarded as “gods,” thus blaspheming the true God.

4) Lies were told and believed about “gods,” not God, liberating the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery.

6) NASB and NKJV read “god” at Ex 32:4 (not even capitalized), so that is clearly not intended as a reference to the one true God, YHWH, according to the accepted practice of all Bible translations. NRSV, KJV, RSV, NIV, NEB, & REB have “gods.” In either case, the view is not monotheistic, nor is it at all analogous to the belief and practice of those Christians who accept the Real Presence.

[as to even the early portions of the Bible (and all portions) being monotheistic, see:

Seidensticker Folly #19: Torah & OT Teach Polytheism? [9-18-18]

Seidensticker Folly #20: An Evolving God in the OT? [9-18-18]

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

Do the OT & NT Teach Polytheism or Henotheism? [7-1-20]

The Bible Teaches That Other “Gods” are Imaginary [National Catholic Register, 7-10-20] ]

Exodus 32:1 (cf. 32:23),. . . is revealing as to the state of mind of these idolaters. They ask Aaron to “make” them “gods.” Obviously, they could not have YHVH in mind at that point, since I imagine they at least knew that He is not “made by hands” and is eternal. Then they say these gods “shall go before us.” In my opinion, , the most straightforward interpretation of that is the golden calf being carried before them. How could they think (even in their debased state of mind) that YHVH Himself could be compelled to “go before them?” Therefore, they must have regarded the calf as a pure idol of their own making, not as a mere representation of the true God, because these contextual verses make clear that they didn’t have YHVH in mind.

If the above data isn’t sufficient, surely Psalm 106:19-21 nails down my case (NRSV):

They made a calf at Horeb and worshiped a cast image. They exchanged the glory of God for the image of an ox that eats grass. They forgot God, their Savior, who had done great things in Egypt.

*****

If the biblical writers regarded the golden calf as an idol and condemned propitiating it or any image, then why is not the same upheld for these golden cherubs?

See the above. Short answer: the cherubim were never conceived as representative of God (or even “gods”), let alone worshiped as such. God said that He appeared between their wings, in a cloud. The golden calf, on the other hand, clearly was conceived as, and worshiped as an idol, in place of the true God.

Steven attempts to argue that Jeroboam’s similar idolatry could be seen as some kind of permissible worship by ancient Hebraic standards (partly derived from practices of surrounding or prior cultures):

It is quite possible that the calf altars that Jeroboam constructed, of which the golden calf story is a parody (#157), were throne seats as well. There is ample evidence from the ancient Near East of deities seated upon bulls. Scholars have certainly started to envision Jeroboam’s calf altars as just that—not representations of Yahweh, but his thrones. In this case, the calf-altar cult of the north rivaled the southern temple in Jerusalem. The depiction of the golden calf as an idol, or as gods, was part and parcel to the propaganda and polemic of the pro-Jerusalemite scribes who wrote it. In the end, however, these cultic symbols were no different than the cherubim that stood in the Holy of Holies and also served to represent the deities presence.

This is all arbitrary speculation, of course (as is much of documentary theory, which has long since been discredited). The actual biblical texts show quite otherwise. Ahijah spoke the word of the Lord concerning Jeroboam’s sin:

1 Kings 14:9 (RSV) . . . you have done evil above all that were before you and have gone and made for yourself other gods, and molten images, provoking me to anger, and have cast me behind your back.

Also:

1 Kings 12:28, 32 So the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold. And he said to the people, “You have gone up to Jerusalem long enough. Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” . . .

. . . and he offered sacrifices upon the altar; so he did in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves that he had made.

Note: this is not intending “Yahweh to be worshiped through” the graven images, as you claim, but rather (according to God Himself, Who knows all things) “other gods.” Jeroboam himself refers to “gods”: a rank polytheism and idolatry indeed. We know that he sacrificed to these stupid molten images. It couldn’t be more clear than it is.

The New Bible Dictionary (edited by J. D. Douglas, 1962), in its article on Jeroboam, noted:

They threatened true religion by encouraging a syncretism of Yahweh worship with the fertility cult of Baal and thus drew a prophetic rebuke. (p. 614)

Likewise, in its article on “Idolatry”:

[I]t is a most significant thing that when Israel turned to idolatry it was always necessary to borrow the outward trappings from the pagan environment . . . The golden calves made by Jeroboam (1 Ki 12:28) were well-known Canaanite symbols, and in the same way, whenever the kings of Israel and Judah lapsed into idolatry, it was by means of borrowing and syncretism. (p. 552)

Albright, in his discussion of the bulls of Jeroboam, noted:

So Jeroboam may well have been harking back to early Israelite traditional practice when he made the “golden calves.” It is hardly necessary to point out that it was a dangerous revival, since the taurine associations of Baal, lord of heaven, were too closely bound up with the fertility cult in its more insidious aspects to be safe. The cherubim, being mythical animals, served to enhance the majesty of Yahweh, “who rides on a cherub” (II Sam. 22:11) or “who thrones on the cherubim” (II Kings 19:15, etc.), but the young bulls of Bethel and Dan could only debase His cult. (From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2nd edition, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1957, 301)

The brilliant biblical scholar F. F. Bruce draws a similar comparison and contrast:

It may be asked whether there was any difference in principle between the use of bull-calf images to support Yahweh’s invisible presence and the use of cherubs for the same purpose in the holy of holies at Jerusalem. The answer probably is that the cherubs were symbolical beings (representing originally the storm-winds) and their images were therefore not “any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” [note: Ex. 20:4; Deut. 5:8], whereas the bull-calf images were all too closely associated with Canaanite fertility ritual. It appears from the ritual texts of Ugarit that El, the supreme God of the Canaanite pantheon, was on occasion actually hypostatized as a bull (shor), and known as Shor-El. (Israel and the Nations, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1963; reprinted 1981, 40-41)

I move on now to Steven’s paper alleging a “biblical contradiction” #157:

[T]he people clamor for gods who “will go in front of us” since Moses has apparently disappeared. Aaron abides by their wishes, and melting the peoples’ gold jewelry down he “fashioned it with a stylus and made a molten calf,” and then proclaimed: “these are your gods Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” As our first textual anomaly, we notice that one calf is made, yet the text proclaims “gods” in the plural. Why?

Now Steven is making the orthodox Christian argument for us. Thanks!

Second, and largely illogical in the larger narrative context, merely days after the Horeb revelation, the giving and acceptance of the laws by the people, one of which stipulated no images, and apparently only a short time after witnessing Yahweh’s “signs and wonders” in his destruction of Egypt, their land, livestock, plants, and all firstborns, and the parting of the sea of Reeds, it is these new gods who are proclaimed as the gods “who brought you out of Egypt.” There is much that initially does not make any sense here.

Idolatry and rebellion against God never does: yet it is the constant, continual pattern of the Old Testament.

Lastly, Aaron builds an altar before the molten image and proclaims “a festival to Yahweh tomorrow!” And then we’re told that “they got up early the next day and made burnt offerings and brought over peace offerings”—that is, common sacrificial offerings to Yahweh. So, what or who exactly is being celebrated: Yahweh, the golden calf, or the “gods” who apparently brought Israel out of Egypt? Additionally, what is the relationship, that the text firmly implies, between Yahweh, the Golden Calf, and the “gods” of which it speaks?

It was an heretical mixture of orthodox and heterodox elements (as heretical departures invariably are). Aaron refers to “gods” as supposedly the ones who liberated the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery, builds an altar to the calf who represents them, then speaks of a “festival to the LORD” (Yahweh): Exodus 32:4-5. It’s classic heterodox syncretism: that Judaism and Christianity have been “blessed” with since time immemorial.

Even more puzzling, this all occurs right on the heels of the Exodus, the miraculous crossing of the Red sea, the witnessing of Yahweh’s ten terrifying signs and wonders by which means he destroyed Egypt and redeemed the children of Israel. The story of the Golden Calf makes no sense within this literary context. Even granting the people’s inclination, if you like, toward disobedience, it still makes no sense following the array of Yahweh’s awesome signs, wonders, miracles, and theophany, as well as their own verbally expressed consent to be Yahweh’s people and uphold his covenant. Like so many of the murmuring stories in Exodus and Numbers, the stories have little historical semblance and make no sense in their literary contexts . . .

Again, rebellion and heterodoxy never do make any sense; and they don’t because they aren’t rational to begin with, and originate in grace-deprived hearts filled with disbelief, lack of faith in and gratefulness to God, and rebellion. Steven doesn’t get it because he himself suffers from the acceptance of scores of false presuppositions and false conclusions drawn from same.

Rather, the Golden Calf episode was written as an independent story with a specific message to a specific audience. It was later inserted, rather poorly it must be said, into its current literary context in Exodus.

Faced with this evidence of irrational behavior of the ancient Jews, Steven does what all biblical skeptics do: he starts to construct imaginary interpolations into the text, from different writers in different times. There’s no proof (I dare bring up!) of any such thing. It’s all completely arbitrary speculation.

So what is the purpose and message of the Golden Calf narrative?

Don’t forsake the true God with blasphemous and downright silly and foolish idolatrous beliefs and practices . . .

Here is an example of the ridiculous speculation that adherents of the documentary theory habitually make:

The statement in 1 Kings 12:28 is claimed to have been said by Jeroboam I, the northern kingdom’s first king after its secession from Solomon’s tyranny. It must also be borne in mind that this is what the author, most likely the pro-Solomonic southern Deuteronomist, says Jeroboam says. It’s certainly a discriminating remark, and was used despairingly to depict Jeroboam as an apostate. This was, no doubt, the Deuteronomist’s intention.

Note that (as always), he attempts to provide no actual evidence or proof of these contentions. None is needed in this mindset. Baseless speculation reigns supreme!

Both the Golden Calf incident as well as the Deuteronomist’s account portray Jeroboam and his Aaronide lead cult as apostates.

Perhaps (I merely suggest) this is because (duh!) they actually were that!

The only question remaining is: why is Aaron depicted as the one leading the Israelites into sin?

Maybe — just maybe — because he actually did?!

This is a perfect example of how ancient scribes wrote archaized stories as polemical attacks on contemporary rivals.

And how does one prove such a thing in biblical particulars? We hardly if ever see such explanations in the skeptical / atheist anti-biblical polemical narrative fictions.

***

Photo credit: BrunoMarquesDesigner (5-15-20) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Jason Engwer and a Supposedly Sinful Mary

Last updated on: November 16, 2020 at 12:14 pm By Dave Armstrong

Doubting Jesus’ Sanity? / Inconsiderate (?) Young Jesus in the Temple / “Woman” and the Wedding at Cana

Jason Engwer is a Protestant apologist who is also an anti-Catholic polemicist (as presently). This is a response to his article, “Some Early Sources On The Sinlessness Of Mary” (9-7-06). His words will be in blue.

*****

The Biblical view of Mary seems to be that she was a believer who sometimes sinned. Like John the Baptist, Peter, and other New Testament figures, she’s sometimes an example of faithfulness to God and sometimes an example of how “we all stumble in many ways” (James 3:2). The belief that Mary was a sinner apparently goes back to scripture itself, . . .

It’s not the biblical view — I would contend — once the full implication of Luke 1:28 (Hail Mary, full of grace”) is understood. I have made an entirely biblical argument for Mary’s sinlessness based on that passage and other ones related to grace and its antithetical relation to sin in the New Testament:

Luke 1:28 (“Full of Grace”) & Immaculate Conception [2004]

Dialogue: Luke 1:28 & Immaculate Conception [7-11-06]

The Bible: Mary Was Without Sin [4-1-09]

Mary’s Immaculate Conception: A Biblical Argument [2010]

Annunciation: Was Mary Already Sublimely Graced? [10-8-11]

Sinless Mary: Dialogue w OT Professor (Dr. Jonathan Huddleston) [12-8-14]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #6: Sinless Mary [3-1-17]

Scripture, Through an Angel, Reveals That Mary Was Sinless [National Catholic Register, 4-30-17]

Biblical Support for Mary’s Immaculate Conception [National Catholic Register, 10-29-18]

I should also note that the passages discussed below are representative examples. Other relevant passages from the New Testament and the ante-Nicene sources could be cited.

In the gospels, Mary is often associated with Jesus’ unbelieving brothers, not just in terms of being with them, but also in terms of joining them in their opposition to Jesus:

“Not only the religious leaders ([Matthew] 12:24, 38), but Jesus’ own family doubted him (Mk 3:21-31, bracketing the Pharisees’ attack; cf. Jn 7:5)….Relatives normally sought to conceal other relatives’ behavior that would shame the whole family, hence their concern in Mark 3:20-21 (cf. Malina 1993: 80). Their opposition to or disbelief in Jesus is less clear in Matthew than in Mark, perhaps because of the shame of the family’s unbelief, especially after Mary’s experiences in Matthew’s infancy narratives” (Craig Keener, A Commentary On The Gospel Of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], pp. 369-370)

I have dealt with this false claim many times:

“Who is My Mother?”: Beginning of “Familial Church” [8-26-19]

“Who is My Mother?” — Jesus and the “Familial Church” [National Catholic Register, 1-21-20]

Jesus’ “Brothers” Were “Unbelievers”? (Jason also claims that “Mary believed in Jesus,” but wavered, and had a “sort of inconsistent faith”) (vs. Jason Engwer) [5-27-20]

Dialogue on Whether Jesus’ Kinfolk Were “Unbelievers” (vs. Dr. Lydia McGrew) [5-28-20]

On Whether Jesus’ “Brothers” Were “Unbelievers” [National Catholic Register, 6-11-20]

Did the Blessed Virgin Mary Think Jesus Was Nuts? [7-2-20]

Seidensticker Folly #50: Mary Thought Jesus Was Crazy? (And Does the Gospel of Mark Radically Differ from the Other Gospels in the “Family vs. Following Jesus” Aspect?) [9-8-20]

Here is the heart of my argument in my article dated 7-2-20 above:

***

Mark 3:21-22 (RSV) And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, “He is beside himself.” [22] And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Be-el’zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” (cf. Jn 10:20-21)

Note the italicized and bolded word. Other translations (including, unfortunately, KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB) make it sound like Jesus’ family were agreeing and/or saying that Jesus’ was mad, but in fact the text is saying that “people” in general were doing so (just as the Pharisees did).

But if the text doesn’t refer to them, it can simply be construed as His family coming out to remove Him from the crowds, who were massively misunderstanding Him, accusing, and perhaps becoming violent (as at Nazareth, when they tried to throw Him over a cliff). Hence, there would be no necessary implication of His family’s (let alone Mary’s) disbelief in Him. They were concerned for His safety. Other translations convey the true sense of the passage (which is interpreted by 3:22 indicating that the “scribes” were saying Jesus was crazy):

NRSV When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, “He has gone out of his mind.”

Good News / (TEV) When his family heard about it, they set out to take charge of him, because people were saying, “He’s gone mad!”

Moffatt . . . . . . for men were saying, “He is out of his mind.”

Phillips . . . for people were saying, “He must be mad!”

NEB . . . for people were saying that he was out of his mind.

Even in the translation that has “they were saying.” etc., it’s a question of who “they” refers to. It can still be read as others besides the family. The 1953 Catholic Commentary, edited by Dom Bernard Orchard, has some very good commentary on the passage:

The usual interpretation is that relatives (or followers) of Christ, disturbed by reports, came out to take charge of him. The following points are to be noted. (1) The phrase οἱ παρ’αὐτοῦ does not necessarily mean relatives (friends). It has a wider usage which would include disciples, followers, members of a household. It is not certain that the persons designated by this phrase are the same as ‘his mother and brethren’, 31. Even if they are, there is no reason for thinking that our Lady shared in the sentiments of the others, though she would naturally wish to be present when the welfare of her divine Son was in question. (2) ‘For they said’, rather, ‘For people were saying’. If this be correct, then 21b refers to reports which reached Christ’s friends, not to an expression of opinion by them.

***

Suffice it to say that there is no direct evidence that Mary thought her son was out of his mind. It appears to be applied to the passage because of a bias or predisposition (which is eisegesis), as opposed to the idea actually being present in the passage.

A group of some of the leading Catholic and Lutheran scholars in the world, while addressing Luke 2:48-50, commented that “Mary’s complaining question in v. 48 seems to be a reproach to Jesus” (Raymond Brown, et al., editors, Mary In The New Testament [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978], p. 160). Darrell Bock writes:

“Mary, speaking for both parents, wants to know why he [Jesus] has done such a seemingly insensitive thing. Jesus’ reply in the next verse addresses both of them as well. The form of Mary’s question may have OT roots (Gen. 20:9; 12:18; 26:10; Exod. 14:11; Num. 23:11; Judg. 15:11). This is the language of complaint….Bovon 1989: 159 notes that the idiom suggests the questioner’s [Mary’s] belief that an error has been made.” (Luke, Volume 1, 1:1-9:50 [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994], p. 268 and n. 18 on p. 268)

Luke 2:42-50 And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom; [43] and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, [44] but supposing him to be in the company they went a day’s journey, and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances; [45] and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him. [46] After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; [47] and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. [48] And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.” [49] And he said to them, “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” [50] And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them.

I don’t think “why have you treated us so?” is necessarily (wholly apart from theology and viewed logically and grammatically) an accusation of sinfulness on Jesus’ part at all. Mary and Joseph were simply (undeniably) perplexed, but it doesn’t follow that they were therefore accusing Jesus of sin. After all, all Christians believe that God is sinless, yet we are often perplexed by His words or actions or lack of answers to prayers, etc. None of that automatically means that we accuse God of sin.

We’re simply confused and lacking answers and full knowledge, while we accept certain mysteries in faith and the fact that God’s ways are much higher than ours. So they asked, “why have you treated us so?” They didn’t understand. And I’m sure they would have been the first to admit that they wouldn’t always fully understand God the Son.

The 1953 Catholic Commentary, edited by Dom Bernard Orchard, noted:

Mary and Joseph are also amazed. . . but Lk gives the reason in 48b: Jesus has never behaved so to Mary before. It is to be remembered that with her, as with others, Jesus had conducted himself as a normal child; his divinity was to her, as to us, an object of faith and not vision. . . . 51b also throws light on the point. ‘They learnt only gradually what his Messiahship involved (cf. 2:34–35) and this is one stage in the process. From the point of view of her subsequent knowledge, Mary recognized that she and Joseph had not understood’ (Plummer ICC on 2:51).

Pope St. John Paul II offers further explanation:

Several early Fathers of the Church, who were not yet convinced of her perfect holiness, attributed imperfections or moral defects to Mary. Some recent authors have taken the same position. However, the Gospel texts cited to justify these opinions provide no basis at all for attributing a sin or even a moral imperfection to the Mother of the Redeemer.

Jesus’s reply to his mother at the age of 12: “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” (Lk 2:49), has sometimes been interpreted as a veiled rebuke. A careful reading of the episode, however, shows that Jesus did not rebuke his mother and Joseph for seeking him, since they were responsible for looking after him.

Coming upon Jesus after an anxious search, Mary asked him only the “why” of his behaviour: “Son, why have you treated us so?” (Lk 2:48). And Jesus answers with another “why”, refraining from any rebuke and referring to the mystery of his divine sonship. (“Mary Was Free from All Personal Sin,” 6-26-96)

Regarding John 2:4, Craig Keener writes:

“Jesus’ answer in v. 4 is a rebuff, but like the rebuff of 4:48, is more a complaint than an assertion that he will not act….Jesus is establishing a degree of distance between himself and his mother, as did the Jesus of the Synoptic tradition….The rebuff element is increased in Jesus’ next words [‘What is there between us?’], however. In both OT and Gospel tradition (e.g., Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34), as well as Greco-Roman idiom, a phrase like ‘What is there between us?’ would imply distancing or hostility….But the primary reason for the rebuff must be that his mother does not understand what this sign will cost Jesus: it starts him on the road to his hour, the cross.” (The Gospel Of John: A Commentary, Vol. 1 [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003], pp. 504-506)

John 2:3-4 When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” [4] And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”

I dealt with this false claim that Jesus was rebuking His mother, who supposedly sinned, in my article dated 7-2-20:

***

The next misguided criticism is directed towards the wedding of Cana: the old, tired, fundamentally silly argument that Jesus was supposedly disrespectful of His mother. This silly trifle was disposed of by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin, citing three Protestant commentators:

The Protestant commentator William Barclay writes:

“The word Woman (gynai) is also misleading. It sounds to us very rough and abrupt. But it is the same word as Jesus used on the Cross to address Mary as he left her to the care of John (John 19:26). In Homer it is the title by which Odysseus addresses Penelope, his well-loved wife. It is the title by which Augustus, the Roman Emperor, addressed Cleopatra, the famous Egyptian queen. So far from being a rough and discourteous way of address, it was a title of respect. We have no way of speaking in English which exactly renders it; but it is better to translate it Lady which gives at least the courtesy in it” (The Gospel of John, revised edition, vol. 1, p. 98).

Similarly, the Protestant Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan, states:

Jesus’ reply to Mary was not so abrupt as it seems. ‘Woman’ (gynai) was a polite form of address. Jesus used it when he spoke to his mother from the cross (19:26) and also when he spoke to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection (20:15)” (vol. 9, p. 42).

Even the Fundamentalist Wycliff Bible Commentary put out by Moody Press acknowledges in its comment on this verse, “In his reply, the use of ‘Woman’ does not involve disrespect (cf. 19:26)” (p. 1076).

Did Jesus “rebuke” His mother at this wedding? No: . . . The Navarre Bible explains the passage:

[The sentence rendered “What have you to do with me?” (RSV) is the subject of a note in RSVCE which says “while this expression always implies a divergence of view, the precise meaning is to be determined by the context, which here shows that it is not an unqualified rebuttal, still less a rebuke.” The Navarre Spanish is the equivalent of “What has it to do with you and me?”] The sentence “What has it to do with you and me?” is an oriental way of speaking which can have different nuances. Jesus’ reply seems to indicate that although in principle it was not part of God’s plan for him to use his power to solve the problem the wedding-feast had run into, our Lady’s request moves him to do precisely that. Also, one could surmise that God’s plan envisaged that Jesus should work the miracle at his Mother’s request. In any event, God willed that the Revelation of the New Testament should include this important teaching: so influential is our Lady’s intercession that God will listen to all petitions made through her; which is why Christian piety, with theological accuracy, has called our Lady “supplicant omnipotence.”

Dom Bernard Orchard’s 1953 Catholic Commentary adds more insightful interpretation:

Concerning the second: the Master’s question which literally reads: ‘What to me and to thee?’ has to be understood from biblical and not modern usage. Therefore it does not mean: ‘What concern is it of ours?’ or ‘There is no need for you to tell me’. In all the biblical passages where it occurs, Jg 11:12; 2 Kg 16:10, 19:22; 4 Kg 3:13; 2 Par 35:21; Mt 8:29; Mk 1:24, the phrase signifies, according to circumstances, a great or lesser divergence of viewpoint between the two parties concerned. In 2 Kg 16:10 it means total dissent; in Jg 11:12 it voices a complaint against an invader. In our passage, also, divergence must be admitted. In a sense our Lord’s answer is a refusal, but not an absolute refusal, rather, a refusal ad mentem, as a Roman Congregation would say, and the Blessed Virgin understood her Son’s mind from the tone of his voice. His first public miracle belonged to the divine programme of his Messianic mission into which flesh and blood could not enter. His answer is therefore an assertion of independence of his Mother, similar to the word he spoke in the temple about his Father’s business. The Blessed Virgin’s subsequent action shows that the tone of our Lord’s protest on this occasion was neither a curt nor an unqualified refusal.

It all comes down to language, culture, idiom, context . . . theological liberals / heterodox and many other people (including way too many orthodox Catholics) so often don’t get that. But doesn’t Jesus’ fulfillment of His mother’s request for more wine (by performing a miracle — His first recorded one — to provide more) suggest that He didn’t intend to rebuke her in the first place? He did what she requested. One would think so, it seems to me. Much ado about nothing . . .

***

Photo credit: Saint Raphael Catholic Church (Springfield, Ohio) – stained glass, Wedding at Cana – detail (Nheyob: 11-22-14) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

“Quantum Entanglement” & the “Upholding” Power of God

Last updated on: October 20, 2020 at 1:52 pm By Dave Armstrong

Last night I watched a fascinating documentary through Amazon Prime: a NOVA episode entitled “Einstein’s Quantum Riddle”. It was about advances in the area of quantum mechanics; specifically what is called “quantum entanglement.” Wikipedia has a long, complicated article about it. But the gist of it (which the TV special summarized for the layperson) is as follows:

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when a pair or group of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in a way such that the quantum state of each particle of the pair or group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, including when the particles are separated by a large distance. . . .

Such phenomena were the subject of a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen,^[1] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter,^[2]^[3] describing what came to be known as the EPR paradox. Einstein and others considered such behavior to be impossible, as it violated the local realism view of causality (Einstein referring to it as “spooky action at a distance“)^[4] and argued that the accepted formulation of quantum mechanics must therefore be incomplete.

Later, however, the counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics were verified experimentally^[5]^[6]^[7] in tests in which polarization or spin of entangled particles were measured at separate locations, statistically violating Bell’s inequality. In earlier tests, it couldn’t be absolutely ruled out that the test result at one point could have been subtly transmitted to the remote point, affecting the outcome at the second location.^[7] However, so-called “loophole-free” Bell tests have been performed in which the locations were separated such that communications at the speed of light would have taken longer–in one case 10,000 times longer—than the interval between the measurements. . . .

Quantum entanglement has been demonstrated experimentally with photons,^[10]^{[11 ]}neutrinos,^[12]electrons,^[13]^[14]molecules as large as buckyballs, ^[15]^[16] and even small diamonds. ^[17]^[18]

Bottom line (beyond all the technical mumbo-jumbo of modern physics), is that — even assuming that this phenomenon is true and a fact — scientists have no explanation for how it could happen as it does. It’s one of those things where the knowledge of science comes to an end: like the origin of life, the causes of the origins of the Big Bang, DNA, and higher intelligence, and dark matter.

Einstein, as is well-known, had serious problems with quantum mechanics, with regard to its seemingly random and irrational nature, in relation to traditional notions of cause-and-effect. He famously stated, “God doesn’t play dice.” Einstein’s “god” was a pantheist one at best, but he was no atheist, and recognized that the universe had an unexplainable higher order and beauty of design that any thinking person couldn’t deny. I have argued that this was a broad, bare-bones version of the classic theistic teleological (design) argument.

This brings me in a roundabout way to my main point: science often gets to a place where it is completely baffled, but because it methodologically excludes God (which has essentially been the case since Darwin), and so often doesn’t recognize its own inherent philosophical limitations (empiricism being only one form of knowledge among many), it rules out what is as plausible an explanation as anything else: God.

The most obvious example of this is Big Bang cosmology. This theory was formulated by a Catholic priest-scientist, Fr. Georges Lemaître. It expressed in scientific detail what had already long since been present in the Bible: creatio ex nihilo (“creation from nothing”). I’ve written many times about the Big Bang theory and its relation to God:

Atheism: the Faith of “Atomism” [8-19-15]

Cosmological Argument for God (Resources) [10-23-15]

Exchanges with Atheists on Ultimate Origins [11-19-15]

Cause of the Big Bang: Atheist Geologist Challenged [4-21-17]

Atheists & Inherent “Omnipotent” Creative Qualities of Godless Matter [7-26-17]
*

Dialogue w Atheist on the Origin of the Universe [6-23-18]
*

Dialogue with an Atheist on “God of the Gaps” [6-24-18]

Seidensticker Folly #14: Something Rather Than Nothing [9-3-18]
*

Seidensticker Folly #38: Eternal Universe vs. an Eternal God [4-16-20]

The theory of evolution runs into the same insuperable difficulties when it comes to describing exact sequences and causes for evolutionary change: especially across large gaps, such as the origins of life and DNA and of large classification groups to other ones. It’s entirely possible as a method that God used to create (theistic evolution), but without the inclusion of God, science cannot explain many key aspects of it.

I developed this line of thinking in the article of mine where I last dealt with the theory of evolution: entitled, “Why I Believe in ‘Non-Miraculous’ Intelligent Design” (6-20-19). I will later tie it into the discussion of quantum entanglement:

Dr. [Michael] Behe stated that Intelligent Design (ID) did not necessarily require additional “intervention” by God after His initial act of creation. I found that interesting because I had thought that ID required that.

All Christians, it seems to me (who believe in the inspiration of revelation: the Bible), have to believe that 1) God created (Genesis, etc.), and 2) that God in some sense “sustains” or “upholds” His creation, according to Hebrews 1:3 (“upholding the universe by his word of power”: RSV) and Acts 17:28 (“In him we live and move and have our being”). . . .

[It is a] belief in a non-material or immaterial force or power or spirit, if you will, that profoundly influences the material universe and its creative processes, and which itself seems ultimately beyond purely scientific or empirical analysis (precisely because it is non-material). . . .

[I]n this view, which can be synthesized with Intelligent Design (and is similar in many ways to theistic evolution), God designed or foreordained that complex structures would evolve, and life and consciousness, etc., by some unknown non-material, overarching, guiding principle that transcends science, or concerning which science can give us no clues or answers. He not only created scientific laws that work essentially on their own (hence can be observed and studied scientifically), but also “supervises” or ordains the entire “project”: though not in an interventionist or supernatural / miraculous way. The processes and potentialities were there from the beginning, as a manifestation of His omnipotence and omniscience. It’s just that some of them are supra-scientific.

I submit that the same explanation that suggests itself with regard to the Big Bang and the unexplained mysteries of evolutionary process: the creative and “upholding” / omnipotent power of God, is applicable and plausible also as the explanation of how quantum entanglement is possible at all. I mentioned a relevant few verses above. Here are all of the ones along these same lines:

Job 38:33 (RSV) Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth?

Nehemiah 9:6 . . . “Thou art the LORD, thou alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; and thou preservest all of them; . . .”

Wisdom 11:25 How would anything have endured if thou hadst not willed it? Or how would anything not called forth by thee have been preserved?

Acts 17:28 . . . ‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

Colossians 1:17 . . . in him all things hold together.

Hebrews 1:3 . . . upholding the universe by his word of power . . .

This is inspired revelation from God. God either does these things: establishes, preserves, holds together, allows to endure, and upholds all of His creation (which He brought into being from nothing) or He does not. Christians — if they are consistent — cannot disbelieve this. And God’s power is as plausible an explanation of quantum entanglement as anything else: if only “methodologically atheist” science will allow Him to be discussed at all.

If scientists seek the vaunted “unified theory” in physics, it’s right in front of them: the central unifying, overarching factor or cause is God Himself. The Bible has taught it these past 2000 or more years. Modern science keeps indirectly verifying it, in effect, by its inability to explain origins or (as in our present example) the basis and ultimate causes of experimentally verified quantum mechanics.

***

Photo credit: sciencefreak (1-20-15) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

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]

***

God the Designer?: Dialogue with an Atheist

Last updated on: August 27, 2020 at 6:53 pm By Dave Armstrong

This discussion came about underneath my post, Seidensticker Folly #41: Argument from Design. gusbovona is a lifelong atheist. His words will be in blue.

*****

First of all, science, as presently defined and self-understood, cannot state one way or another whether God (assuming His existence for the sake of argument) designed anything or not, since its subject and object of study is matter, and God (again by definition) is not material.

1. Bob’s statement, to which the quote above is a response, said nothing about God, merely a designer. He was asking not whether God designed something, but whether something is designed (by anyone), at all.

2. I’m not sure what other criteria we could use to determine if something is designed or not other than the nature of the thing designed itself.

In fact, Bob mentions “God” five times in his article, and seven times in the previous related one, four days earlier. It’s understood that the argument from design is the old teleological argument, which is one of the classic theistic proofs: and those deal with God as defined in theism, or (at the very least) a Humean deist-god: who sets the universe in motion and then proceeds to have no further interest in it. I don’t recall ever seeing any other kind of “argument from design.” But maybe they’re out there somewhere.

Also, the terms “creationism” and “intelligent design” both refer to schools of thought in which it is thought that God is the Creator in some fashion (it could be through evolution as the method). So when Bob tries to shoot down various arguments that such advocates produce, he’s dealing with proposed arguments for God’s existence.

Any way we look at it, God is being discussed. My point above was to note that consistent materialist science ought not mention God at all, either fer or agin’. To do so is (technically) philosophy and no longer science as presently defined.

Sure, we can look at the things themselves, but how is it that we “know” whether they are as they “should” be, or have any expectations at all? If God is super-intelligent or omniscient, surely, most if not all things He created would be beyond our comprehension, either totally, or to a significant extent: just as no one would expect a guinea pig to be able to read and comprehend this reply.

Determin[ing] whether something is designed is logically prior to identifying who the designer is. (That’s because identifying a designer of something necessarily presumes that something was designed.) Bob’s statement, “Does life on earth look designed by an intelligence?” merely refers to the first step. It’s fine that Bob mentions God in the rest of the article, and whether something is designed can be part of a discussion about a god, but that is a separate issue from determining whether something is designed, in and of itself.

Good discussion.

I like it, too, and I’m glad you do.

You seem to keep missing my points and my intentions in argument, but it’s stimulating argumentation. I was simply noting that the teleological argument was always about whether a God exists Who is the Designer.

This might be a fundamental way we’re not seeing things the same way. I am trying to talk about a much smaller point than you are. I’m just talking about one thing Bob said that concerned only an intelligent designer, and not a god. They are logically and intellectually separable issues, and that’s what my original comment was trying to talk about.

Secondly (as a good socratic), I delved deep into the premises that Bob assumed, and wondered aloud why he thinks he can determine whether something is ‘junk” or not, and why he can’t figure out that science continues to explain what were formerly mysteries, and will continue to do so. A little intellectual humility is in order.

It is hypothetical thinking any way you look at it: whether in a scientific or philosophical / religious sense. If the speculation has to do with God, it is a relevant consideration to note that God, as classically understood in theistic philosophy and orthodox Christianity, is an omniscient being.

It could be aliens who designed life, no? That can’t be ruled out hypothetically. Also, why should the designer of life necessarily also be the designer of the universe?

Strictly speaking, no (it could also have been “the flying spaghetti monster”), but according to scientific evidence, we have none whatsoever for the existence of aliens. If you’re gonna play the game within a [materialistic] scientific paradigm, then you need to consistently do that.

Sure, it’s only a hypothesis, but you said that you didn’t recall any other option for a designer besides god, so I just offered one. That’s all that was.

But talking about possible aliens and then turning around taking the usual potshots at God (“Resorting to a cause that is beyond our comprehension creates an unfalsifiable hypothesis – anything can be explained by the same move: no matter how insane an explanation might be”) is self-contradictory and “rhetorically unfair and unjust.”

It’s not a potshot, it was a substantive critique of an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Science does not make the move of appealing to an unfalsifiable hypothesis like appealing to the incomprehensibility of a god. And, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as unfalsifiability. The hypothesis that aliens might have created life is certainly falsifiable, and one big step towards falsifying it would be to discover a naturalistic way to create life. That’s not a proof, but Occam’s Razor would then favor the naturalistic hypothesis over aliens and a god.

Appeals to possible alien life, minus any scientific evidence whatsoever for such a thing, is contradictory within the materialistic scientific paradigm. It’s nonsensical.

I don’t know why aliens creating life is an appeal: it was a hypothesis that provides an option besides a god for the creation of life. That’s all. It merely allows us to say, “Some god is not the only option for an intelligent designer of life.” What is nonsensical about the hypothesis that aliens created life (on Earth, as we know it)? Note that this says nothing about whether it is true or not.

But appeal to the existence of God in a philosophical / religious framework is perfectly reasonable and consistent, since empirical evidence is not necessarily required within that way of thought.

I don’t know what an appeal is. Substantively, all you have a hypothesis or a claim for which there is either sufficient support to adopt or not, or we don’t yet know if we have sufficient support for it yet. How does an appeal fit into that? Is an appeal equal to a hypothesis? If so, then I understand and agree. One can certainly hypothesize that a god created life.

***

As long as some god has an effect within our universe, science certainly can try to determine whether such an effect exists by studying those effects just like any other effect in our universe. If science finds that the effect doesn’t exist, that effect can’t be used as evidence that some god caused it.

Whether things are as they “should” be is changing the topic, I was talking about the argument from design. It’s about whether something was designed by an intelligence rather than occurring naturally. “Should” has nothing to do with that; that’s a different topic.

Resorting to a cause that is beyond our comprehension creates an unfalsifiable hypothesis – anything can be explained by the same move: no matter how insane an explanation might be, when it’s insanity or logical problems are revealed, one could – by using that move – wave it away by saying it was accomplished by some entity that is beyond our comprehension.

***

The discussion is getting more and more abstract and minute (which in my mind equates to being less useful or constructive, but that’s just my own preference). I’m seeking answers to the relevant, premise-level questions I asked Bob:

[W]hat makes us (whether theist or atheist) think in the first place that we can figure out what nature should or ought to “look like”?

How does Bob know that this is the case? How can he prove it? How does he “know” that God would “never” deliberately incorporate what he (ultimately arbitrarily) defines as “junk”?

[U]nder the hypothesis of a super-intelligent, ultimately incomprehensible, omniscient God, why would we expect anything at all? What makes us think we can figure out all His designs (pun intended) and purposes and methods, etc.: anymore than an ant or a catfish would understand all of ours?

By what criterion do we determine if something is “bizarre”?

I answer my own rhetorical questions:

I’m contending that a more nuanced form of the argument holds that nature (or, creation, if there is a Creator) need not “look like” what our paltry little brains think it “should” look like: that whatever the truth is, it’ll be full of surprises, and we shouldn’t “expect” anything, except to be blown away and surprised by the marvelous complexity entailed. What we have already discovered fully bears that out.

Note that I think this point applies to a materialistic and a theistic universe.

I continue to seek answers to the questions I asked in my post. So far, no takers, but it has been stimulating discussion, and I most appreciate the fact that it is congenial and with mutual respect (unlike at least 95% of Christian-atheist discussion these days).

I don’t think the discussion is exhausted, particularly if we are talking about what flows from my original comment, and not your wider disagreement with Bob about God. What remains to be addressed is this: inferring design from the characteristics of an object is an empirical question, so whatever math, logic, and philosophy have to contribute to that question has to ultimately be verified by an empirical process, correct?

I don’t see that it’s only an empirical question. I think it’s ultimately philosophical, just as physical science itself reduces to philosophy because it is a species of philosophy. In fact, I think the question of whether there is a Designer transcends science because I think it is the point at which science can no longer offer explanatory answers. Therefore, it’s permissible to enter into philosophical speculation as to what could have caused the observable design and complexity.

It’s the point of irreducible complexity. Science /empiricism has yet to adequately explain the origin of the Big Bang, of life, and of things like DNA, and even most of the major transitions in evolution (not even close), so I reserve the “epistemological right” to posit a non-physical God Who is the Designer. Science has to recognize its limitations.

***

Teleological (Design) Argument for God (Resources) [10-27-15]

Dogmatic Materialist Scientists vs. Intelligent Design [10-29-15]

Atheists & Inherent “Omnipotent” Creative Qualities of Godless Matter [7-26-17]
*

Dialogue with an Atheist on “God of the Gaps” [6-24-18]

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

Catholics & Origins: Irreducible Complexity or Theistic Evolution? [6-17-19]

Why I Believe in “Non-Miraculous” Intelligent Design [6-20-19]

Debate: Can Intelligent Design Be “Non-Interventionist”? (vs. Dr. Lydia McGrew) [6-21-19]

***

Photo credit: Nebulae, Hubble space telescope [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

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]

***

Demonic Possession or Epilepsy? (Bible & Science)

Last updated on: July 9, 2020 at 6:13 pm By Dave Armstrong

Matthew 17:15, 18 (RSV) “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic and he suffers terribly; for often he falls into the fire, and often into the water.” . . . [18] And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured instantly.

This is interesting, since it implies that epilepsy is caused by a demon, whereas we know that it has natural causes. This translation and many others (as we shall see) insinuate that it is the equivalent of demonic possession. For example, the Moffatt, 20th Century, and Weymouth versions have “epileptic” here, while KJV, Rheims, and Young’s Literal have “lunatic[k].”

The older translations got it right, I think. But “lunatic” is a very unfashionable word. Of course, it derived from observable patterns of change of behavior based on the lunar cycle, which actually has some basis (we know that the moon affects the ocean tides as well).

I would argue, then, that the older and more literal (and Catholic) translations are more consistent with both biblical and scientific thinking, while those that select “epileptic” here are less coherent on both scores.

The Greek word in question is Strong’s #4583: seleniazomai. Strong’s Concordance defines it as “crazy; lunatic.” Thayer’s Lexicon does mention “epileptic,” stating that it was influenced by the moon. But then that is more evidence of natural cause, which is different from demonic cause, and in this instance, a demon was cast out.

A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament wants to have it both ways:

Epileptic. . . Literally, “moonstruck,” “lunatic.” The symptoms of epilepsy were supposed to be aggravated by the changes of the moon (cf. John 4:24 ).

Vincent’s Word Studies also curiously omits mention that a demon was cast out, curing this boy:

Is lunatic ( σεληνιάζεται )

Rev., epileptic. The A. V. preserves the etymology of the word (σελήνη , the moon) but lunatic conveys to us the idea of demented; while the Rev. epileptic gives the true character of the disease, yet does not tell us the fact contained in the Greek word, that epilepsy was supposed to be affected by the changes of the moon. See on Matthew 4:24.

Vine’s Expository Dictionary states similarly. All these standard sources can be read online. The famous commentator Matthew Henry (Presbyterian) offers a fascinating (and, in my opinion, superior) “mixed” view:

The nature of this child’s disease was very sad; He was lunatic and sore vexed. A lunatic is properly one whose distemper lies in the brain, and returns with the change of the moon. The devil, by the divine permission, either caused this distemper, or at least concurred with it, to heighten and aggravate it. The child had the falling-sickness, and the hand of Satan was in it; by it he tormented then, and made it much more grievous than ordinarily it is. Those whom Satan got possession of, he afflicted by those diseases of the body which do most affect the mind; for it is the soul that he aims to do mischief to.

Catholic Commentary (Orchard, 1953), likewise, calls the boy a “possessed epileptic” (I suppose he could have two problems simultaneously). I was curious about other translations:

lunatic: KJV, Rheims, Young’s Literal, NASB, Phillips, Jerusalem, NAB, Confraternity, Knox

epileptic or epilepsy: RSV, Moffatt, 20th Century, Weymouth, NEB, REB, NIV, NRSV, ASV, NKJV, Amplified, Williams, Beck, Goodspeed, Wuest, Barclay, Lamsa

subject to fits: Kleist & Lilly

The pattern, then, is older Bibles and Catholic Bibles using “lunatic” and Protestant and more recent Bibles using “epileptic.” The exceptions are Phillips and NASB: Protestant versions from the 50s and 60s. I prefer “lunatic”: on the basis that it is closer to the notion of “demon-possessed” than “epileptic” is.

***

Photo credit: The Possessed Man in the Synagogue, by James Tissot (1836-1902) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

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]

***

Atheist-Christian Discussion: Centrality of Premises

Last updated on: May 26, 2020 at 3:03 am By Dave Armstrong

This dialogue began when atheist “Sporkfighter” started commenting underneath my paper, Dialogues on “Contradictions” w Bible-Bashing Atheists. His words will be in blue.

*****

What is “Biblical evidence” without prior extra-Biblical evidence of the Bible’s accuracy?

Exactly right. It presupposes biblical inspiration, which must be established on other grounds. The title of my blog is basically a roundabout polemical swipe at Protestants, who agree with us that the Bible is inspired.

We agree that the Bible is inspired?

Who is “we”? A liberal Protestant? Then you wouldn’t. :-) One who actually continues the heritage of Luther, Calvin, and Wesley would.

Unless you can demonstrate that the Bible is more than mythology and that any occasional correlation with fact is more than coincidence, there’s no reason to give it a second glance.

Yep. See: God: Historical Arguments (Copious Helpful Resources).

The Epic of Gilgamesh is set in Uruk, a real city. Sleepless in Seattle is set in Seattle, a real city. Harry Potter is set in Great Britain, a real country. Setting a story in a real place does not mean everything or anything else in the story is real.

The Shroud of Turin? At best, it’s a burial shroud of somebody, but somebody who looks remarkably like medieval European images of Christ with long hair, not the short hair common among first century Jews. At worst (and most likely) it’s an image of a human created by a human to defraud other humans. There was a brisk trade in Biblical relics for more than a thousand years, and educated people have know most of them were fakes for nearly as long. Just read the Pardoner’s Tale from the Canterbury Tales.

Discovery channel documentaries? If I believe those, I have to believe in ancient aliens too.

No, it’s not enough to show some mundane events in the Bible really happened or that places in the Bible really existed or that lots of people believe the stranger parts really happened. If the important, the miraculous parts of the Bible are to be believed, you have to show that those parts are true. Where’s the extra-Biblical evidence for Noah’s flood, for Jesus’ resurrection?

Finally, if any part of the Bible is known to be false, then every part of it is suspect. Since Christians themselves can’t agree on which parts are true, which are allegorical, or what the “true” parts mean, every word in the Bible not validated extra-Biblically is suspect.

Believe if you want, but at least understand why others might not believe. We’re not stupid, we’re not mad at God, and we’re not denying God so we can live debauched lives of sin.

Thanks for your input. I didn’t expect you to respond to the evidences I presented, so I wasn’t surprised. It doesn’t make them null and void, however, simply because you cavalierly dismiss them.

Stick around; maybe in due course you’ll see something appealing in the Christian worldview that you hadn’t seen before. You’re more than welcome as long as you don’t sink to rank insults.

You presented no evidence, just a box of links, most of which I’ve read many times in the past.

Evidence that the Bible is true must reference evidence outside the Bible, so most of your evidence “from the Bible” could at best show the Bible is internally consistent, but well written fiction is always internally consistent, so that would prove nothing even if the Bible were internally consistent, and it’s not.

Evidence that some of the Bible is true is not evidence that all of the Bible is true just as a chemistry textbook from 1880 isn’t all correct because some of it is. This seem obvious, but many apologists don’t seem to get it.

The number of miracles* reported have diminished in grandeur as science explains more, education replaces credulity. This isn’t proof that the miracles of the Bible didn’t happen, but it does lead me to wonder why the sun stood still, people rose from the dead, and virgins gave birth then but not now. You’d need stronger evidence that they happened as well as an explanation for why they don’t anymore.**

*It’s not a miracle when one of a few people survive a disaster without some reason the majority didn’t.

**Curious fact: The number of UFO reports have dropped as cell phones became ubiquitous. If you report a UFO now, people expect pictures. Kind of like miracles, people don’t take the word of anonymous strangers anymore, they expect the evidence.

The Shroud of Turin is a good example of what’s wrong the way evidence for the Bible falls apart when you look carefully, so let’s look at. The Shroud purports to be an image of Christ on linen fabric that could not possibly have been created by humans on cloth preserved for 2,000 years. However…

1. The best dating techniques place its creation between 1260–1390 CE. You can argue against that dating, but that’s not evidence placing it around 30 CE.

2. You can’t prove it’s of Middle-eastern origin, and we know similar fabric has been made in other places and other times, including medieval Europe.

3. You can’t prove it’s not a creation of human ingenuity; how could you without knowing the limits on human ingenuity?

No, the most likely explanation is that it’s a forgery from a time and place that we know and people of the day knew was rife with forged Biblical relics. Just read Chaucer’s “The Pardoner’s Tale” from 1387-1400. Moreover, the first evidence we have for it’s existence was in 1390, when the local bishop reported that an artist confessed to creating it! Clearly, the best explanation is that the Shroud is one more of the thousands of forged Christian relics that were common as cats in Europe of the day*.

*Take a guess at how many of Jesus’ foreskins were paraded around Europe…got a number? At least eight and perhaps 18.

All the evidence for the Bible as truth I’ve studied falls apart similarly upon examination. If you have something you’ve personally looked into, I’m all eyes, but don’t waste my time with a bunch of links to arguments you haven’t investigated carefully on your own.

I have in fact investigated many of these things on my own. You may not know much about me. I’ve been doing apologetics for 39 years, have written 50 books (some 30 or so published by “real” publishers: not just self-published), and have 2900 articles on my blog. The fact that you can utterly dismiss all of those articles and play the game as if they don’t present any evidence whatsoever that isn’t circular reasoning, shows that you are in an impenetrable epistemological bubble and impervious to anything outside of it.

You write, for example: “Evidence that the Bible is true must reference evidence outside the Bible . . .”

Of course, all of archaeological evidence (to mention just one thing) is of that nature. But you’re capable of blowing all that off in one fell swoop. You’re not fooling anyone. That’s not a serious attempt to grapple with the relevant evidence.

There are good arguments that the dating of the Shroud is at the time of Christ. In a nutshell, the samples taken that showed later dates were from patches that were later added. There are objective ways to determine this, and they have been demonstrated. That’s only about dating, of course, and is the bare minimum of anything approaching “proof” that it’s the burial shroud of Jesus, but at least it shows that it is not a mere “medieval hoax.”

Basically, you’re saying (in a nice way so far, but still . . .) that Christians are merely blind faith, irrational, anti-scientific dummies. It’s the old atheist line, and it won’t do.

What I’ve been mostly doing with atheists is shooting down their alleged “contradictions” in the Bible. I’ve done that 40 times with Bob Seidensticker (Cross Examined site), 42 with Dr. David Madison (Debunking Christianity) and 21 refutations of Ward Ricker (see the post above), who put together a book with a bunch of these. This is something objective that can be discussed pro and con rather than the “101 objections” routine, where nothing serious can be accomplished.

I also wrote a paper specifically for people like you who want to blow off the extensive scholarly links / articles that I have compiled regarding evidences for Christianity and theistic proofs: Why I Collect Lots of Scholarly Articles for Atheists.

I would say, with all due respect, don’t waste my time, either, with your flippant dismissal of a whole range of relevant articles and arguments in favor of Christianity, and your epistemological naiveté. It doesn’t work with me. It may with many less educated Christians, and even many less experienced Christian apologists, but not with me. I’m too familiar with the timeworn games and tactics, and I see the sort of counter-arguments that atheists come up with, because I’ve been interacting with them these past 39 years off and on.

I have in fact investigated many of these things on my own. You may not know much about me. I’ve been doing apologetics for 39 years, have written 50 books (some 30 or so published by “real” publishers: not just self-published), and have 2900 articles on my blog.

I, too have been reading and studying for forty years, starting with degrees in mathematics and physics. Chances are excellent that I’ve read some of your research material myself. What are the chances that you’ve read, say, Atheism: The Case Against God by George Smith or other comparable works from the atheist point of view? In my experience, apologists read other apologists and they argue against other apologists’ versions of atheism but not against an atheist’s version of atheism.

If you’ve really studied and written on these issues, you should know better than to give 30 links and call it an argument. One at a time…what’s your best evidence? I can debunk it or I can’t, you can support it or you can’t, but that way it’s possible to hold a discussion.

Yeah, I’ve read books by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens (probably the two most well-known atheist books in recent times), and John Loftus. I responded to both Dawkins and Loftus in several papers. Loftus (who challenged me to do it) has ignored my replies. When he has “interacted” with me in the past it was sort of like Mt. Vesuvius or Mt. St. Helens: lots of smoke and fury but little else.

I explained why I provided the links (in my article I linked to). There is nothing wrong with it: no more than books providing lengthy bibliographies for further related reading. I was trying to provide a service to atheists: in effect, “you want some serious scholarly articles from a Christian viewpoint that cover these topics you are interested in? Here you go.” I recognize my limitations: which is why I’m citing scholars in certain areas. I can’t do everything myself. It doesn’t follow that I make no arguments. I do, and I also provide further reading. What in the world is wrong with that is, I confess, beyond my comprehension. Atheists apparently reject the notion of “further recommended reading.” I’ve gone through this silliness several times now.

Asking me what my best evidence is is like asking a happily married man why he loves his wife. I believe as I do because of the cumulative force of scores and scores of factors and reasons and evidences. I’ve written about a great many of those things.

If you are truly interested in dialogue (and not just smug “gotcha!” polemics and breezy dismissals), pick something I’ve written about and go at it. Most atheists simply ignore my refutations of their arguments (especially the alleged Bible contradictions). You can always pick up their slack if you like. But it has to be a dialogue that goes somewhere; has some constructive value (and I don’t mean by that only that one or the other is persuaded; insights and understandings can at least be gained). See my atheism & agnosticism and philosophy & science pages.

Oh, one more thing. If you want to do serious, ongoing dialogue, you’re gonna have to share your real name and some online source that tells more about you. I don’t spend much time on mysterious, anonymous folks. If you have the courage of your convictions you ought to “come out” and reveal yourself beyond nicknames. As it is, even your Disqus profile tells me nothing.

OK, I read “Replies to Atheists’ & Skeptics’ Garden Variety Objections.” [link]

Every point starts with the assumption that God exists. That’s great once you’re there, but how do you get there? My question isn’t “What is God like?” I ask “Is there a god?”

You misunderstand what that paper was about. I answer from within the paradigm of how a question is framed and will argue differently, based on who I am talking to. The first question was, “How can we really know what God is like?” This, in a sense, momentarily posits the existence of God for the sake of argument and then inquires: how do we know what God — if he exists — is like? And so I said, “look at Jesus.” That is the Christian answer.

You are answering questions I haven’t asked precisely because you’re speaking from inside Christianity to people who take the existence of God as a given. None of that matters to someone who doesn’t already believe.

You make an “internal criticism” directed towards the Christian system. Therefore I have to talk about God as I understand Him to be from within that system, to show that there is no inconsistency or incoherence. Same thing with the next section about God and suffering: the classic objection. I can’t reply to that and not mention God, because it is a critique of the Christian God to begin with. Three more questions are of the same type.

The last question in the paper is: “And how can we totally understand God?” One can’t answer that without mentioning God, either. We have to answer according to our theistic and Christian understanding.

This person is arguing, in effect, “your system seems incoherent and inexplicable to me. Please explain it so that it doesn’t seem that way.” And so I did. It depends on what a person is asking for.

In “Bad or Absent Fathers as a Strong Indicator of Atheism” [link] you follow Vitz’s cherry-picked aspects of cherry-picked atheists’ relations with their fathers with this: “It’s a known fact that people’s relationships with their fathers in particular can have a significant effect on their view of God.” Beyond the sociological observation that people generally follow the religion of their parents, isn’t this just a matter of human psychology? What has it to do with the question of God’s existence?

I didn’t claim that the atheists and their fathers paper had to do with whether God exists or not. This is a turning the tables argument against the atheist polemic that Christians are only such because of their upbringing. So we retort by saying: so is atheism, many times. The examples of famous atheists are evidence of that: not of whether God exists. You are analyzing very sloppily and illogically. This is simply sociological observation (my major was sociology and Vitz is a psychologist or psychiatrist).

“Must Christianity be Empirically Falsifiable to be Rationally Held?” [link] A scientific hypothesis should be falsifiable, but is Christianity a scientific hypothesis? Some people would claim that the existence of God is a scientific question in that God does or does not exist, that “no God” could be disproved by his appearance in Times Square. That hasn’t happened but I can’t show that it won’t. Seems like a silly stand for an atheist to take.

I explain carefully the point I am trying to make there and you seem to have missed it. The exact essence of the paper is in its title. It’s not an argument about God’s existence, but rather, about the circular nature of empiricist-only atheist thought and logical positivism. The point is that there are many fields of knowledge which are not ultimately dependent on empiricism and falsifiablility: mathematics and logic being two. Nor can science even begin with pure empiricism. It requires non-empirical axioms such as uniformitarianism to get off the ground.

“Jesus’ Death: Proof of a “Bloodthirsty” God, or Loving Sacrifice?” [link]

Again, you assume God exists, then discuss his personality. The does not address the atheist’s first question: “Does God exist?”

It’s not meant to do what you seem to always demand: ironclad, undeniable proof of God. This is, again, about an internal criticism of Christianity. So one has to tackle it from within the Christian paradigm, explaining how we think His death suggests love rather than a “bloodthirsty” God.

I clearly haven’t read everything you’ve written, but in everything I have read, you take God as a given and move on from there. I’m unwilling to grant you that as an axiom in this context. In real life, you can believe what you want for reasons you find convincing.

All you have shown, then, is that you consistently misunderstand the purpose and nature of individual articles of mine, and the nature and force of the arguments as well. It’s very common. Atheists are in their own little bubble, so they underestimate and often completely miscomprehend Christian apologetics arguments.

Finally, I’ve found many Christians to be mean-spirited and vindictive. They’ve attacked me online, they’ve contacted my employer to try and get me fired, and they’ve threatened my children, so I will not be doxxing myself.

That’s most unfortunate and sad. I am not that way at all, and apologize on behalf of the morons calling themselves Christians who would act in such a way. They make my job very difficult, too, if many atheists approach me thinking I’m gonna act like these jackasses and fools that you describe. I’m trying to represent the thinking of Christians and the spirit of the thing, which is loving all people and God and not falling into all the usual prevalent sins.

Indeed you are not. I have close friends that are Mormon, Muslim, and Christian who know I think their religious belief are unfounded, just as they think I’m not seeing the truth, but we’re willing to let each other be wrong because it’s the only way can all be left to be right.

***

Photo credit: geralt (2-16-16) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***