2019-07-25T17:16:57-04:00

Last updated on: July 25, 2019 at 5:16 pm   By

Atheist and anti-theist Bob Seidensticker runs the influential Cross Examined blog. He asked me there, on 8-11-18: “I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?” He also made a general statement on 6-22-17: “In this blog, I’ve responded to many Christian arguments . . . Christians’ arguments are easy to refute.” He added in the combox: “If I’ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I’ve mischaracterized them.” I’m always one to oblige people’s wishes, so I decided to do a series of posts in reply.

It’s also been said, “be careful what you wish for.”  If Bob responds to this post, and makes me aware of it, his reply will be added to the end along with my counter-reply. If you don’t see that at the end, rest assured that he either hasn’t replied, or didn’t inform me that he did. Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, word-search “Seidensticker” on my atheist page or in my sidebar search (near the top).

*****

In his post, “25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid (Part 2)” (6-22-18; update of a post originally from 10-1-14), Bob stated (the high irony in relation to his post title being almost unbearable to endure): “[T]he evidence for the very existence of Jesus is paltry . . .”

Bob also wrote elsewhere on 6-11-14: “[T]he techniques Christian apologists use to conclude that the Christ story is historical would also lead historians to a similar conclusion about Superman.”

On 12-9-11, Bob opined in his post, “Jesus and Santa: a Parable on How We Dismiss Evidence” (reprinted and modified on 12-14-13, just in time for Christmas):

I can’t prove Santa doesn’t exist. Nor can I disprove leprechauns, Russell’s Flying Teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or God. The thoughtful person goes where the evidence points rather than accepting only the evidence that supports his preconception. [he then cites a bumper sticker for his famous end-quotation: “Jesus is Santa Claus for adults.”]

Reiterating on 12-8-17, Bob in his infinite wisdom advises us: “Be careful about dismissing the existence of Santa, because that reasoning may demand that you dismiss Jesus as well.”

And again, on 5-26-14:

Jesus could appear to you, but he doesn’t. He appeared to Paul after he died, so it’s not like he hasn’t done it before. He could appear to give you advice for a tough decision, give you comfort in person like a friend would, or just assure you that he really exists. He doesn’t. . . . 

How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Jesus is imaginary.

He clarified the above remark on 8-20-18: What I meant was, “Jesus as a god who could do magical things, like appear to people, is imaginary.” Since the Christ Myth theory is something I don’t talk about, the nuance of Jesus as a man vs. Jesus as a god isn’t something I usually worry about.

And on 3-5-14:  “Or maybe Jesus never existed. “

On 8-17-18 Bob made a very revealing comment:

I was concerned about shrillness in the Bart Ehrman camp, the “Of course Jesus existed, and anyone who says otherwise is a dolt!” camp. . . . a reasonable research question should be, “How do you know Jesus isn’t 100% fiction?” I’d put the emphases on the “How do you know?” I’m happy with a Christian scholar saying that Jesus 70% existed or even 90% existed, but the popular attitude seems to be, “Oh, please. Only a hack would even dream to suggest that Jesus didn’t exist as a real person.” That position may be embarrassing 20 years from now, if trends continue.

And on 8-16-18:

Ehrman seems to have made this a big deal such that he’d have an embarrassing time walking back his position, and I don’t know why. Does he just have a thing against Price or Carrier? . . . Your “How do you know it’s not 100% fiction?” is a nice way of focusing the question. Popular Christian apologists try to lampoon the idea, but methinks they doth protest too much.

And yet another on 8-16-18:

The big deal in my mind is that when an atheist says, “Anyway, Jesus didn’t even exist,” they can jump on that with a fairly reasonable argument, citing a broad consensus and Bart Ehrman as an atheist scholar who agrees with them. Avoiding the Jesus myth claim keeps things a little more on track, but if someone wants to jump into that fight, I’ll happily watch. Greg G and others have made a great defense of mythicism, for example.

And another and another and a third on the same day:

The story I’ve heard is that Moses mythicism was in the same camp in the fairly recent past, but it’s held as a very plausible view now, if not the consensus of scholars. The anti-Jesus mythicists might want to focus on the argument and tone down their shrillness just in case posterity turns against them as well.

I’m not a mythicist. But since when did inconvenient facts get in the way of the Armstrong juggernaut?

I don’t deny that Jesus existed.

And on 8-19-18: Y’know, if I thought Jesus never existed, I’d probably say something like, oh I dunno, maybe “Jesus never existed.” Or, if you really, really cared so much about what I think, you could just ask me. What a moron. Reading others’ comments have made me consider the Christ Myth theory more favorably, but (as I tried to explain to you) it is not useful to me. So it’s me following the interesting ideas of the commenters, not vice versa.

And on 8-20-18: I wonder if some of the strongest evidence for Jesus is just that “well, some dude could easily have been there at the beginning” is the null hypothesis.

And again on 8-20-18: And we don’t know when the “events” took place. Yes, the gospels sort of place them in history (Herod vs. Quirinius for the birth and Pilate for the death), but that’s just what they say. If there was a real Jesus, who knows when he was actually born?

Normally, I simply ignore the belief that is called “Jesus mythicism” as intellectual suicide and outlandishly absurd and unworthy of further attention. In my opinion (and not just mine, but the vast majority of historians), anyone who holds to this nonsense is likely to be incapable of rational discussion about theology (or history or philosophy). But since this is a series (and since more and more people believe this hogwash), I’ll make an exception to my rule. I’ve collected a lot of scholarly resources that abundantly refute this historiographically ridiculous position, so I’ll list some and quote from some, too:

Early Historical Documents on Jesus Christ (Catholic Encyclopedia)

“You Can’t Trust the Gospels. They’re Unreliable” (Paul Copan)

The Gospels As Historical Sources For Jesus, The Founder Of Christianity (R. T. France)

Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History? (book by Maurice Goguel, 1926)

A Summary Critique: Questioning the Existence of Jesus [G. A. Wells] (Gary R. Habermas, 2000)

Seldom have recent scholars questioned or denied the historical existence of Jesus.  Of the very few who have done so, G. A. Wells is probably the best known.  In this article, I will outline and then respond to some of his major tenets.

Before turning to this topic, I will first note that the vast majority of scholars, both conservative and liberal alike, generally disdain radical theses that question the very existence of Jesus.  For example, theologian Rudolf Bultmann asserted, “By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived.” [i]

Historian Michael Grant termed the hypothesis that Jesus never lived an “extreme view.”  He charges that it transgresses the basics of historiography: “if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.”  Grant summarizes, after referring to Wells as an example: “modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory.”  These positions have been “annihilated” by the best scholars because the critics “have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.” [ii]

Digressing to a personal story, a potential publisher once asked me to contact a reviewer.  An influential New Testament scholar at a secular university, he had voted to publish my manuscript, but only if I deleted the section dealing with Well’s hypotheses.  He said that Well’s suppositions were virtually devoid of serious historical content.  He only relented after I convinced him that Wells still had some popular appeal.

Wells is aware of these attitudes towards his works.  He acknowledges that “nearly all commentators who mention the matter at all, [set] aside doubts about Jesus’ historicity as ridiculous.” [iii]  He adds, “the view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity . . . is today almost universally rejected.” [iv]  He concludes the matter: “serious students of the New Testament today regard the existence of Jesus as an unassailable fact” (HEJ 223).  Even Michael Martin, one of Wells’ few scholarly supporters, draws the rather restrained conclusion that “Wells’ thesis is controversial and not widely accepted . . . .” [v]

[ . . . ]

Wells’ treatment of the many nonbiblical references to Jesus is also quite problematic.  He downplays those presenting difficulties for his position (Thallus, Tacitus), and suggests late dates for others, again in contrast to the wide majority of scholars (Thallus [perhaps second century AD!], Polycarp [135 AD!], Papias [140 AD]).  Yet, he provides few reasons why these dates should be preferred (DJE, 10-15, 78, 139; HEJ, 15-18).

The most important problem for Wells’ treatment is Josephus’ testimony.  In order to dismiss this important Jewish documentation, Wells resorts to questioning both of Josephus’ references to Jesus.  Not only does he disallow them as interpolated comments, but he asserts that this is also “widely admitted” by scholars (HEJ, 18; DJE, 10-11).  But he is so wide of the mark here that one is tempted to question his research altogether.

While virtually everyone thinks that portions of Josephus’ longer statement in Antiquities 18:3 has been added, the majority also think that a fair amount still came from Josephus.  Princeton Seminary’s James Charlesworth strongly concludes: “We can now be as certain as historical research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus.” [xi]  John Drane adds that “most scholars have no doubts about the authenticity”of the passage’s nucleus. [xii]  Written about 93-94 AD, Josephus’ statement, among other claims, clearly links Jesus to his disciples and connects his crucifixion to Pilate.  It is independent of the gospels, according to Wells’ dating.

Josephus’ second statement refers to James as the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ (Antiquities 20:9).  This also hurts Well’s thesis significantly, because it likewise links Jesus to a first century person who was known to Paul and other apostles. [xiii]  In spite of Wells’ dismissal (without citing a single scholar who agrees–HEJ, 18), Yamauchi concludes, “Few scholars have questioned the genuineness of this passage.” [xiv]

Thus it is no wonder that Wells would dearly like to squelch Josephus’ two references to Jesus.  Both clearly place Jesus in a specific first century context connected with the apostles and Pilate, cannot be derived from the gospels on Wells’ dating, and come from a non-Christian.  Wells even notes that such independent data would be of “great value” (DJE, 14).  So it is exceptionally instructive, not just that Wells dismisses both, but that he clearly wishes his readers to think that contemporary scholarship is firmly on his side when it very clearly is nowhere close.  Charlesworth specifically refers to Wells’ treatment of Josephus, saying that, “Many solid arguments can be presented against such distortions and polemics.” [xv]

[ . . . ]

Why do scholars reject Wells’ thesis?  Because it cuts out Christianity’s heart and even critics refuse to face this (DJE, 205)?  I have argued that there is another reason.  One does not impress scholars by maintaining a thesis at all costs, consistently resorting to extraordinary means to overlook any bit of data that would disprove one’s view.  Even ally Martin realizes that Wells’ arguments may sometimes seem “ad hoc and arbitrary.” [xviii]

But at several points, this is clearly what Wells does.  He often admits that a natural textual reading devastates his theories.  Then he dismisses every historical reference linking Jesus to the first century, making some bizarre moves in the process.  This most obviously occurs in his treatments of James, Jesus’ disciples, and Josephus.  Along with dating the gospels decades later than almost everyone, these and other factors combine to produce the sense of ad hoc argumentation.  But it all seriously undermines his system, as well as eroding his credibility.

Wells appears to declare virtually anything rather than admitting Jesus’ historicity.  Yet, one by one, his house of cards collapses.  This is precisely why the vast majority of scholars reject Well’s claims: he fails to deal adequately with the historical data.

Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels (Gary R. Habermas, 2005)

[A]pproximately one-and-a-half dozen non-Christian, extrabiblical sources confirm many details from Jesus’ life and teachings as found in the Gospels.8 Early Christians such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp provide even more confirmation, writing just 10 years or less after the completion of the New Testament.9 Archaeological sources do not contribute as much corroboration in New Testament studies as they do in Old Testament studies, but there are a number of indications that, when the details can be checked, the New Testament is often confirmed.10

There are a number of pieces of evidence that, especially when taken together, confirm the traditional picture regarding the life and teachings of Jesus. This is not to say that all the pertinent questions have been answered;11 but the available evidence from a variety of angles confirms the strong foundation on which we can base the general reliability of the New Testament reports of the historical Jesus.

Qumran Evidence for the Reliability of the Gospels (Larry W. Hurtado, 1968)

The Historicity of Jesus Christ (Wayne Jackson)

[T]he Jewish Babylonian Talmud took note of the Lord’s existence. Collected into a final form in the fifth century A.D., it is derived from earlier materials, some of which originated in the first century. Its testimony to Jesus’ existence is all the more valuable, as it is extremely hostile. It charges that Christ (who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after his mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera.

Respected scholar, the late Bruce Metzger of Princeton, has commented upon this appellation:

The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera (1965, 76).

The Talmud also refers to Jesus’ miracles as “magic,” and records that he claimed to be God. It further mentions his execution on the eve of the Passover. Jewish testimony thus supports the New Testament position on the historical existence of Jesus. . . .

Another line of evidence establishing the historicity of Jesus is the fact that the earliest enemies of the Christian faith did not deny that Christ actually lived (see Hurst 1897, 180-189).

Celsus, a pagan philosopher of the second century A.D., produced the oldest extant literary attack against Christianity. His True Discourse (ca. A.D. 178) was a bitter assault upon Christ. Celsus argued that Jesus was born in low circumstances, being the illegitimate son of a soldier named Panthera (see above). As he grew, he announced himself to be God, deceiving many. Celsus charged that Christ’s own people killed him, and that his resurrection was a deception. But Celsus never questioned the historicity of Jesus.

Lucian of Samosata (ca. A.D. 115-200) was called “the Voltaire of Grecian literature.” He wrote against Christianity more with patronizing contempt than volatile hostility. He said Christians worshipped the well-known “sophist” who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced new mysteries. He never denied the existence of Jesus.

Porphyry of Tyre was born about A.D. 233, studied philosophy in Greece, and lived in Sicily where he wrote fifteen books against the Christian faith. In one of his books, Life of Pythagoras, he contended that magicians of the pagan world exhibited greater powers than Christ. His argument was an inadvertent concession of Jesus’ existence and power.

Extrabiblical Witnesses to Jesus before 200 A.D.  (Glenn Miller, 1996)

Did Jesus Exist? Books for Refuting the Jesus Myth (Christopher Price)

Did Josephus Refer to Jesus?: A Thorough Review of the Testimonium Flavianum (Christopher Price, 2003)

Scholarly Opinions on the Jesus Myth (Christopher Price, 2003)

I have often been asked why more academics do not take the time to respond to the Jesus Myth theory. After looking into this question, I discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time.  Here are some examples.

Howard Marshall

In his book, I Believe in the Historical Jesus, Howard Marshall points out that in the early to mid 20th century, one of the few “authorities” to consider Jesus as a myth was a Soviet Encyclopaedia. He then goes on to discuss the work of GA Wells which was then recently published.

There is said to be a Russian encyclopaedia in current use which affirms in a brief entry that Jesus Christ was the mythological founder of Christianity, but it is virtually alone in doing so. The historian will not take its statement very seriously, since … it offers no evidence for its assertion, and mere assertion cannot stand over against historical enquiry.  But more than mere assertion is involved, for an attempt to show that Jesus never existed has been made in recent years by GA Wells, a Professor of German who has ventured into New Testament study and presents a case that the origins Christianity can be explained without assuming that Jesus really lived. Earlier presentations of similar views at the turn of the century failed to make any impression on scholarly opinion, and it is certain that this latest presentation of the case will not fare any better.

Professor Marshall was correct that neither any earlier attempt nor Wells have swayed scholarly opinion. This remains true whether the scholars were Christians, liberals, conservatives, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, or Catholic.  And even GA Wells himself has now conceded that a real figure called Jesus lay behind some of the teaching contained in the synoptic Gospels.

Michael Grant

In his book Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels, Atheist historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed.

This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth…. But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms…. To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.’ In recent years, ‘no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

[ . . . ]

Rudolf Bultmann

Even the famously liberal Professor Bultmann, who argued against the historicity of much of the gospels, questions the reasonableness of Jesus Mythers themselves in Jesus and the Word.

Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community.

***

Someone informed Bob of this paper. His response was as follows:

I can’t imagine I’m missing much by not reading it. (link)

Why read it? He has no credibility. Posts like that are the equivalent of The National Inquirer or Weekly World News. (link)

I haven’t read enough to have an informed opinion, so no, I’m not a mythicist.

I’m sympathetic to the mythicists’ arguments, and I own the relevant books by Carrier and Price, but I haven’t read them. As a result, I don’t want/need to engage with those arguments.

For my purposes (showing the foolishness of Christianity), mythicism isn’t a useful tool. I’m sure that if I read those books, I’d have yet more information that would be useful, but the main argument is just a tangent. Getting into that morass simply allows the Christian to say, “Well, Bart Ehrman says you’re wrong, so whaddya gotta say about that??” and so on. (link)

Bob appears to want to play it both ways, as to the existence of Jesus. He compares belief in Jesus to that of Santa Claus, and makes a direct comparison to Superman (a mere cartoon character), and also to leprechauns, Russell’s Flying Teapot, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He states flat-out that “Jesus is imaginary.” He talks about Jesus needing to assure us “that he really exists. He doesn’t.” That doesn’t sound like a very robust existence to me, or like existence at all. Does it to anyone else?

Either he is unwittingly contradicting himself (in his overall haze of confusion), or he is cleverly playing it one way to atheists and another to Christians. Or else (to give the most charitable slant possible to this data, which I sincerely hope is in actuality the case), Bob used to deny the existence of Jesus and no longer does, though he remains “sympathetic to the mythicists’ arguments.” People change their views over time. I certainly have. If this is the case, then he needs to go revise (and/or retract) the mocking, smart-ass “doesn’t exist”-type statements that I have documented, lest he confuse his readers as to his position.

Bob’s responses under fire to a fellow Catholic, on his blog (on 15-16 August 2018), suggest that he has either forgotten his own statements (the most charitable, “amnesiac” / “I’ve written 1000+ posts” take) or is deliberately misrepresenting them (the cynical, Bill and Hillary Clinton / obfuscation take):

I’ve never argued that Jesus never existed. Pro tip: taking what Armstrong says at face value can embarrass you when it blows up in your face. He has a tenuous grasp on the truth. You need to fact-check whatever he says. (link)

I’ve never argued either way. What’s your reluctance? Are you remembering all those posts where I argued the question? Point them out to me. Oh wait–I have a stalker who hangs on my every word. Maybe you could ask him. But be sure to get links to the quotes because he has a hard time with reality. What’s hard to understand here? “Jesus never existed” is an argument that doesn’t help me. It’s a tangent. I have far more useful arguments if I were to argue against Christian claims. (link)

Getting back to the atheist propensity to ignore solid criticism: “Grimlock”: who was active on my blog for months and claimed to be interested in dialogue, also commented:

Why should I read anything by Armstrong? I see no compelling reason to do so. (link)

Obtaining valuable information and knowledge are certainly things to strive for. But that doesn’t mean I will be getting that from reading the article to which you linked. Why should I think the article will provide valuable information? (link)

And on 8-15-18, Bob reiterated that he has no intention of interacting with my critiques:

I have no interest in visiting his blog anymore, and if it becomes a cesspool of thoughtless yes-men, then that’s Dave’s loss. Every now and then one of his dittoheads might come over here, and we can show them how their logic stands up in the real world.

***

On 27 June 2019, Bob showed that he was still playing the same game: talking out of both sides of his mouth, so that he won’t alienate his more fanatical atheist brethren who (unlike him) outright deny Jesus’ existence. He says just enough to make them believe either that he is “one of them” or close enough to be a would-be ally in the battle against established historical truth and facts:

6. “Bonus: Jesus did not (or probably did not) exist.”

“This is so foolish, I have never met more than one relevantly trained atheist who believed it.”

You need to get out more. I’ve met two, Dr. Richard Carrier (doctorate in history) and Dr. Robert M. Price (two doctorates: one in Systematic Theology and another in New Testament).

I’m not well read on the historical Jesus issue and so don’t make this argument, but I also avoid it because it’s tangential. There are much simpler and more effective attacks on Christianity.

Some religions start with real people who actually lived (Joseph Smith for Mormonism, Mary Baker Eddy for Christian Science, Bahá’u’lláh for Bahá’í), and some may not have (Buddha for Buddhism, Lao Tzu for Taoism, Zoroaster for Zoroastrianism). “Jesus was just a myth” is hardly a radical claim. Said another way, providing overwhelming evidence that Jesus was historical would be a difficult challenge.

And in the combox:

All that supernatural stuff surrounding the Jesus story makes me wonder if that makes it inherently less plausible. There’s nothing supernatural around the Robin Hood story. Or William Tell, or John Henry, or King Arthur (ignoring the Merlin bit). And if there is, the story survives after you remove the supernatural. In the case of Jesus, nothing remains if you remove the supernatural stuff. (6-27-19)

Yeah–Jesus as a real man or not doesn’t change things for me. Nevertheless, some of the more erudite commenters here have studied it (Greg G comes to mind), and I find their comments quite interesting. (6-27-19)

I don’t make the “Jesus was a myth” argument, though that to me is a very plausible possibility. . . . Lots of people, even non-Christians can believe that Jesus existed as a real person. Jesus as a myth or legend remains very plausible. (7-18-19)

***

Photo credit: Head of Jesus (1891), by Enrique Simonet (1866-1927) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

2018-08-17T12:42:52-04:00

Last updated on: August 17, 2018 at 12:42 pm   By

Atheist and anti-theist Bob Seidensticker runs the influential Cross Examined blog. He asked me there, on 8-11-18: “I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?” He also made a general statement on 6-22-17: “In this blog, I’ve responded to many Christian arguments . . . Christians’ arguments are easy to refute.” He added in the combox: “If I’ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I’ve mischaracterized them.” I’m always one to oblige people’s wishes, so I decided to do a series of posts in reply.

It’s also been said, “be careful what you wish for.”  If Bob responds to this post, and makes me aware of it, his reply will be added to the end along with my counter-reply. If you don’t see that at the end, rest assured that he either hasn’t replied, or didn’t inform me that he did. Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, word-search “Seidensticker” on my atheist page or in my sidebar search (near the top).

*****

In his post, “25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid (Part 5)” (7-6-18; update of a post originally from 10-13-14), Bob stated:

The Bible record many instances of God imposing on people’s free will. “God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (Romans 9:18). He hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 9:12), for example, and he gave ungrateful humans over to “shameful lusts” (Rom. 1:26). “The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples” (Psalms 33:10).

Likewise, Bob waxes eloquently on 8-11-14: “Am I an atheist because God hardened my heart? If so, why do I deserve hell when it was God’s doing?”

Let’s take each claim in his first statement above in turn. I’ve already written elsewhere about most of this, so I trust that the reader can forgive me if I provide a link. But I’ll cite key portions of papers I cite, for readers’ convenience.

“God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (Romans 9:18).

Romans 9 is perhaps the very favorite Bible passage of Calvinists, because they deny human free will; therefore, they welcome this passage that appears at first glance to support their position. Upon closer inspection, it does no such thing. I wrote about this in my paper: Romans 9: Plausible Non-Calvinist Interpretation. It involves somewhat subtle and complex argumentation, and analysis of the Hebrew way of thought, which was very different from our western, Greek-oriented classical logic thinking, and so will have to be read.

In it, I cite biblical scholar Marvin Wilson, author of Our Father Abraham, (which I have in my own library). He talks about the notion of Hebrew “block logic”:

[C]oncepts were expressed in self-contained units or blocks of thought. These blocks did not necessarily fit together in any obviously rational or harmonious pattern, particularly when one block represented the human perspective on truth and the other represented the divine. This way of thinking created a propensity for paradox, antimony, or apparent contradiction, as one block stood in tension — and often illogical relation — to the other. Hence, polarity of thought or dialectic often characterized block logic. . . .

Consideration of certain forms of block logic may give one the impression that divine sovereignty and human responsibility were incompatible. The Hebrews, however, sense no violation of their freedom as they accomplish God’s purposes.

He hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 9:12),

I’ve dealt with this objection at great length and in great depth; examining the biblical data, and in reply to a Calvinist. The easiest way to explain that this is not a contradiction of human free will is to note not only the passages where God is said to have “hardened” someone’s heart, but also the ones where they hardened themselves:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hebrews 3:8 do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness,

Hebrews 3:15  while it is said, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”

The two motifs have to be harmonized, and they easily can be, once Hebrew thought is better understood. It may be a biblical paradox (one of many), but that’s not the same as a logical contradiction. Here’s how I explain it in my “biblical” paper above:

God allows such people their freedom to rebel, which in turn entails the devil getting in there and making things worse (just as God allowed the devil to tempt Job: Job 1:12). So in a sense to say that “God did so-and-so” when He simply allowed it to take place, is an assertion of God’s overall Providence. God is asserting that He is in control. . . .

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

The bottom line is that men harden themselves in rebellion and God allows it. . . . If people rebel, God will withdraw His grace and protection from them, and so in a sense He did it. But it was always essentially man’s rebellion.

he gave ungrateful humans over to “shameful lusts” (Rom. 1:26).

This is simply a variation of what we saw in the last two examples. Rebels against God hardened their hearts against him, and so it is said in a particular sense that God hardened them (meaning that He allowed it, incorporating their free will into the equation). He didn’t cause it or make it inevitably come about, as if they had no free will. The larger passage shows this clearly. Seidensticker, with his nefarious motivations of always mocking the Bible and God, only shows that par t that seems to support his contention. Here’s the context:

Romans 1:18-26 (RSV)  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  [20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; [21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. [24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. [26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.

See how the causal chain works there? Humans with free will decided to not believe in God or follow His will. Then God “gave them up.” In other words, He let human free will take it’s course. It’s as if God were saying, “okay; you don’t want to follow Me and do what is best for you? You know better than I do about that? Very well, then, I’ll let you become blind and deluded. See how well off you’ll be then.”

I’ve put the key actions of rebellious human beings in the passage in red, and God’s response in blue, to make it more clear. It’s all in the bolded text. They decided in their free will to sin and not believe in God. “Therefore” and “For this reason” God gave them up: “because” of their sins. It’s quite clear and undeniable that they have free will and that it;s their fault. God caused none of it. He simply decides to let them have their way and withdraw His grace at a certain point. It’s like someone who loves someone else with an unrequited love for twenty years. It’s never returned, so at length they finally decide to give it up and stop desiring the other person, or hoping they will act accordingly.

“The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples” (Psalms 33:10).

This is an instance of God’s judgment, which, I suppose, is an act contrary to man’s will (who wants to be judged?), but it is a perfectly just one, and not at all contrary to God’s will. It’s the same motif again, that we have seen in the above three examples: men reach a point of rebellion that is so determined and :hardened” that God gives up on them and judges them. Sometimes it is entire nations, as in this verse. Hence we have in Scripture, many “if . . . then” conditional prophecies:

Joshua 24:20  If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do you harm, and consume you, after having done you good.”

1 Chronicles 28:9 “And you, Solomon my son, know the God of your father, and serve him with a whole heart and with a willing mind; for the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every plan and thought. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will cast you off for ever.

2 Chronicles 7:17-20 And as for you, if you walk before me, as David your father walked, doing according to all that I have commanded you and keeping my statutes and my ordinances,[18] then I will establish your royal throne, as I covenanted with David your father, saying, `There shall not fail you a man to rule Israel.’ [19] “But if you turn aside and forsake my statutes and my commandments which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods and worship them, [20] then I will pluck you up from the land which I have given you; and this house, which I have consecrated for my name, I will cast out of my sight, and will make it a proverb and a byword among all peoples.

2 Chronicles 15:2 If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you.

If a person or nation rebels against God and is intransigent and won’t repent, then God will eventually judge. But it never had to be that way. It wasn’t predestined, or fate, and God didn’t cause it or overcome their free will. They freely chose to reject Him. And this rejection and this judgment can also include entire nations, because responsibility in the Hebrew / biblical worldview is not just individual, but also corporate. I’ve written a lot about the judgment of nations:

Judgment of Nations: A Collection of Biblical Passages

Judgment of Nations: Biblical Commentary and Reflections

God’s Judgment of Humans (Sometimes, Entire Nations)

Israel as God’s Agent of Judgment

Is God an Unjust Judge? Dialogue with an Atheist

God’s “Punishing” of Descendants: Unjust?

Conclusion: As usual with anti-theists, Bob chooses to blame God for things that are clearly man’s fault. He butchers the Bible in order to supposedly use it as a hostile witness against God. I submit that that attempt of his abysmally fails, as just shown.

***

Photo credit: God the Father, by Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo (1727-1804) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

2018-08-17T12:43:20-04:00

Last updated on: August 17, 2018 at 12:43 pm   By

Atheist and anti-theist Bob Seidensticker runs the influential Cross Examined blog. He asked me there, on 8-11-18: “I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?” He also made a general statement on 6-22-17: “In this blog, I’ve responded to many Christian arguments . . . Christians’ arguments are easy to refute.” He added in the combox: “If I’ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I’ve mischaracterized them.” I’m always one to oblige people’s wishes, so I decided to do a series of posts in reply.

It’s also been said, “be careful what you wish for.”  If Bob responds to this post, and makes me aware of it, his reply will be added to the end along with my counter-reply. If you don’t see that at the end, rest assured that he either hasn’t replied, or didn’t inform me that he did. Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, word-search “Seidensticker” on my atheist page or in my sidebar search (near the top).

*****

In his post, “25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid (Part 5)” (7-6-18; update of a post originally from 10-13-14), Bob stated: “Atheists have better mental health than religious people.” He linked to one article, that in turn cited one scientific study. Of course, virtually any question or issue that would be the subject of a scientific study won’t yield unanimous results in such studies. One can always find one study that will support just about any conclusion. The task, then, is to look over the literature devoted to a given topic, and find some sort of overall consensus, if there is one to be had. This is how science (including medical and social and psychological science) works. Sometimes the results are very mixed and inconclusive. One must follow the facts one way or the other, and mixed results compel us to conclude, “studies at the present time are inconclusive, so we can’t say that we know for certain about topic x. Further studies are needed, . . .”

I followed the latter procedure, which I submit is both more objective and scientific than Bob’s quick potshot (his almost constant modus operandi), based on one lone study. I shall cite five, and several of those note many other concurring studies in their own reviews of the relevant literature on mental health as related to religion. As is well-known, one of the talking-points of atheism for hundreds of years is to claim that religion is itself a mental illness, and/or that Christians are so gullible and devoid of reality in their beliefs, that it amounts to a scenario whereby the religious person can be said to be mentally afflicted, or at any rate, much more so overall than atheists. Anyone can talk a good game. What does the psychology research actually suggest (I minored in psychology and majored in sociology in college, by the way)? Make up your own mind:

1) “Research on Religion, Spirituality, and Mental Health: A Review” (The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, May 2009):

[S]ystematic research published in the mental health literature to date does not support the argument that religious involvement usually has adverse effects on mental health.

**

While some studies report no association between religious involvement and mental health, and a handful of studies have reported negative
associations, the majority (476 of 724 quantitative studies prior to the year 2000, based on a systematic review) reported statistically significant positive associations. [Dave: that’s 65.7%]

**

Prior to 2000, more than 100 quantitative studies had examined the relation between religion and depression. Among 93 observational studies, two-thirds found significantly lower rates of depressive disorder or fewer depressive symptoms among the more religious.

**

Prior to 2000, at least 76 studies had examined the relation between religious involvement and anxiety. Sixty-nine studies were observational and 7 were RCTs. Among the observational studies, 35 found significantly less anxiety or fear among the more religious, 24 found no association, and 10 reported greater anxiety.

**

Unfortunately, there are relatively few studies—particularly from the United States or Canada—that have examined the relation between religion and psychotic symptoms. In an earlier review of the literature, Koenig et al identified 16 studies. Among the 10 cross-sectional studies, 4 found less psychosis or psychotic tendencies among people more religiously involved, 3 found no association, and 2 studies reported mixed results. The final study, conducted in London, England, found religious beliefs and practices significantly more common among depressed (n = 52) and
schizophrenic psychiatric (n = 21) inpatients, compared with orthopedic control subjects (n = 26).

2) “Religion and Mental Health: Current Findings” (Dr Simon Dein, Royal College of Psychiatrists):

In the past twenty years there has been increasing attention given to the relationships between various dimensions of religiosity and mental health. By now several thousand studies have been conducted demonstrating positive associations between the two (Koenig, King and Carson 2012). On balance those who are more religious have better indices of mental health.

**

[O]n balance it appears that being religious improves mental health . . .

3) “A Systematic Review of Recent Research on Adolescent Religiosity/Spirituality and Mental Health” (Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 2006, Issue 2):

Abstract: Twenty articles between 1998 and 2004 were reviewed. Most studies (90%) showed that higher levels of R/S were associated with better mental health in adolescents. Institutional and existential dimensions of R/S had the most robust relationships with mental health.

4) “Explaining the Relationships Between Religious Involvement and Health” (Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 13, 2002, Issue 3)

Abstract: There is increasing research evidence that religious involvement is associated both cross-sectionally and prospectively with better physical health, better mental health, and longer survival. These relationships remain substantial in size and statistically significant with other risk and protective factors for morbidity and mortality statistically controlled.

5) “5 reasons atheists shouldn’t call religion a mental illness” (Chris Stedman [himself an atheist, who consulted atheists in the article] Religion News Service, 2-24-14)

“Religion and mental illness are different psychological processes,” said atheist and mental health advocate Miri Mogilevsky in a recent email exchange. “[Religious beliefs may] stem from cognitive processes that are essentially adaptive, such as looking for patterns and feeling like a part of something larger than oneself.” . . .

“People who cannot leave the house without having a panic attack or who feel a compulsion to wash their hands hundreds of times a day are experiencing symptoms that interfere with their ability to go about their lives,” Mogilevsky said. “Except in extreme cases, religion does not operate this way.”

**

“Religion is many things—a famously indefinable concept—but for our purposes we can use the word to refer to supernatural belief systems and institutions built around them,” said David Yaden, a researcher at The University of Pennsylvania’s Positive Psychology Center who works in collaboration with UPenn’s Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, in a recent email exchange. “If that is our definition, religion absolutely cannot be [categorized] as a mental illness.”

“In fact, empirical evidence sometimes points to the opposite conclusion,” Yaden said, citing the work of Dr. Ken Pargament. “When it comes to facilitating mental health, empirical data demonstrates that religious people have more positive emotion, more meaning in life, more life satisfaction, cope better with trauma, are more physically healthy, are more altruistic and socially connected, and are not diagnosed with mental illness more than other people.”

***

Photo credit: Clard (Nov. 2017) Schizophrenic art fantasy [Pixabay / CC0 Creative Commons license]

2018-08-17T12:43:45-04:00

Last updated on: August 17, 2018 at 12:43 pm   By

Atheist and anti-theist Bob Seidensticker runs the influential Cross Examined blog. He asked me there, on 8-11-18: “I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?” He also made a general statement on 6-22-17: “In this blog, I’ve responded to many Christian arguments . . . Christians’ arguments are easy to refute.” He added in the combox: “If I’ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I’ve mischaracterized them.” I’m always one to oblige people’s wishes, so I decided to do a series of posts in reply.

It’s also been said, “be careful what you wish for.”  If Bob responds to this post, and makes me aware of it, his reply will be added to the end along with my counter-reply. If you don’t see that at the end, rest assured that he either hasn’t replied, or didn’t inform me that he did. Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, word-search “Seidensticker” on my atheist page or in my sidebar search (near the top).

*****

In his post, “25 Stupid Arguments Christians Should Avoid (Part 5)” (7-6-18; update of a post originally from 10-13-14), Bob flatly stated: “Christians are not more generous.” He linked to a separate detailed post: “Top Religion Story of 2012” (12-31-12). In that piece, he notes a study described in The Chronicle of Philanthropy (10-3-17). This indicated that Christians gave more to charity, but Bob spun that finding as follows:

Drop religious donations, and the Bible belt drops from the most generous part of the country to the least. . . . But why discard donations to religious organizations? Because, though they’re nonprofits, religious organizations’ charity work (feeding or housing the needy, for example) is negligible.

Okay, that’s an interesting take (I observed several other atheists using it, while researching this post, so it appears to be “playbook”); he contends that charity given to a church is less so because churches have relatively more overhead than groups like the Red Cross. That may very well be (I grant this claim for the sake of argument), but I would submit that that’s irrelevant to determining how generous the giver is. For the giver, the amount they give is what it is, and indicates their heart, regardless of how efficiently their donation is used. Apples and oranges. Thus Bob’s dismissal of the poll findings here appears rather desperate.

By his reasoning if Person A gives $100 to an organization that uses 70% of it for overhead to maintain itself, and Person B gives $50 to an organization that uses 20% of it for overhead, Person B is more generous, even though he or she has given half the amount, because $40 of the $50 goes to the actual work of charity, whereas only $30 of the $100 does. But again, that is no reflection on the generosity of the giver! It may reflect badly on how wise or informed his or her choice of charity was, but not on the generosity exhibited.

Another study in the same magazine (11-25-13), reported:

The more important religion is to a person, the more likely that person is to give to a charity of any kind, according to new research released today.

Among Americans who claim a religious affiliation, the study said, 65 percent give to charity. Among those who do not identify a religious creed, 56 percent make charitable gifts.

About 75 percent of people who frequently attend religious services gave to congregations, and 60 percent gave to religious charities or nonreligious ones. By comparison, fewer than half of people who said they didn’t attend faith services regularly supported any charity, even a even secular one.

Everyone knows that political conservatives as a group are more religious than political liberals. Studies also show that conservatives are significantly more generous than liberals. And again, religion (specifically factored in one portion of the survey) was key. Nicholas Kristof, in an op-ed in The New York Times: “Bleeding Heart Tightwads” (12-20-08) observed:

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, Who Really Cares, cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so. . . .

It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives. . . .

[I]f measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes. . . .

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. [book title italicized; in the original it was in quotation marks]

A Barna Research study (6-3-13) shows the same:

A person’s religious identification has a lot to do with whether or not they donate to causes they believe in. Evangelicals were far and away the group most likely to donate money, items or time as a volunteer. More than three-quarters of evangelicals (79%) have donated money in the last year, and 65% and 60% of them have donated items or volunteer time, respectively. Additionally, only 1% of evangelicals say they made no charitable donation in the last 12 months. Comparatively, 27% of those with a faith other than Christianity say they made no charitable donation in the last year—a number more than double the national rate (13%). One-fifth of people who claimed no faith said they made no donation over the last year, still noticeably higher than the number for all Americans.

So does research from the BBC (reported in The Telegraph on 6-9-14):

Research commissioned by the BBC found that people who profess a religious belief are significantly more likely to give to charity than non-believers. . . .

Overall as many as seven in 10 people in England said they had given money to a charity in the past month. But while just over two thirds of those who professed no religious faith claimed to have done so, among believers the figure rose to almost eight out of 10.

John Stossel and Kristina Kendall reported for ABC News (11-28-06):

[T]he single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

“Actually, the truth is that they’re giving to more than their churches,” he says. “The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities.”

And almost all of the people who gave to our bell ringers in San Francisco and Sioux Falls said they were religious or spiritual.

The Philanthropy Panel Study concurs as well (article of 10-30-17):

David King, director of the Institute on Faith & Giving at the school, said the “Giving USA Special Report on Giving to Religion,” released on Oct. 26 by The Giving Institute, reaffirms what many researchers in the field have long known: that there is a “substantial connection between religion and giving.”

“Religious affiliation really matters,” Mr. King said. “Someone with a religious affiliation was more than two times more generous than someone without a religious affiliation. And among those with a religious affiliation, religious intensity really matters. Those who attend services were much more likely to give, whether it’s monthly or weekly. We really see the connection grow with continued involvement in a religious community.” . . .

[R]eligious people also contribute to other types of charity at similar or higher rates than their secular counterparts.

***

Photo credit: angiechaoticcrooks0 (3-2-15) [Pixabay / CC0 Creative Commons  license]

***

 

2020-08-29T10:33:05-04:00

Last updated on: August 29, 2020 at 10:33 am   By
For a completely warped, cynical, jaded, ignorant, one-sided alt-version of the history of early science, see anti-Christian atheist Bob Seidensticker’s post, “When Christianity Was in Charge, This Is What We Got” (8-10-18). In this disgraceful, outlandish piece, he wrote:
 
When Christianity was in charge, the world was populated by mystical creatures, we had little besides superstition to explain the caprices of nature, and natural disasters were signs of God’s anger.
Christianity’s goal isn’t to create the internet, GPS, airplanes, or antibiotics. It isn’t to improve life with warm clothes or safe water. It isn’t to eliminate diseases like smallpox or polio. It’s to convince people to believe in a story that has no evidence. . . .
 
But if Christianity is just what you do if there’s no science, why is it still here? . . . Superstition in a world before science was the scaffold that supported the arch of religion. Science has now dismantled the scaffold of superstition, but it’s too late because the arch of religion has already calcified in place.
It’s the twenty-first century, and yet the guiding principles for Christians’ lives come from the fourteenth, back when the sun orbited the earth, disease had supernatural causes, and the world was populated by Sciapods, Blemmyes, and bonnacons.
I have documented “33 Empiricist Christian Thinkers Before 1000 AD”. As one example among many, both Augustine and Aquinas opposed astrology. On the other hand, many great early scientists (also Christians) were obsessed with astrology, including Galileo, Kepler, and Tycho Brahe, while Isaac Newton (an Arian) was fascinated with alchemy.
 
For examples of “scientific Christians” long before modern science was born, see Hermann of Reichenau (1013–1054) and Adelard of Bath (c. 1080-c. 1152). When modern science did get off the ground, of course it was Christianity that was overwhelmingly in the forefront of that. Christians or theists founded 115 scientific fields. There were at least 244 priest-scientists. And here are 152 lay Catholic scientists. 35 lunar craters were named to honor Jesuit scientists.

The so-called “Enlightenment” (the supposedly “reasonable” people), by contrast, murdered Lavoisier, the father of chemistry, and several other prominent French scientists and philosophers (namely, Philippe-Frédéric de Dietrich, Nicolas de Condorcet, Jean Baptiste Gaspard Bochart de Saron, Guillaume-Chrétien de Lamoignon de Malesherbes, and Félix Vicq d’Azyr). The murderous spree against scientists was later revived by the Soviet and Chinese atheist Communists.

Galileo, on the other hand (the only example of a “scientific martyr” that we ever seem to hear about) lived his life under house arrest in luxurious palaces of his supporters. by the way, St. Robert Bellarmine showed that he had a more accurate understanding of scientific method than Galileo did. Galileo and other scientists of his general time, got many things wrong, too (just as some in the Church had, in condemning Galileo’s premature overconfidence).

Seidensticker directly replied to the above paragraph: “That’s weird–you’d think that since the Church wasn’t just another big human bureaucracy but instead was guided by the omniscient Creator of the universe that it would look different somehow.”

Exactly! That’s why the Catholic Church produced modern science, including heliocentrism (formulated by the Catholic Copernicus). One (sub-infallible) Catholic tribunal at one point of our history, got science wrong (while a pious Catholic who was wrongly persecuted: Galileo, got some major things right, but also other things wrong, and another Catholic, Bellarmine, had the more modern, accurate understanding of scientific method).

Big wow. We would expect to see this. It’s no disproof whatever of our claims. But such things are clearly beyond your capacity to understand, in the blindness of your bigotry.

As for the sun going around the earth, it need not be pointed out that Nicolaus Copernicus was the key figure who changed that, and he was a Catholic cleric, and his work was enthusiastically supported by the pope of the time and the Church (though later with Galileo there were some silly things said). Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia (“Heliocentrism”) reveals that there were forerunners of heliocentrism in earlier Catholics:
European scholarship in the later medieval period actively received astronomical models developed in the Islamic world and by the 13th century was well aware of the problems of the Ptolemaic model. In the 14th century, bishop Nicole Oresme [c. 1320-1382] discussed the possibility that the Earth rotated on its axis, while Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa [1401-1464] in his Learned Ignorance asked whether there was any reason to assert that the Sun (or any other point) was the center of the universe. In parallel to a mystical definition of God, Cusa wrote that “Thus the fabric of the world (machina mundi) will quasi have its center everywhere and circumference nowhere.” . . .
The state of knowledge on planetary theory received by Copernicus [1473-1543] is summarized in Georg von Peuerbach‘s Theoricae Novae Planetaru (printed in 1472 by Regiomontanus [1436-1476] ). By 1470, the accuracy of observations by the Vienna school of astronomy, of which Peuerbach and Regiomontanus were members, was high enough to make the eventual development of heliocentrism inevitable, and indeed it is possible that Regiomontanus did arrive at an explicit theory of heliocentrism before his death in 1476, some 30 years before Copernicus. . . .
*
Another possible source for Copernicus’s knowledge of this mathematical device is the Questiones de Spera of Nicole Oresme, who described how a reciprocating linear motion of a celestial body could be produced by a combination of circular motions similar to those proposed by al-Tusi.
I wrote about bishop Nicole Oresme and Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa at length in my 2010 book, Science and Christianity: Close Partners or Mortal Enemies?:

Nicholas Oresme (c. 1323-1382; bishop) Oresme conceived the idea of employing what we should now call rectangular co-ordinates . . . and thus forestalls Descartes in the invention of analytical geometry. . . . In opposition to the Aristotelean theory of weight, according to which the natural location of heavy bodies is the centre of the world, and that of light bodies the concavity of the moon’s orb, he proposes the following: The elements tend to dispose themselves in such manner that, from the centre to the periphery their specific weight diminishes by degrees. He thinks that a similar rule may exist in worlds other than this. This is the doctrine later substituted for the Aristotelean by Copernicus and his followers . . . But Oresme had a much stronger claim to be regarded as the precursor of Copernicus when one considers what he says of the diurnal motion of the earth, . . . He begins by establishing that no experiment can decide whether the heavens move form east to west or the earth from west to east; for sensible experience can never establish more than one relative motion. He then shows that the reasons proposed by the physics of Aristotle against the movement of the earth are not valid . . . [source: Catholic Encyclopedia: ”Nicole Oresme”] He wrote influential works on mathematics, physics, and astronomy. In his Livre du ciel et du monde Oresme discussed a range of evidence for and against the daily rotation of the Earth on its axis. From astronomical considerations, he maintained that if the Earth were moving and not the celestial spheres, all the movements that we see in the heavens that are computed by the astronomers would appear exactly the same as if the spheres were rotating around the Earth. He rejected the physical argument that if the Earth were moving the air would be left behind causing a great wind from east to west. In his view the Earth, Water, and Air would all share the same motion. As to the scriptural passage that speaks of the motion of the sun, he concludes that “this passage conforms to the customary usage of popular speech” and is not to be taken literally. He also noted that it would be more economical for the small Earth to rotate on its axis than the immense sphere of the stars. [source: Wikipedia bio] His work provided some basis for the development of modern mathematics and science. Oresme brilliantly argues against any proof of the Aristotelian theory of a stationary Earth and a rotating sphere of the fixed stars and showed the possibility of a daily axial rotation of the Earth. He was a determined opponent of astrology, which he attacked on religious and scientific grounds. He states – more than 300 years before Robert Hooke (1635–1703) and Newton – that atmospheric refraction occurs along a curve and proposes to approximate the curved path of a ray of light in a medium of uniformly varying density, in this case the atmosphere, by an infinite series of line segments each representing a single refraction. [source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy bio] In the whole of his argument in favor of the Earth’s motion Oresme is both more explicit and much clearer than that given two centuries later by Copernicus. He was also the first to assume that color and light are of the same nature. He asserted methodological naturalism: “there is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly, more so than those effects whose causes we believe are well known to us.” [source: Wikipedia: ”Science in the Middle Ages”] He also showed how to interpret the difficulties encountered in “the Sacred Scriptures wherein it is stated that the sun turns, etc. It might be supposed that here Holy Writ adapts itself to the common mode of human speech, as also in several places, for instance, where it is written that God repented Himself, and was angry and calmed Himself and so on, all of which is, however, not to be taken in a strictly literal sense”. Finally, Oresme offered several considerations favourable to the hypothesis of the Earth’s daily motion. In order to refute one of the objections raised by the Peripatetics against this point, Oresme was led to explain how, in spite of this motion, heavy bodies seemed to fall in a vertical line; he admitted their real motion to be composed of a fall in a vertical line and a diurnal rotation identical with that which they would have if bound to the Earth. This is precisely the principle to which Galileo was afterwards to turn. He adopted Buridan’s theory of dynamics in its entirety. [source: Catholic Encyclopedia: ”History of Physics”] “Most of the essential elements in both his [i.e., Copernicus’] criticism of Aristotle and his theory of motion can be found in earlier scholastic writers, particularly in Oresme.” [source: Thomas Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution (New York: Vintage Books / Random House, 1959), p. 154] [pp. 64-66 in my book][ . . . ]

*

Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464; cardinal) Nicholas anticipated many later ideas in mathematics, cosmology, astronomy, and experimental science while constructing his own original version of systematic Neoplatonism. In Book II of On Learned Ignorance he holds that the natural universe is characterized by change or motion; it is not static in time and space. But finite change and motion, ontologically speaking, are also matters of more and less and have no fixed maximum or minimum. This “ontological relativity” leads Cusanus to some remarkable conclusions about the earth and the physical universe, based not on empirical observation but on metaphysical grounds. The earth is not fixed in place at some given point because nothing is utterly at rest; nor can it be the exact physical center of the natural universe, even if it seems nearer the center than “the fixed stars.” Because the universe is in motion without fixed center or boundaries, none of the spheres of the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic world picture are exactly spherical. None of them has an exact center, and the “outermost sphere” is not a boundary. Cusanus thus shifts the typical medieval picture of the created universe toward later views, but on ontological grounds. The natural universe itself, as a contracted image of God, has a physical center that can be anywhere and a circumference that is nowhere. [source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy bio] Cusanus said that no perfect circle can exist in the universe (opposing the Aristotelean model, and also Copernicus’ later assumption of circular orbits), thus opening the possibility for Kepler’s model featuring elliptical orbits of the planets around the Sun. He made important contributions to the field of mathematics by developing the concepts of the infinitesimal and of relative motion. He was the first to use concave lenses to correct myopia. His writings were essential for Leibniz’s discovery of calculus as well as Cantor’s later work on infinity. [source: Wikipedia bio] The astronomical views of the cardinal are scattered through his philosophical treatises. The earth is a star like other stars [spherical], is not the centre of the universe, is not at rest, nor are its poles fixed. The celestial bodies are not strictly spherical, nor are their orbits circular. The difference between theory and appearance is explained by relative motion. [source: Catholic Encyclopedia bio] “Copernicus . . . had probably at least heard of the very influential treatise in which the fifteenth-century Cardinal, Nicholas of Cusa, derived the motion of the earth from the plurality of worlds in an unbounded Neoplatonic universe. The earth’s motion had never been a popular concept, but by the sixteenth century it was scarcely unprecedented.” [source: Thomas Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution (New York: Vintage Books / Random House, 1959), p. 144] [pp. 66-67 in my book]

Bob is Exhibit #1 of what C. S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery” and what G. K. Chesterton has written about:

[T]here is something odd in the fact that when we reproduce the Middle Ages it is always some such rough and half-grotesque part of them that we reproduce. But why is it that we mainly remember the Middle Ages by absurd things? Few modern people know what a mass of illuminating philosophy, delicate metaphysics, clear and dignified social morality exists in the serious scholastic writers of mediaeval times. But we seem to have grasped somehow that the ruder and more clownish elements in the Middle Ages have a human and poetical interest. We are delighted to know about the ignorance of mediaevalism; we are contented to be ignorant about its knowledge. We forget that Parliaments are mediaeval, that all our Universities are mediaeval, that city corporations are mediaeval, that gunpowder and printing are mediaeval, that half the things by which we now live, and to which we look for progress, are mediaeval. (Illustrated London News, “The True Middle Ages,” 14 July 1906, when Chesterton was still an Anglican, not yet a Catholic)

It was perhaps the one real age of progress in all history. Men have seldom moved with such rapidity and such unity from barbarism to civilisation as they did from the end of the Dark Ages to the times of the universities and the parliaments, the cathedrals and the guilds. (The New Jerusalem, 1920, ch. 12)

The medieval world did not talk about Plato and Cicero as fools occupied with futilities; yet that is exactly how a more modern world talked of the philosophy of Aquinas and sometimes even of the purely philosophic parts of Dante. (The Spice of Life and Other Essays, “The Camp and the Cathedral” [1922] )

I have never maintained that mediaeval things were all good; it was the bigots who maintained that mediaeval things were all bad. (Illustrated London News, “Mediaeval Robber Barons and Other Myths,” 26 May 1923)

They started by saying that mediaeval life was utterly miserable; they find out that it was frequently cheerful; so they make an attempt to represent its cheerfulness as a wild revolt that demonstrates its misery. Every impossibility is possible, except the possibility that the whole assumption about the Middle Ages is wrong. (Illustrated London News, “More Myths, Mediaeval and Victorian,” 2 June 1923)

***
Photo credit: Armillary sphere, constructed by Antonio Santucci, c. 1582. Wikipedia: “The armillary sphere was introduced to Western Europe via Al-Andalus in the late 10th century with the efforts of Gerbert d’Aurillac, the later Pope Sylvester II (r. 999–1003). Pope Sylvester II applied the use of sighting tubes with his armillary sphere in order to fix the position of the pole star and record measurements for the tropics and equator.” [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]
***
2018-08-13T10:40:56-04:00

Last updated on: August 13, 2018 at 10:40 am   By

I dared to ban atheist icon / sacred cow Bob Seidensticker, for reasons carefully explained in these two papers:

*
That set off (utterly predictably) a “feeding frenzy” on his blog: a no-holds-barred / anything goes insult-fest against yours truly. I had hell to pay. One simply doesn’t criticize the big shot atheists online. As usual in such instances, I shall now merely document and expose it, so folks who “argue” like this can hang themselves, so to speak. There is little rational argument here to respond to anyway (even if one desired to).

*

It’s proof #4,298,109 that there is a class sometimes called “angry atheists” or “anti-theists” (a sub-group of all atheists, but very prominent and vocal online). They are incapable of constructive discussion with Christians. The incipient bigotry and hostility will come out every time, wrecking any such prospects. Also alluded to in the frenzy, or otherwise relevant, are these two papers (the first directed towards a dumb comment that Seidensticker made, and the second in reply to “Grimlock”: see more about him below):

*
*
All of the following [until the very end: where noted] occurred in the combx of one blog post: complete with the [ultra-ironic] obligatory disclaimer at the top: “Civility is preferred, though frank comments are allowed.” The usual warning for R-rated language . . . Links of names are to the Disqus profiles. Note especially one “Grimlock.” He tried to put up a show of objectivity and desire for sincere dialogue on my site, but as we see, he was at the same time having a field day running me down behind my back. I could pretty much see this coming in the last few days, but as a hopeless idealist, I held out hope till the end. Believing the best of people almost in the face of all evidence to the contrary is a great fault of mine.
*
Words of Seidensticker [see his Disqus profile]  words will be in blue; Grimlock’s [see his Disqus profile] in green; Otto’s in purple, pofarmer in red, Damien Priestly in brown. Others will be in regular black. They are not in chronological order, but rather, how they appear on the discussion thread.

*

***

Otto: I would say banning people is about as intolerant as you can get on a blog. It is at times necessary and it is certainly at the discretion of the blogger. But c’mon….who is really showing themselves to be a bigot (a person intolerant of those holding different opinions)? This isn’t even a close call. Dave can’t stand to hear anybody offering blunt, stark criticism of Christianity or especially Catholicism, it does not matter if the criticisms hold validity or not. Now on the other hand Christians come to this site and spew all kinds of nonsense about atheists and atheism…and the response here is to talk to them, very rarely does anyone get banned. Dave’s lack of self-awareness is really something to behold.
*

HairyEyedWordBombThrower: Dave’s not lacking in self-awareness, IMHO. He’s just projecting like thermonuclear IMAX, to fool the rubes and keep them quiescent and in the pews.

* Pofarmer: It’s a special kind of chicken shit to pull someone’s comments out of a blog without notifying them or at least allowing them to comment. * Tommy: With people like Dave, chickenshit is their middle name. * Hey–did you hear the one about how I was mean to Patheos Catholic blogger Dave Armstrong? He spills all with “Why I Blocked Anti-Theist Atheist Bob Seidensticker.” What’s fascinating is how he looks at our conversation and determines that I am the one who’s hateful. Anyway, here it is, for anyone who’s interested. (I haven’t read it.) * Armstrong interpreted a remark you made to mean that you think that the only legitimate knowledge is scientific. I’m of the opinion that this is an utterly uncharitable and unreasonable interpretation. * I just noticed that Dave wrote about you yesterday. His title is bizarrely self-reflective: “Am I the Christian Equivalent of the “Angry Atheist”?” Thankfully, after a quick browse, I see that his question was just rhetorical. Whew–the planets are back in their orbits. * 1. Yes, logic and math is another kind of knowledge (though perhaps they are tools rather than a kind of knowledge?). Another important category would be fields that aren’t precisely science but are evidence-based, like history. I’ve noticed apologist who are quick to point out “yeah, but there are other types of knowledge besides science!” (meaning history and math, for example), but they don’t usually then go explore whether religion (or its ways of “knowing” like revelation and revealed scripture stand up to scrutiny like sciencey approaches do).
* 2. My main point was that religion is where we get precisely none of our knowledge about reality. * You old meany you. Dave certainly has the aggressive/hateful schtick going on. He even uses it on other theists who rub him the wrong way. . . . So, you/re saying Dave’s full of shit? In addition to being a thin skinned bully. . . . To make their pretend knowledge acquisition tenable they have to call all knowledge into question. . . . And yet, they’ll never actually explain what their own level of rigour is, or how they delineate real knowledge from false knowledge. They’ll just whine about “other ways of knowing” but never how, ya know, actually reliable it is. * JustAnotherAtheist2: Dave . . . seems to think that once the beakers and bunsen burners are put away, people stop doing science. That the process of drawing inferences from the data and forming new hypotheses lies purely in the realm of philosophy. He doesn’t seem to realize that science was once called “natural philosophy”. If he wants to draw such a hard line, then that is perfectly fine. But he doesn’t get to pretend that he is using terms the same way Bob (and I) meant. Nor does he get to accuse others of dogmatic thinking that it required his own equivocation to conclude. . . . there does seem to be a whiff of “we can’t know reality is really real…. so my bullshit should just be taken at face value. * 3vil5triker: The whole thing is a red herring. He can’t properly justify his own methods for “acquiring knowledge”, like divine revelation, miracle claims or appeals to faulty arguments, so he resorts to shifting the burden of proof by attacking science. But the point isn’t if “science is the only way of knowing anything” or if there are “other methods of gaining knowledge”. The point is that science, however limited in scope you want to define it, actually works: you can make claims, test them, verify them and ground them to reality. You can’t do that with the other methods he wants to use, so when confronted head-on he’ll obfuscate the issue however he can. * Lark62: Congrats, you’ve made it into the “Dave has misquoted me and used me for a blog post” club. Anytime now you should be earning a promotion to the “I’ve been blocked” level. Your certificate of accomplishment is in the mail. * Thanks! But to be honest, this is actually the sixth post dedicated to an attempt to rebutt me. I’ve been semi-regular there since when he started trying to pick a fight with Bob back in May. There seems to be a rather predictable pattern to how I end up in a blog post; I make a comment he doesn’t like, and be makes a response in a blog post that doesn’t actually address the points that I was making. I then make a detailed counter-response in the comments, and he ceases the conversation. Haven’t been banned yet, but I suspect that it’s been close a few times. * I read your very thorough and completely fair assessment of the disconnect between what Dave perceives of his own interaction and his perception of Bob. You were absolutely spot on. You did not allow him to veer off topic and held the discussion right where it should be, but apparently there are just too many things that Dave views as self-evident, and if you don’t agree with his proclamations, well, complete dismissal is his last line of defense. Well done Grim. I commend you for not doing what many of us here have fallen for, which is being baited by Dave and falling for his trap so he can dismiss any criticism by claiming he is dealing with an unapologetic bigot and banning you. You put a whole lot of work into that reply and he summarily dismissed the whole thing unceremoniously. I highly recommend that anyone who is interested in how a person like Dave can be confronted on his behavior, without stepping on the land mines laid out for them, should read Grim’s response. Bravo.  . . . Watching a conversation between you and Dave is like watching a soldier run across no-man’s land, narrowly escaping every bullet and bomb, and the landmines he can’t see. I can’t believe you haven’t been banned yet…not that you have done anything ban worthy but that has never been an issue for Dave.

*

Note to self: consider writing a “25 stupid arguments” series with just stupid arguments made by Dave Armstrong. . . . It’s very tempting to drop down to his petulant level, though I want to take a shower afterwards. I think I’ll just look at Dave falling back in my rear view mirror. . . . That’s the crazy thing about it. When you’re trying to do it so that Jesus would be pleased, and then your enemy points out how badly your hatred presents your side, I’d have thought that you’d rein it in. But nope, that’s not how Armstrong rolls.

*

That is the thing, I don’t feel I (or any of us here) am/are an enemy of Christianity other than pointing out the obvious problems with it. I am certainly not an enemy of Christians, most of the people I interact with professionally and personally are Christian. Dave wants to pretend like he is approached the question from a neutral position and the evidence/reasoning lead him to his conclusion. We are willing to have that discussion but as soon as we don’t see things his way he reverts to an emotional defense of claiming we are hateful bigots and dismisses us on that account. The sooner in his mind that he can rationalize our criticism as hateful the sooner he can dismiss everything we have to say. In my opinion that is the reason he picks through criticism, not to actually address valid issues but to try and find where he can label his opposition as just hateful throwing out the baby with the bathwater. . . . I really do think he injects a lot of snark and attitude in his own comments to get his opposition to respond in kind, and then dismiss them quickly. Whether this is a conscious behavior is up for debate, but is is unquestionably a defense mechanism… I have seen enough to draw my own conclusion. * He’s gonna be hateful, so as soon as he can infer hatefulness in our comments, he’s happy–maybe that’s his approach. . . . Perhaps Dave has been a Poe all along, and he’s doing our dirty work over there, making Catholics look bad with his faux asshole persona. If so, I’m sure he’s following these posts. Nice work, Dave! . . . But here’s the frustrating thing: I think he makes poor arguments so that an objective observer would give him a poor grade as an apologist. Nevertheless, he could be effective in giving some Christians whatever pat on the head they need. He sounds kinda smart, he’s very confident, so he scratches their itch. We live in a strange world. * Damien Priestly: Well, he sure pays a lot of attention to your blog…he notes that CE is popular and quotes it like crazy! So maybe he is a contrarian fan…probably looking these comments over right now…Hi Dave, what’s new in the Catholic Church these days?…Oops that abuse stuff; sorry I asked !! * 3vil5triker: The thought has crossed my mind on several occasions. Either he’s a Christian Apologist who’s really bad at this job, at least when it comes to Atheism, or he’s an excellent troll that has everybody fooled. Or it could be both: a bad apologist that resorts to trolling from time to time. * I don’t think it’s a faux asshole persona. But, maybe. * Unfortunately, I think you’re right. I don’t know if he’s just that way naturally, or being pressured into confronting uncomfortable truths about the weakness of his position makes him desperate. Either way, not a pleasant person. * Raging Bee: Hey–did you hear the one about how I was banned from Dave Armstrong’s blog for reasons never specified? Neither did I, until just now, when I typed one character in his comment box and got a little red message saying I was banned. And he goes to such ridiculous lengths to quote you and explain why he’s blocking you. Sort of like the little kid who has to announce to THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD that he’s ignoring someone… * Greg G.: If you complain, nothing happens. You may as well not bother. Armstrong’s blog is abuse. If you want an argument, you must go to another page. * I got banned for refuting a claim he made about the Catholic Church with citations….oh and he didn’t like my tone. Probably the easiest site to get banned from on Patheos. * Susan: Yes. He’s developed quite the reputation for cherry picking visitors quotes, editing out any substance and proclaiming victory. (Edit: 2 hours later) while banning any responses from the person he cherry picks. I wonder how long I would last. * I think he wrote a post about interacting with you around the time he started an argument with Jonathan Pearce. I remember it because he made a big deal out of his annoyance with anonymous nicknames, a criticism which I found to be in rather bad taste. I’d bet you could find the post by searching for your name on his blog. * I had to explain to him why I used an anonymous nickname. Mainly because theists are assholes. * I am betting very little in those books has anything resembling evidence for the claims of Christianity or Catholicism. * Are you saying Dave’s a bullshitter? * I would say he seems so backed up his eyes have a definitive earth tone color.
* He always resorts to the “scientism” pejorative…and demands we accept things outside of science such as philosophy or theology as equal or better ways to get to a god. Yet he refuses to accept that these fields are fungible, and can reasonably or logically conjure up any kind of deity or lack of deity without any empiricism. . . . If it wasn’t for atheists…he would not have anything to post about !! * It is what gets his blog moving. Have you ever looked at a post he has done about some fine point about Catholicism?….tumbleweeds * Gotta have the 5 minute hate to get the troops moving. * MR: Dave seems pretty self-centered. It’s a party of one there. * I’m much more sympathetic to the very quick dismissal of the entire project: Christianity got the easiest question–“Is slavery morally acceptable?”–wrong, so it can’t be backed by a good god. Since Christianity claims that its god is good, it fails. QED. I suppose Armstrong is playing a reasonable game, given that he’s holding a very bad hand of cards. He’d do himself a lot of good if he’d drop the asshole persona, but I suspect that’s just who he is. * 1) I don’t know your experience with Catholicism but it really is built around taking simple issues that don’t make much sense and making them as complex as possible in an effort to make them seem reasonable. The fact that you won’t buy into that mind wankery drives Catholics like Armstrong right up a tree. 2) He is a complete arrogant asshole and I doubt that has a whole lot to do with his religion, other than exacerbating the problem . . . Of all the Christians I have dealt with on the blogosphere he is quite probably the worst and most dishonest.  * Christianity is like a liar who gets caught in a lie and then makes another lie to fill in. The result is a pile of nonsense. * I read your recent exchange with Armstrong on slavery, and I can’t comment there, as he locked the comments. It was a thoroughly enjoyable read, and I particularly liked your suggestion that he get a trusted friend to summarize his behaviour. That gave me a good laugh. * I honestly was trying to help him out. Did you see that he wrote a post today about how he banned me? I suppose we’re all blind in this way to some extent, but it’s amazing that he could reread the comments and not see that his comments had a lot of anti-Christian attitude. I can see a Dave Armstrong drinking game: you take a shot whenever he brags about how he’s been putting atheists in their places for 9000 years, brags about how he’s got it all figured out (vs. the other Christians), uses the Courtier’s Reply (“Yeah, come back when you’ve had a little education in philosophy and religion, OK?”), or is simply hateful. I haven’t read his latest, but you might OD if you played this game while reading it.
* I assume you were trying to help, but I’m not surprised that it wasn’t taken that way. I made a couple of remarks on the post he wrote, and it looks like it’ll be one of the more lively comboxes over there. Might get fun. That drinking game sounds fun! But it’d go contrary to my wish of keeping my liver alive. * Unfortunately, I am now banned . . ., so I, for one, won’t be following up that discussion there. Oh well. Three months before I got banned! Is that some sort of record? I should get a medal. I’d say that religion gives us knowledge in one sense. You know DnD, right? With made-up rules and magic systems and whatnot? Religion gives us that kind of knowledge. The knowledge of made-up rules. . . . Well, he just started blustering and ignoring me when I brought up the distinction between an internalist and externalist account of properly basic knowledge. So I’m pretty sure he’s simply quoting stuff without actually understanding it. . . . Shoot, you were right. I got banned. Apparently, I made him look like a hypocrite when I quoted his own words at him. Clearly a ban-able offense.

***

[comments below appeared after this reply was posted]
*

It’s interesting to note that you complain about how I make you look like a hypocrite. If quoting your own words at you makes you look like a hypocrite, who, precisely, is the problem? . . . Unfortunately, I stepped on a landmine when I (once again) quoted his own words at him and made him look like a hypocrite. Clearly, that’s not acceptable behaviour on his blog. Oh well. . . . I find it to be an excellent illustration of how apologetics at its core is all about reconciling believers with their difficulties, and not about investigating the truth claims of, say, Christianity.
*
If empiricism is the way science does it but religion has its own approach, how do you know it’s a valid approach … without empiricism?

*

HairyEyedWordBombThrower: Slink back under your rock, COWARD! When the day comes that you’re willing to argue fairly and not simply stifle any competing narratives, maybe you’ll be worth more than use as shark snacks. . . . Dude…you stifle dissent, and claim to be a hero. The only place you’re a hero is in your own, pathetic, Walter-Mitty-Miniver-Cheevy mind. And the fact that you’ll attempt to rub it in our faces is a demonstration of what a waste of protoplasm you are. * Your blog and lack of self-awareness/projection is pure unintentional comedy…the pleasure is all ours. Notice you can post here…and your readers can post here….now tell us again who the bigot is. . . . Quoting Bob and coming to self evident conclusions about him is fine…but quoting Dave and trying to be fair about it is just too much…don’t you forget it Mister! . . . Wow…you ban people and then quote them on your blog when they talk about you as if we are doing it behind your back. How very mature of you, you are really a ‘special’ case aren’t you Dave. You refused to address Grim’s very fair treatment of the situation, I completely agreed with him when he said those quotes probably weren’t fair to be read with the worst possible perception, but far be it from you to give anyone the same respect. I mean you are the UMPIRE…and an umpire has to make a call…amiright? Well at least you can look forward to the time all of us here are punished in the afterlife for our transgressions against you…you poor thing. * Quoting Bob and coming to self evident ridiculously unjustified conclusions about him is fine. You had a typo there.
*
 John MacDonald: I have a sneaking suspicion that Dave had a manic bipolar episode … * So he bans Bob, then he comes over to Bob’s blog to troll…Real class act!! We all know he was watching this OP the whole time…makes sense — nothing serious going on over at his lame blog.
*
So, I’ve been quoted on Armstrong’s blog. Wasn’t notified, and I have been banned there for a long time. The chickenshit comment stands. That’s a whole lotta butthurt over there. . . . Plus, once you are banned and can’t point out all of the incorrect premises, assumptions, etc, it’s endlessly frustrating to read his psuedo [sic]-intellectual drivel. I hadn’t wasted time there since I was banned. Didn’t take long, either. . . . Who dares to question the one and powerful Oz!!! * Greg G.: Being a webmaster lets Dave pretend to be God, banning is condemning atheists to the nether regions of the internet, that is, every other site and blog.
* Religion is like dungeons ‘n dragons. Or like the local sports team. Or even like the person who’s read the Harry Potter canon many times and always wins Harry Potter trivia. The difference, of course, is that those players know that these are just pastimes, and (deep down, anyway) they know that there’s no deep, objective truth in these games. The theists have other pretensions.
*
*
Me:  If a blog clearly has no standards of discourse (like this one: anything can be said about anyone), when would banning ever become an issue or a possibility? There are no standards, so no one can break them! Hence, no banning. DUH!!!! But if a blog actually has ethical standards, those who violate them will be banned: just as if you were in a movie theater and decided to start throwing mud pies at everyone, you would be escorted out. DUH #2!!!!!
*
*
[directly to me] I’m afraid your clairvoyance has failed you here. I’ve banned dozens of people. One difference is that I’m a lot more tolerant of contrary voices. “Where never is heard a discouraging word” is the rule for your comments, not mine. * [my response, posted on his blog] Okay good. So if you in fact banned “dozens of people,” just as I do (ostensibly for some reason consistent with your stated purposes), how is it that you’re not automatically accused of being a coward and a censoring bully opposed to free speech:
* Any objective viewer of both blogs would agree that I give almost everyone far, far more license than they deserve or that most of the other commenters want. When they’re banned, one and all are happy to see them go. You, by contrast, ban people for raining on your parade. I love thoughtful Christians who will publicly point out where I’ve made a mistake or raise new points.
* [me] . . . proven beyond all doubt by that very act, as if there could be no other possible reason? After all, that’s how I am treated by everyone here (clones and groupthinkers one and all), even though I laid out very carefully and meticulously exactly why you were banned: which no one has the willingness to interact with to the slightest degree, because that would actually require the use of reason and not just vapid wagging tongues and mudslinging. But if you banned for reasons other than cowardice and a desire to shut down opposing opinions, then by the same token I could do the same thing (and indeed that is the truth of the matter: I simply enforced my well-known guidelines). Goose and gander . . .
*
You want to treat commenters like I do? Sounds great. You sure as hell haven’t so far.
* If you have to go through a meticulous effort to explain exactly why somebody was banned…you probably should not have banned them. * [I reply] That doesn’t follow at all. You see how I have been treated here. Knowing exactly what was gonna happen, I prepared my reasoning for why Bob was banned. And I knew it would be perfectly futile, too, because you guys couldn’t care less about reasoned dialogue with a Christian.
*
This is why you’re a waste of time. In fact, I do care about reasoned dialogue with a Christian. You just won’t provide it. When I get too close to uncomfortable issues, you get shrill and petulant. Even before I was banned, you would make it so unpleasant that I would just leave the conversation. Since you see the reality of the conversation so differently, I’ve lost patience to try anymore to engage with you.
*
*
[me] But the reasoning is still out there nonetheless for all to see, and it’s a good thing to have done. * No serious debate is possible with whatever you are. And that’s too bad (from my standpoint, anyway). Whenever you and I have gotten near some interesting observations, you always get hysterical and drive me away. I suspect you do that with other knowledgeable atheists as well. . . . It’s marvelous how much an atheist can learn when reading (or even engaging with) a Christian who has enough self-confidence to not need to drive away dissenters. . . . So you’re just a trolling asshole. I’m surprised you’d make that so plain. Be sure to include this in your next post. * [I reply] If you think I’m a troll, then ban me, since you say you have banned dozens of people. What stops you? *
Since I can’t find Armstrong’s “Thanks much for the laughs and the entertainment!” comment, I’ll reply to that here. 1. It isn’t really kosher to write so many posts that are regurgitations of comments without warning people. Yes, what he does is legal. No, it’s not ethical. 2. I continue to marvel at his lack of self-awareness. His bag of tactics hasn’t changed since he was 10. These are what playground bullies do–taunt and lampoon and never admit you’re wrong. I’ll admit that playground bully tactics have become a little more in vogue thanks to Trump, but that’s not really who to model oneself after. * So then why are you here now?
*
[me] Mainly entertainment purposes, boredom . . .
* …trolling
*
[me] That’s what you call any Christian or theist who refuses to be bowled over by your groupthink, clonelike insults and doesn’t put up with your crap.

*

You said you are here for entertainment and because of boredom…essentially the definition of trolling. * [me]  No, essentially a flippant, semi-sarcastic remark to a hostile crowd of clones. When reason doesn’t work, one resorts to humor. But I didn’t expect anyone here to get that. That would be asking too much, in light of the troglodyte level of commenting that has been observed in this thread. Again, if I really am a troll, and the terrible person so many here make me out to be, let Bob ban me. * Write a post that makes an interesting argument and I’ll think about it. You seem to prefer the “Atheists Were Mean to Me AGAIN!!” post. . . . Assuming that last comment of Dave’s was in earnest, it is hard to imagine where you go from there. He has an inverted view of the world where he’s the seeker of truth, eager to see everyone get their say so that truth will win out. . . . You act like an asshole to see what reaction you’ll get? Jesus must be so pleased. Or does Jesus not consider what you do in your worldview? . . . Now, if you’d stop being mean to poor ol’ Dave, I’m sure we’d see the friendly, helpful side of him pretty quick.
* I doubt if any commenter has questioned why someone got banned on my blog. I have, on the other hand, gotten many requests (that I’m slow to act on) to remove an obnoxious commenter. . . . And you change the subject. Of course. The subject is your childish, schoolyard attitude. You got nothing thoughtful to say? I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts? * MR: Clearly using you to try to drum up traffic to his site. Not sure how that helps him when he just turns around and bans everyone. Guy seems a little mental to me, though. This isn’t normal behavior unless you’re a 13 year old.
* [me] Nice try. First of all, I was second in traffic for the last month of records at Patheos Catholic, out of some 65 blogs. Secondly, we have a way to actually see what is generating traffic, called Google Analytics (Bob can do this for his site, too). Checking out mine for the period of July 1st to now, I see that the top ten most-visited posts have nothing to do with atheism:
*
1. Cain and his wife
2. Chappaquiddick
3. Papal guidance
4. Death penalty
5. Biblical canon
6. Death penalty
7. Early development of the papacy
8. Luther’s view of priestly celibacy
9. Titles: “Catholic” or “Roman Catholic”
10. Death penalty
*
Looking at the next ten most popular, I see two articles about atheism. 2 out of top 20 hardly suggests that I have to rely on Bob’s site (or any atheist site or interaction with them) to drive traffic to mine. It’s ridiculous, and those are the objective stats to prove it. This isn’t a normal “argument” unless you are a three-year-old.
*
Is he just trying to get clicks on his posts?? Pathetic. . . . This is bullying behavior, not the behavior of anyone actually interested in the exchange of ideas. . . . Adorable! You’re not going to change your attitude. No reason for you to improve, and even less reason to admit your shitty approach. Instead, I can get rid of you only by banning. Baby Jesus is crying. * Yes, that’s true. Patheos lists the top 3 Catholic blogs for last quarter as The Deacon’s Bench, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, and then Through Catholic Lenses. As for MR’s comment, he’s just trying to make sense of your actions. And they don’t make sense. And that could just be our fault–we assume that acting like a thoughtful adult is the best route. If you’re succeeding by being a petulant schoolyard bully, that is surprising. * MR: Still doesn’t mean you aren’t trying to use Bob to drum up traffic to your site. And your behavior is still that of a 13 year old, though it appears others appear to find you even more immature. Have you been drinking or something? This is not normal behavior. . . . He’s not trying to drum up traffic but conveniently provided a list of top posts. Yeah, right. I’m just surprised he didn’t provide the links.
*
3vil5triker:   You also ban people for calling you out on your “on ending abortion, the ends justify the means” rationale for supporting Trump. To you, the possibility of restricting legal abortion or maybe eliminating it altogether down the road, took precedence over the certainty the harm his policies, rhetoric and general incompetence would do to the US and the world at large. Not to mention all the ways in which they go against Catholic doctrine. You act as though you made some kind of courageous stand, but you simply named your price. You know, you never did answer the question: how much is your soul worth Mr. Armstrong? Because you sold it quite cheaply.
*
No, I hope Bob does not ban you…it would just add to your victimhood complex. You realize this is an atheist blog and that most atheists, as of now, were previously Christians. I was a Catholic for most of my life. So I have heard all the Christian arguments for decades — and rejected the real case that priests and clergy were making…For many with religious family that is a difficult thing to go through. So after finally determining a good chunk of my life was wasted after being indoctrinated with nonsense as a child, abusive in my view — about being fallen, and how an incoherent “resurrection” of an illiterate rabbi somehow saved me…when I never asked to be saved…I, and many atheists are in no mood to to exchange pleasantries with yet another apologist who just pigeon-holes us as a stereotypical “angry” atheists. No — you get pushback…rightfully so !! *
HairyEyedWordBombThrower: Doesn’t all that projection get to be tiring, Davie-poo? . . . Dave, try the Outsider test for your assertions. TRY to look at your behavior as if it was somebody other than yourself, and see if you would approve of said behavior(s). Somehow, I doubt you would, as you’re a sanctimonious hypocritical wanker. . . . Now you’re just trying to drive up your traffic numbers. If you can’t bullet-point it concisely and make it interesting enough that we would WANT to visit, why should we give you the clicks / pageviews? . . . I don’t see any gossiping or lying. How about some EVIDENCE? Or don’t YOU go in for that kind of thing, as it would hurt your narcissistic self-image? . . . You’re just an asshole, no more annoying than a fly. You’ll have to up your game to be considered a troll around here. . . . you’ll let stuff be posted….but then erase/twist it to make yourself seem a victim. WHY should we waste our time giving you text and clicks? You’re acting like an asshat and being completely unethical and opaque in your blog censorship. . . . How sad and featureless your life must be . . . Dammit, Dave! Can’t you do ANYTHING besides project your bad-faith immaturity, shitheel? *
Time for you to leave, don’t you agree? . . . we’re stuck dealing with the emotionally fragile apologist. Ah, well–it’s not like I had anything to actually do instead. . . . Cute. Everyone is mean to you, and their charges are all biased. Sucks to be you, I guess. . . . Dave’s MO is to present a biased viewpoint, figuring that everyone does it that way. That an atheist would prefer to present a complete argument, giving full consideration to the best Christian arguments, seems to be impossible to imagine. . . . C’mon, take it easy! I’m playing the Dave Armstrong drinking game, and I now need to take a shot for your use of “I’m at an atheist site and everyone’s ganging up on me (but I’m still kicking ass!)!” and for “I’ve thrashed atheist arguments over and over and over in my long career!” Have some consideration, please.*[L]et me clarify my own position. I don’t want any comment of mine, either here or at your blog, used in a future post. Further, I don’t want any comment in this blog being used in one of your posts. I predict what’s going through your head is, “You’re not the boss of me! I can do whatever I wanna!” In fact, I don’t know what the law says. But this should make clear my wishes for my comments and all comments at my blog.

*

[me] If you and your cronies keep lying about me here I will publicize it on my blog. This is public; that is public. If you don’t want to be ashamed and embarrassed by your ridiculous rhetoric, don’t spout it, and don’t act like pompous asses and idiots. It’s real simple. If you don’t want to be cited by me then ignore me and stop lying about me.

*

Your view of reality is completely different from ours. It’s clear that talking to you is a waste of time.

*

Take down this bullcrap and then we’ll be happy to take down the mere documentation of it. It’s only documented because it’s here out in public for all and sundry to see in the first place.

*

You have to publicly show the comments . . . because they’re already public. Yeah, makes sense.

*

I’m the one that every atheist who reads this BS will think is Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler: the scum of the earth. That’s what gossip does; that is its purpose. It should all be under a rock where it belongs: with the cockroaches. But I never bow to double standards.
*

You just create them.

*

If I’m attacked in a public piece, I expose it on my website. If I am lied about here, I have every right (legal and ethical) to expose it on my site.
*

You need to get that paranoia checked. Seriously.

*

It’s too ridiculous to be refuted (one can’t refute nonsense and mere epithets), so I just expose it. And people who do things like this always complain when I expose it.

*

Ask an unbiased third party to read your comments here and/or the posts you make that collect them. Ask how you come across in this.

*

Take it down, and I take mine down. I’d be severely embarrassed, too, if I carried on like you have — and allowed all of my clone-buddies to do the same. I perfectly understand why you don’t want that spread around further.

*

There really is no talking to you, is there? You have no idea how you come across. The harsh comments calling you an asshole are, believe it or not, aimed (at least in part) on helping you.

*

No one cares on my site. There are hardly any comments about it. It’s a big ho-hum. They aren’t going bananas lying about atheists or you. They know I wouldn’t allow it anyway. That’s what good moderation brings about.
*

Why make those posts then? Just because it’s fun to vent?

*

Your choice. I think it’s in your interest to take this down. It only hurts you and your clone-buddies. My offer to take down my “exposing” post as a reciprocal action is, believe it or not, aimed (at least in part) on helping you.

*

I doubt that. You’ve never shown any interest in helping me, in particular since you came here a few days ago with the admitted purpose of being a troll. It sounds like your point is, “I’ll remove comments at my blog where I’m an asshole to you if you remove your comments here where you were an asshole to me.” Nope. I’m sure your bluster convinces some people that, indeed, we’ve been unfair to a courageous Christian defender of righteousness, speaking his plain and simple truth and undaunted by the slings and arrows of the unfair atheists. But I’m happy to have a record of you acting like a petulant bully, both here and at your site. I don’t even know why you’re asking, since you’re happy to have all your hatred on public display at your blog. How could you improve that??

*

Meanwhile, I’ve been thinking about your comment elsewhere in this thread: “You got nothing thoughtful to say? I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?” I’m always one to oblige people’s wishes, insofar as I am able, and am not known to back down from a challenge, when it comes to apologetics, so I decided to do a series of posts with (hopefully) “a helpful new perspective” for one and all. I already decided (as is well-known and the cause for the volcano of verbal diarrhea in this thread against me), that “talking to you is a waste of time.” The fact that you now conclude that about me is of no concern to me whatever.

*

Is this, “You can’t fire me–I quit!”?

*

I’m not in the least bit interested in pseudo-“dialogue” with people who have not the slightest interest in genuine dialogue.

*

Your actions show you’re a liar. You’ve hung around here and made dozens of comments, seemingly with the purpose of attacking in response to your perception of being attacked.

*

But attacking my Christian faith is quite another thing. Since you insist on doing that, and have personally challenged me, I will take up that challenge. One of my sub-specialties in apologetics, as it is, is dealing with how atheists distort the Bible. I was already seeking further opportunities to demonstrate that. And lo and behold!: here you come, with 1000+ posts, daring me to do it. It’s a goldmine! This is, of course, completely distinct from dialogue. You’re incapable of that with Christians, and so I have less than no interest in it with you. But I can refute your uniformly pathetic, misguided public arguments.

*

“You can’t fire me—I quit!”

*

It’s also been said, “be careful what you wish for.”

*

He’s having a hard time distinguishing “all atheists are mean” vs. “my arguments suck, and my doubling down on them after errors are pointed out provokes angry responses from atheists.” . . . Alas, Dave won’t get the chance to show us that he’s improved. He’s in timeout [i.e., I’ve been banned], which might’ve been the goal of his shit storm all along. . . . If I needed to see this blog as my chance to show how smart I was, I’d have a hard time with comments, just like Dave. Luckily, I realize that I’m just a student of this stuff, like everyone else. Being corrected is sometimes easy and sometimes painful, but it’s necessary either way.

***

[Bob kept it up under a second post: “When Christianity Was in Charge, This Is What We Got”]

*

He is a waste of space, isn’t he? Thanks for the input. I’m hoping he’ll remove himself, but if that doesn’t happen I’ll follow your suggestion. I marvel at how he comes back despite it being clear that he has only hatred to offer. At the moment, he amuses me. . . . He is definitely angling for that, but it doesn’t matter what we do or don’t do; he’ll spin anything so that he comes out on top. . . . It’s easy to rationalize (“OK, for someone else to do this might be sinful, but I have an excuse”). . . . We can always count on you to bring up the mindless talking points. I knew there was a reason we kept you as court jester!

*

Time to pack up your snake oil tent and move to another town, I think.

*

[cites me] I have are always made public on my blog, for teaching purposes
*

Teaching? Who benefits from this “teaching”? Aren’t all the regurgitated comments posts the same–“atheists were mean to me again,” “watch me kick some ass,” and so on? Seems like it’s just ego stroking on your part. I’m getting closer …
*

[I went to respond to someone else being relatively rational and calm, regarding the profound Christian influence on the origins of modern science (was gonna massively cite this post), only to discover that I had been banned from Bob’s site]

***

Photo credit: Jan Tik [Flickr / CC by 2.0 license]

***

 

2018-08-08T12:59:51-04:00

Last updated on: August 8, 2018 at 12:59 pm   By

His words will be in blue.

I had already established beyond all doubt from his own words — three months ago — that Seidensticker (who runs the popular Cross Examined blog at Patheos) is one of the distressingly common condescending atheists, who thinks Christians are (on the whole or generalizing) dishonest, hateful, infantile, anti-evidential (“Christians might sidestep that whole evidence and argument thing”: 7-31-18), anti-scientific, anti-intellectual fools and simpletons, who worship a morally atrocious “god.” I discuss the phenomenon of the “angry atheist” ad how this wrecks dialogue, at length in my Discussion Policy post.

He has proven it all the more with recent posts. In his latest post (yesterday), he wrote: “Christianity supports hateful social policy . . .” Like many atheists, he takes the epistemologically naive and stunted view of scientism: that science is the only legitimate means of knowledge. Hence he stated four days ago: “Science is the only discipline that tells us new things about reality.” He engages in the tired, slanderous “pie-in-the-sky” polemical schtick in a post from July 31st: 

[T]he Christian worldview is the one that devalues life. Of what value is tomorrow to the Christian when they imagine they’ll have a trillion tomorrows? What value are a few short years here on earth when they have eternity in heaven? . . . a shell of a life, with real life waiting for you in the hereafter . . . 

Christians are essentially dishonest and reality-denying (post of 7-27-18):

Apologists imagine God belief as this kind of obtuse puzzle, not because the evidence points that way but because they’re forced to. They have no choice, . . . Unwilling to give up their beliefs or to admit that they’ve been wrong, they assume God, double down on faith, and invent these bizarre rationalizations. . . . A loving creator god who desired a relationship with his creation would just make himself known. We have insufficient evidence to overcome the default hypothesis, that God is yet another made-up supernatural being.

Here’s an example of how he caricatures and savages God Himself: (7-25-18):

Consider the Mr. Hyde Christians make for their god and notice the childish dependency. . . . Let’s imagine that a child from a Christian household dies in an “act of God” sort of way. Maybe it’s leukemia or a birth defect or just an accident. If that family finds comfort in the belief that this was all part of God’s plan, they’ve now created a new problem: they’ve made God into a heartless jerk. This just turns one problem into another. Why can’t God get what he wants done without killing people? He’s morally perfect, so he’d want to avoid killing people, and he’s omnipotent, so he is able to achieve his purposes without killing people (more). And yet he still kills people. Is “My god is a jerk” really easier to live with  . . . 

In the same paper he pulls out the ancient, idiotic “Christians are gullible and infantile” card:

But as she becomes an adult, she must grow up. We leave behind wishing wells, Santa Claus, blankies, and other false comforts as we become independent. No longer are the necessities of life given to us; as adults, we must fend for ourselves—indeed, we want to fend for ourselves. Religion infantilizes adults and keeps them dependent. That’s a good thing for the 100-billion-dollar-a-year U.S. religion industry, but what is best for the individual—a pat on the head and an unevidenced promise of the supernatural, or reality? . . . 

Do people get a dose of some neuropeptide when they curl into a fetal position and have Mommy take care of them? . . . You don’t need to be born again; you need to grow up. Christianity infantilizes its devotees. Putting faith in God has never produced anything. [Dave: of course not!: only trifling things like colleges, hospitals, modern science, the abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, most of the great art and music (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.) and a host of other things spearheaded by Christianity ]

He even sinks so low as to mock and lie about the Christian concern about legal childkilling (7-19-18):

Abortion makes baby Jesus cry, so apparently Christian voters must step into the breach since Jesus is just a baby and can’t do anything about it. But notice the irony: the last thing conservative politicians want is a society with no abortion because they thrive on anxiety about abortion. If they couldn’t claim that the sky is falling, these Chicken Littles wouldn’t know how to rally their base.

Examples are legion and could be multiplied like the loaves and the fish. All of the above occurred in just a 20-day period.

That established, let’s now discuss his blocking. He obviously wasn’t blocked merely for disagreeing with Christianity or being a manifest bigot against it and inveterate liar about All Things Christian, since he’s been allowed to rant and rave on my blog since at least May. It’s equally obvious that I am not “scared” and “terrified” of interacting with atheists (much less his own facile, inane arguments), since I have engaged in scores and scores of debates with them (often with professors) over the 37 years I’ve been doing apologetics.

Seidensticker was free as a bird to interact here, provided he simply observed the usual protocol of the Internet: exhibiting at least rudimentary respect for the views of the site where one is commenting. To not do so is to be a troll: defined by the Urban Dictionary as follows:

Trolling – (verb), as it relates to internet, is the deliberate act, (by a Troll – noun or adjective), of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on various internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument[.]
*
Trolling on-line forums as described above is actually analogous to the fishing technique of “trolling”, where colorful baits and lures are pulled behind a slow moving boat, often with multiple fishing lines, covering a large bodies of water, such as a large lake or the ocean. The trolling lures attract unsuspecting fish, intriguing them with the way they move through the water, thus enticing these foolish fish to “take the bait”. Not unlike unsuspecting internet victims, once hooked, the fish are reeled in for the catch before they realize they have been duped by the Troll/Fisherman[.]
.
This guy made a really rude and off the wall comment about my You Tube video, I think he was just trolling for a response, but I ignored him[.]
More simply, I define a troll as one who isn’t serious about discussion: either out of apathy, or inconsideration and rudeness, or being so bigoted against a particular view that he or she cannot possibly fairly or constructively interact with it. Hence, the one who comes to a site with that hostile outlook is essentially a game-playing sophist. My blog isn’t a platform for various hostile opinions to be preached, minus legitimate discussion.
Hence in the present instance, Seidensticker wanted to talk about slavery, in a thread devoted to the killing of the Amalekites. Someone else introduced it first, and then Bob took it up, which was fine. But he soon showed that he wasn’t interested in open and honest discussion, even when I took up his challenge. I referred the first questioner to an extensive treatment of Slavery laws in the Old Testament from the very thorough Protestant apologist Glenn Miller. Seidensticker, true to form, blew that off, calling it “a thorough commentary” but then singling out one line and ignoring it otherwise.
So I thought (not wanting to get into the rather complex topic at that particular moment) I would offer him my own collection of links on slavery. The idea was to educate him on the relationship of Christianity to slavery, so that he can be disabused of his prejudices. But precisely because of those biases, he wasn’t interested. I made my intentions clear:

Not interested at the moment in a huge debate with an atheist about slavery. I’ll simply note that it just so happened that Christians were always or almost always in the forefront of banning it.

No matter, he went right on with a goading, provocative comment. I guess he hadn’t figured out that I don’t fall for that sort of baiting. I’m interested in serious discussion with open-minded opponents: not sophistry and one-way nonsense. Someone else chimed in and Bob answered with a longer comment. In it, he made a false statement about the ancient Hebrews:

What we know for certain is that “love your neighbor” covers a lot fewer subjects than you’d think at first. “Neighbor” only meant “fellow Israelite.”

This was something I had recently addressed (thus could easily reply to with a cut-and-paste without taking up too much of my time), so I responded:

You’re completely full of hot air. It so happens that I just refuted Richard Dawkins, spouting the same kind of inane, asinine biblically illiterate nonsense:

“Jesus limited his in-group of the saved strictly to Jews, in which respect he was following the Old Testament tradition, . . . ‘Thou shalt not kill’ . . . meant, very specifically, thou shalt not kill Jews. . . . ‘Neighbour’ means fellow Jew.” (The God Delusion, p. 254)

I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony. Where to begin?! This is an absurd, asinine, ignorant, completely false claim. Let’s see, for starters:

[then I cited a lengthy argument from my earlier paper against Dawkins, ending as follows]:

Once again, Dawkins flails away at the straw men of his own making. He does that throughout his whole book, as I have repeatedly shown in these four critiques. In a word, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about (hardly even has a clue), and doesn’t know that he doesn’t know. It’s sad and beyond pathetic that such an educated man (a scientist) — indeed, the most renowned atheist in the world — could exhibit so much disinformation and lack of comprehension of that which he professes to be intelligently critiquing.

Now, his response to this thorough treatment of the aspect of “neighbor” in the Old Testament was what proved to be his undoing (in terms of freedom to comment on my blog), because it demonstrated beyond doubt that he had not the slightest interest in the actual truth of the matter. He is the typical hostile atheist who thinks he’s an expert on the Bible, but approaches it as (I always like to say) a butcher approaches a hog. Rather than interact with my extensive presented reasoning (a direct reply to something he asserted), he ignored it and blew it off:

Oh, come now. We know each other well enough that you needn’t be coy. Drop the Christian charity and tell us what you really thought of his arguments. Dawkins is right—“neighbor” means fellow Jew. . . . This is how a courtroom lawyer makes a case–finding bits here and there and then cobbling together a case. Any contrary information he ignores. That’s how it works in the courtroom, but someone trying to find the truth looks at all the evidence.

After a few other exchanges that can be read on the thread, Bob stated:

What’s startling is that neither God nor Jesus set the world straight on slavery or even abolished the institution instantly. It’s almost like they didn’t see much wrong with it. Christians did their work against slavery and for civil rights 1800 years after Jesus in spite of the clear teachings in the Old Testament, not because of them.

I replied, knowing the game he was playing, and so resorting to some sarcasm:

It’s complex, which is why I gave you a bunch of links for you to explore, that deal with the issue in sufficient depth. I know how very concerned you are always to treat Christianity with the utmost fairness, so knock yourself out reading!

And he comes back with passive-aggressive BS:

Did you give me resources to help me out with my lack of understanding, or was that just a smokescreen? Sure, I could wade through all that. Given past history, however, I doubt I’d learn anything new relevant to my question: what do you think about God’s support for slavery for life in Lev. 25:44-46? If you can cut to the chase, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts. Or, if you don’t have time, that’s fine. [my emphasis]

This was the usual routine with atheists who don’t give a damn about truly learning the actual Christian position on things (rather than toying with mere caricatures of them that they can mock and dismiss, in an illusory show of alleged argumentative “strength”). I’ve seen it dozens of times. If you provide the typical hostile / angry / “know-it-all-about-the-Bible” atheist with serious material to actually learn something (after they inquire and start the discussion), they complain that they don’t have time, and only want to hear your opinion.

This is a dead giveaway that they are either engaged in sophistry or some other sort of trolling: not honest discussion. Otherwise they would offer thanks for the resources and get busy reading, so the discussion could advance to the next stage, with knowledge, not atheist talking-points and salivating “gotcha!” rhetoric only. Since his “anti-dialogue” motivation was utterly obvious by that point, I called him out:

If you don’t have time to do the necessary research on a complex topic, I don’t have the time to play your “gotcha” games. We know you’re a bigot against Christianity. That was already established from your own words on your site.

This was, of course, too much for him to handle, and he started in on the gratuitous insults (whereas my statement was purely based on documented facts of how he had acted; what he had written, per the above information). He pretended that the whole problem was with my approach, not his (i.e., the projection game):

You couldn’t just go with the “An interesting question, but this requires more time than I have at the moment, sorry” brushoff? You had to give me the Armstrong love bombing approach?

Tip: find a trusted friend who can read and summarize your comments–either for a week, or maybe just your interactions with antagonists, or maybe just this one brief conversation with me. Ask them how they think you come across to objective readers and see if there isn’t a little room for improvement in your approach.

I replied to someone else:

As I told Bob, it’s complex (and it’s also a matter of definition: slavery in the Bible is not identical to that in the South in the 1750s, etc.), which I why I provided all the links. This is much more complicated than mere fodder for yet more atheist “gotcha!” polemics.

Bob then basically accused me of one of his pet charges against Christians: intellectual dishonesty, then I responded:

Interact with the actual Christian argument for once and cease with the smart ass sound bites. I think you’re capable of it. I showed at length that you (just like Dawkins: another biblical “expert”) don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, with this “neighbor” business. The wise man learns when corrected. You were educated about how the ancient Hebrews viewed “neighbors.” And so you ignore it and go right on with your usual schtick. It just doesn’t work here. You’ll have to make actual on-topic arguments. I don’t play the hit-and-run games.

He replied: “You’re playing some kind of games.”

I wasn’t at all. I was trying in vain to have an honest, open discussion with him. He wasn’t interested, and we know why he wasn’t (his existing bigotry against Christianity). This was the final straw and so he was blocked. He flatly refused to have a real dialogue, so I decided to no longer allow his anti-Christian, anti-God, anti-Bible bilge on my Catholic site. That’s trolling, and is universally understood to be unethical.

I wrote this piece, because whenever I block a prominent atheist I catch hell either from the person involved, or his comrades, who then engage in tirades, lying about how I did so because I was scared or because I am an arbitrary censor who wants to shut down critiques of Christianity. The reason has nothing whatsoever to do with either of those bogus claims, and is exactly what I laid out above.

***

Photo credit: katutaide (7-1-09). Anti-Christian graffiti in Tampere, Finland [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license]

***

2018-05-21T11:54:37-04:00

Last updated on: May 21, 2018 at 11:54 am   By

These exchanges occurred in a blog combox of mine. Bob Seidensticker runs the large and influential blog, Cross Examined. See the related dialogues / critiques involving him: Why Do We Worship God? Dialogue with an Atheist, and Seidensticker: Christians R Intellectually Dishonest Idiots. Bob’s words will be in blue.

*****

God is not an unjust Judge because He doesn’t give rebellious man an infinite amount of time to repent or because some refuse to accept His gracious pardon or to give Him due honor and worship and end up in hell.

Man is rebellious? Whose fault is that? Maybe we should blame his Maker.

“Accepting his gracious pardon”? Paul makes clear that that’s unnecessary: “Just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 1:19). In other words, we didn’t opt in to get Adam’s sin, so we don’t need to opt in to get Jesus’s salvation. We’re good. . . . 

And don’t get me started on the injustice of hell. Infinite punishment for finite crimes? It doesn’t even make sense within the context of religion. Wow—how savage is this guy?

[replying to someone else]  Sounds like you’ve assumed the Christian god exists. I don’t make that assumption. Indeed, I find very little evidence supporting that claim. . . . I came out of the box imperfect. Whose fault is that? . . . Perpetual torment for finite crimes is God’s greatest gift? What a cool religion—how do I sign up? . . . How about if God simply shows me he exists for starters? Why is that too much to ask?

If he gave me this big brain, he gave it to me to use. It would be an insult if I simply said, “Well, the predominant religion where I come from is Christianity, so I guess I’ll just go with that.”

***

Sounds like you’ve assumed the Christian god exists.

I would contend that most Christians do indeed assume that there is a God, not simply from irrational blind faith (whether they are fully aware of the reasoning or not), but rather, from the rational and quite defensible notion of a “properly basic belief.” See my paper about that, which heavily cites Alvin Plantinga: the greatest living Christian philosopher.

I’ve never found that compelling, though I have yet to understand the idea well enough to write about it. I’ll add your post to my list.

I think you’d find it fascinating and challenging, at the very least.

**

Along the same lines, there are the related concepts of “innate knowledge” or “tacit knowledge”: per the thinking of Michael Polanyi or John Henry Cardinal Newman (Grammar of Assent). I’ve collected many papers along these lines on my “15 Theistic Arguments” collection of links (see section 2).

I don’t make that assumption. Indeed, I find very little evidence supporting that claim. . . . How about if God simply shows me he exists for starters? Why is that too much to ask?

Well, that gets into very deep waters. Right off the bat, I would ask you several closely related questions:

1) What do you mean by “evidence”?

You and I have been chatting. That’s some evidence that you exist. Suppose we had lunch together. That’d be more evidence.

Jesus chatted with His disciples, before and after His crucifixion. He ate with ’em, too, before and after. That’s evidence.

No, we don’t have evidence that Jesus ate with his disciples. We have a story that he did so. We don’t get to put that story into the History bin without a lot of work.

He claimed to be God. Either he was a nut case or a liar, or truly was God in the flesh.

Liar, lunatic, Lord, or Legend.

We think all the evidence considered together makes it overwhelmingly more probable that He is God, rather than the alternatives.

My evidence for God is that of a pen pal who communicated telepathically. Sometimes. Or at least I think he does.

That’s what we believe happens in prayer. And similarly, in written form, the inspired revelation of the Bible.

Right. Which is very different from my evidence of you. I need to see that God doesn’t have no more evidence for him than someone who doesn’t exist.

**

That God exists is kinda key to even beginning any discussion about apologetics. Why is he hidden? A hidden god that Christians handwave excuses for is precisely what you’d see if he didn’t exist at all. You can see why I haven’t moved past that default assumption.

We deny that He is hidden. He’s revealed Himself in many ways:

To paraphrase Churchill, God is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. I want really, really, really good evidence that he exists. Christians can’t provide it. Why is this not Game Over?

1) Through Jesus.

To repeat myself: we don’t have Jesus, we have a story of Jesus. Did it really happen like that? Maybe, but surely not likely, given how history treats the supernatural tales of everyone else of antiquity (Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, Alexander, etc.).

2) Through many miracles.

3) Through the changed and transformed lives of those who wholeheartedly follow Him (including my own).

4) Through the marvels and wonders and beauty of His creation.

And now you’ve moved onto deist arguments. You say, “Look at God’s marvelous sunset!” and I say, “Look at the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s marvelous sunset!”

5) Through the laws of science and the remarkable way things function in the natural world, which are extremely difficult to ultimately explain through purely naturalistic assumptions.

6) Through reason: the cosmological and teleological arguments and many more theistic arguments.

7) Through the revelation of Scripture.

8) Through the lives of saints.

9) Through personal spiritual experiences.

This is, of course, a big discussion in and of itself. But my point is to strongly contend that we deny that He is hidden in the first place.

No, I don’t think so. Since the ordinary ways of knowing that a person exists don’t apply to God and you’ve got to tap dance other approaches, this again seems to be the Game Over moment. Doesn’t God really want to have a relationship with us? If so, the fact that he doesn’t make himself known in a conventional manner contradicts that. Makes me think that he doesn’t exist. How could I do otherwise?

I would even say that there is more reasonable justification for belief in God than for our own existence. There aren’t 15 or so major theistic (serious philosophical) arguments for why I exist, but there are for God’s existence.

Uh . . . because it’s easy to see that you exist? Why isn’t it easy to see that God exists? Why the rigamarole? Why is it hard?

**

2) What do you believe is “enough” evidence?

You tell me. How much evidence would you need to convert to some other religion? That’s probably how much I’d need.

[I replied to this question asked of me, to another atheist. But here it was an attempted diversion on Bob’s part]

I can’t tell you how much you need, because that is your thing, that I am exploring. I’m delving into your epistemology, and your fundamental axioms and premises, not mine. You say you need more evidence, so the natural question to ask is: how much is enough? What would this look like for you?

So where does this leave us? I keep answering this question, and you keep telling me that my answer is unsatisfactory? Doesn’t sound like a fun or useful game.

This is a bit of a tangent, and I don’t want to assign you homework, but I’ll include a blog post series that does respond to this in a way. It’s called “25 Reasons We Don’t Live in a World with a God.” In short, I’m saying with these reasons: show me that these arguments that we don’t live in a world with a god don’t exist, and I’ll have an easier time believing in the Christian god.

**

3) On what basis can you establish what is “enough” evidence?

Ask God. He’s really smart, and he would know what it would take to convince me. And yet he’s not give that to me. Is he just playing games? Or does he not exist? You can imagine which answer I think is simplest.

This is basically an evasion of the simple question I asked you. It makes perfect sense to ask you this. Now, if you have no answer, simply say so (and then you would have other problems to deal with, with regard to your own intellectual justifications). But the topic-switching game is not one I ever play, and it doesn’t work with me. If you want to engage in dialogue with me, you’ll have to provide some sort of direct answer to what I ask you (just as I am doing with your questions). That’s the nature of the game of dialogue.

This sounds, again, like an unanswerable question. If what I’ve given you so far doesn’t satisfy you, then I’m pretty sure that, from your standpoint, I have no answer.

And, again, I’m wondering why I’m in the hot seat, getting failing grades for my answers. Last time I checked, you were the one making the extraordinary claim that God exists.

**

4) Do you presuppose that empirical knowledge is the only valid sort of knowledge?

What else do you have in mind? If you have other ways to know things, I’m all ears.

Looks like that is a yes. For starters: 1) mathematics, 2) logic, 3) the non-empirical starting axioms of science, and 4) innate or tacit knowledge that I have already alluded to.

Mathe . . . what is it? Mathematics? Wow—that’s weird stuff. You’ll have to explain that one to me.

Sarcasm aside, you are, as I expected, pointing out avenues with which I was already familiar.

As for 3), how is this not empirical? These axioms aren’t taken on faith; they’re tested all the time. Take, for example, “everything has a cause.” Sounds right, but we’ve tested that and found that, in the world of quantum physics, this isn’t necessarily the case. Some things don’t have causes (this is the Copenhagen interpretation).

As for 1), suppose we had as a foundational assumption 1 + 1 = 2 (or take another axiom math is built on). We test this continually. If we were to find an exception, that would be noted, and we’d proceed using that.

**

5) If so, why?

6) If you say “yes” to #4, are you unaware that mathematics is a valid non-empirical form of knowledge, and that it is necessary for modern science to proceed? And that logic is also non-empirical, and that science starts from non-empirical assumptions?

7) You do apparently acknowledge that there is a “little” evidence for God. Okay, what is it? Otherwise, you should say, “no evidence . . . ”

Christians exist. The Bible exists.

Good! Glad to hear that. It’s a little crack of light (from where I sit)!

OK, I’m glad you’re pleased. I’d be surprised if you were surprised, however.

**

8) On what basis do you determine that your standards for evidence with regard to God are more unarguable and self-evident than the next person’s, or indeed, many thousands of persons?

Do we agree that people make up religions?

Yes.

Is Hinduism manmade, for example?

I think so, though I would say that the impulses for most religions are based on a real knowledge of a real Being (God), however imperfectly so.

I doubt that. If Hindus could see Yahweh poorly, Muslims see him a little better, and Christians see him with varying degrees of clarity (depending on specific beliefs), you’d imagine that world religions would converge with time. God and his truth aren’t changing, after all. In fact, we see the opposite. In Christianity especially, we see new denominations forming at a rate of 2 per day.

This is just what religions would do if they were manmade.

**

If we agree that religions by the thousands are manmade, then I would suggest that Christianity looks like just one more.

I understand that. But by the same token, I see atheism as simply one more man-made tradition, which is as susceptible and vulnerable to intense scrutiny and analysis as anything else. I’ve examined atheist premises and arguments and again and again and I find them altogether non-compelling and underwhelming. In other words, two can play at that game.

Not really a game.

When the time is right, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on atheism.

And that gets back to my initial question (which you partially avoided): you have not established (in this discussion) why your epistemology is superior to that of Christians or other religious groups.

My approach is to take individual arguments, either for Christianity or for atheism, and evaluate them. Will you be unconvinced by my arguments? Almost certainly. You’re asking for my proof that your evaluation of my arguments was flawed? I don’t have one.

And these are the sorts of questions you will have to grapple with, if you are serious about your own views (just as all people ought to be).

Obviously. To assume that I need this nudge is condescending, but perhaps that wasn’t your intention.

You passed over my questions 9 and 10 [see them immediately below], which I can understand in a way, because they are very difficult to answer. So I will assume that you can’t answer them, rather than that you can and refuse to for whatever reason. :-)

**

9) What exactly do you require God to do to prove to you that He exists?

Do what Dave Armstrong does when he wants to prove to someone that he exists. If God would need to do a little more to prove that he’s actually God rather than a human or an alien, I’ll bet he’s smart enough to handle that.

(Oooo . . . I bet I get another F on that answer.)

10) On what basis do you have the opinion you have in reply to my question in #9?

I don’t know what this means. But perhaps this is relevant: you could say that I’m arrogant (or something) for my stance on evidence for God. Let me dig my hole deeper: I demand this evidence. God, if you exist, the ball’s in your court, pal. Your move.

How could I have any other stance? You are making what is about the most remarkable claim possible. I’m open minded. I’ll consider your claim. But don’t expect me to accept it because it’s a nice worldview or because I’d like it to be true. If I stand in judgment, I’ll be able to say that I used his gift of a human brain to its fullest. I didn’t check my brain at the door.

**

Etc., etc.

I’m sure I could think of many more, but these are sufficient for starters. All of a sudden it’s not quite as simple as atheists typically make it out to be, is it? Y’all just ain’t used to the scrutiny that you constantly send our way.

I’m happy to clarify my position, but let me encourage you to avoid asking questions just to avoid being put on the defensive. You’re the one making the remarkable claim, so you have the fundamental burden of proof.

I can’t avoid asking questions because I am a socratic.

A bit of feedback: the typical teacher/student structure of a Socratic dialogue is obnoxious to the “student.”

I will always go right to the premises of my dialogue opponents, to better understand what they believe and why. Without that, constructive dialogue is impossible. It’s not true that Christians have all the burden of proof. You have just as much, because you make extraordinary claims, just as we do (just of a different nature).

Gotta disagree with you there.

You have come here and made certain claims which are contrary to my Catholic beliefs, and so (as an apologist and socratic debater) I have challenged you with regard to them.

You don’t get away with merely stating things here. You don’t get to [try to] simply poke holes in all the Christian beliefs, as if it is a one-way thing. You’ll be challenged every time to back up what you are saying: your beliefs and epistemology as well. And it’s not always fun. It’s work and toil, too, because I’m a very experienced debater on these topics. I’ve been doing it these past 37 years.

If I can’t ask questions, or my opponents start refusing to answer relevant and necessary ones, then there will be no dialogue with me.

?? The problem is when you want to be the one asking the questions, the one on the offensive.

I only engage in authentic dialogue. I’ve answered your questions carefully, and at far greater length than you are offering me. You need to do the same for a good, constructive dialogue to occur. This one is way above average, and I appreciate that and commend you.

Likewise, this conversation is more constructive than the ones I have with the vast majority of Christian commenters on my blog.

And you haven’t descended to personal insults at all (bravo!). But it could be much better than it is if we got into the great depth that these topics deserve.

In the meantime, I don’t recall if you have said whether or not you used to be a Christian. If so, what denomination? And if so, do you have a posted deconversion story?

I was raised Presbyterian. Basically, it dictated what you did Sunday morning, and that was about it. It never had much of a hold on me, so my deconversion story was untraumatic. When I went to college, I wasn’t made to go to church anymore, so I didn’t. I probably would’ve checked the “Christian” box in a survey form for a couple of decades later, but I never really thought about it. Then about 20 years ago, a fundamentalist, YEC relative got into it with me on evolution. From there, we got into the God question. And once I started thinking, I couldn’t stop. In other words, I’m an atheist thanks to my fundamentalist relative (not what he intended, I’m sure).

Funny story: when I told my wife about my new conversation with that relative about evolution, she immediately said, “It’s a waste of time. You’ll never convince him.” What? His responses were all softballs. They were easy to hit out of the park! Seeing how shallow his arguments were, I was sure that with a little time, he’d change his tune.

Nope. She was right. I think there’s a lesson in that for me somewhere. Maybe more than one.

So, if you have studied Christianity as an atheist, has it only been through reading skeptical / atheist materials, or have you read the Christian side, too?

Reading the Christian side too, obviously. How much can you learn by reading only one side?

One ongoing issue, though, is finding more than just the fundamentalist side. They seem to be the noisiest–WLC, Frank Turek, Greg Koukl, J. Warner Wallace, etc. To a lesser extent, CS Lewis, Plantinga, and others. Suggestions welcome.

I find the deeply philosophical to be the least accessible and least interesting (on both sides of the issue)–if it’s a boring slog for me, what would I have to share with my readers?

Glad to hear that you are reading our side, too. Good for you.

***

Photo credit: image by Nick Youngson CC BY-SA 3.0 Alpha Stock Images [The Blue Diamond Gallery]

***

2018-05-12T16:43:38-04:00

Last updated on: May 12, 2018 at 4:43 pm   By

He Also Projects Onto Me These Bigoted Ideas, as if I Hold the Same About Atheists

Bob Seidensticker runs the large and popular atheist blog, Cross Examined. We recently had a lengthy dialogue about worship of God and several other rabbit trails. His words will be in blue.

***

This exchange was from our recent dialogue:

Your comments in this dialogue were posted under a very extensive article on hell, in which I dialogued with a very thoughtful and skeptical philosophy grad student. You could have chosen to discuss that and my actual arguments about it, but you chose to pick out merely one or two sentences, to comment on.

Presumably this is a compliment, for the sake of brevity? You’re welcome.

Or are you pointing out the inevitable atheist deceit and trickery?

I haven’t said one word about “deceit” because I don’t believe it. I virtually never contend that anyone is deliberately lying. I can only remember two people I publicly characterized as inveterate liars (James White and James Swan), and they were both Protestant anti-Catholics: not atheists: ones with a long, sordid record of such lying about Catholics and Catholicism, that couldn’t possibly be denied (I had extremely extensive interactions with both).

Mine was a simple point (not rocket science), namely: you keep bringing up hell, which is off-topic. Yet you chose a lengthy dialogue of mine about hell to comment under. And when you did, you picked out one sentence of it only. Thus, my present point is: if you are so intent about debating hell, then do it! Don’t just engage in “hit and run” / “gotcha!” polemics: throwing out hell as often as you can (thinking it is some fatality to our position), without ever talking about it in depth. You had your chance to do that and chose not to. If you want to have a serious, in-depth discussion about it, by all means, what stops you?

My attitude about whether atheists are deliberately deceitful or inveterate liars (I say they are not!), has been made clear in many papers of mine. For example, way back in 2003: Can Atheists Possibly be Saved? Are They All “Evil”?:

I’m not doubting anyone’s sincerity or intellectual honesty (including that of atheists). . . . I do not think all atheists are inherently dishonest and willfully blind (though some might indeed be). . . . I don’t question anyone’s sincerity or intellectual honesty. . . .

I believe atheists’ self-report. I think people can get to a place where they truly don’t believe something, by various means. I have no problem with that. If all atheists were rotten rebels who know the God of Christianity exists, and reject Him, then they would all go to hell. But I am already on record, stating that I don’t believe that. I think many, many factors are involved in both Christian or theistic belief and atheist belief. . . .

I don’t say the primary atheist problem is intellectual dishonesty . . .

Likewise in 2015, in my paper, New Testament on God-Rejecters vs. Open-Minded Agnostics:

We can’t tell if a person’s atheism is from an outright rebellious spirit or out of misinformation or lack of information and knowledge. In my long experience in debating atheists I almost always find that it is the latter (from my perspective). The Biblical “fool” refers to those who know there is a God and reject Him. This is my point. We can’t “know” that about any given atheist.

We must assume good will and good faith, and that directly affects our attitude in approaching others. I know full well what it is like for others to casually assume that I am a wascally wascal and scoundrel and all-around jerk and bum, evil and wicked, unregenerate, filled with only evil motives, etc. . . .

So, to my atheist friends: I know exactly how it feels to be on the receiving end of these uncharitable and empty-headed attitudes. . . .

All I’m saying is that there is also a less culpable category of those who do not yet believe in God; so that we can approach atheists with much more courtesy and grant them the benefit of the doubt and good faith.

. . . we should approach all atheists and agnostics with charity, civility, tolerance, and courtesy — freely granting them the benefit of the doubt, and believing the best of them, not the worst.

Again, in the same year, in my paper, Legitimate Atheist Anger  I wrote:

Nor does Christian belief require that all atheists automatically go to hell. An atheist can quite possibly be saved, as I have written about. Only God knows who is saved and who isn’t. I don’t think “all” atheists are dishonest or wicked or immoral. I approach every individual as a sincere person in good faith, and try to think the best of people, not the worst. . . .

I know (and greatly lament and regret) that atheists are treated very harshly and poorly (abominably) by many Christians. The human tendency in all groups is to do so with the outsider. Sadly, Christians are little different in this regard. I have always stated that this is the case.

These are my opinions, and they have been consistent for as long as I can remember. I have more than 2000 posts online. If anyone can find an opinion of mine different from these, they are welcome to do so. Go for it! And if you find something where I went after the intellectual honesty or character of atheists as a whole (demonizing or abominably caricaturing them), I will immediately retract it, publicly, with apologies.

Now, I was curious to see whether Bob Seidensticker in particular made such sweeping claims against the intellectual honesty and sincerity of Christians. Sadly (and most disappointingly), he has done so. In a post dated 9-21-15, Bob writes approvingly of a portion of an Amazon review of a Christian book: “One Amazon reviewer of this book titled his comment, “I don’t have enough intellectual dishonesty to be a Christian.” Pretty sweeping, wouldn’t you say? Christians are dishonest folks, by their very nature. That’s how I interpret such a statement, anyway. Can anyone show me that it means anything different than that? In case anyone missed his point, he prominently cited the same statement at the end of another portion of the multi-part post a week later.

Is this simply one isolated incident: perhaps a misunderstood slip-up that he can now correct? Nope. He has an article entitled, “A Call for Honesty in Christian Scholarship” (9-25-17). No nuances or qualifications there! Imagine if I had written a post called, “A Call for Honesty in Atheist Scholarship”, I would have hell to pay and be accused of everything under the sun, including bigotry, hatred, Christian self-righteousness, feeling superior, looking down my nose at the “infidels”, wanting people to go to hell, etc.

Bob sez that Christian scholars can’t be honest, by definition (this reminds me of Bertrand Russell’s ludicrous contention that theists virtually cannot be philosophers at all). We must always be suspicious of their honesty and sincerity. In a word, they’re crappy scholars, not even worthy of the title. Seidensticker writes in the same article:

There is a stick raised above these Christian scholars that demands that they toe the line or else. With some conclusions predetermined to be correct and others incorrect, how do we know that their work is an honest search for the truth? We don’t, and indeed the work of every Christian scholar constrained by a faith statement is suspect.

I could have a field day with the hypocrisy and double standards and condescension of such an outrageous statement (and indeed have written about this very attitude many times), but I will refrain for the sake of length and my own finite patience. He refers to “a faith statement that prevents honest research”: as if no one who believes in religious tenets in faith can be an honest scholar or thinker.

Then there are the usual garden-variety, “Christianity is a denial of reality / mentally ill” sorts of statements:

Religion is mental shackles, it’s blinders, it’s make-believe. Drop religion to see reality clearly. Read stories of ex-Christians who are much happier now that they can follow the evidence where it leads rather than shoulder religion’s cognitive dissonance. Religion is constrained by Man’s limited imagination. Replace the God goggles with science glasses and you get the universe. (Theology, the Queen Clown of Sciences (Plus the Argument From Dullness, 5-27-15)

Note the dripping disdain and implications of the choice quotation that Bob offers at the end of this pathetic post:

For anyone to slam atheists as dull 
because we rely on evidence and reason 
to decipher the truth is hardly a criticism at all. 
It’s a sign that the best your side has to offer 
is creative fiction.
— Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist

Right. Christians have no love at all for evidence and reason: gullible fools that we all are (somehow having brought about modern science, despite all these handicaps). And this is the “friendly” atheist, huh? God help us if we ever meet an “unfriendly” one!

Bob preaches to his cheerleading choir again in his paper, “The Frustration of Arguing with Christians” (5-17-17):

Evidence didn’t matter much to the medieval doctor, but you’d think that it would be important to a Christian today, living in 21st century society and with a modern education. The problem is that we’re the same superstitious humans with imperfect brains that we were a thousand years ago. And if we’ve been indoctrinated as children, our adult intellect is usually focused on defending our stance, not questioning it.

On 10-30-17, Bob was quite content to offer up a guest post by Richard S. Russell, entitled, “Why We Atheists Ridicule Theists.” This is one of the especially charitable, non-insulting pieces that Bob claims he exclusively offers for the perusal of readers. Here’s my favorite part:

[Y]ou religionists wonder why we jeer, scoff, roll our eyes, and poke fun at you. Put yourselves in our position, and imagine the self-restraint we have to use to hold it down to only that. The only reason we take you at all seriously is because you wield political power and have historically shown that you’re perfectly willing to barbecue people like us for pointing out your idiocies, so you’re not merely pathetically funny, you’re irrationally dangerous.

Bob, in his “nice” and oh-so-tolerant way, added in the combox:

Cuz Jesus totally predicted that. “Yea, brethren, ye shall get much crap from those who prefer ‘reality’ to faith!”

And again:

Straight-up ridicule should be used with caution, I agree. But on the other hand, when someone thinks he has a good argument and gets a faceful of ridicule plus arguments that he can’t respond to, he may be a little more cautious next time. He’ll pare away the stupid arguments. In the short term, this will make his overall list of arguments stronger (and shorter). With luck and a push from his conscience, he may pare that list down to nothing. . . . ridicule isn’t 100% bad. . . . that humiliation might plant a seed that eventually grows into skepticism.

One more example will suffice to complete our survey of Bob’s seemingly total intolerance of Christian thought. He writes in his jeremiad, “ONE Bias that Cripples Every Christian Apologetics Argument” (12-8-16; update of an article from 8-19-13):

Every apologetic argument? Well, perhaps that’s an exaggeration. But if not universal, it’s nearly so. The bias is this: Christians want to interpret or spin the facts to support their preconception. Instead of following the facts where they lead, these Christians would prefer to select and interpret them to show how they can still justify their worldview. They don’t want to follow the evidence where it leads and they certainly don’t want to question their position; they want to stay put and shore up their position with sand bags. . . . 

This is the fallacy of special pleading—having a high bar for evidence from the other guy’s worldview but a lower one for yours.  . . . 

Christians, be honest with yourselves. If your worldview is nonnegotiable, admit it—to yourself at least. In this one area of life, you don’t much care what the evidence says. But since you didn’t come to faith by evidence and don’t have much use for it to support your position, don’t pretend to be an honest participant in the intellectual debate.

Isn’t that delightfully charitable? True to form, Bob gives us an acidy tidbit of a quotation at the end of the article:

You will not find an American astronomy, a Baptist biology, 
a capitalist chemistry, a mammalian math, or a feminist physics. 
There’s only one worldwide version of each, because they’re all based on facts, 
not accidents of birth or matters of opinion. 
Conversely, religion is nothing but opinions, no facts involved, 
which is why anybody’s word on religion is just as good as anyone else’s 
(to wit, no good at all). 
— commenter Richard S. Russell

How ironic, then, that Bob sent me an email a few days ago, asking that I remove a ban on him on my blog. I didn’t recall why I had banned him, but he insisted that he doesn’t insult Christians (apparently he has a reputation as a particularly “nice guy” in the atheist / anti-theist online community). I then told him that he was likely banned for sweeping indictments / insults of Christianity, which also violate my rules for discussion (just as the same sort of statements against atheism would). He again assured me that he didn’t do this, so I unbanned him in good faith, and we have engaged in two dialogues in the last few days (one still to be posted on my blog). In our last one I wrote:

I don’t waste time with unserious atheists. I love almost more than anything to debate serious ones, who don’t start with the false premise that all or most Christians are anti-scientific, anti-intellectual troglodytes. I don’t say that about atheists (most I’ve met are very sharp and love both science and reason). . . . I agree with President Reagan: “trust but verify.” I’ll be looking over many of your articles and we’ll see if you make these sweeping condemnations or not. If you don’t, I’ll be the first to sing your praises as a non-insulting atheist. But if you do, I’ll expose it.

I have now looked over many of his articles, and sadly, have found that he engages in the same anti-Christian bigotry that so many “angry” / anti-theist atheists online do. Thus, I have now exposed that, just as I promised I would do if I found it. I guess because he does this sort of thing so often he projected and assumed that I do, too, towards atheists, which is absolutely untrue, as shown above. So he was quick to play the “you think atheists are deceitful” card.

He judged wrongly, and so did I, in charity, about him supposedly not making these prejudiced, derisive, sweeping claims about Christians. If we don’t expose these outrages for what they are, and protest them, they will only get much worse, folks, as our society continues to rapidly become all the more secularized and more anti-Christian.

No one can have a good, constructive dialogue with this sort of baggage and bilge underneath in the foundational premises of one of the participants: because good dialogue presupposes a minimal level of mutual respect. If we think our opponent is a dishonest, reality-denying, anti-science, anti-intellectual, intolerant idiot and troglodyte going in, the dialogue ain’t gonna go very far, because, after all, what could such a person possibly teach us, if we think that of them?

Dialogue is about learning as much as it is about teaching. It’s not a superior-subordinate scenario, but rather, a good faith conversation between two perceived equals, both ostensibly seeking truth or at least additional facts or food for thought. Otherwise, it will quickly break down, as mine with Bob already appears to have done (though he hasn’t totally closed the door to possible future ones).

***

Photo credit: photograph of a 1983 pin by JD Hancock (5-17-09) [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

***

2025-03-20T10:37:32-04:00

Last updated on: March 20, 2025 at 10:37 am   By
0 Comments

Including the Biblical Case for Icons

Photo credit: The Ark and the Mercy Seat, illustration in Treasures of the Bible by Henry Davenport Northrop, published by International Publishing Company, 1894 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Edward Josiah Stearns (1810-1890) was an Episcopal clergyman from Maryland and author of several books. His volume, The Faith of Our Forefathers (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1879), was a reply to The Faith of Our Fathers (1876), by James Cardinal Gibbons (1834-1921), one of the best and most well-known Catholic apologetics works, with an emphasis on scriptural arguments and replies to Protestant critiques of Catholicism. It had sold over 1.4 million copies by the time of its 83rd edition in 1917 and was the most popular book in the United States until Gone With the Wind was published in 1939. This volume highly influenced my own development as a soon-to-be Catholic apologist in the early 1990s: especially with regard to my usual modus operandi of focusing on “biblical evidence” for Catholicism.

The words of Rev. Stearns will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.

***

It is noteworthy that the Archbishop does not cite a single passage of Scripture in proof of image-worship. (p. 213)

He’s clearly asserting that there is no such passage. I can think of at least three:

Exodus 33:9-10 When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the door of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses. [10] And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the door of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, every man at his tent door. [worship of God through a cloud]

2 Chronicles 7:3-4 When all the children of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the temple, they bowed down with their faces to the earth on the pavement, and worshiped and gave thanks to the LORD, saying, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever.” [4] Then the king and all the people offered sacrifice before the LORD. [worship of God through fire]

1 Chronicles 16:4 Moreover he appointed certain of the Levites as ministers before the ark of the LORD, to invoke, to thank, and to praise the LORD, the God of Israel.

One might retort that the ark of the covenant didn’t represent God, so how could this passage refer to image-worship? It’s because God was present above the ark in a visible cloud between the  carved cherubim on its lid: what was called the “mercy seat”:

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.

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“), prove, in their use of “appear” in relation to a cloud that this is also the case in Leviticus 16:2. God doesn’t just say that He will be “present”, but that He will “appear” in this cloud. Therefore, it’s a third instance of God being worshiped through an image.

1 Samuel 4:4 . . . the ark of the covenant of the LORD of hosts, who is enthroned on the cherubim . . .

Exodus 25:22 There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony . . . (cf. 30:6)

Numbers 7:89 And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with the LORD, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was upon the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and it spoke to him

The burning bush proves that God Himself was there in the bush that Moses saw. In other words, worshiping it was the same as worshiping God (which is the fundamental idea involved in icons, though they are venerated — not worshiped or adored — when creatures are involved):

Exodus 3:4-6 When the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here am I.” [5] Then he said, “Do not come near; put off your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” [6] And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

The same idea is reiterated in references to “face to face” and the pillars:

Exodus 13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire . . .

Exodus 33:11 Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. . . .

Numbers 12:5 And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the door of the tent, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forward. (cf. Ps 99:7)

Numbers 14:14 . . . thou, O LORD, art seen face to face, and thy cloud stands over them and thou goest before them, in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night. (cf. Neh 9:12)

Deuteronomy 5:4 The LORD spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire,

Deuteronomy 31:15 And the LORD appeared in the tent in a pillar of cloud . . .

Deuteronomy 34:10 And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

Sirach 24:4 I dwelt in high places, and my throne was in a pillar of cloud.

Rev. Stearns cites — in disagreement — Catholics explaining these teachings:

St. Thomas Aquinas . . . says, “The same reverence is to be given unto the image of Christ and to Christ himself: and by consequence, seeing Christ is adored with the adoration of latria (the highest kind of worship), his image is to be adored with the adoration of latria also,” . . . — Summ. part 3, q. 25, art. 3. And Azorius says, ”It is the constant judgment of theologians that the image is to be honored and worshipped with the same honor and worship wherewith that is worshipped whereof it is an image.” . . . Jo. Azor. Institut. Moral,, t. i. 1. 9, c. 6 . . . 

Such is the image-worship taught and practised in the Roman Church. (p. 206)

Image-worship is a superstition of the heart, not of the head; hence its danger. (p. 211)

I have just provided the biblical rationale: none of which Rev. Stearns seems to be familiar with. Live and learn . . . As usual, the Protestant contra-Catholic argument is insufficiently biblical to an alarming extent.

I didn’t even get in to highly related topics such as the fascinating biblical data regarding the angel of the Lord and theophanies or christophanies.

*
***
*

Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six 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. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*

Photo credit: The Ark and the Mercy Seat, illustration in Treasures of the Bible by Henry Davenport Northrop, published by International Publishing Company, 1894 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Anglican apologist Edward Josiah Stearns claimed that image-worship of God is unbiblical. I produce three biblical passages / passage-clusters that prove otherwise.

Follow Us!
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
Heartland or Mesoamerica?
Accepting the Easy Task
Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #5: “Apocrypha” 5: Fathers
Saying Farewell to a Longtime Friend? (I Hope...
Review: "Superman" Soars with Heroism, Humor, and Compassion
Tabernacle Choir Prepares for Historic Milestone Broadcast
view all Family blogs