DagoodS was saying that it is more difficult to believe an extraordinary miracle or event than to believe in one that is more commonplace. True enough as far as it goes. But I said (paraphrasing), \u201cyou don\u2019t believe that\u00a0any\u00a0miracles are possible, not even this book raising itself an inch off the table, so it is pointless for you to say that it is hard to believe in a\u00a0great\u00a0miracle, when in fact you don\u2019t believe in\u00a0any\u00a0miracles whatsoever.\u201d No response. I always try to get at the person\u2019s presuppositions. That is my socratic method.<\/p>\n
This being the case, for an atheist (ostensibly with an \u201copen mind\u201d) to examine evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, is almost a farcical enterprise from the start (at least from a Christian perspective) because they commence the analysis with the extremely hostile presuppositions of:<\/p>\n
1) No miracles can occur in the nature of things.<\/p>\n
2) #1 logically follows because, of course, under fundamental atheist presuppositions, there is no God to\u00a0perform\u00a0any miracle.<\/p>\n
3) The New Testament documents are fundamentally untrustworthy and historically suspect, having been written by gullible, partisan Christians; particularly because, for most facts presented therein, there is not (leaving aside archaeological evidences) written secular corroborating evidence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
* * * * *<\/p><\/div>\n
Hi DagoodS,<\/p>\n
Thanks for droppin\u2019 by!<\/p>\n
It was nice to finally meet you, Dave Armstrong. A few points\u2026in my defense.\u00a0I don\u2019t try to \u201cpoke holes in the Bible.\u201d I attempt to poke holes in certain claims about particular Bibles. For example, you touched on contradictions. As you and I agree there are contradictions in the Bible,<\/span><\/p>\nI think there are very few, and what few there are are due to manuscript discrepancies, and what minor ones can be found (about numbers or whatever) do not affect any Christian doctrine.<\/p>\n
this wouldn\u2019t pertain to you, but to others who claim inerrancy, I do question the viability regarding the claim. The same way you would.<\/span><\/p>\nNo one denies that it takes faith to believe that the Bible is inspired.<\/p>\n
What I have shown in past dialogues with you, I think, is that many of your alleged contradictions simply\u00a0aren\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0that in the first place, by the rules of logic that atheist and theist agree upon. In other words, it is a logical discussion, not a theological one, when the claim is that contradiction is present.<\/p>\nAs to naturalistic presupposition\u2026I agree that is a difficulty for the apologist in discussing the Resurrection. Alas, it is part of human make-up. We all have biases. As a naturalist, I am going to look for a natural explanation. As a theist, I could understand a theist looking for a supernatural explanation in certain events.<\/span><\/p>\nNo quibble with that statement!<\/p>\n
If the apologist agrees the evidence for the Resurrecti<\/span><\/p>\non is not persuasive enough to convince a naturalist a miracle occurred, I am perfectly fine with that.<\/span><\/p>\nIt is scarcely possible, like I said in the post, to convince an atheist \/ agnostic of the Resurrection, since all miracles are denied from the outset. So the discussion has to first be, whether miracles are possible and whether they have in fact, occurred.<\/p>\n
But then that discussion itself necessarily goes back to theistic arguments about God, since God is necessary to perform the miracle in the first place; otherwise, the laws of science and nature determine what happens.<\/p>\n
Therefore one has to engage in two\u00a0huge\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>discussions before we even get to a sensible, constructive discussion about Jesus\u2019 Resurrection.<\/p>\nBut many apologists\u2014especially those using the Habermas method\u2014appear to claim the evidence is sufficient to even convince a naturalist.<\/span><\/p>\nI am sort of in the middle. I think the evidence is sufficient, but the hostile premises of the atheist \/ agnostic are so contrary to it that he or she cannot be convinced, on that basis. It also takes faith to believe, and that faith is given only by God\u2019s grace (I\u2019m sure you\u2019re familiar with that aspect of Christian theology). If that grace is rejected, then the person won\u2019t believe in a thing like the resurrection because the faith required is not there. It does take faith. If Habermas is discounting that, then I have a problem with his analysis. But I don\u2019t think he would deny what I am saying here.<\/p>\n
In those situations I try to explain why the evidence is not enough. Why we have legitimate (often un-addressed) concerns regarding the evidence claimed.<\/span><\/p>\nYeah, that\u2019s fine. I just think that the premises involved are crucial, and the role they play are profound and compelling according to your own worldview. And they need to be discussed as well. I always go to the premises because I am a socratic in methodology and that\u2019s what socratics do.<\/p>\n
*shrug* If you are saying it is useless to even discuss the assertions surrounding the Resurrection unless the person is first a theist\u2014<\/span><\/p>\nI would never say that. That is more the position of presuppositionalist apologetics, which is mostly the reformed \/ Calvinists and some Baptists. That has never been my point of view at any time.<\/p>\n
I would think this provides support to the reasoning that the evidence is insufficient to prove a miracle happened.<\/span><\/p>\nI assert both: the evidence is sufficient, but people\u2019s opinions are formed from their presuppositions and natural biases, based on what they read and who they hang around with.<\/p>\n
I think almost exactly the same about God. I believe that knowledge of Him is innate in human beings and evident from observing nature (Romans 1). But for many reasons, this can be unlearned (again, due to influences that a person chooses, and environments), and so there is such a thing as an atheist or an agnostic.<\/p>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I do not say, did not say and have never said the New Testament documents are worthless as history. Again\u2026 this is coming from one perspective. I do<\/em> say we must treat the documents for what they are. They are not history as a 20th century historian would record them, the gospels (for example) are\u00a0bios<\/i>\u00a0as a 1st Century Mediterranean author would present them.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
I confess slight pique at being compared to a \u201cbutcher approaching a hog\u201d when referring to my treatment of the Bible. I have studied it at some length; I know some things; I clearly do not know everything. If one disagrees with my argument, or my consideration of what is being presented\u2026so be it. Present your own, and let the better argument win. If I am missing something, or am being biased\u2013please, please, please feel free to point it out.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
But Dave Armstrong has said all this about me before. I\u2019ve learned (mostly) to shrug off the invectives and let the arguments speak for themselves. If one is left with the impression I am a \u201cbutcher approaching a hog\u201d I evidently need to better my presentation to correct that misrepresentation on my part. All I ask is this: Please don\u2019t take the word of one (1) person without hearing other\u2019s impressions, or my own perception.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
\u201cDo unto others as you would have them do unto you.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I think John 20:24-29<\/span>\u00a0[the Doubting Thomas account]\u00a0is a non-historical pericope incorporated to address certain concerns in the Johannine community. However, lest I be accused of treating the story like a \u201cbutcher approaching a hog,\u201d (*wink*) let us assume\u00a0arguendo<\/i>\u00a0the story is historical.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Remember, it is claimed the primary reason we are unconvinced Jesus\u2019 resurrection did not occur is that we \u201c\u2026don\u2019t believe that any miracles are possible, not even this book raising itself an inch off the table, so it is pointless for [a non-believer] to say that it is hard to believe in a great miracle, when in fact [the non-believer doesn\u2019t] believe in any miracles whatsoever.\u201d . . .<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
We skeptics . . . aren\u2019t dismissing apologetic claims off-handedly or disdainfully. Certainly I have considered my own naturalistic bias, and whether it presents a hinderance to believing the resurrection stories. (Although in my case, being a deconvert, I was actually biased the other way\u2014FOR the story.)<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
I just don\u2019t see many apologists addressing the story of Doubting Thomas as to why, if he wasn\u2019t convinced by MORE evidence than I have, that I should be persuaded by LESS evidence. I don\u2019t see many grappling with the fact a miracle-believing theist was not compelled to believe when he had so much more access to the evidence than I ever could.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
. . . these claims of \u201cWe can\u2019t convince you because you don\u2019t believe in miracles\u201d are unfounded. . . .\u00a0You<\/span>\u00a0[another Catholic correspondent]\u00a0did the\u00a0correct<\/i>\u00a0thing\u2014gave evidence you felt could be convincing upon investigation. You didn\u2019t whine. You didn\u2019t complain, \u201cOh, DagoodS\u2026I\u2019ll list some information but you will never believe it because you don\u2019t believe in miracles.\u201d . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nWhat I tire of is the presentation of evidence and when I remain unpersuaded, my lack of belief is dismissed as \u201cthat\u2019s because you don\u2019t believe in miracles.\u201d Thomas believed in miracles; he wasn\u2019t convinced. Protestants believe in miracles; they are not convinced. It isn\u2019t the belief\/non-belief in miracles\u2014the evidence presented is not compelling to that person.<\/span><\/p>\nThe insinuation is that this is my position, but of course I have never said this. It is projected onto me as a straw man. I don\u2019t think that this is the key or\u00a0only\u00a0factor, only that it is one of many relevant factors for why someone disbelieves in miracles.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m all for evidence. That\u2019s what apologetics is about. There are plenty of books documenting hundreds of miracles, often with medical documentation: both by Protestants and Catholics. I have them in my library. Let DagoodS go read several and then come back and tell us if he thinks the evidence is compelling for any one of them.<\/p>\n
If he says \u201cno\u201d to all, then excuse me if I\u00a0suspect<\/i>\u00a0(not positively\u00a0assert<\/em>) that his original presuppositions have\u00a0something<\/i>\u00a0(not\u00a0everything<\/em>) to do with it.<\/p>\nAll I\u2019m saying (as a socratic who examines root assumptions) is that the hostile presupposition is indeed a relevant factor. If there is no God, there can be no miracles, period; therefore, there can be no particular miracles. The entire edifice stands together, in unity. It simply can\u2019t possibly be denied that this is a relevant consideration.<\/p>\n
I think it is mostly a case of DagoodS not liking when anyone points this out because atheists such as himself pride themselves on their intellectual openness and willingness to go wherever \u201cevidence\u201d leads, yet in fact they are quite closed-minded, and they hate when a Christian has the audacity to point this out. That\u2019s why they detest critiques of their deconversion stories. They don\u2019t want to deal with someone who may know more about some of the particulars of certain beliefs that they rejected, than they do.<\/p>\n
It is relevant to suspect that no evidence is sufficient to convince an atheist of a miracle if said atheist actually examines hundreds or thousands of documented cases and never met a miracle that he liked (i.e., believed). Sorry; presuppositions are always\u00a0a<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0factor in things, whether the person who holds them thinks so or not.<\/p>\nIf DagoodS wants to deny that (and it is what I am saying), then he merely shows himself to be quite philosophically and epistemologically naive. I was trying to get at some of this during his presentation but was never really allowed to.<\/p>\n
* * *<\/div>\n
. . . as to miracles, I will be happy to ponder them. And the facts. I quite agree there are people diagnosed with diseases who are subsequently determined to be disease-free. Happens all the time. Sometimes because of mis-diagnosis, sometimes because the body cures itself.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
And certainly some of these people attribute the condition of being disease free as a \u201cmiracle.\u201d Some do not. . . .<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
1) The sources are not the best evidence. What I have typically seen is, \u201c_____ [insert name] was diagnosed with incurable cancer, but later was determined to be disease-free. The doctors cannot explain how it happened.\u201d But I don\u2019t have the actual medical reports, the actual doctors statements, the doctor\u2019s names, (just \u201cdoctors\u201d). These are hearsay statements\u2026not the best evidence to convince something outside our normal experience.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Further, I have seen Christians make claims (like \u201cwilling to die for a lie\u201d) and upon reviewing the actual sources, find the source doesn\u2019t say what was originally claimed.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
2) The methodology is troublesome. How do we determine between:<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\na) A natural cure we do not know yet;<\/span>
\nb) A natural cure we will never know; or<\/span>
\nc) A supernatural cure?<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n* * *<\/i><\/div>\n. . . in reviewing your blog entry on the topic (as referred to here), you didn\u2019t raise MORE evidence I missed. You didn\u2019t indicate I presented the evidence incorrectly. You didn\u2019t deal with the evidence regarding the resurrection at all. The only thing you complained about was the predisposition of non-believers.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nWhy do you have this notion that I have to discuss all that? It is your perspective on what I may want to write about, that has nothing to do with what I either write about in fact or should write about. I was simply giving a narrative account, not even doing apologetics per se. You in effect demand that I gotta write about what you want me to write about. In other words, it is not to your particular taste. But then you are making the same minor complaint that I did when I said a lecture was not to my taste. So why does my slight criticism bother you, since you make one of the very same nature back to me?<\/p>\n
Just like you have the right to not like my format or presentation, I reserve the privilege to respond to what you say and see it as complaining.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/p>\n
And to complain\u00a0about<\/em>\u00a0it! LOL<\/p>\nAs a poor argument. I argue, for the reasons discussed at the meeting when you first presented it, for the same reasons I listed above, that the argument fails.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/p>\n
So you say. First you need to accurately understand your opponents\u2019 argument. You have been caricaturing my opinion on this and making a straw man up till now. Perhaps you finally get it, now that I have clarified.<\/p>\n
Sure I am biased. Always admitted it. So is every human\u2026<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Absolutely. That is what I have always believed, too.<\/p>\n
yet to claim we must first change our presuppositions, and THEN be convinced by evidence appears to me to be backwards. We change our presuppositions BY evidence\u2014it is what causes us to change!<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
It is both. I don\u2019t think we can choose. It\u2019s a variation of the old universals vs. particulars debate in philosophy. It simply can\u2019t be denied that a starting point of \u201cno\u00a0God<\/em>; therefore no\u00a0miracles<\/em>; therefore no\u00a0particular\u00a0<\/em>miracles\u201d is neither open-minded nor conducive to a conclusion that a miracle has occurred in Instance X. That is not rocket science. If a thing is deemed impossible from the outset, then it is not likely to be arrived at, no matter what evidence is presented. This is what you don\u2019t see.<\/p>\nOne has to allow the\u00a0possibility<\/em>. In this sense, the only people who were open-minded to all possibilities in that room were myself and your friend Jon, who runs the group. He doesn\u2019t rule out the possibility of a miracle. Everyone else did (unless there was one other; I\u2019m not sure).
\n*
\nTake examples from science. Say that a person fifty years ago denied the very possibility of continental drift or warm-blooded dinosaurs (I believe that neither idea was accepted then). A second person hears about those theoretical concepts and accepts the possibility that they may yet be proven to have occurred. According to you, it makes little difference what presuppositions are involved, as long as the evidence is compelling. But it clearly\u00a0does<\/i>\u00a0make a difference. The person who is open to a possibility is more likely to accept a demonstration of the possibility as a fact than the one who has ruled out the possibility from the outset.<\/p>\nI don\u2019t see that it is even arguable. Yet you seem to be (incredibly) asserting that it makes no difference.<\/p>\n
You didn\u2019t change from a Protestant to a Catholic because you changed your presuppositions from pro-Protestant to pro-Catholic. You changed because you reviewed evidence that caused the change. The evidence comes first; not the presuppositions.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Generally this is true, but it is still both factors. Accumulations of details and facts and evidences can cause one to change their basic premises (God exists or He doesn\u2019t, morals are absolute or relative, the universe is materialistic or dualistic, etc.) and then many other things change along with them.<\/p>\n
You don\u2019t want to believe in a miracle (have a vested interest\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0to) because to do so also requires you to believe in God. You are predisposed not to believe in God because then you would be accountable to Him and would be bound by certain rules that may not be to your liking. It\u2019s always more than merely abstract reasoning. The will and grace are also involved. This is Christian belief.<\/p>\nNot to mention we have the additional problem that the evidence\u2014in fact BETTER evidence\u2014was not convincing to those already pre-disposed to believing it, i.e. Doubting Thomas.
\n*<\/span><\/div>\nHe simply needed more evidence. He is like your typical atheist. But Jesus made it clear that his case was not\u00a0normative<\/em>, but rather,\u00a0excessive<\/em>, by saying, \u201chave you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe\u201d (John 20:29 (RSV).<\/p>\nAgain, presuppositions come into play. You pass off the whole thing as a later interpolation anyway, so why even bring it up? If you want to argue from historical example, you can\u2019t use one that you yourself don\u2019t regard as historical fact.<\/p>\n
Could it be \u201cA\u201d factor? Sure. So could being raised in a Christian home, being left-handed or having a tragedy in one\u2019s life. Rather than deal with the peripherals, I prefer to deal with the hard stuff first. I prefer to deal with the evidence.
\n*<\/span><\/div>\nIt\u2019s not peripheral at all. It is smack dab in the\u00a0center<\/em>\u00a0of the issue: how one arrives at fundamental premises and how these go on to influence all their reasoning that is a result of the prior premises and presuppositions. You want to do Aristotle only (particulars and sensory evidence). I want to do both him and Plato and Socrates (universals and premises and ideas prior to experience). My epistemology is far broader than yours. What you see as a trifle and peripheral issue and complaint is to me central and crucial to the whole discussion.<\/p>\nIf, as you say, the the evidence is sufficient then I say, leave it at that.
\n*<\/span><\/div>\nIt\u00a0is\u00a0<\/em>sufficient. That\u2019s why I don\u2019t feel compelled to go out and argue about it (you\u2019re the one who is hung up about that), because it is quite sufficient for any fair-minded inquirer open to it.<\/p>\nLike I said above, if you\u2019re so enthralled about evidences for miracles, go out and read a hundred books giving documented accounts of miracles and come back and tell us how many convinced you (or why they didn\u2019t; why no evidence was ever sufficient for you to accept a belief [factuality of miracles] that would require you to again believe in God [Who performs them] ).<\/p>\n
Good evidence overcomes even the most hostile opponent, regardless their presupposition. It does every day.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Absolutely not. If a man doesn\u2019t\u00a0want<\/em>\u00a0to believe something, he will\u00a0not<\/em>, no matter how compelling the evidence is. Like the saying goes, \u201ca man convinced against his will, retains his original belief still.\u201d Very true. I see it all the time in my apologetics rounds.<\/p>\nRather than deal with the peripherals, I prefer to deal with the hard stuff first. I prefer to deal with the evidence.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
[second reply of mine to the above statement]:<\/p>\n
What you overlook is that you already have to have an\u00a0interpretive grid<\/i>\u00a0or framework in place in order to interpret the evidence in the first place. There is no such thing as a clean slate. If you deny that prior interpretation is required in order to weigh the evidence and have some method of determining what is compelling evidence, then you are epistemologically naive.<\/p>\n
I would recommend that you read a critic of positivism such as Michael Polanyi or even Cardinal Newman\u2019s\u00a0Essay of the Grammar of Assent<\/i>.<\/p>\n
*
\nThis is true of miracles and it is true of theistic arguments and interpretation of the Bible. Thus, my notorious statement that you and other atheists who are obsessed with finding alleged Bible contradictions, approach the Bible like a butcher approaches a hog. You have no intention of giving the documents even minimal respect. It\u2019s pure skepticism. You disrespect it as your presupposition and therefore you keep \u201cfinding\u201d out information that causes you to hate it all the more.<\/p>\n
Don\u2019t give me this line of hooey that you are approaching it with total objectivity and fairness, that just so happens in each and every case to cause you to then conclude that (surprise!) it is untrustworthy and contradictory. You find what you want to find because your mind is already made up before you begin any particular \u201cstudy.\u201d<\/p>\n
If I\u2019m wrong, it is easy for you to prove it (at least in a single example). Show me a time when you set out to show that the Bible was contradictory, but then you discovered that [in a particular case] it\u00a0wasn\u2019t<\/em>, and that the Christian argument was more plausible. If you can show me one instance of that on your blog, great! But just one would not prove you were fair-minded about it, either. That\u2019s only one instance. Several such instances would show me that you were truly open-minded and didn\u2019t have an \u201canti-Bible\u201d agenda.<\/p>\nBut if you never conclude other than what we expect from you (biblical contradiction) then don\u2019t expect us to stop questioning your hostile premises and a hostile overall agenda. It\u2019s perfectly reasonable and plausible for us to conclude what we do, from the \u201cevidence\u201d of your relentlessly skeptical\u00a0conclusions<\/em>.<\/p>\nYou are biased against it and the Christian is biased for it. But in terms merely of literary study or research, clearly the person who loves and respects a document (whether it is a religious document or not) is in a much better place to accurately interpret and understand it (despite quite possible mistakes arising from too much favorable bias) than the one who hates the same document for some reason: thinks that it fosters immorality, is a bunch of fairy tales, is the result of cynical after-the-fact tampering, contains moral and logical and theological ludicrosities, presents a false metaphysic, etc.<\/p>\n
Once again, I don\u2019t see how that is even arguable. But you have to fight against it in order to maintain this farcical facade of supposed neutrality, extraordinary open-mindedness and superior intelligence and logical acumen, that most agnostics and atheists seem to assume is true of themselves as a matter of course, over against us (as the caricature would have it) evidence- and reason-fearing, gullible Christians.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s part of the atheist persona and self-perception: \u201cwe are the open-minded, smart ones. We go where evidence leads; those Christians don\u2019t do that; they are dogmatic, anti-science, anti-reason, and prone to belief in fairy tales and myths.\u201d<\/p>\n
For this reason I wrote\u00a0an entire book<\/a>\u00a0recently, showing the overwhelming historical influence of Christianity and a larger theism on the history of science. I\u2019ll send an e-book version to any atheist who requests it, for free.<\/p>\n* * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
At this point Dave Armstrong indicated it doesn\u2019t really matter, because non-theists wouldn\u2019t believe it regardless of the amount of evidence, because we are predisposed against theism.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
This is again somewhat of a caricature of what actually happened, and my own position. One tires of this. DagoodS can \u2014 like anyone else \u2014 read my report of my own remark at the meeting. Here it is again (it was in my original paper that this post referred to):<\/p>\n
\u201cDagoodS was saying that it is more difficult to believe an extraordinary miracle or event than to believe in one that is more commonplace. True enough as far as it goes. But I said (paraphrasing), \u2018you don\u2019t believe that\u00a0any<\/i>\u00a0miracles are possible, not even this book raising itself an inch off the table, so it is pointless for you to say that it is hard to believe in a\u00a0great<\/i>\u00a0miracle, when in fact you don\u2019t believe in\u00a0any<\/i>\u00a0miracles whatsoever.\u2019\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Note the limited point that I was making.\u00a0I wasn\u2019t denying the validity of evidence at all<\/em>; not in the slightest. As I have already reiterated: I love evidence. I think it is wonderful. As an apologist I deal with evidences all the time. In fact, I think the evidence for the Resurrection is not only relevant but more than sufficient for a fair-minded inquirer. I didn\u2019t make some idiotic observation that\u00a0evidence<\/i>\u00a0\u201cdoesn\u2019t really matter\u201d (even for an atheist or otherwise skeptical person). I was specifically commenting on his particular point about it being \u201cmore difficult to believe an extraordinary miracle or event than to believe in one that is more commonplace.\u201d<\/p>\nDagoodS said it was hard to believe the more uncommon thing; I merely replied in effect that of course it would be, if the thing being discussed is part of a larger category that a person has\u00a0already rejected<\/em>\u00a0before he even\u00a0starts<\/em>\u00a0the inquiry. In other words, if one can\u2019t even be convinced of the most minor miracle, then why would anyone think he could be convinced of a truly extraordinary miracle?<\/p>\nTherefore (I reasoned) it is (from DagoodS\u2019 own perspective) a\u00a0non sequitur<\/i>\u00a0to make a relative analysis of small and great miracles or extraordinary non-miraculous events, since both things are in a category already ruled out at the presuppositional level.<\/p>\n
That requires a discussion of whether\u00a0any<\/i>\u00a0miracles can occur that is logically prior to a discussion of whether one particular one did. And that discussion in turn requires a discussion of God\u2019s existence.<\/p>\nDoubting Thomas is a counter-factual that undermines your claim it is predispositions that determine belief\u2026not facts.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Sheer nonsense. His case is at least as much evidence of what\u00a0I\u00a0am saying as it is of\u00a0your position. You want to say that the facts are all that matter and not predispositions and larger theories and presuppositional frameworks and (in some instances) excessive, irrational skepticism. I say that\u00a0both<\/em>\u00a0things matter, not just one of them, as you are saying.<\/p>\nThe Bible presents Thomas as a skeptical, hard-nosed type. It\u2019s not enough for him to even see the risen Jesus. He has to put his hand in His wounded side. The saying, \u201cseeing is believing\u201d doesn\u2019t apply to him. This is no proof that he alone is the rational, evidence-respecting one and all the 500 who witnessed the risen Jesus a bunch of gullible fools. We can just as easily say that he is so skeptical that he needs more than is required for most men to believe in the extraordinary event. How can you,\u00a0prima facie<\/i>, prove one scenario any more than the other?<\/p>\n
The Bible\u2019s own account of the incident (that you conveniently discard as myth and after-the-fact rationalization, from the outset) would suggest my position, because Thomas is rebuked by Jesus for being \u201cfaithless\u201d (Jn 20:27) and for only believing because he has \u201cseen\u201d Jesus (20:29) \u2014 and touched Him. The clear implication is that this is a demonstration that is\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0required for a person of faith to believe in the Resurrection (the very\u00a0opposite\u00a0<\/em>of your claim). There is more in play here than mere eyewitness observation and a sort of empirical criterion for belief in anything. There is (as I\u2019ve already stressed) both faith and grace involved, and necessarily so.<\/p>\nLack of belief, from a Christian perspective, is inevitably tied in to a lack of faith and grace, and those are gifts of God. As an atheist, you deny those categories, too, and as a former Christian you have personally rejected them as factors in your own life and outlook, and try to reduce everything to reason only \u2014 and that in a mostly empirical sense only, which is by no means the only way of knowing, as many secular philosophers (not just Christians) will argue.<\/p>\n
Yes, you are now retreating back to it being \u201cA\u201d factor,
\n*<\/span><\/div>\nNo, you are finally beginning to grasp what my position was all along. I have made no \u201cretreat\u201d; you have made discoveries about my true position, as opposed to the caricature you have been bandying about.<\/p>\n
but Doubting Thomas still demonstrates the problem with your claim.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Not at all. It is an insubstantial, circular argument.<\/p>\n
Claiming he is \u201cnot normative\u201d doesn\u2019t resolve the problem\u2014it is still a counter-factual. You only need one to undermine a logical argument.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Eyewitness testimony to the Resurrection and various facts related to it (such as the empty tomb) are not \u201clogical arguments\u201d but claimed factual occurrences that lead one to the conclusion that this amazing event did indeed occur. It may have some force against a position that any person must indubitably believe in the Resurrection from the facts of the matter alone, true, but that is already an epistemologically naive and simplistic point of view insofar as it neglects the elements of faith, grace, and hostile presuppositions in various sorts of people.<\/p>\n
[And I am not sure \u201cnormative\u201d is the applicable word. Christianity did not become the majority religion in Judea following its proclamation. In fact, it fairly quickly turned to gentile emphasis. Therefore, it would seem \u201cnormative\u201d would be that making the claim, \u201cJesus rose from the dead\u201d was NOT convincing to those most accessible to determine the validity; the majority\u2014the \u201cnorm\u201d\u2014did not.]<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
I meant \u201cnormative\u201d within the context of the primitive Christian community: an internal criterion. The Christians sees one example of excessive skepticism (and even he does eventually believe; he just needed more proof) over against 500+ who already believed. So we say he is not the norm. But you want to place one person against the 500+ and say that he is the norm and they are all abnormally gullible and prone to mass hallucinations (or whatever the alternate theory of the events on the first Easter is that you adopt: and they are all silly and implausible, in my opinion).<\/p>\n
Your example of continental drift is exactly what I am talking about. Thank you. You are correct\u2013it WAS initially rejected because people were predisposed to believe something else. How did it eventually rise to the predominate theory?<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Evidence, evidence, evidence! The more that was presented, the more Continental Drift Theory was demonstrated as the better answer for the evidence presented.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
But that wasn\u2019t my point (you again missed it, and it is remarkable how often that happens). I wasn\u2019t arguing that evidence isn\u2019t necessary for belief, but rather, that the person who says beforehand that something isn\u2019t possible is far less likely to believe it even when it is scientifically demonstrated, than the one who accepts the possibility beforehand. If you doubt that this is a factor even within a purely scientific paradigm, read Thomas Kuhn\u2019s\u00a0Structure of Scientific Revolutions<\/i>. It confirms the presence of profound hostile biases that work against new and newly established scientific theories, with historical fact upon fact. I say those biases are a general fact of life that apply to anything, including religious claims.<\/p>\nThe scientists and geologists didn\u2019t whine and complain, \u201cAww\u2026we can\u2019t convince you because you believe differently.\u201d Nope\u2014they rolled up their sleeves and went to work. They presented for more evidence. They searched for evidence that would confirm their theory.<\/span><\/div>\nThey used Evidence.<\/span><\/div>\nEvidence.<\/span><\/div>\nIs there a common theme starting to appear?<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Yes; that you and I are perfectly agreed that evidence is a good thing. Since I never denied this, it is a total\u00a0non sequitur<\/i>\u00a0insofar as I am concerned. If there is a fideist or presuppositional apologist reading, your issue would be with them, not me. I am presently defending my assertion that premises and presuppositions are also in play in adoption or rejection of\u00a0anything<\/em>. For some reason you deny this, even though it is philosophically virtually self-evident. And in Christian matters, faith and grace are also relevant factors.<\/p>\nAnother thing that is silly in your discussion is that you have this notion that I or any other Christian apologist could theoretically present some additional fact that would convince you. You urge us on, challenging us to offer facts that can change your mind. Anything is possible. But from a purely time-management standpoint, why would I think it is worth my time doing any of that, knowing that you have already read most or all of the leading Christian defenses of the Resurrection already? What would make me think that I would come up with some startling discovery that would make the light bulb go off in your head, when all these experts in the field of Resurrection apologetics (who know far more than I do about it) have failed?<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t bother, because I believe it is exceedingly impossible to convince you from the outset, for reasons I am explaining. If you are to believe, and the reason will be \u201cevidence,\u201d then you would have already done so after reading the folks you have read. But you haven\u2019t, and gee, I wonder why that is? Could it possibly have a wee bit to do with what I am saying?<\/p>\n
Yes, I do tend to focus on discussions surrounding the evidence.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Really??!! Man, I wouldn\u2019t have noticed that!<\/p>\n
No, you are not required to do so. I think (and this is my opinion, obviously) discussions are better when we focus on the actual arguments and evidence. The discussions can degrade when we start to talk about the other person\u2019s motivations, or claim they only want to believe this way because they have some vested interest, or want to become a drug-using pimp.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
I have only touched very tangentially on motivations, if at all. I prefer to stick to hostile presuppositions (thinking, ideas, not moral issues) as counter to sufficient evidence. The will is definitely a factor, but it is difficult to speculate on that without hard facts from a person\u2019s life. For example, if there are several things that Christians regard as sins, that you now freely indulge in (having no particular constraint, with no God to watch over you or judge you anymore) then one could construct an argument that freedom to commit those sins would be one motivator for continued atheism. Aldous Huxley was actually honest enough to admit this once: that he took the beliefs he did in order to have sexual freedom. A refreshing candor indeed, and I respect that.<\/p>\n
Finally, I love this bit about my showing a blog entry on a contradiction where a Christian argument was \u201cmore plausible.\u201d You know I cannot present such a blog entry, because no inerrantist ever, EVER uses the \u201cmore plausible\u201d standard of proof. I\u2019ve only encountered one such person who did\u2014you.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Well, that shows the narrowness of your experience with Christians, doesn\u2019t it? What kind of Christian did you used to be, by the way? But I take this as a concession that you can produce no such example in your work. You always arrive at the skeptical, anti-biblical, anti-Christian, anti-inspired, anti-infallible, \u201cBible contradiction\u201d conclusion, 100% of the time. Thank you for this wonderful confirmation of my suspicion of your profound biases. I couldn\u2019t have asked for more!<\/p>\n
You do a great slippery fish routine, but not so well at actual back-and-forth dialogue, because you have been mostly caricaturing or ignoring my arguments: making editorial comments about them (or caricatures of them) rather than doing the work of a solid point-by-point refutation. That\u2019s why anyone can see me (as I so often do) replying to you line-by-line, while you do little of that back.<\/p>\n
Although it appears to me you tend to vacillate between \u201cmore plausible\u201d and \u201cany logical possibility\u201d and I am never quite sure (from your writing) where you land at any particular moment.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
More proof that you only dimly comprehend what my positions are in the first place (especially epistemological ones).<\/p>\n
For the lurkers, let me explain. (Dave Armstrong and I discussed this at some length here )<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The problem in the inerrancy debate is NOT whether there is a resolution to the contradictions\u2014the problem is that the inerrantist uses a lesser standard of proof than the non-inerrantist. The inerrantist uses \u201cany logical possibility\u201d\u2014where it is claimed as long as any logical possibility is presented, there is no contradiction. Therefore we come up with such claims as Peter denying Jesus 50 times, but each gospel only decided to record three different instances. (I am being a bit hyperbolic here. A bit.) Or that there is \u201cGalilean time\u201d measured sun-up to sun-up. (Now I\u2019m not being hyperbolic.) Or that Judas hanged himself, and the rope broke and he fell on some rocks. (I should note for the lurkers, Dave Armstrong does consider this a contradiction. Or did at one point.)<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
I don\u2019t recall that past discussion of ours. I would have to look at it and see what occurred. But I would caution readers to not place much trust in any of your reports about my positions.<\/p>\n
We come up these crazy solutions\u2026yet they all are \u201clogically possible.\u201d I agree under the \u201cany logically possible\u201d standard of proof, the Bible is inerrant. So is every Yellow pages, grocery list\u2014and billions and billions of other documents. Including the Qur\u2019an, the Book of Mormon, Hallmark Cards, Instruction manuals. Even things we know have errors end up being non-contradictory under this standard.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
And I ask again: have you ever concluded that any of these \u201clogically possible\u201d scenarios offered by Christians for your alleged contradictions were the superior and more plausible arguments: even once? If so, please show me the post. If not, you again confirm my opinion about your profoundly hostile presuppositions, making you impervious to evidence and reason alike (from a Christian perspective).<\/p>\n
I prefer the standard we use on every other claim\u2014if it is more plausible there is a contradiction\u2013there is a contradiction. If it is more plausible there is a resolution, then there is a resolution.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Contradictions are what they are, and they are obvious. What I think I have shown in cases of your alleged contradictions (when we have debated this in the past), is that the category is wrong in the first place: the supposed contradictions simply are not that, by the rules of classical logic (or due to some linguistic or literary consideration that you neglected in your analysis).<\/p>\n
If you review the link above, Dave Armstrong agrees with this, although that gets a bit gray toward the end of the comments.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
I\u2019d have to look at it again.<\/p>\n
So here is why this \u201cblog request\u201d is so humorous to me.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
That\u2019s a very clever evasion of the challenge. The humor is in the evasion and unwillingness to directly reply to my questions. But it is very illuminating, and I thank you for the strong confirmation of what I am saying.<\/p>\n
If I think the Christian position of a resolution is \u201cmore plausible\u201d\u2013then I don\u2019t list it as a contradiction! Therefore I am never going to list such a contradiction. If I DO list a contradiction and some inerrantist debates me on it, they aren\u2019t using the \u201cmore plausible\u201d standard they are using the \u201cany logical possibility\u201d standard.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
I was asking specifically whether you ever set out on a study of some particular perceived biblical \u201cproblem\u201d and wound up concluding that the Christian opposing views were the superior reasoning and conclusions. If there is a paper, please direct myself and all here to it. Thanks.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s real simple. Just say \u201cno, there is no such event or paper chronicling it,\u201d or say yes and give us the URL. Do one of those rather than the dancing around the issue.<\/p>\n
Again, I agree under \u201cany logical possibility\u201d there are no contradictions. (Not very credible, and not very special, but no contradictions.) So I will never have a blog entry where a Christian position is \u201cmore plausible,\u201d because they aren\u2019t using this standard, and I am!<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
See my above comments.<\/p>\n
For an analogy, its like my stating Dave Armstrong is not objective when it comes to Scientology\u2019s claims regarding volcanoes, and if he DOES think he is so objective, show us a blog entry where he set out to show Scientology\u2019s claim regarding volcanoes is not true, but he became convinced it was.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Dave Armstrong could rightly claim (I think, unless you did??) \u201cI\u2019ve never HAD a blog entry addressing Scientology\u2019s claim on volcanoes, so I can\u2019t produce what doesn\u2019t exist!\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In the same way, I have never had a blog entry where the Christian inerrantist approached it with the \u201cmore plausible\u201d standard of proof, so I cannot produce a blog entry where they convinced me of something they weren\u2019t trying to convince me of!<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/05\/Skeptic.jpg\")
<\/p>\n