Sister Maria,

Likewise, thank you for the pleasant conversation.

I was raised in a protestant home; it would seem you and I criss-crossed paths. My upbringing is demonstrative of the position I am taking here—that these claims of “We can’t convince you because you don’t believe in miracles” are unfounded.

We Protestants were unimpressed and unconvinced by Catholic claims of miracles. (I am sure this is no surprise to you.) Understand—we shared the same belief in God. We both hold to the trinity, to Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, to Sacred writings, to salvation, hell, heaven. We both certainly believed miracles occurred both past and present. On Sunday we would thank God for curing some person in a hospital, or miraculously finding employment for another, or some other event. But if a Catholic claim for a miracle was presented, we would review it with skeptical precision, often dismissing it as “not supported by the evidence.” Specifically Marian appearances were not considered miracles.

Here was a situation where we had a theist (the protestant) who absolutely believed in miracles, yet was not persuaded by the evidence presented by the Catholics. It was NOT that the Protestant didn’t believe in miracles, so the Catholic didn’t stand a chance; it was the Protestant not being convinced by the evidence presented.

Certainly there was an anti-Catholic bias present…but notice what you did in your comment. You did the correct thing—gave evidence you felt could be convincing upon investigation. You didn’t whine. You didn’t complain, “Oh, DagoodS…I’ll list some information but you will never believe it because you don’t believe in miracles.”

Nope. And I appreciate what you did—bring forth the evidence! If it isn’t convincing, so be it. It will not be the first (nor the last) claim made that some other person didn’t believe.

What I tire of is the presentation of evidence and when I remain unpersuaded, my lack of belief is dismissed as “that’s because you don’t believe in miracles.” Thomas believed in miracles; he wasn’t convinced. Protestants believe in miracles; they are not convinced. It isn’t the belief/non-belief in miracles—the evidence presented is not compelling to that person.

Thank you for NOT doing that.

If you don’t mind, I would love to address some of the points you raised. Not in a “let’s put on boxing gloves and bash at each other,” but rather because I love these discussions. I cannot learn to be quiet about it.

1. New Testament Writings in circulation around the time of the events.

Well…that is not clear. A few points to consider:

1. When were they written? Take Mark, the first gospel. It could have been written as early as 30 CE, but if Jesus was referring to the Bar Kokhba rebellion, it was written after 135 CE. A broad range, the latter part which would be more than 100 years after the events. I generally place it around 65 CE, but we should note that date is not set in stone.

Paul’s letters were written in the 50’s, yet they contain few “events” to be confirmed. No Jesus miracles, no sermons, no parables, no locations. Even the 1 Cor. 15:3-8 creed contains bare information that is contradictory to the Gospel accounts.

2. Who was reading them? The culture maintained an in-group/out-group mentality where information was shared within members of the same group, but denied to outsiders. Were the gospel stories even being read by non-Christians? Think of Paul—did he know the Gospel accounts prior to becoming saved? If he did, then (again) the evidence was unconvincing to a person who had more access to the historical nature of the claim. If he did not, this is demonstrative the claims were NOT being shared with outsiders, such as Paul.

3. Even if an outsider DID read them, would they bother to debunk them? How many people were debunking Heaven’s Gate before the suicide? Or take a major religion—like Islam. How many people have even read the Qur’an, let alone worked at debunking it? See, as humans, if our belief precludes another, we often do not spend time or energy debunking it, because we already presume it to be false. Christians don’t bother debunking Islam, because their Christianity inherently already precludes Islam. Protestants don’t debunk Catholicism because their Protestantism inherently already precludes Catholicism. (I’m talking in generalizations, of course. There are some apologists.)

In the same way, Jewish leaders wouldn’t have bothered debunking Christianity—their beliefs they already felt were true necessarily made Christianity false. (Not to mention they had their own hands full with other Jewish beliefs between the Sadducees, Pharisees, Herodians, Samaritans, Essenes, Nazarenes, Qumran Society, and Galileans, not to mention the pesky Romans and their polytheism! Some sect claiming the Messiah came, but died? Meh…why bother?)

4. Life expectancy was much shorter than. 35 was the average age (although this includes infant mortality). Still, a person living to 65 was above average—not normal. Not to mention the Jewish War that caused so many deaths. If these stories promulgated in the later third of the First Century, there would be very few around who could confirm or deny the claims.

2. No one attempted to clear up the accounts.

Hmmm…Matthew certainly attempted to clear up Mark. Including Aramaic expressions, difficulties in geography, etc. Luke attempted to clear up Matthew, with both the birth narrative and the Resurrection account. John 21 attempted to rehabilitate Peter. How Matthew corrects Herod back to a tetrarch rather than Mark’s incorrect titling him a “King.” But Matthew leaves Herod sorrowful at John the Baptist’s death, (Mt. 14:9) even though Matthew had Herod disliking John the Baptist, (Mt. 14:5) demonstrating fatigue in copying Mark. (See Mark 6:20-26 where it makes sense for Herod to be sorrowful.)

In fact, part of how we come to recognize the Synoptic Problem IS their various attempts to “clean up” the other’s accounts.

3. Willingly die for a lie

Ah…perhaps my favorite topic. The problem is that our evidence is extremely late as to how the apostles died, and demonstrates myth. James, the brother of Jesus is killed for political ambition, not for his beliefs. Yet once the story is passed through the Second Apocalypse of James and then Hegesippus, it becomes the myth surrounding his death.

Or take Peter. Our earliest account surrounding his death is from “Acts of Peter” (150 – 200 CE). Which states he was killed because he was convincing wives and concubines to stop having sex with their husbands. Unfortunately for Peter, the husbands had enough political clout to have Peter killed. Nothing to do with Peter willing to die for what he claimed he saw.

The closest we have is James, the son of Zebedee, and yet Luke spends only a clause on his death, as an introduction to a story on Peter. Curiously, 1 Clement has no knowledge of James or James or any other apostle’s death, other than Peter and Paul, and even THAT author doesn’t claim Peter died by crucifixion or Paul by beheading.

The sources are not very supportive for the argument of “not willing to die for a lie.”

As to the miracle claims, I look forward to investigating these a little later when time allows.

Again, thank you for the conversation.

I was raised and confirmed Catholic, became Born Again, later, spoke in tongues, was baptized in the Holy Spirit, then read Reformed Apologetics, as well as moderate Evangelical & Anglican works, and eventually left the fold after years of letter debates and after reading and discussing different theological and comparative religion books with some intelligent friends (two of whom had left the fold years before I did). I remain mostly agnostic, but hope there’s an afterlife.

Eight Books Every Christian Should Read
http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2010/09/seven-books-every-christian-should-read.html

Phil Stilwell: You can read about my deconversion by googling “reason for my deconversion”.

Thanks for the reference. If your account has some glaring misunderstandings of Christian positions, leading to the rejection of straw men rather than the actual thing (which is true of every deconversion story I have yet read), I may critique it myself. I was planning to do some of that in the near future.

I do honestly appreciate the fact that some former Christians are willing to articulately lay out the reasons for their apostasy, thus making it possible for an apologist to objectively examine same and offer a counterpoint, and provide another side of the story.

Dave Armstong,

I am sorry you feel as if you were “not allowed to” speak during our study. Unfortunately, that is going to happen in such a group.

Look, we have a wide continuum of persons there. Some people have spent decades studying the Gospels; others have never read them. Not once. It makes little sense (to me) to jump into a debate regarding…say…the existence of Joseph of Arimathea when some people have never heard of him, let alone how he fits in the story. A couple have degrees in history; one fellow is a post-modern historical skeptic. Some people never say a word; others would gladly consume the entire time with their input.

Some learn orally; some visually. Some like white board; some hate it. Some come to learn a bit; some a lot.

I understand much of what I discussed you already knew. I am sure that was boring. (I DID try to add some elements to engage those who were more knowledgeable.) I am sure you would rather have more back-and-forth discussion. Me, too.

But the meeting wasn’t just you and I. It consisted of numerous other people whose needs, wants and desires I have to address…just like yours. The easiest way I could divine to reasonably portray the Christian position was to role-play a Christian apologist, presenting what I think (both as a Christian and atheist) is the best argument for the Resurrection. In the presentation, I allowed comments, but if I didn’t rein it in, we could have tangented off into numerous rabbit trails for hours.

I confess–I was not expecting us to discuss post-modern historical method, or Roman time schemes. Yet those were the comments raised, by people who thought it important, and I addressed them best as I could, and then kept going. Believe it or not, they complained too. Again, if it was just them and me, I would be happy to have more back-and-forth discussion. But then other people would be bored.

Other people said they enjoyed it. *shrug* What can one do?

So I hoped to please some of the people some of the time. You didn’t like the format…O.K. That’s certainly your privilege. You wanted more back-and-forth…again your privilege. And you certainly have the right to publish a blog indicating your thoughts on the matter.

As you say, that is why we have blogs.

And in reviewing your blog entry on the topic (as referred to here), you didn’t raise MORE evidence I missed. You didn’t indicate I presented the evidence incorrectly. You didn’t deal with the evidence regarding the resurrection at all. The only thing you complained about was the predisposition of non-believers.

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. As 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.

Sure I am biased. Always admitted it. So is every human…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—it is what causes us to change!

You didn’t 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.

Not to mention we have the additional problem that the evidence—in fact BETTER evidence—was not convincing to those already pre-disposed to believing it, i.e. Doubting Thomas.

Could it be “A” factor? Sure. So could being raised in a Christian home, being left-handed or having a tragedy in one’s life. Rather than deal with the peripherals, I prefer to deal with the hard stuff first. I prefer to deal with the evidence.

If, as you say, the the evidence is sufficient then I say, leave it at that. Good evidence overcomes even the most hostile opponent, regardless their presupposition. It does every day.

Sister Maria,

I apologize for misspelling your name. Don’t know where that came from.

This is the text from a post on my site. It deserves to be here, since it’s aimed at DagoodS’s need for evidence.

Post begins:

My friend, Dave Armstrong, whose Catholic apologetic books we sell at Nineveh’s Crossing, maintains a very active apologetic blog at Biblical Evidence for Catholicism. The link you just passed, connects to Dave’s report of an interesting ocassion when he was the guest of 15 atheists who tried to poke holes in his Catholic thinking. I guess it was a friendly dialogue, and not a typical angry debate as such occasions seem often to be.

The center of their discussion was whether or not miracles have occurred in the past or can occur. In particular they were discussing the Resurrection of Christ. This particular group, and one person in particular (DagoodS) found it difficult to discuss the plausibility of miracles because the group defined a miracle as an event that defied or broke the laws of nature. Dave pointed out that unless the group could get off it’s “no miracles allowed” mind-set, there was no chance to have an intellectual discussion regarding the possibility of miracles. That is, the firm bias of “miracles are impossible” prevents any intellectual investigation into the possibility of the same. It’s like saying, “I choose not to believe in it, therefore it doesn’t exist.” My anti-Catholic children will say to me, “That’s not what I believe” … as if their ability to believe or not was the criteria for reality.

The Atheists’ Beef with Miracles

DagoodS put his “beef” this way. I’m editing to pull together his salient comments:

As to naturalistic presupposition [regarding miracles]…I agree that is a difficulty for the [Christian] apologist to [objectively] discuss 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, [the Christian would look] for a supernatural explanation.

Many apologists…appear to claim the evidence (for the Resurrection) is sufficient to … convince a naturalist. 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.

If I can interpret and expand for DagoodS (he can correct me):

Producing evidence in favor of miracles is not sufficient because the atheist will have legitimate concerns about the evidence.

Of course this is short hand, but is it the whole argument? Because it sounds like DagoodS is shutting the door before there’s even a knock on it. It sounds like this:

Any evidence presented in favor of miracles would be illegitimate because the evidence is flawed…and we don’t even have to test the evidence to know it’s flawed.

Such is the character of prejudice and fallacious argumentation. The fallacy has two names in material logic: (1) Ignoring the counter evidence, and (2) Denying the counter evidence. Under the color of logic the atheist claims “I don’t see it, therefore it must not exist.”

Ah, there is the rub…and the solution.

Miracles and the Laws of Nature
The problem atheists have with miracles should be the same problem Christians have with miracles. The common definition is fallacious: An event that breaks one or more laws of nature. Such a definition, if not pure arrogance, is a fallacious assumption. What follows in an explanation.

Let’s start with one of Dave’s favorite priests, Fr. John Hardon. In his Modern Catholic Dictionary (Eternal Life Publishing, 1999) he has this definition:

MIRACLE. A sensibly perceptible effect, surpassing at least the powers of visible nature, produced by God to witness to some truth or testify to someone’s sanctity.

I don’t expect atheists or skeptics to accept Fr. Hardon’s definition. I provide it here for Catholics to help them see the fallacious nature of their definition. To understand why the common miracle definition is wrong, let’s parse Fr. Hardon’s definition. Note he says, a miracle is:

* Something that is “sensibly perceived.” That is, a miracle is not a vision or a dream that one or only a few see. A miracle is something that is commonly witnessed by everyone present at the time.
* Is an “effect” – that means it is physical, not an “affect” which refers to the psychological state of a person.
* The event or effect surpasses our understanding of the powers of visible nature. That is the miracle APPEARS VISIBLY to contradict the laws of nature.
* It is produced by God (not mankind)
* It has a higher moral purpose. It’s not just eye-candy or entertainment.

The important concept in Fr. Hardon’s definition that applies to the current issue, is that the miracle visually appears to break the laws of nature.

Knowledge

As physicist (in part) and a Christian (hopefully, not in part) I have never believed that miracles need to break a natural law. The concept of “breaking a natural law) is that a contradiction has occurred. Natural Laws, however, are understood to be immutable and not exist in contradiction with one another — something cannot be both TRUE and FALSE. Science would look at an apparent contradiction in nature and call it a paradox. That is, we just don’t have all the knowledge about what is happening. Until we have most of the data we might call the event a phenomenon…and theologians and people of faith might call the phenomenon a miracle. I submit, therefore, that miracles, which happen in the natural world, are paradoxes, not contradictions. (BTW: The term contradiction is used in logic, for propositional statements that, to our thinking, are both true and false at the same time. )

In other words, when we “SEE” a contradiction we are mistaken, it is a paradox. The laws of nature cannot be broken, but they can be misunderstood.

Worlds in Collision

My thinking about miracles was informed by Worlds in Collision, a controversial book by Immanuel Velikovsky, in part, about the Plagues of Egypt (Moses). Velikovsky hypotheses that the miracles of the plagues were actually the natural result of Earth’s collision with the tail of a comet. He explains them all as paradoxes. That does not make them less miraculous.

Another example is the fictional (but logical) account of the protagonist in “A Yankee in King Arthur’s Court” who knows a solar eclipse is about to occur and uses it to his advantage. But such an event seems like a miracle or magic to the less knowledgeable characters around him.

Then there are the scientific and mathematical discovers of physical dimensions beyond the three physical dimensions (length, height, and depth) and the thing we call the dimension of time, although we can only perceive a dot along the time line, and not a full linear dimension as we do a ruled line on a piece of paper. We cannot directly perceive a 4th-dimension of space, but quantum physics tell us it must exists for certain scientific observations to be true. Take for instance the spectrum’s red-shift observations of deep space objects that indicate the objects are moving away from us a tremendous speed. That movement is not in the three dimensions of space as we perceive it, but is on the surface of a 4th-dimension that is ever expanding. We see the effect but we can’t see the dimension.

The existence of this 4th-dimension easily explains how Christ can seemingly appear to walk through a wall in the Upper Room, or how the Apostles and Christ can be appear to be transported instantly from one place to another. Or how the Red Sea is apparently parted. In all of these instances the laws of the natural universe are not broken, but rather we are allowed to physically experience what is always there. It’s as if I go from bright sunlight into a dark room. For a while I can see nothing, until my eyes adjust, and then I see everything that has always been there. It’s not a miracle. Things do not suddenly appear out of nothing.

All such “miracles” do violate our current understanding of Newtonian three-dimensions of space and time, but they obviously don’t need to violate the laws of the universe when completely understood.

Monkeys and Witchcraft

This throws a monkey wrench into the atheist’s arguments about needing “legitimate” evidence to “unanswered questions.” In effect the atheist is demanding omniscience of the universe of knowledge. He is claiming to be, ironically, God. They are either claiming to know all or are expecting God to give them all knowledge. But that is something he/she will never have (unless they are “lucky” enough to get to heaven). Arrogance that they are important enough to have such knowledge cuts them off from God, who demands that we trust him for what our minds are too small to understand. “Now we see through a glass darkly.” Their illogical demand to be “god-like” in terms of knowledge (either now or at sometime in the future) cuts them off from the revelations that only faith and inform them about.

Did you see the “typo?” It wasn’t. That last “and” was to be a “can”. (See what mistakes and knowledge can impart?) Something does not make sense (like my last sentence) until new data is provided (it’s a “can”) suddenly makes sense. All human history is filled with such examples, especially in the history of science. What mankind thought was witchcraft of the 18th century is today “modern medicine” or “medical miracles.”

Thus, the atheist, by his claim of of omniscience (there IS no God), and by his demand, “I need to know all to believe,” errors on two fronts. If he’s honest, he “knows” he is not perfect, and that he is fully capable of making a typo.

Science Assumes Order

This leads “naturally” to the role of Christian Faith, without which few scientific discoveries would have been possible. Faith is irrevocably tied to scientific discovery because science assumes there is a natural order, to be discovered. The universe is not random or chaotic. That order fulfills a mystical purpose, is the scientists assumption. That supposition allows science to use syllogisms to construct hypotheses, and then use logic to test them. The correct syllogisms lead to constructive universe, not a destructive one. Without faith in a higher entity that designed and maintains the order, there is no purpose of the universe, and thus no order.

Atheists are Logical Cowards

But we are sidetracked by all this talk of the need for evidence. What is really going on is this: Atheists hide behind the color of logic and evidence for fear of confronting the moral code of a just and gracious God. Atheism is a cowardly way to avoid natural law — the natural moral code — of the Creator. It’s really not about evidence. Thus, the atheist isn’t saying, “There are no miracles.” or “There is no god,” as if he was omniscient on that point. But he can say, and he has full right to it: “There is no God — I will obey.” Ah! Now that’s evidence that makes logical sense.

I neglected to italicize three paragraphs from DagoodS near the end. They start with:

“You didn’t change . . .”

“Not to mention . . . ”

“Could it be ‘A’ . . .

Also, a further comment:

Rather than deal with the peripherals, I prefer to deal with the hard stuff first. I prefer to deal with the evidence.

What you overlook is that you already have to have an interpretive grid or 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.

I would recommend that you read a critic of positivism such as Michael Polanyi or even Cardinal Newman’s Essay of the Grammar of Assent.

This 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’s pure skepticism. You disrespect it as your presupposition and therefore you keep “finding” out information that causes you to hate it all the more.

Don’t 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 “study.”

If I’m 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 it wasn’t, 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’s just one instance. Several such instances would show me that you were truly open-minded and didn’t have an “anti-Bible” agenda. But if you never conclude other than what we expect from you (biblical contradiction) then don’t expect us to stop questioning your hostile premises and a hostile overall agenda. It’s perfectly reasonable and plausible for us to conclude what we do, from the “evidence” of your relentlessly skeptical conclusions.

You 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 ludicrosities, etc.

Once again, I don’t 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 evidence- and reason-fearing, gullible Christians.

It’s part of the atheist persona and self-perception: “we are the open-minded, smart ones. We go where evidence leads; those Christians don’t do that; they are dogmatic, anti-science, anti-reason, and prone to belief in fairy tales and myths.”

For this reason I wrote an entire book lately, showing the overwhelming historical influence of Christianity and a larger theism on the history of science:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/10/books-by-dave-armstrong-science-and.html

I’ll send a MS Word version to any atheist who requests it, for free. 🙂

How can Christianity be true without history? That would take out the incarnation and Jesus’ Resurrection and the book of Acts.

Stanley D. Williams, Ph.D.

To be fair, there is quite a bit of misunderstanding in this depiction of the talk and my position. Comes from only discussing a very, very small portion of what went on. Thank you for requesting on opportunity to clarify.

Actually we were not discussing miracles—we were discussing the Resurrection from a purely historical position. I was utilizing the minimal facts method; if you are familiar with it, it utilizes historical rather than theological approach. It claims our documents are sufficient, if treated like any other historical documents, to prove Jesus rose from the dead. How, and why are up to a person’s worldview.

In fact, I repeatedly stated, “You will notice there is nothing supernatural about this claim,” or “This statement does not require supernatural intervention.”

We didn’t define miracles. We didn’t discuss the plausibility of miracles in general.

Secondly, I am not saying the evidence is “flawed.” (What a curious statement to make! How can evidence be “flawed”? Evidence is simply…evidence. A document written within a certain time period, with certain words on it. We may argue over when it was written, whether it was copied from an original, etc… but I think we agree the Codex Bezae is…the Codex Bezae.)

I am questioning whether the evidence is sufficient. Perhaps it would help for me to repeat what I said immediately before Dave Armstrong made his statement about how it doesn’t matter because no evidence will convince a non-theist:

“The farther a claim is outside our common, everyday experience, the more, and better and more independent we require the evidence to support the claim. Imagine I made three claims:

“Claim One: I had lunch with my brother.
“Claim Two: I had lunch with the President of the United States.
“Claim Three: I had lunch with Elvis Pressley.

“Now, for the first Claim we would accept my statement. Why? Because it is well within our normal experience for brothers to have lunch. Absent extenuating circumstances, my testimony is sufficient.

“But look at the second claim—eating with the President. Here one’s testimony is not enough. As humans, even though we know people eat with the President ever day, we would expect a little more. Not just testimony. Perhaps a ticket to a press dinner, or an article showing he was in town for a fund-raiser. While testimony is insufficient, a little more independent demonstration would be enough.

“But now look at the third claim—Elvis Pressley. This is way, WAY outside our common experience. Testimony is not enough. A lunch tab would not be enough. Even a picture with me and a person of appropriate age and resemblance to Elvis Pressley would not be enough. We would expect some very strong, very independent evidence to support this claim. Perhaps even DNA!

“Now notice that NONE of these claims are supernatural—all are natural claims. (Although the third would have a bit of conspiracy theory attached to it.) Yet even within natural claims, the more the claim is outside our experience, the more, the better the more independent we require supporting the claim.

“This is no big deal, we see it happen in court cases day in and day out.

“Christians, using this method, are asking us to believe a claim that is even farther outside our normal experience—that a body self-regenerated back to life after being dead for a number of days with no ill effects. This is greater than Claim Three…yet they request us to believe it on evidence less than we have for Claim One. We don’t even have first-hand testimony.”

At this point Dave Armstrong indicated it doesn’t really matter, because non-theists wouldn’t believe it regardless of the amount of evidence, because we are predisposed against theism. And now we’ve been discussing it ever since in these blog entries.

Hope that clears it up.

DagoodS stated:

At this point Dave Armstrong indicated it doesn’t really matter, because non-theists wouldn’t believe it regardless of the amount of evidence, because we are predisposed against theism.

This is again somewhat of a caricature of what actually happened, and my own position. One tires of this. DagoodS can — like anyone else — 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):

“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), ‘you don’t believe that any miracles 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 great miracle, when in fact you don’t believe in any miracles whatsoever.'”

Note the limited point that I was making. I wasn’t denying the validity of evidence at all; 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’t make some idiotic observation that evidence “doesn’t really matter” (even for an atheist or otherwise skeptical person). I was specifically commenting on his particular point about it being “more difficult to believe an extraordinary miracle or event than to believe in one that is more commonplace.”

DagoodS 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 already rejected before he even starts the inquiry. In other words, if one can’t even be convinced of the most minor miracle, then why would anyone think he could be convinced of a truly extraordinary miracle?

Therefore (I reasoned) it is (from DagoodS’ own perspective) a non sequitur to 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.

That requires a discussion of whether any miracles 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’s existence.

[continuing]

The scientists and geologists didn’t whine and complain, “Aww…we can’t convince you because you believe differently.” Nope—they rolled up their sleeves and went to work. They presented for more evidence. They searched for evidence that would confirm their theory.

Is there a common theme starting to appear?

Yes; that you and I are perfectly agreed that evidence is a good thing. Since I never denied this, it is a perfect non sequitur insofar 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 any adoption or rejection of anything. 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.

Another 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 dong 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?

I don’t 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 “evidence,” then you would have already done so after reading the folks you have read. But you haven’t, and gee, I wonder why that is? Could it possibly have a wee bit to do with what I am saying?

Yes, I do tend to focus on discussions surrounding the evidence.

Really??!! Man, I wouldn’t have noticed that! 🙂

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’s motivations, or claim they only want to believe this way because they have some vested interest, or want to become a drug-using pimp.

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’s 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 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.

Finally, I love this bit about my showing a blog entry on a contradiction where a Christian argument was “more plausible.” You know I cannot present such a blog entry, because no inerrantist ever, EVER uses the “more plausible” standard of proof. I’ve only encountered one such person who did—you.

Well, that shows the narrowness of your experience with Christians, doesn’t 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, “Bible contradiction” conclusion, 100% of the time. Thank you for this wonderful confirmation of my suspicion of your profound biases. I couldn’t have asked for more!

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’s why anyone can see me (as I so often do) replying to you line-by-line, while you do little of that back.

Although it appears to me you tend to vacillate between “more plausible” and “any logical possibility” and I am never quite sure (from your writing) where you land at any particular moment.

More proof that you only dimly comprehend what my positions are in the first place (especially epistemological ones).

For the lurkers, let me explain. (Dave Armstrong and I discussed this at some length here )

The problem in the inerrancy debate is NOT whether there is a resolution to the contradictions—the problem is that the inerrantist uses a lesser standard of proof than the non-inerrantist. The inerrantist uses “any logical possibility”—where 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 “Galilean time” measured sun-up to sun-up. (Now I’m 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.)

I don’t 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.

We come up these crazy solutions…yet they all are “logically possible.” I agree under the “any logically possible” standard of proof, the Bible is inerrant. So is every Yellow pages, grocery list—and billions and billions of other documents. Including the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, Hallmark Cards, Instruction manuals. Even things we know have errors end up being non-contradictory under this standard.

And I ask again: have you ever concluded that any of these “logically possible” 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).

I prefer the standard we use on every other claim—if it is more plausible there is a contradiction–there is a contradiction. If it is more plausible there is a resolution, then there is a resolution.

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).

If you review the link above, Dave Armstrong agrees with this, although that gets a bit gray toward the end of the comments.

I’d have to look back at it.

So here is why this “blog request” is so humorous to me.

That’s 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.

If I think the Christian position of a resolution is “more plausible”–then I don’t 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’t using the “more plausible” standard they are using the “any logical possibility” standard.

I was asking specifically whether you ever set out on a study of some particular perceived biblical “problem” 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.

It’s real simple. Just say “no, there is no such event or paper chronicling it,” or say yes and give us the URL. Do one of those rather than the dancing around the issue.

Again, I agree under “any logical possibility” 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 “more plausible,” because they aren’t using this standard, and I am!

See my above comments.

For an analogy, its like my stating Dave Armstrong is not objective when it comes to Scientology’s claims regarding volcanoes, and if he DOES think he is so objective, show us a blog entry where he set out to show Scientology’s claim regarding volcanoes is not true, but he became convinced it was.

Now…if you are saying I became convinced other Christian claims were more plausible…I have a plethora of such items.

Great, then give me the URLs. I was asking specifically about issues of purported contradiction in the texts.

I learn (so I guess it is “more plausible”) to the gospels being apocryphal. It is Christian scholars who claim that. I agree with Christian Richard Bauckham that Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew, and John the son of Zebedee did not write the Gospel of John. Although at one time, I thought that to be true.

Not relevant to my question.

I agree with Christian Bruce Malina that this was a honor/shame society, and many of these events arose out of “altered states of conscience.” I agree with Christian Dan Wallace that Matthew and Luke utilized Mark in writing their gospels.

Again, off-topic (in terms of what I asked).

I could go on for hours.

I guess I will have to do the same if you keep evading direct questions and misunderstanding my positions and arguments. But it is fun overall and I am quite pleased with what has been made fairly apparent in the dialogue.

…and all I want to do is discuss the evidence surrounding the claim of Jesus’ Resurrection…

Alas, it seems we must engage in personality assessments, instead.

Stanley D. Williams, Ph.D.: First, you haven’t honestly investigated and openly considered the evidence. You reject the evidence out of a dishonest logic, because if you were to publicly acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of the Resurrection you would have to acknowledge the need to obey God will instead of your own.
.
Since you seem to be more familiar with me than…well…I am…perhaps you can help me out.

Humans are very good at rationalizing our actions. We can also be very bad at determining our own motivations. I recognize the combination may cause me to cloud my perception as to why I deconverted.

So here is what I am looking for: What method do you propose I could utilize to objectively determine why I deconverted? It obviously can’t be something where I am the determinate (such as “Look within yourself” or “read this article and what do you think”) for the reasons I cited above—I could be rationalizing my own motivation.

Was it for intellectual reasons? Was it because I was angry at God? Was it for moral reasons? Was it because I thought it would be cool? Was it to get the atheist discount card?

Understand, I am NOT looking for the reasons you think I deconverted. (Because you have the same rationalization problem as a human as I do. And you have significant lack of data, by not knowing me either as a Christian or now.)

I am looking for a method to apply where I can step back, and as objectively as possible determine what motivated me to deconvert.

I will tell you I came up with a method and employed it. But I don’t want to tell you what it is, yet, to prevent tainting your own suggestion.

Let me make sure I understand your position. Is the historical evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection sufficient to convince a non-theist that Jesus came back to life after being dead for more than one day?

And let me restate my position that I have stated several times now:

The historical evidence is sufficient in and of itself to convince a fair-minded inquirer. But it will usually not convince the non-theist because:

1) he doesn’t believe in God;

2) God is required for miracles to occur;

3) most atheists and agnostics deny the possibility of any miracles (because of #1 and #2), therefore are predisposed against the resurrection;

4) he may not desire it to be true, for several reasons (hostile will);

5) he lacks faith, given by God;

6 he lacks the grace to believe, given by God.

This is the usual case; but there can always be exceptions. Every former atheist who later becomes a Christian overcomes all these odds.

Typos corrected!! Plus a few more additions.

What method do you propose I could utilize to objectively determine why I deconverted?

To dialogue with Christians who understand the Bible and Christianity far more than you did before and do now.

Was it for intellectual reasons? Was it because I was angry at God? Was it for moral reasons? Was it because I thought it would be cool? Was it to get the atheist discount card?

I concentrate on the first one. It is quite obvious to me that you greatly lacked skills in biblical hermeneutics and exegesis, simply from looking at the conclusions you came to. You could look at the Bible and not see that it condemned abortion. You didn’t get it that Christianity teaches the equality of men and women. So the problems were in place long ago, and they were primarily what caused you to deconvert, in my opinion, because you believed in a caricature of Christianity and so rejected the same caricature when you found it inadequate.

As Hosea 4:6 states (RSV): “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge;. . .”

Understand, I am NOT looking for the reasons you think I deconverted.

Sorry; already gave them . . . as usual, the atheist despises any analysis of his deconversion, because that is what he hangs his hat on. It’s scary to realize how flimsy the rationales are. They don’t wanna go there . . .

(Because you have the same rationalization problem as a human as I do. And you have significant lack of data, by not knowing me either as a Christian or now.)

I know this little tidbit of information that you offered: your atrocious exegesis of the Bible and inability to decipher its contents in areas like abortion. You yourself said such things caused you to start questioning biblical inspiration. It’s not even speculation on my part to note what you said about yourself. And so that is an objective way to analyze your defection: you say there is nothing about abortion; I say there are about 100 passages. You can try to explain all those away if you wish. I won’t hold my breath, given the way you are systematically ignoring dozens of questions and arguments in this combox thread.

I am looking for a method to apply where I can step back, and as objectively as possible determine what motivated me to deconvert.

I just gave you one. I’m sure you’re absolutely delighted that I have done so, right? 🙂

I will tell you I came up with a method and employed it. But I don’t want to tell you what it is, yet, to prevent tainting your own suggestion.

I’m not interested in games and ring-around-the-rosey, but serious analysis and comparison of the plausibility of opposing positions. The abortion-in-the-Bible discussion offers us one of many ways to do so.

How can you discuss miracles and presuppositions without adding that religious people have been the greatest debunkers of each others miracle stories?

JEWS QUESTIONED CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES AND MIRACLES.

PROTESTANTS QUESTIONED CATHOLIC MIRACLES.

DEISTS BELIEVED IN GOD, but QUESTIONED BIBLICAL MIRACLES.

Phil,

You asked: “If you were completely holy, would you want to extract blood from those who offended you?”

Answer: I have no idea exactly how God defines holy except that theologians define it as “being set apart for God’s purpose.” It seems you are assuming a definition that is different than what it may actually mean. Fallacy here is called an equivocation.

You asked: “Why would not holiness require complete forgiveness without bloodshed, especially when the holy being claims to love the offender?”

Answer: Justice and love are both derivatives of truth. Does the holy being love both equally? Does love mean being tolerant of evil? Not necessarily.

You asked: “What is the necessary connection between holiness and bloodshed?”

Answer: Holiness means to be set apart for God’s purpose, and that includes justice. Holiness is NOT defined by being tolerant of sin, evil, or forgiveness at any cost. TRUTH wins the day here, and sometimes what is true is not pretty.

You asked: “If you were a father who loved his child, and were at the same time perfectly holy, would you feel obligated to eternally torture your child upon his first offense?”

Answer: Fallacious question. It involves equivocation for the term “love” and “holy” and begs the question by assuming definitions for both that are not necessarily accurate. Also, God follows what is true. Truth sometimes demands judgment. Also, in the case of the son, you have avoided the reason for the judgment. You are not God that can determine what is the just punishment or reward for the child. The father’s feelings for the child, especially a human’s father’s feelings, are not equivalent to the justice or love God projects toward another. Read the book of Job where God questions Job’s demand for justice: ” Who are you to decide? Who are you to determine in God’s eyes what is right and just? Where were you when the Earth was formed, etc. ”

You asked: “How can damnation to eternal torment upon the very first offense of any offender be considered “long-suffering”?

Answer: Who is to say “the very first offense” deserves eternal torment? You make a grand assumption here; and maybe it’s an assumption by the Christianity you were exposed to. It’s inaccurate, maybe. The Catholic Church would rely instead on God’s grace and mercy, and say “We don’t know.” Indeed, committing suicide is considered a grave sin, but the Church refuses to say that a man who commits such offense will end up in eternal punishment. The Church doesn’t know, but it prays for God’s grace. Man does not know why the man did what he did, and indeed the definition of sin is not limited to the action alone. The disposition of heart, the motivation, the state of mind, all enter in. We don’t know. God is the only one that does. The definition of sin in historical Christianity (Catholicism) is not so simple as you suggest. And while the Church does proclaim that some are in heaven as saints, it refuses to say that any are in hell, although it’s pretty sure some are. The difference in our perspective may be the difference between some legalistic brands of Christianity and what the Catholic Church teaches. Catholicism, when understood, is consistent and without fallacy. I can’t say that for the dozen or so Protestant churches I was a part of for decades.

—– Your next paragraphs are hypothetical, involve the same fallacies and are answered by the above.—–

You asked: “Or do(es) your comment about accepting paradoxes on faith mean we should take a disposition towards the claims of the bible that is wholly unskeptical and requires illogic?

Answer: “I’m unsure what you are asking here. Healthy skepticism is good even for a Christian. The truth may be unknown to man. Catholicism teaches that many things are a mystery. We don’t know, and may not know this side of heaven what God has judged or how. The Church teaches that understanding what is true (if we can know it) requires both reason and faith. One without the other leads to falsehoods. (See John Paul II’s FAITH AND REASON).

You asked: “Why would this sort of “faith” be virtuous for me, yet not for Muslims?”

Answer: “I’m not sure what you mean by “this.” Christian faith is based on fact, both historic and personal experience and observation through the senses. That is one way in which FAITH is connected to REASON (observation through the senses is reason-based evidence). Where Muslims rely on fact to support their faith, I suppose that aspect of the faith, if the observation is truly understood, may be trustworthy. But faith in something that is not verifiable by extrapolation or interpolation of evidence is not a valid faith. Again, FAITH IS NOT BLIND. Here’s what I mean. Of the things we can verify with our senses, and through historical research, we determine that a great, great deal of what Christianity teaches us is true. (based on observable physical evidence, e.g. when I come out of the confessional after making a thorough and contrite confession, my blood pressure lowers, my spirits are raised, I have a positive perspective on life… everything changes for me in a physical, visceral, measurable way. I conclude that there’s something trustworthy abut confession. Where before I felt dread, now I feel hope and it sticks with me until I start to sin again. Is it psycholoigcal, a state of mind? You bet it is. Is it guilt I experience when I sin? You bet it is. And guilt is good because it keeps me obeying natural law. Such psychological experiences are every bit as real as the touch of my hand to hot or cold object. (Now this is one sliver of evidence that fits into large system of consistently logical teachings.) Therefore, we are disposed to believe other things the Church teaches. Where we find by reason, logic, history that things are not true, then our faith is undermined. For example, some Protestants claim that the Bible is and always was composed of 66 books. But simple historical research reveals that there were originally 73 books that were decided upon by multiple ecumenical councils in the 300s. And there still are 73 books (or something close to it in the case of Orthodoxy). Further research will reveal that the 66 books only began to appear in the early 1800s as the result of political pressure on publishers. No council. No ecumenical decision. So, I have faith that I can trust Catholicism in this regard (about the construction of the Bible), but my faith in Protestantism with regard to the Bible’s constructon is undermined because the facts don’t support the faith.

Rather than try to debate three people at once (Babinski has now made a million arguments for childkilling on my site), I’ll let Stan wrangle with Phil.