My friend UnkleE and I have been having a wide-ranging discussion on several topics related to Christianity that ultimately come down to epistemology, or how Christians know God’s will. The discussion began in my last post, which critiqued a doctrine common to more moderate circles within Christianity. UnkleE had more to say on the subject than could reasonably fit within a comment, so he decided to do his own post in response, which is worth reading. We conversed a bit within that comment thread, where I said:
The President of the US and his spokespeople now regularly say things that are factually untrue. Yet plenty of his supporters are content to ignore reputable sources and only listen to the sources that they want to agree with. Where do you go from there?
It seems to me that the view you have of Christianity is similar. Why does the New Testament speak so much about false teachers, if it’s perfectly fine to get your beliefs from private revelation? If Paul and Hymenaeus have a disagreement, perhaps Paul is the one who’s wrong? Or maybe both of them are right, simultaneously? How can one use scripture to “teach, reprove, and correct” in such a system?
In the end, isn’t such a religion just anarchy? How can there be such a thing as “truth” when each person’s version is just as good as someone else’s? At least as an atheist, I can point to my understanding of reality and the physical world to try to reach a consensus with others. And if they can provide data that invalidates some position I hold, then I can change. But if I took my own random thoughts and feelings as revelation from the supreme creator of the universe, how could I ever be convinced of anything else?
Once again, this opened a big topic that was better suited to a full post, rather than a comment, so UnkleE offered his response here. And as my reply to that post grew and grew, I realized that I needed to offer it as a post as well. What follows will reference and borrow quotes from UnkleE’s latest post.
What Is the Gospel?
Under a section called “Another Gospel?” UnkleE gave this introduction:
Nate references Galations 1:6-9, which warns of accepting another gospel. But what does Paul mean by “gospel” (or “good news”)?
He then listed out 5 main points that he views as central to what the gospel is:
- Jesus, the “son of God”, lived and taught about the kingdom of God.
- He died to deal with human sin (how that happens is very much up for debate!).
- Jesus was resurrected and so conquered death.
- We need to change our thinking, turn away from behaviours that displease God, and seek forgiveness.
- Our new way of life should include loving God, loving neighbour, and even loving our enemies.
But it seems to me that the New Testament spends time referring to false doctrines that are ancillary to those 5 points. The entire book of Galatians has Paul accusing the Galatians of turning their backs on the gospel and trying to follow the Law of Moses, when it really just sounds like they were trying to follow both:
Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
— Gal 5:2-6
To me, that sounds like something that we’d view as a matter of personal preference, today, certainly not something that would qualify as a “different gospel.” And look at 2 Cor 13:5-10:
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test. But we pray to God that you may not do wrong—not that we may appear to have met the test, but that you may do what is right, though we may seem to have failed. For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. For we are glad when we are weak and you are strong. Your restoration is what we pray for. For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.
We don’t know the specifics of what Paul is criticizing here, but if these individuals were still present in the congregation to see Paul’s letter, then it’s likely they still held to the basic principles that UnkleE outlined above. What else could they be lacking that would make them “fail the test”?
In 2 John 7, it was considered heresy to question whether or not Christ had actually come in the flesh (like docetism, I guess):
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.
To me, this seems kind of minor in many ways, though it was a huge deal back then. If someone still believed that Christ was the son of God and brought salvation in some way, should it have mattered if they didn’t fully understand how that happened? But 2 John shows that some early Christians had a huge problem with the doctrine.
2 Tim 2:16-19 talks about another form of false teaching:
But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”
To me, this also seems like a minor quibble that runs outside the principles UnkleE laid out as the core of Christianity. Again, exactly what people believe about how/when the resurrection works, or even exactly what the writer means by “resurrection” here seems minor if an individual still believes Christ is the avenue for salvation, etc. Incidentally, there’s an interesting discussion of this passage here.
And if God is unchanging, it’s hard to overlook some of the judgments he supposedly handed out in the Old Testament, like killing Nadab and Abihu for not getting their sacrificial fire in the right way. Killing Achan and his entire family when he didn’t follow the command about not looting Jericho. Honestly, there are tons of OT examples, and I won’t take up any more space with going through them. But they each show how particular God was in seemingly minor things. Now, I agree that most of the New Testament argues that such legalism is no longer necessary. But I think the passages I listed above show that it still isn’t just free rein, especially if God’s character is unchanging (Psalm 102:25-27; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).
The New Testament gives parameters about divorce and remarriage that are pretty strict. In Matthew 19:9, Jesus is speaking, and he says:
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.
That’s a rigorous standard that most Christians don’t really apply today, in that a large number of Christian marriages are actually adulterous, according to Jesus. Marriage and remarriage does not fall within the 5 precepts of the gospel that UnkleE laid out, but it still seems like it would be a big deal. After all, we’re told in 1 Cor 6:9-10 that adulterers can’t “inherit the kingdom of God.” What does that mean, exactly? I think it’s referring to salvation itself, and I think 1 Cor 5 bears that out. In that passage, Paul is telling the Corinthians to cast out the member among them who is sleeping with his father’s wife “so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.”
Apparently, this Christian was in danger of losing his salvation if he didn’t repent of his wrongdoing. And to go back to 1 Cor 6 for a minute, we see that far more than just adulterers would be in danger of the same fate:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
That’s quite a laundry list. Those sins might fall within the 4th and 5th points from UnkleE’s list, so does this include married couples who didn’t divorce their previous spouses for infidelity? For consistency’s sake, I would think that they would have to be included, yet very few churches make an issue of it.
In the end, I think when Paul uses terms like “the gospel,” he’s not always strictly speaking about the 5 basic points that UnkleE outlined. I think he’s also talking about any specific instructions that he (or other apostles) laid out in their epistles. Yes, passages like Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8-10 talk about issues that individual Christians may have differences of opinion over, but that’s because those were issues that no specific instruction had been given about. But today, there are so many issues, like divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, and women’s roles in the church that are considered minor by moderates today. And this is where the idea of authority comes into play. How do they justify their positions on these things?
Principles Not Rules
UnkleE goes on to argue that the New Testament focuses more on principles of how to live versus hard and fast rules. I do agree that it focuses more on principles than the Old Testament did, but I think the passages we’ve already looked at show that hard and fast rules still played a part.
UnkleE offers the following supporting points:
We serve God not according to a written set of rules, but guided by the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6, Romans 7:6). Note that he uses as his example in the latter case nothing less than one of the Ten Commandments!
But I don’t think these 2 passages really illustrate UnkleE’s point. He makes it sound as though Paul is saying that written sets of rules no longer apply, but that’s not at all what he’s saying. He’s specifically talking about the Old Law (the Mosaic Law) in those passages, and UnkleE and I already agree that Paul argues the Old Law (including the 10 Commandments) has served its purpose and is no longer binding to Christians. That doesn’t mean there’s no longer any kind of written law — what about all the teachings in the New Testament, including the gospel?!
We can legitimately hold different views on moral issues. Paul gives several examples, some of them significant issues in his day – the eating of meat that had been offered to pagan idols (1 Corinthians 10:23-30), and the keeping of rules about Sabbath days and “unclean” foods (Romans 14:1-23). But he says quite definitely (Romans 14:13): “Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.”
But as we saw above, these passages are dealing with issues about which there was no direction given in the New Testament. They were true matters of personal conscience. Paul does not give permission to make these same kinds of judgments on things like divorce and remarriage. And while Paul says that they shouldn’t judge one another about these kinds of things, 1 Cor 5 talks about how they’re supposed to judge the actions of fellow Christians.
UnkleE’s third supporting point is:
Therefore, Paul’s conclusion on even important matters of behaviour is that we are free to decide (1 Corinthians 10:23), we should leave the judgment to God (Romans 14:4) and it is not rules but faith that will decide, for whatever is not done in faith is wrong (Romans 14:23) and all should be done to God’s glory (1 Corinthians 10:31).
But again, all of the passages here come exclusively from 1 Cor 10 and Romans 14, which discuss issues that are merely matters of personal preference.
The Holy Spirit
This is really where my biggest concerns lie. UnkleE has this to say about it:
A key fact, which many christians as well as critics can forget, is that christians believe we have been “given” the Spirit of God. Again, I don’t pretend to fully understand how this works, but it is clearly taught in scripture. Each believer has the help of the Holy Spirit in following Jesus in our lives and – crucially for this discussion – in guiding us to truth.
The Spirit is God, which means he is above the Bible, not lesser!
This is exactly what I was trying to get at in my initial questions to UnkleE. If the guidance of the Holy Spirit can trump scripture, how can any position ever be tested? If a man is married, but strongly believes that God wants him to be with his next door neighbor, who’s to say he’s wrong? Sure, the Bible contradicts his feelings, but the Holy Spirit has authority over the Bible. Yes, common sense contradicts his desire, but “God’s ways are higher than man’s.”
UnkleE also says this:
This merits a longer discussion than I can give now (but will post on soon), but we are told that the Holy Spirit will guide us into truth (John 16:13), so we can even know God’s will for us (Romans 12:2). We see examples of the Spirit guiding the believers in Acts (e.g. Acts 11:1-18, 13:1-3, 16:6-10). But we do, I believe, need to ask (James 1:5, Matthew 7:7-8).
So far from being “random thoughts”, if we pray, and take the precautions that the Bible gives us, we can have faith that God guides us (not just me, but his whole church) through his Spirit into true understandings – not infallibly, but steadily over time.
But to me, such a system looks exactly like “random thoughts.” How could anyone tell the difference between his own thoughts and the Holy Spirit? How could Paul rail against false teachers and false gospels if guidance from the Holy Spirit carries more weight than scripture? If 1000 different Christians all believe God has given them personal revelations that happen to conflict, there’s no way to sort among them to separate the true revelation from all the false ones.
In effect, it seems to me that such a religion can end up saying everything, which basically means it says nothing.
One More Thing
I know this post is painfully long, but I wanted to add one more thing. In his closing, UnkleE makes this point:
I suggest we should always start with what the scriptures say and expert knowledge about what it means – what would this or that passage have said to the people of the day, what do the words actually mean and how do experts understand them? We must read more than one viewpoint.
Then we must pray, consider, wait if necessary, and see if we receive guidance, and see how the Spirit is working and leading the body of believers as a whole. Our own experience and thoughts (if we are allowing God to transform our thinking) will help us.
Isn’t this exactly what we, as atheists, do as well? I’m quite familiar with the Bible (more so than many believers that I know), and I try to pay attention to what Biblical scholars have to say. I consider more than one point of view. I don’t pray, but I used to. And I believe that I’m open to being wrong — I’m even open to guidance. And I would love for God to give me some kind of message, personally. Used to plead for it, in fact. What else is there for me to do?
Closing
Let me stress that I really appreciate UnkleE’s willingness to discuss these things with me. As he knows, I was raised within a very fundamentalist version of Christianity that believed in biblical inerrancy. UnkleE has a very different perspective, and it’s difficult for me to fully understand it. My arguments here are how I try to come to terms with his beliefs. If I’ve missed some obvious answer to some of my questions, it’s solely due to ignorance, not obstinacy.
Finding Truth 
Hi Nate,
”UnkleE, I think you know that I have a great deal of respect and genuine affection for you, but to be completely honest, I feel like your last two comments are trying to obscure the conversation, not clarify it.”
Thank you for the kind thought. You know that I feel the same towards you. I’m sorry you feel I’m obscuring the conversation, but I’m glad you said how you feel. It’s best I know, but it also gives me the opportunity to be equally frank.
I have considered this argument quite a bit, not just because you and I have discussed it before, but I’ve read John Schellenberg’s discussion of it. He is probably the main proponent of the “hiddenness” argument, but I believe his argument doesn’t work because it addresses a form of christianity I think is not what most thoughtful christians believe, and is certainly not what I believe. This is clear to me because he is a philosopher and he has presented his argument in clear propositions, like all good philosophers do.
Now I believe you are using a similar argument, with similar faults. I think it can be shown to be not addressing the God I believe in, but this isn’t clear because you haven’t presented the argument in clear propositions.
To try to clarify this matter (and because it is better for people to work things out for themselves rather than be told by others), I asked you 3 questions, but you declined to answer any of them. So as an alternative, I asked you to set out your argument in propositions, but you declined to do that either. So I feel it is you who is avoiding dealing with the matter. While the argument is fuzzy, establishing it or refuting it become difficult.
But since you were unwilling to set out the argument, let me have a go. (Excuse the male pronoun, but it is simplest that way.)
1. If a loving God exists, his highest priority will be to ensure everyone has opportunity to know him.
2. Therefore everyone who wants to be in relationship with him should be able to do so.
3. No-one can relate to God without believing that he exists.
4. There are people who would like to believe in God and relate to him, but are unable to, because they don’t see sufficient evidence, or they have no direct experience of God.
5. Christians cannot explain why this is so.
6. If a belief cannot explain pertinent facts about reality, that belief is unlikely to be true.
7. Therefore a loving God probably doesn’t exist.
That is a longer argument than Schellenberg’s because I have tried to fill in the gaps more. So does that reasonably sum up your argument? Do you think there are any propositions that could be omitted?
If you are happy with that formulation, I can then ask you some questions about how you would establish certain propositions.
I hope this shows that I am not trying to avoid the argument, and I hope your response shows that you are not either. Thanks.
LikeLike
Hi UnkleE,
Thanks for the reply and the formal argument. I don’t think I would have expressed it in exactly the way that you have, but I also didn’t find my last comment to be blurry. I wouldn’t agree with the assumptions in the first 2 premises or the conclusion of the 7th, for instance.
But I feel like we began by discussing your view of this rather than mine, so let me offer your position as I see it, and perhaps you can clarify where I’m getting it wrong. After all, I don’t believe in God, and I don’t have an explanation for why he would be hidden if he existed, so I’d rather try to understand your position on this. Here’s my try at your view:
P1) God exists.
P2) God wants humans to have total free will.
P3) If God reveals himself to humans, this will violate their free will.
C) Therefore, God does not reveal himself to humans.
LikeLike
Nate
As you point out, the Bible is full of counter-examples to this. The conception of Satan as an angel who rebelled against God strikes me as a prime example. He was in heaven with God, fully aware of his omnipotence, and yet he decided to take on God in a fight?
More generally, one of the things that really stands out to me about the Bible is how underwhelming God is. I have been toying with the idea of going through the Bible and documenting every example of this. There are many. Adam and Eve walked and talked with God, but didn’t hesitate to disobey him. Abraham and Moses routinely walked and talked with an anthropomorphized God, and routinely rebelled and argued with him. God wiped out almost the entire population of the earth, and yet people were worshiping other Gods within just a few generations. Aaron and “seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel,” ate dinner with him….and them promptly left and started worshipping other Gods. The Apostles watched Jesus perform miracles routinely (at least, in some gospels) and yet they did not believe. Jesus preached to multitudes in Jerusalem, and yet the Jews rejected him.
The Bible is full of people to whom God is not at all hidden, and yet they never seem to lose their free will. In fact, they frequently seem to remain skeptical of the existence or power of God.
Perhaps God remains hidden because he’s just not very impressive?
As far as the issue of revelation and the Holy Spirit, I think it is extremely clear that there is no divine guidance. There are so many reasons, and I have yet to hear a theist successfully address them:
1. The fact that people in mutually contradictory religions routinely claim to have received revelation telling them their religion is true.
2. The fact that people within the same religion cannot agree on what the Holy Spirit is telling them.
3. The fact that “revelations” and “guidance” are demonstrably driven by what the person already believes. That is, people make God in their own image — they attribute their own beliefs, values and preferences to God. (See: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21533.full)
4. The fact that “revelation” always manages to be unfalsifiable. Nobody gets really useful revelation that can be proven or disproven. Nobody gets “God told me terrorists are going to hijack planes and crash them into the WTC on September 11th.” It’s always vague stuff, of the sort that appears exactly like the socially/culturally-driven feelings and preferences that everybody has.
5. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I question just how much Christians actually believe in this kind of revelation. Sure, you say you do….for relatively small things, or for things where you just need to feel a nudge in one direction or another. But if you were on trial for murder, would you be ok with your defense attorney just telling the jury to pray for guidance on the verdict? No. Jesus says to sell all you have and give the money to the poor, but how many Christians get revelation to do that? Not many.
The defenses of such revelation come across an awful lot like the people who defend homeopathy, tarot readers or other quackery. “It works for me,” they say, dismissing the relevance of any contradictory information. It doesn’t work because it works. It “works” because believing in it makes them feel good.
Along those lines, see this video of people from widely varying (and mutually exclusive) religions proclaiming the incredible spiritual witness they have felt of the truthfulness of their religion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Incidentally, I found this post by Tyler Cowen to be a very interesting, compelling explanation of non-belief.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/05/dont-believe-god.html
LikeLike
unkleE started his argument thus: If a loving God exists … . Seems to me this is the crux of the entire discussion … with that first word being the “ball-buster.” IOW, there will never be a satisfactory conclusion to this (very, very long) discussion so long as people are at odds on this primary persuasion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The bottom line seems to be that, to believe in the Christian god (although I suspect one could apply similar rules to most other gods.) one has to leave all logic and ordinary commonsense at the door. Furthermore, one should suspend genuine critical thought, admit one is a sinner,( whatever this is) are not really a worthy human being and never will be, and desperately requires salvation (whatever this means) from a disgusting, violent literary character in a book that is by and large fictitious and fallacious.
One must also disregard physical archaeological evidence, poo-poo all other evidence that contradicts most of the bible, believe that a human-concocted deity actually answers prayers and although he ….oops, dreadfully sorry …He is always hidden, He watches over you, is acutely interested in your well-being and your welfare and genuinely wants the best for you, but not if you are homosexual.
He loves you and wants you to love him back. Which is why he made you in the first place. However, failure to acknowledge this deity will result in either your annihilation, simple banishment to … well, nowhere or you spending eternity being tortured in a realm called Hell.Which, incidentally, a great many believers are utterly convinced is real and so to avoid them being tortured by their god’s former sidekick will, ironically torture their own children with this belief.
In short , to be the perfect Christian one must simply become a complete and utter nob.
Just like unklee in fact.
How marvelous.
LikeLike
Hi Jon,
Thank you for posting the video “Spiritual Witnesses”. It is FANTASTIC! It is the best evidence I have ever seen why Christians should NOT trust the “still, small voice” inside their “heart”.
LikeLike
I don’t think this is quite right. Or rather, given that the vast majority of humans have been religious, I don’t think it’s sufficient to attribute religious belief to a lack of logic, ordinary commonsense or critical thought. There are many Christians (and Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc) far smarter than any of us. In addition, there are plenty of Christian philosophers and theologians who could run circles around any of us in terms of logic and critical thought. Say what you will about the premises and conclusions of people like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga, but they are not exactly making illogical arguments bereft of critical thought. Their premises may be deeply wrong — I think they are — and their arguments may be flawed in some ways, but anybody who thinks they are obviously failing at logic probably doesn’t have the basic philosophical chops to even understand their arguments.
As I said long ago here, beliefs do not stand on their own. Beliefs are part of a framework. We all take mental shortcuts, reach conclusions that are not well-justified and exempt some of our beliefs from critical examination. I think it’s pretty clear that Christians do this with their religious beliefs, but….how is that different than what we all do with our political and moral beliefs?
It is extraordinarily difficult to deconstruct the entire architecture of beliefs that get built around an a priori that is a central part of your identity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Jon.
We’ve crossed swords on occasion but this is a super video and explains perfectly how untenable unklee’s position is.
Excellent.
Kudos for posting it.
LikeLike
@Jon
You wrote: I think it’s pretty clear that Christians do this with their religious beliefs, but….how is that different than what we all do with our political and moral beliefs? The difference is the Christians do it in spades.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Jon
Smart has little to do with it. Al Capone is probably regarded as smart by some people, and I know you are aware of compartmentalism, as this is how those indoctrinated with religion are able to still function on a day to day basis.
There can be no honest critical thought when one begins with an unsupported, presuppositional belief, and especially if that belief derives from text that is known to be fallacious.
All one can say in such a case is that any argument is then dishonest.
LikeLike
I would encourage every skeptic reading this thread to download the video Jon posted and keep “on file” for any time that a Christian tells you that God speaks to him or her through the Holy Spirit and that this is their evidence for the veracity of Christianity. The video blows this concept out of the water! The only voice that Christians/Muslims/Mormons/JWs/Hindus/Wiccans/Church of Scientology/Hare Krishnas, etc. hear is…their own!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Except unklee, of course. He really hears god or maybe Jesus or Yahweh. It might be very subtle and almost indiscernible,but it is definitely God or Jesus or Yahweh … because he says so and his personal experience is what really counts. Honestly.
LikeLike
Hey Jon,
Just wanted to add my thanks to what everyone else has already said. Excellent, well-reasoned comment, and that’s an incredibly compelling video. Thanks for sharing it.
LikeLike
Hey Jon,
This thought you expressed stuck out at me:
They are technically making illogical arguments, but they’re quite good at using rhetoric to cover it up. One of the salient features of apologetics is the capacity to hide crucial deficiencies in an argument by leading people away from it or burying it under other concepts. In short, it conflates rhetorical ability with rational thought. People like the ones you mention actually do their faith a disservice by feeding the illusion that what they’re saying actually justifies what they believe to non-Christians.
To be sure, I’m not saying all religious people suspend rational thought in their lives. Rational thought just means they apply logic to what they believe in a way that is consistent and – ultimately – honest. That’s all anyone can really ask for in a worldview.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark
Eh, people disagree about stuff on the Internet. Sometimes it makes them mad. Then they calm down and everything is cool again. If you’re ever in the Washington DC area, let me know. I’ll buy you lunch.
Nan
How many of your moral and political beliefs (and practices) can you ground all the way down and reconcile with all of your other beliefs? We are all still flailing around in Plato’s Cave.
I’m not defending Christianity. I’m just sayin’, we all ought to have a lot more epistemic humility. Disagree, even vehemently, but recognize that it ain’t the only thing….or even the most important thing.
Ark
Indeed! Intelligence is not strongly correlated with religious belief. I would argue that more intelligent people are not necessarily more likely to believe or disbelieve. They are just better at rationalizing and justifying whatever they believe.
I’d be careful about going down that road. All of us have unsupported beliefs. All of us have presuppositions. In fact, atheism kinda requires one or more “brute facts” that cannot be explained by relation to anything else. Related to that, if you haven’t read the multi-part exchange between Keith Parsons and Edward Feser from a few years ago, they are worth reading.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/02/26/feser-parsons-index/
Candidly, I find Feser’s philosophy mostly incoherent — sort of a Catholic version of Ayn Rand’s “Objectivism” — but perhaps that is because I have no particular expertise in philosophy and I’m incapable of grasping it. Experts may well be idiots on the subject of their expertise, but it is exceedingly unlikely that a layman can distinguish between idiocy and complexity.
Still, the exchange is very good — a model of atheist/theist discussion — and it gets into the issue you mention. Generally, I find Jeff Lowder and Keith Parsons at Secular Outpost are terrific sources for intelligent atheist philosophy.
LikeLike
@Jon
Really? Name one (or more) unsupported presuppositional belief that you have.
LikeLike
An excellent and astute observation. In fact, we have one such style of apologist among us right here on this …. and most other posts … on Nate’s blog.
LikeLike
Sirius
While I agree they are quite good at using rhetoric for debate purposes, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that they are making illogical arguments. These are PhD philosophers. They may have all kinds of wrong ideas, but they are not unfamiliar with the rules of logic. If you want to object to the arguments of Plantinga and Craig, I think the place to do it is in their premises and some other weaknesses in their arguments, but not in the logic.
Some years ago, Common Sense Atheism (and the blog he links to in this post) wrote some very good advice about debating WLC. It remains true. Most atheists who have debated WLC seem to take the techniques of debate for granted, and they underestimate Craig’s arguments.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437
And, for what it’s worth, here is CSA’s list of things Craig is right about.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=538
I think it is a mistake to assume that, because you think the arguments made by Plantinga and Craig are wrong, the logic must be wrong, as well. It is rarely a good idea for amateurs to assume experts are too stupid to recognize elementary mistakes within the subject of their expertise.
LikeLike
Jon, what makes you think SB isn’t an expert in logical arguments?
LikeLike
I read the first question on Feser’s blog and a fair amount of the comments.
My general reaction to philosophy where it relates to anything to do with religion and/or god belief etc is to look under my chair for a barf bag. Much like how I react the moment I hear Craig’s whiny voice. Although with him I also have a strong desire to punch him on the nose. But that may also have something to do with his support for Divine Command Theory.
I might take a less dismissive view of god-philosophy etc if they ever get around to discussing Thor or one of the really hot female gods and their existence, and any ensuing discussion about ethics or morality attributed to them.
Until then …. the best answer I can give regarding Christianity and any defense of it to the likes’ of Craig and his ilk is …
LikeLike
Ark, I just took a break because my effing. . . I mean temperamental lawn mower quit. I needed a laugh! 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Virtually every belief, at some point, dead ends into some axiomatic view we have of the world. I believe in naturalism, because I observe the world operating according to the laws of nature. But can I prove that there is nothing “outside” of nature, nothing that instantiated the universe? No, of course not. But I am making a metaphysical assumption about reality. It is not a random assumption with no evidence, but I cannot ground it in anything but metaphysical axioms.
Either Craig, et al, are right that the origin of the universe is an entity whose existence justifies itself, whatever that means, or reality itself is a brute fact….a metaphysical axiom for which there is no explanation or cause.
LikeLike
This is not an unsupported, presuppositional belief as you are not stating there is nothing outside our current view of reality. And neither am I for that matter. But we have no (current) evidence to support such a view.
Craig’s ( and every single Christian’s) entire worldview is based upon numerous unsupported presuppositional beliefs.
I think the vernacular term might well be Bullshit, but I am open to correction.
LikeLike
Hey Jon,
I think you’re putting people like Plantinga and Craig on too high a pedestal here. While I’m sure they’ve devoted much time to their studies, it doesn’t place the ideas they promote above reproach. They can artfully and carefully craft talks that sound really great; I’m not suggesting otherwise.
However, I assert that – at least for the arguments I’ve seen of theirs from people that talk about them – they’re being illogical because they frequently engage in informal fallacies like begging the question and circular reasoning. For example, the guy you linked to did a series on the Kalam Cosmological Argument that Craig promoted. Here is a link to the argument in brief. Sure it’s logically sound, but circular reasoning technically doesn’t suffer from being logically unsound. Instead, it’s not preferred because it’s meaningless and tends to hide important, relevant, unproven things.
While CSA went to the trouble of using elaborate philosophical jargon and extensive effort to go into why he disagrees with the KCA, he went into more trouble than I think it was worth. All he really needed to do was ask, “Why does it have to be a capitalized creator with a long list of impressive adjectives describing it?” Nothing in the argument explains that. To Craig’s credit, he does a great job of avoiding tough questions like that.
Secondly, I really want to make it clear that although I think they’re being illogical in the sense of hiding important premises in their works, I did not suggest that these people are ignorant or deficient in reasoning. Being illogical doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re bad or stupid people. I’m just saying that their arguments are not completely candid and open about the problems they face. Indeed, people like Craig would have to be very cognizant of formal logic in order to be able to avoid addressing such concerns.
To be completely fair, I haven’t read the entire bodies of work by Craig, Plantinga, and other apologists. I’m basing my conclusions on the materials people have presented to me in the past few years. Over time, I noticed that they consistently assume things in a premise which carefully dodges an important objection. My position doesn’t rely on whether I agree with them or not. Rather, it relies on an examination of some of their work.
LikeLiked by 2 people