Ladies and Gentlemen, Introducing…
…the Creator of the universe!
I’ve often remarked that critics of Christianity often deploy the following two distinct objections:
(1)”The Christian God is a monster because he doesn’t stop the evil people.”
and
(2) “The Christian God is a monster because he goes ballistic on people for the most trivial ‘infractions’ of his inscrutable and/or immoral code.”
So, does anyone see a way to understand how the above might actually cancel out? Here’s a hint: We’re dealing with an infinitely intelligent, knowledgeable, wise, and good being, by construction (of the argument, not of God).
* * *
I attended an excellent Presbyterian Bible study in Nashville. Once, someone asked the teacher why God only punished the whole Earth once (in the Flood), since (the guy in the crowd thought) humans were just as sinful today as they had been in Noah’s day. The problem with God’s apparent consistency was twofold: (a) If God is okay with the world being as sinful as it is day, why did He punish the people back then for being essentially as bad as us? In other words, God should have had 0 worldwide catastrophes. (b) If God thought those people deserved to be (almost) wiped out, then He should do the same every few generations, so that there ought to be many many episodes like the Flood. And yet, God chose to punish all of humanity exactly 1 time. Why?
The teacher’s answer surprised me. He said something like, “Well, the reason I think that the answer couldn’t have been zero, is that in that case, people might have thought God was bluffing. This makes us take Him seriously.”
The more I think about that, the more I like his answer. Remember, the Bible says that one day, the “world is going to end”–because God is going to come back and do it personally. People say, “Hey, it’s not the end of the world,” to mean that we should all relax and stop fretting about a situation. But actually, in this particular case, it is the end of the world, and you should pay attention. No time to stop beating yourself up and take a pill chill. You want to have anxiety (until you reach the solution) on this one.
Because God destroyed the world once, at the “end of the world” nobody can play dumb. They can’t pull a George Constanza, “Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell ya, I gotta plead ignorance on this…”
* * *
The more I study the Bible (with my study partner–it’s like this), the more sense it makes to me. I remember when I was a lot younger thinking something like, “The gospel accounts are wonderful–who doesn’t like Jesus?–but man there’s some crazy stuff in the Old Testament. God was so mean back then!”
But now, if I had to sum up the “Bible as literature” in two sentences, it might go like this:
In the first part of the book, this one character has to explain who he is to everybody else. Then in the next part of the book, he gives them the perfect example to follow, given that they now know who he is and can understand the full context of his model behavior.
Is your question/answer still valid if there are two events? Three events? In many respects, the tower of Babel is a bigger punishment…humans have to live with the consequence of their sin of pride. For that matter, the expulsion from the garden was a punishment of all mankind (again for the sin of pride).
“nobody can play dumb”, well, as you point out in you recent post, we tend to stick to accounts we grew up with. Most of the people in the world can probably play dumb, having only heard of Chrtistianity as a sort of weird fairy tale that they believe over in the West.
I think you would have to agree there’s an arbitrary aspect to God punishing some people and not others. Sometimes hitting hard for minor infractions, but not always. Sometimes allowing people to keep their ill gotten gains. Other times visiting sickness and suffering on someone who really was pretty decent.
All seems a bit haphazard to me. I know, I’m just supposed to accept the Grand Plan, even when I cannot understand what’s going on… yeah, that’s what the Fed says too.
Yes, but we know we can’t trust the Fed because they have revealed themselves to be untrustworthy, whereas with God we know He can be trusted because He has revealed His character to be nothing less than trustworthy.
Keep studying!
I’m waiting for God to run “the most transparent administration evahhhhhh!”
We’ll see how that goes.
Lol! Well, no need to wait, He already has.
Consider, for example, looking into all the promises that God fulfilled in the Bible with an impeccable record. It’s interesting, to say the least.
Bob listed some of those earlier. I was underwhelmed by the transparency of the predictions and the accuracy of the fulfillments.
I’m sorry to hear that Harold. Truly. Perhaps you missed something?
Dave, as an example Bob linked to a list of prophesies and fulifilments, one of which was:
Born like other humans
Reference: Genesis 3:14-15
Fulfillment: Galatians 4:4.
First, predicting that someone will be born is not really a difficult prediction. But also the Genesis passage does not seem to refer to these things at all.
Understood.
While I will readily concede that predicting that someone will be born is not really a difficult prediction, predicting that that someone to be born will be the fulfillment of prophecy and be done in increasing detail (which is key here, so it’s very important to make note of it) to the point of perfection is only possible by an act of an omniscient, omnipotent being. No human or group of humans could pull this off.
If you’ll allow me to share this link with you, it may help clarify the confusion you have with the Genesis passage not seeming to refer to Galatians 4:4.
http://www.equip.org/article/jesus-is-the-messiah/
Remember, it’s important to recognize the increasing details as the fulfillment draws near.
Thank you for your patience with my response time.
OK, thanks for putting that one in context.
If the New Testament writers had access to the Old Testament, which they did, it is very easy to see that they wrote stories which “fulfilled” the prophecies – if indeed they were prophecies. For example, I can see arguing that Daniel and Isaiah contain prophecies. Less so the Psalms and other portions which are argued to be prophetical.
One example is the Bethlehem-Census story. It has been discussed on here before but it is a great example of writing a story which fulfills a supposed prophecy.
Knox,
I’m not asking this sarcastically, I mean it sincerely: Are you saying the Bethlehem Census story was added centuries later, or was in the original gospel accounts? If the latter, wouldn’t everybody have recognized that at least that part of the story was a total fabrication, since (per your theory right?) there was no general order for people to return to their birthplace to be counted?
So you’re saying the gospel writers invented certain things to make Jesus appear to fulfill the existing scriptural prophecies, in ways that their readers would have immediately recognized as fraud?
This is a good question. The alleged census occurred approximately in the 4-3 BC area and was only mentioned in Luke Chapter 2 which was written around 85 AD. What I’m saying is that it is doubtful that non-Christians were “fact checking” the gospels in the time period in which they were written and that there was no reason for Christians, at that time, to doubt their authenticity. Also, it is highly unlikely that people of that era, Christians or otherwise, were able to discern that there was a problem in the timing and/or existence of these alleged censi. It is known that the author of Luke got the date for the alleged census wrong and he was obviously a highly intelligent, literate man. It stands to reason that the hoi polloi were in no better position to dispute the claims made in Luke.
The author of Luke knew of the “prophecy” regarding the birth of a Messiah/King in David’s birthplace in Micah and in order to add legitimacy to his argument that Jesus was the Messiah/promised King he constructed a way to make sure the birth took place in Bethlehem and fulfilled the prophecy.
I am saying that the writers of the gospels were employing midrash and were re-writing OT stories in NT gospels. We cannot assume, and khodge wouldn’t allow, that the inhabitants of Palestine at the time of the gospels were critical, literate historians or scholars. In case it isn’t clear that this is so, the Christians of today don’t ask these questions either even though they are able to look. It stands to reason that Christians then, who were less well-equipped, were asking critical questions. This is not dissimilar to the putting into the mouth of Jesus words that back up an author’s position in the NT gospels and epistles. “You don’t like my argument on the law? Jesus said I was correct and not a jot or tittle will be removed.” This is an example.
The gospels are theological documents and not historical accounts.
“It stands to reason that Christians then, who were less well-equipped, were *NOT* asking critical questions.”
The writers of the Gospels were not employing midrash as knoxharrington asserts, otherwise we would have a paradox.
Unfortunately, I’ll have to return to this issue and show exactly why at a later date as I am pressed for time at the moment.
Please do, Dave. Here is an article on this very topic which you can address when you have the time.
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm
Dave,
Please identify the paradox.
Thanks.
Firstly, I would like to state at the outset that it’s not that midrash was never used in the NT, just not to the extent that many liberal scholars try to assert.
There are many excellent resources available dealing with this subject and I would be more than happy to share them with anyone who is interested in doing the research and deciding for themself.
Secondly, the fundamental flaw and paradox observed in asserting that the entire NT, large portions of it or certain sections of text are, is that when, to quote Professor Craig Blomberg, ancient Jewish authors invented unhistorical narratives inspired by OT texts, they generally quoted and interpreted Scripture quite literally. Since they were composing fiction they were free to tailor their creations to the texts that created them. Precisely the opposite is the case for most of the Gospel passages in question. In many cases the OT references are reworded or reapplied in ways that much more likely that the Gospel writers were trying to show how the OT fitted the events of Jesus’ life and not the other way around”, and, as NT scholar R.T. France concludes, “if the history were being created out of the text, there would be NO NEED to adapt the text to fit the history”.
I would like the the reader to think about what is being said here.
As far as the Price article goes, I really have no comment on it. I would rather people read and study these things for themself and decide which position makes sense through sound hermeneutical principles and historical responsibility.
knoxharrington,
When you say that the Gospels are theological documents and not historical accounts, are you stating this as an historian or as a theologian?
“As far as the Price article goes, I really have no comment on it.”
The Price article gives example after example contra Blomberg. I think your lack of reply on a substantive level to ANY of Price’s examples is illustrative.
“When you say that the Gospels are theological documents and not historical accounts, are you stating this as an historian or as a theologian?”
Either, neither or both – I don’t think it matters to the substance of the point.
“The writers of the Gospels were not employing midrash as knoxharrington asserts, otherwise we would have a paradox.”
“Firstly, I would like to state at the outset that it’s not that midrash was never used in the NT, just not to the extent that many liberal scholars try to assert.”
Seems to me that you conceded my point on midrash in the New Testament.
knoxharrington,
No concession whatsoever. Everyone in the know about Price and those who hold his views on the employment of midrash knows that one of his biggest flaws is his unwillingness to define midrash as he is using it. He has been dealt with and poses no threat to orthodox scholarship or acceptable standards of practice. It’s one of those beautiful things about the internet; anyone who wants to find the answers can.
As to the second point, why don’t we just cut to the chase and perhaps you would like to explain exactly why the Gospels do not qualify as historical documents?
I’m assuming you do know the criteria that historians employ to judge these things, so I am very curious as to your answer.
“As to the second point, why don’t we just cut to the chase and perhaps you would like to explain exactly why the Gospels do not qualify as historical documents?”
Come on now, Dave, don’t try to shift the burden here. If you think the gospels are historical documents (I assume you mean by documents authoritative source material for the events depicted) it is up to you to show this is true because you are the one making the positive assertion.
To show I’m not dodging I could go on about Marcan priority, Q source material, the Synoptic problem, the dates the gospels were written, lack of outside sourcing for the claims in the gospels, Christian interpolation in Josephus, etc.
Even the venerable Blomberg that you cite thinks that many of the gospel stories are fiction.
Since I have no real interest or time to devote to internet warrior pseudo-scholarship I must simply leave it at this.
For any interested party I would recommend first what is perhaps the gold-standard of scholarship on this and related issues even to this day:
F.F. Bruce’s “Studies in Midrash & Historiography”
(Note: This is highly technical reading on the subject and not oriented toward the popular level)
For more intermediate and popular-level reading on this and related issues:
D.A. Carson and G.K. Beale’s “A Commentary on the NT use of the OT”
D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo’s “An Introduction to the NT”
Craig Blomberg’s “The Historical Reliability of the Gospels”
and
Michael Wilkins and J.P. Moreland’s “Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship’s Reinvents the Historical Jesus”.
All are heavily foot-noted or end-noted.
Enjoy.
Correction: I inadvertently cited F.F. Bruce for the entirety of “Studies in Midrash and Historiography” rather than just for his contribution.
My apologies for the oversight.
knoxharrington,
Please note who actually has the burden of proof here. You originally made the affirmative claim in the above conversation with Bob at the outset.
Appeals to authority, citation to scholars who agree with the preferred outcome, calling authorities the “gold standard” which apparently means they are infallible, etc. Wait a second, you aren’t Lee Strobel are you? I knew it.
Never fear – they are heavily foot and end noted.
Shameful stuff, Lee, shameful stuff.
I wish Lee Strobel lurked at this blog!
Just so we are clear – Dave tried to burden shift and when I didn’t bite he now doesn’t have the time and engages in ad hominem. Step out of the echo chamber Dave – there is whole world out there to discover.
knoxharrington,
You are being incredibly disingenuous and dishonest in stating that the works I have referred have the “preferred outcome”.
If you had read any of these works, you would know that not all of the authors and their respective works referred to in the footnotes and end-notes are even Christians! Hence my reason for selecting a broad range of scholars and pointing out the footnotes and endnotes to avoid such a claim.
So much for your (false) claim.
You mention gospel accounts, plural. Which gospel accounts mention this supposed census?
“So you’re saying the gospel writers invented certain things… that their readers would have immediately recognized as fraud?”
Well, the gospel in question was probably written after 80 AD, so 50 or more years after the event. Why would all those hearing the story be in a position to know it was false? If I told you about some random action of the US government in 1965, and you were young, uneducated, and wrapped up in the “greater spiritual truths”, would you know I was wrong? How could you check, if there were no books, no newspapers, no libraries, no internet available to you?
In 1965 the US government mapped the watershed of the Snake river basin. True or false?
Dave,
I said the gospels were theological documents and not historical documents. They were written with a theological purpose and not for the purposes of providing an accurate historical account.
http://defendinginerrancy.com/can-we-still-trust-new-testament-professors/
Here is a review of Blomberg, whom you cite, which shows that he views parts of the gospels as fictional accounts with a theological purpose. I suppose we could have an account of Patton at the Battle of the Bulge where he turned water into wine but would that really be an historical account?
You seem to be arguing that the gospels are historical accounts, if not please say they are not for the record.
Mine was a negative assertion about the gospels as historical accounts and a positive assertion of the gospels as theological documents. You see that right? If you asked me to defend my positive assertion on the theological component you would have a point. Instead, you want me to show how the gospels ARE NOT historical documents. That is not my burden. The burden is on the person, you, making the positive assertion, that the gospels are historical documents.
“You are being incredibly disingenuous and dishonest in stating that the works I have referred have the “preferred outcome”.
Am I? Are any of these scholars from a non-fundamentalist/non-conservative theology or divinity school? Are any of them critical scholars or they of the variety that pick the evidence that supports their preferred position? I can cite scholars from both sides that find the Census story in Luke Chapter 2 to be problematic. Do any of the scholars you cite share that view? If not on that question then on another?
One last thing: Apologetics is not scholarship – number of footnotes notwithstanding.
knoxharrington,
I am a southern gentleman, but, I am blunt. You’re clearly outside the realm of your scope of knowledge here, yet, you do not have the intellectual honesty to admit that. You know little, if anything, about midrash and/or it’s use or the criteria historians employ to judge the historicity of documents. I have left references for those who may be inclined to avoid the same errors.
“Apologetics is not scholarship …”
Were defenses of the heliocentric nature of our galaxy not scholarship?
Cuz apologetics basically just means “defense”.
There’s linguistics, textual criticism, history, and archeology involved.
Christian apologetics “is a field of Christian theology which presents reasoned bases for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections.”
It is not scholarship because it is concerned only with defense and not with investigating the truth of the claims it is defending or engaging in scholarly research of those claims. One need only look at F.F. Bruce and his defense of the census we have talked about in this thread. There’s an issue with the date and who was governor of Egypt and Syria. No problem – Quirinius was governor at two different times over two different regions. See, it IS possible. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, true scholars are debunking this “defense.” You get my point – it is a defense of often untenable positions. Apologetics is geared toward defending what is possible rather than investigating what is probable.
A quote from the imminent scholar Dave:
“I am a southern gentleman, but, I am blunt. You’re clearly outside the realm of your scope of knowledge here, yet, you do not have the intellectual honesty to admit that. You know little, if anything, about midrash and/or it’s use or the criteria historians employ to judge the historicity of documents. I have left references for those who may be inclined to avoid the same errors.”
I will defer to anyone who wishes to re-read this chain and see where Dave actually addresses arguments rather than giving a bibliography that is supposed to impress us by his assertion that it should.
You, Dave, are definitely not a scholar and probably not a gentleman. Your assertion to the contrary nothwithstanding. You don’t understand argument, burden of proof, and continue commit logical fallacies like the appeal to authority. You need some book learnin’.
knoxharrington,
There are times when we want to be right so badly that we can’t admit we are wrong or may be wrong. I get it. I’ve been there myself. We all have. It’s part of being human.
A gentleman identifies his paradoxes.
“Meanwhile, back at the ranch, true scholars are debunking this “defense.” You get my point – it is a defense of often untenable positions. Apologetics is geared toward defending what is possible rather than investigating what is probable.”
Is the following an example of real scholarship?
Richard Lewontin: Billions and Billions of Demons
http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
If so, then “scholarship” simply defines supernatural explanations as false.
It’s not a conclusion, but an assumption at the outset.
Which is helpful when the topic is the deterministic nature of matter, but not when the topic is religion.
We still have to prove religious claims, but the Scientific Method is going to be deficient for this purpose, since non-scientific truths cannot be assessed by it.
Non-scientific truths such as the fact that you have free will.
That’s not a closed system issue, so you’re going to need logic (that is, philosophy), which is a tool with broader application than science, and actually incorporates science.
Science is narrowly focused for arguably good reasons, depending on how it’s defined; But, being limited by it’s definition, it cannot assess all truths.
guest, Lewontin speaks for very few. Scientists have a “prior commitment” to evidence and prediction, not Lewontin’s metaphysics. Most scientists are naturalists because naturalism works. If it stops working they will stop being naturalists. Most scientists were once aetherists, until the aether theory failed.
Another quote from Dave:
“There are times when we want to be right so badly that we can’t admit we are wrong or may be wrong. I get it. I’ve been there myself. We all have. It’s part of being human.”
I’m guessing this is intended to be condescending but given that Dave is a “gentleman,” and a “Southern” one at that, I’m going to read that as a mea culpa and an acknowledgement that he is admitting he is wrong.
Bravo, Dave. It takes a big “Southern gentleman” to admit when he’s wrong.
“Scientists have a “prior commitment” to evidence and prediction, not Lewontin’s metaphysics.”
Lewontin’s point was that “God can explain anything”, which is why the [otherwise] deterministic nature of the universe must be isolated in order to understand the laws that governed it.
It’s a useful perspective when the topic is deterministic laws. I get it.
But it’s not a useful perspective when assessing religious claims, since the “evidence” to which scientists are willing to commit is limited to that of a deterministic nature.
Religious claims are of a non-deterministic nature, and so “science”, defined as it is, could not, even in theory, assess them.
It’s the wrong tool.
The right tool is logic in the broader sense, where one isn’t deliberately attempting to isolate deterministic laws.
This would allow scientists to see that, for example, the Scientific Method, itself, could not be scientific, because then it would be circular reasoning.
The Scientific Method is logic, not science. Science is when the Scientific Method is applied.
But you can’t apply the Scientific Method to assess the reliability of the Method, itself.
“… but … I’m going to read that as a mea culpa and an acknowledgement that he is admitting he is wrong.”
Am I a bad person for thinking that’s funny?
I forget the details, but there are cases where we know they had access to *Greek* versions of the OT, because of known errors in the Greek translation, used in the NT accounts. (This strengthens your point Knox.) Can anyone mention examples?
One example is the story of Nicodemus and “born again” from John 3. This hinges on a word which is ambiguous in Greek but not in Aramaic. But I know there are other examples.
Bob, I believe your summation of the “Bible as literature” is well stated.
It could be said that the difference in the Old and New Testament reflects the values of each time era. Some 3,000+ years ago people were tough, no-nonsense tribal folk with strict values to the point the slightest infractions was death because that’s how people survived in the harsh wilderness. It was probably a time when tribes showed no mercy to each other hence the Bible orders genocide while allowing genetic diversity via capturing virginal young women. Hence God is portrayed as a strong, tribal Chieftain who’s quick to kill and displace outsiders.
The New Testament may reflect the multicultural aspect of life in Rome as well as the fact that believers in the day weren’t in any position of power so they to be non-violent, obey the authorities except when it conflicts with religious beliefs. Hence God is now portray as spiritual entity who doesn’t necessarily threaten rulers in the here and now but rules the hereafter as well someone who refrains from violence and upsetting the status quo.
Avoiding the slightest infraction is the only way to survive amongst tough, no-nonsense tribal folk with strict values.
“So, does anyone see a way to understand how the above might actually cancel out? ”
This doesn’t make sense. These are reductions to the the absurd, right? Different absurdities cannot “cancel each other out”. If you claim A is true and and I prove that A implies that Donald Trump has no head, and that Donald Trump has two heads, would you argue these “cancel each other out”?
A physicist, statistician and an economist were out hunting. The physicist shoots and misses by a yard to the right. The economist shoots and misses by a yard to the left. “Got it! ” says the statistician.
“There was a rightward shift in supply,” the economist further explains.
@guest
“If so, then “scholarship” simply defines supernatural explanations as false.”
Methodological naturalism is the basis of science but that is separate from “scholarship.” If we have no way of observing supernatural phenomena then how do we know those forces are at work? Seriously. If you are a Christian you have no doubt been in a Sunday school class or worship service and heard of some miraculous tale. “Earl had cancer and when they went to do surgery they couldn’t find it. It’s a miracle.” How do we know that is true? The first assumption of the scientist is to look for an observable, naturalistic explanation. The first assumption of the Christian is miracle – which by definition is the least probable occurrence and one that cannot be verified. So, obviously, how can we be certain that the Christian’s claim of a supernatural explanation or miracle is accurate or true? We simply can’t. That doesn’t mean the Christian is wrong it just means he can’t prove he is right.
“We still have to prove religious claims, but the Scientific Method is going to be deficient for this purpose, since non-scientific truths cannot be assessed by it. Non-scientific truths such as the fact that you have free will.”
There is some method of proof for these claims then and it is not through methodological naturalism or scientific means. What then is the method of proof? If free will is a non-scientific truth how do we prove that? And, given determinist and compatibilist arguments against pure free will, how do we then know with certainty that we have free will? It seems disputed at best.
“Science is narrowly focused for arguably good reasons, depending on how it’s defined; But, being limited by it’s definition, it cannot assess all truths.”
We don’t need science to assess all truths – only those truths which offer explanations that specifically intrude on the grounds of science. Nobody wants to assess the truth that my favorite food is Thai food using scientific means because my preferences are not scientific claims. When the Christian posits the world being 6,000 years old, that humans were created along with the world in six days, etc. – these are claims which are falsifiable and can be assessed with science. When these claims are found to be false they can no longer be said to be true. These are not overlapping magisteria but competing magisteria and one is false. If would better serve Christians to stop trying to “prove” their beliefs are true with science and history and just say “I believe the Bible is true and because I believe it to be true I don’t need to prove this to others.” That would be wrong but at least it would be honest and wouldn’t require the vain attempts at proving something which you already acknowledge to be unprovable – at least with regard to the overtly scientific claims made in the Bible.
http://news.yahoo.com/stunned-dad-thinks-jesus-appeared-in-photo-taken-135920099.html
Case in point. Is this a miracle or is there another explanation?
“The first assumption of the scientist is to look for an observable, naturalistic explanation.”
Except when they observe the sounds of the upright piece of meat next to them, at which point they conclude, “scientist”.
As well as when reciting the Scientific Method, which is philosophy, not science.
And of course, free will, which I can get to.
“There is some method of proof for these claims then and it is not through methodological naturalism or scientific means. What then is the method of proof? If free will is a non-scientific truth how do we prove that?”
The method of proof is logic, which is philosophy – the same method of proof that is required to come up with the Scientific Method.
Free will is the capacity to be a first cause, and therefore to break otherwise causal chains; And since science deals with deterministic laws, that which can break causal chains must be beyond its scope.
“And, given determinist and compatibilist arguments against pure free will, how do we then know with certainty that we have free will? It seems disputed at best.”
In order to dispute something, you have to have the capacity for free will. That position is self-defeating.
“We don’t need science to assess all truths – only those truths which offer explanations that specifically intrude on the grounds of science.”
But since science’s scope is limited to deterministic laws, it cannot, even in theory, assess explanations that intrude on the grounds of science. You need another tool for that, which is a broader application of logic.
“When the Christian posits the world being 6,000 years old, that humans were created along with the world in six days, etc. – these are claims which are falsifiable and can be assessed with science.”
Science can’t falsify creation claims, since it would be a supernatural event. Also, the six days claim is of a historical nature, and science cannot assess historical claims, as such.
But a strictly deterministic explanation is inconsistent with the existence of free will, so non-deterministic truths must exist.
Regarding the Jesus photo, I chose not to read the article; But I’m going to say that if it was Jesus, then Christianity is false, since, in the biblical paradigm, Jesus isn’t going to re-appear in that fashion.
“Science can’t falsify creation claims, since it would be a supernatural event. Also, the six days claim is of a historical nature, and science cannot assess historical claims, as such.”
You completely missed the point. The creation claim explicitly makes a scientific claim. God created the world 6,000 years ago within a six day window. All evidence on this points to the contrary being true. The six day claim is not JUST historical – it is also a scientific claim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS8rSJr9bhI
Here’s a little video on free will v determinism because, to quote Inigo Montoya, “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
YouTube video: I agree with the Hard Determinist’s position that free will and hard determinism (fatalism) are incompatible.
Also, Soft Determinism reduces to Hard Determinism, since, if our “internal causes” were caused by external causes, then internal causes are an effect of a prior cause.
Soft Determinism reduces to Hard Determinism, and Hard Determinism proves too much, since arguments from Hard Determinism would also have to be fatalistically determined, and you would have no way of discerning whether or not free will exists.
You would have argued the way you argued whether or not it was right.
The Soft Determinist kind of recognizes this, which is why he rightly makes a distinction between internal causes and external ones.
Such a distinction only makes sense, though, if internal causes break causal chains.
“You completely missed the point. The creation claim explicitly makes a scientific claim. God created the world 6,000 years ago within a six day window. All evidence on this points to the contrary being true.”
It might help to point out that, even in the biblical paradigm – one in which miracles are possible and have been seen – that the six-day creation account is to be taken by faith – including by those through whom God has done miracles.
In the biblical paradigm, this is God’s claim. No one was there to see it, so even his prophets had to take this claim on faith.
I actually do believe in a young earth, so I’m not attempting to claim that the bible says otherwise (though it doesn’t specify how young).
Apart from the problems with radiometric dating (How far along toward the half-life was the substance that’ being tested when it was formed? Did it start at the beginning?), there’s also the issue of whether or not God created light between the earth and the stars.
As I mentioned, it is a creation story. Science isn’t capable of assessing it.
Yes, it’s true that this speaks to Lewontin’s position of not letting in the Divine Foot into the door of science, but, again, this only applies when isolating deterministic qualities.
Fortunately, no one is asking anyone to base their faith in Jesus on whether or not the Creation story happened. You should only believe it once you’ve already accepted that God and Jesus are who the Bible says he is.
That should only happen after applying philosophy to history. Did Jesus actually exist? Were the apostles martyrs who were in a position to know they were lying?
Those kinds of things.
“Free will is the capacity to be a first cause, and therefore to break otherwise causal chains; And since science deals with deterministic laws, that which can break causal chains must be beyond its scope.”
That’s an interesting syllogism but the first part where you define free will is not the standard definition of the term and is fraught with peril even for one with a theological worldview.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#4
“But a strictly deterministic explanation is inconsistent with the existence of free will, so non-deterministic truths must exist.”
Or, there is no such thing as free will and therefore only deterministic “truths” exist. Not the death knell for Christians because they typically believe God is omniscient but it does raise other problems relative to omnipotence and the usefulness of prayer among others.
Asserting that we have free will does not actually mean we have free will. It is not the silver bullet I think you think it is.
“Asserting that we have free will does not actually mean we have free will. It is not the silver bullet I think you think it is.”
Very true. And you can go that route if you like. And there’s nothing I can show you to prove you wrong.
But you are very much in the same boat, since it could be possible that *only* you (or some) lack free will, and would have said what you did whether or not you were right.
Fatalism means you lack the capacity to assess, not just religious claims, but all claims.
This is truly bizarre. “Some meat can talk” is a perfectly fine scientific hypothesis.
Let’s say the scientific method is based on philosophy, not the method itself. So what?
“In order to dispute something, you have to have the capacity for free will.” This is nonsense, but just for the sake of the argument, let me ask you. How do you know if I am disputing something. You must have some standard to apply that let’s you conclude “Craw disagrees.” What?
“This is truly bizarre. “Some meat can talk” is a perfectly fine scientific hypothesis. ”
This should properly read: “Some meat can make noise”. Which is not the same thing.
“Let’s say the scientific method is based on philosophy, not the method itself. So what?”
What that means is that non-scientific truths do exist. The Scientific Method being useful for assessing the deterministic qualities of our universe being one example.
“How do you know if I am disputing something. You must have some standard to apply that let’s you conclude “Craw disagrees.” What?”
How do I know you are disputing something?, or how do I know that disputation requires free will?
My claim was the latter one, so I’ll address that.
Disputing something entails an attempt to discredit another view. That requires deliberate use of your keyboard.
Deliberate actions require free will.