 |
| Masaccio's The Expulsion from Paradise |
I had a conversation with Lowell in the comments about a month ago where he asked me about a post that I wrote back in 2009: Venite Ad Me Omnes. It was about a crisis I went through eighteen years ago. I wrote it before I had any inkling that I would ever write apologetics, and reading it again through a skeptic's eyes, I wonder if it was irresponsibly written. I spelled out the gut-wrenching evil in great detail, but failed to talk in much detail about God's great goodness through it all. Just about everything I am today grew out of that experience.
When someone asked me a few days ago why I ended up engaging in dialogue with atheists, I explained that it was because I happened to have a conversation with an agnostic who told me about Atheist Central, and after checking it out I decided to comment. But I realized afterwards that the why goes back much further than that. It started when my five-month-old, Ingrid, had her first seizure the day after I had completed my requirements for graduation from Notre Dame Law School. Before May 12, 1993, Ingrid was developing normally--smiling and babbling to everyone, including stuffed animals and the baby in the mirror. Three months, three hospitals, and countless seizures later, she neither smiled nor cried and her right hand was fisted and unusable.
That's when I started asking the hard questions.
I've only spent a year-and-a-half thinking about the resurrection evidence, the fine-tuning argument, the cosmological argument, and the argument from moral law, but I spent a decade-and-a-half thinking about the problem of evil--called "the rock of atheism" by German playwright Georg Büchner. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I did gain some insights into the relationship between suffering, spiritual growth, and prayer over the years, and I will do a series of posts on that.
But I want to stress that the Bible is never overly philosophical about suffering. John 11:35 simply says, "Jesus wept" when He saw people grieving over the death of Lazarus. Jesus wept even though He knew that Lazarus would not remain dead. Evil is still evil and suffering still hurts even though God has reasons for allowing it. We are not to downplay the suffering of others by offering "helpful" platitudes. Instead, we are to "mourn with those who mourn" (Romans 12:15).
So I don't want to trivialize evil and suffering by a discussion of theodicy. C. S. Lewis said in The Problem of Pain that pain is God's "megaphone to rouse a deaf world." But he later wrote the following in A Grief Observed after his wife died:
Feeling, and feelings, and feelings. Let me try thinking instead. From the rational point of view, what new factor has H.'s death introduced into the problem of the universe? What grounds has it given me for doubting all that I believe? I knew already that these things, and worse, happened daily. I would have said that I had taken them into account. I had been warned--I had warned myself--not to reckon on worldly happiness. We were even promised sufferings. They were part of the program. We were even told, "Blessed are they that mourn," and I accepted it. I've got nothing that I hadn't bargained for. Of course it is different when the thing happens to oneself, not to others, and in reality, not in imagination.Pain is also a megaphone that drowns out reason, and it was not until we had settled into our new life with a severely disabled child that I was really able to reflect on the whys. But explanations are a pale substitute for what I did receive during those months in 1993: God's presence, joy, and peace like never before--the fulfillment of the promise of Jesus in Matthew 11:28: "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest."
31 comments:
Anette,
Would you agree that even if God does not exist, you could still experience feelings of "God's presence, joy, and peace like never before" as long as you believe He exists, and you believe the Bible to be true?
Is there anything God has done in your life that couldn't also be attributed to your belief in God?
I hope you had a great Easter, Lowell.
Would you agree that even if God does not exist, you could still experience feelings of "God's presence, joy, and peace like never before" as long as you believe He exists, and you believe the Bible to be true?
Of course feelings can be deceptive, which is why it is important to have an objective basis for believing that a religion is true. This is why I spent so much time talking about the evidence for the resurrection, which is the bedrock of Christianity. As Paul said, if Jesus was not raised from the dead, then our faith is "worthless," "we are of all men most to be pitied," and the apostles were "false witnesses of God" (1 Cor. 15:15-18).
But if Jesus was raised from the dead, then we have good reason to listen to what He has to say about the meaning of life and how we are to live. And He then deserves our worship.
I agree with you that some people experience religious fervor that is misguided and unhealthy. But that does not mean that there is no such thing as true and healthy religion any more than the existence of misguided and unhealthy love means there is no such thing as true and healthy love.
Is there anything God has done in your life that couldn't also be attributed to your belief in God?
Many things. God often answers my prayers and He guides me every day, sometimes in spectacular ways. In my mind, there is no way that it could all be coincidence.
And as you know, I have regularly allowed my beliefs to be challenged by skeptics. I do this without feeling threatened because I am very confident that the Bible is true and openness to the truth will only bring me closer to God. If I were, for example, a Mormon and wanted to remain a Mormon, there is no way I could do that.
But as for your earlier questions about what appears to you like God's silence, unanswered prayer, and miracles, I will get to those in later posts on this subject. This post was just a brief introduction.
Based on what you said over time it seems that one of the reasons you started your blog is so that people will objectively evaluate the evidence for Christianity and possibly change their belief systems to accept Christianity. However, on several occasions you have basically said that no matter what the evidence (either contrary to or lack of) for Christianity, you would believe it anyway.
Isn't it intellectually dishonest to expect (or hope or whatever word you prefer) others to change their beliefs based on the evidence when you are not willing to change your beliefs if the evidence objectively pointed away from Christianity and to, say, atheism?
Darkknight56,
What makes you think that I'm not open to changing my mind? When someone corrects an inaccurate statement I've made, I do change my mind.
I don't know exactly what statement you're referring to, but the fact is that by the time I started talking with atheists, my faith had been severely tested and was strong enough that I knew I would never renounce it. As I said in the main post, I spent years thinking hard about the strongest argument against Christianity.
So even if it had turned out that there was not much evidence for the resurrection, I would have remained a Christian. However, that is now a moot point because the evidence is, in fact, compelling.
The evidence does not objectively point to atheism, so I'm not going to change my mind and become an atheist. That certainly doesn't mean that I'm always right and atheists are always wrong, but I feel very confident that atheists are wrong about the existence of God.
Based on what you said over time it seems that one of the reasons you started your blog is so that people will objectively evaluate the evidence for Christianity and possibly change their belief systems to accept Christianity.
Actually, back when I started my blog it had nothing to do with the evidence for Christianity. That's why the title is completely unrelated to apologetics.
Now, of course, I do talk about the evidence for Christianity on my blog, but I know that I have no control over whether non-believers objectively evaluate what I have to say. It hope they do, but that is their personal choice. So one of my goals is to make sure that I objectively evaluate the evidence and move closer to the truth. As I've said before, I enjoy being challenged and learn a lot from it.
Anette Acker said...
What makes you think that I'm not open to changing my mind? When someone corrects an inaccurate statement I've made, I do change my mind.
I think you have no problem changing your mind with regards to statements of fact. My comment was in regards to changing an entire belief system - converting from Christianity to atheism, for instance. In answer to your question, in March you posted a comment where you said you'd believe in Christianity even if the resurrection was proven false, even though Paul wrote in Corinthians that if the resurrection was proven false it meant that his readers would believe in vain.
The evidence does not objectively point to atheism
If it did, would you switch to atheism or would you still remain a Christian?
Atheism doesn't really have evidence; we don't believe any god exists. We leave it up to people like you to provide the positive proof of God's existence. The objective evidence for God isn't there either. Several Christians on Ray's site have pointed out that they can't prove the existence of God. Ray, himself, has never provided any positive evidence and has even gone so far as to say he doesn't have to. (Many of us take that as a tacit admission that he doesn't have any positive evidence for God's existence).
I've only spent a year-and-a-half thinking about the resurrection evidence, the fine-tuning argument, the cosmological argument, and the argument from moral law
Most of the arguments you present are based on subjectivity, not objectivity. If I had to seriously consider the "I know God exists because He answers my prayers." argument then I'd have to accept every religion on the planet as being true because they all have such stories.
In addition, many good and excellent Christians have fervently prayed for centuries for world peace and an end to hunger to no avail.
In answer to your question, in March you posted a comment where you said you'd believe in Christianity even if the resurrection was proven false, even though Paul wrote in Corinthians that if the resurrection was proven false it meant that his readers would believe in vain.
I don't believe I said that, but why don't you find my direct quote? If Christianity was proven false, I would not believe it. But if it was false, I would have renounced it long before I started dialoguing with atheists because I thought critically about my beliefs and asked the hard questions long before I had my first discussion with a non-theist.
If it did, would you switch to atheism or would you still remain a Christian?
I would have switched to atheism. I am a Christian because I believe it is true.
Atheism doesn't really have evidence; we don't believe any god exists. We leave it up to people like you to provide the positive proof of God's existence.
But if you can't refute the best arguments for Christian theism and you still want to remain an atheist, then you are not evaluating the evidence objectively. All we have to establish is that the preponderance of the evidence points to Christian theism, and if we can do that, then it is rational to be a Christian. It is not possible to conclusively prove the existence of God.
Several Christians on Ray's site have pointed out that they can't prove the existence of God. Ray, himself, has never provided any positive evidence and has even gone so far as to say he doesn't have to. (Many of us take that as a tacit admission that he doesn't have any positive evidence for God's existence).
But many Christians have very convincing arguments that have not been refuted. Those are the arguments you have to focus on, just like I have to focus on the best arguments put forth by atheists. Picking the low-hanging fruit may make us feel good about ourselves, but it doesn't bring us closer to the truth.
Most of the arguments you present are based on subjectivity, not objectivity. If I had to seriously consider the "I know God exists because He answers my prayers." argument then I'd have to accept every religion on the planet as being true because they all have such stories.
I was responding to a particular question by Lowell rather than making an argument. Most of my arguments are based on objective facts, and you should know that by now. However, if someone wants to know about my subjective experience as a Christian, I will answer those questions as well.
Anette Acker said...
But if you can't refute the best arguments for Christian theism and you still want to remain an atheist, then you are not evaluating the evidence objectively. All we have to establish is that the preponderance of the evidence points to Christian theism, and if we can do that, then it is rational to be a Christian. It is not possible to conclusively prove the existence of God.
Well, the resurrection has been given a plausible explanation - Legend. Even Paul in Corinthians does not mention the empty tomb when mentioning why someone should be a Christian. No one has been able to show that the resurrection happened. None of the historical writings from the time even recount a single miracle that Jesus did, nor do they even mention that He existed. So, off hand I'd say that atheist have no need to refute an event (or group of events) that the Christians can conclusively prove happened. It is the Christian position that is lacking evidence, corroborating or otherwise.
Can you provide any non-biblical corroboration from the period when Jesus lived that backs up any of the miracles as portrayed in the bible?
Well, the resurrection has been given a plausible explanation - Legend.
Too early to be legend. And please see my post on the historicity of the New Testament.
Even Paul in Corinthians does not mention the empty tomb when mentioning why someone should be a Christian.
Paul says that the resurrection is central to Christianity, and he says that Jesus was raised on the third day. Since he gives the exact day, this implies that the tomb was found empty that day.
Also, according to orthodox Jewish theologian Pinchas Lapide and others, the Jews always considered a resurrection to be bodily.
Can you provide any non-biblical corroboration from the period when Jesus lived that backs up any of the miracles as portrayed in the bible?
The miracle Paul calls the bedrock of Christianity is the resurrection, but, as I said in a prior discussion, the darkening of the sun when Jesus died is corroborated in secular sources written at the time.
These are all arguments that I have discussed in detail before, so I see no need to go into them again. Atheists have not refuted them, but of course it is always your personal choice whether or not you find them compelling.
Anette,
Of course feelings can be deceptive, which is why it is important to have an objective basis for believing that a religion is true. This is why I spent so much time talking about the evidence for the resurrection, which is the bedrock of Christianity.
Without being able to objectively verify any of the many supernatural signs and wonders regularly done by the apostles, isn't it subjective to conclude that a supernatural explanation is better than a naturalistic explanation?
Beliefs, like actions, have consequences.
Currently in places like Texas and Louisiana people are fighting to determine if creationism or evolution should be taught to our children.
Currently many religious politicians want to incorporate religion into politics and make various religious practices the law of the land. Several people in Ray's group have expressed an interest in making us a theocracy.
If the existence of God is true then:
1. I have to teach my children that they are wretches deserving only of death unless they apologize to God for being imperfect.
2. I have to teach them that, under certain circumstances, it is okay to wipe out an entire group of people (several times) right down to the last child, baby and infant.
3. I have to teach them that, under certain circumstances, it is okay to kill non-virgin women, children who backtalk to their parents and homosexuals.
4. I have to teach them that killing 43 children by attacking them with bears is an appropriate response to insulting a bald man.
5. I have to teach them that holding people in bondage and slavery is an approved moral behavior.
6. I have to teach them that running babies and pregnant women through with swords is sometimes morally acceptable.
So, having just a preponderance of the evidence is not in any way sufficient to warrant any belief in any god. Before I start teaching them that the world is only 6,000 years old, before I start crushing their self-esteem and making them feel worthy and deserving of eternal punishment and torment, before I start teaching them that kidnapping, rape, murder, genocide and slavery are acceptable even under specific circumstances - I want 100% proof positive that the God who endorses such repulsive and abhorrent behavior and actions, even if it was 3,000 years ago, actually exists.
Lowell:
Without being able to objectively verify any of the many supernatural signs and wonders regularly done by the apostles, isn't it subjective to conclude that a supernatural explanation is better than a naturalistic explanation?
We are not trying to objectively verify the many supernatural signs and wonders done by the apostles, we are trying to objectively verify the one miracle on which Christianity depends--the resurrection of Jesus. And that can be done by examining all the facts and employing Bayes' Theorem.
The prior probability (before examining the facts) depends on the evidence for God in natural theology. That is also something you can examine objectively.
But as I said before, there are many miracles in the Bible that I simply accept on faith, and it is reasonable to do so if everything that is objectively verifiable turns out to be true. It is like trusting a person or a source that has always been trustworthy.
Anette,
I understand the focus of your recent posts was on the resurrection. I am simply observing that many supernatural signs and wonders were regularly performed in the New Testament, but no one is showing you or me the same supernatural wonders today. That calls into question the plausibility of a supernatural explanation.
But as I said before, there are many miracles in the Bible that I simply accept on faith, and it is reasonable to do so if everything that is objectively verifiable turns out to be true.
If nothing supernatural can be objectively verified, then it is unreasonable to accept the miracles on faith no matter what else can be objectively verified.
we are trying to objectively verify the one miracle on which Christianity depends--the resurrection of Jesus. And that can be done by examining all the facts and employing Bayes' Theorem.
The way Bayes' Theorem is employed isn't very useful. It would be more objective if numbers could be thrown in to give a result. As it is used, one can only claim something has a higher probability or lower probability given the evidence and background information.
Given that charlatans and illusionists are known examples of people that can perform "wonders" similar to those of the apostles, and we know of no one that can perform the same supernatural signs and wonders found in the New Testament (e.g. raise the dead, heal all the sick, walk on water) then the probability that the apostles performed supernatural signs and wonders is extremely low.
And given that the apostles performed supernatural signs and wonders is extremely low, the probability that Jesus rose from the dead through supernatural means is extremely low.
Lowell,
I think you're looking at this backwards by starting with the fact that charlatans and illusionists perform "wonders" today. First of all, that doesn't mean that true miracles don't happen today, and secondly, the fact that counterfeits exist doesn't mean the genuine does not exist.
The best way to approach the question of the resurrection is to first look at the arguments for theism in general. And when you do, keep in mind that atheism is not the default position-agnosticism is. As an atheist, you hold the philosophical position that God probably does not exist, or that nature is all there is. It's not absence of belief because that is what you believe.
Why is it a more reasonable position that time, space, and matter came out of nothing than that it was caused by a timeless, transcendent, immaterial Mind? Even if you've never seen a miracle, the fact that we're here seems kind of like a miracle in and of itself, doesn't it? Agnostic physicist Paul Davies said that the Big Bang "represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle--transcending physical principles."
I want to avoid getting completely off the subject in the comments, so I don't want to talk about the arguments for theism here, but my point is that you should not look at the evidence for the resurrection in isolation. You should look at in the context of all the evidence for theism (although the evidence for the resurrection is also evidence for theism), as evidence for a specific religion: Christianity.
So if you were to first examine the evidence for theism and determine that it outweighs the evidence for naturalism, then the next question is which God is the real one.
If nothing supernatural can be objectively verified, then it is unreasonable to accept the miracles on faith no matter what else can be objectively verified.
I think the resurrection can be objectively verified even if the other miracles in the Bible cannot.
The way Bayes' Theorem is employed isn't very useful. It would be more objective if numbers could be thrown in to give a result. As it is used, one can only claim something has a higher probability or lower probability given the evidence and background information.
Since scientists use Bayes' Theorem all the time in weighing hypotheses against each other in light of the evidence, the consensus is that it is useful even when it doesn't yield absolute mathematical certainty.
And Christians are not the only ones who have said that it's useful in evaluating the probability of a miracle. Atheist John Earman made that same point in Hume's Abject Failure.
Anette Acker said...
But if you can't refute the best arguments for Christian theism and you still want to remain an atheist, then you are not evaluating the evidence objectively.
I don't have to refute any arguments for Christianity. As Carl Sagan (I believe) said - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". For one thing, you have never provided any evidence that the events as portrayed in the bible actually happened as recorded. You have never also provided any explanation for why, if they did happen then why isn't it recorded in any non-biblical sources. Your main argument is "Gee, these people wouldn't lie, therefore it is the truth." Muslims will say the same thing regarding the people and events in their Koran as will the Hindus.
I can also say that the tooth fairy exists and that hundreds of thousands of parents over the past few centuries have told this to their children. Loving parents would never lie to their children thus the tooth fairy exists. WOW! I can prove anything now. Moving onto the leprechaun now...
You have to ask yourself if you are being objective and are willing to forgo Christianity in the face of new evidence. Do you weigh both sides evenly and objectively or do you give more weight to your side and less consideration to the opposition? For example, you found one guy who said that the growth rate for legends wasn't sufficient in the case of the resurrection. What if I find five, ten, or fifty other well-respected authorities who said there was sufficient time for the legend of the resurrection to grow - would you be willing to change your mind about the growth rate or would you hang onto it because it "supports" your position?
Darkknight56:
I don't have to refute any arguments for Christianity.
That's right, you don't. You can just go your merry atheistic way and not worry about any of the evidence for Christian theism. I promise I won't chase you down and try to force you to change your mind.
But if you want to debate these issues with Christians, you do have to refute our arguments or you lose.
Anette Acker
In the link below I made some comments concerning the Problem of Evil. Maybe they are useful to you.
http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/morality-test-for-god.html
Anette:
I think you're looking at this backwards by starting with the fact that charlatans and illusionists perform "wonders" today.
I am not looking at this backwards; I am continuing where you left off. You stopped your examination of the evidence too soon.
After finding fault with known naturalistic explanations, you declared that the only explanation left was that a miracle had occurred. Yet the other miracles recorded in the Bible cannot be confirmed. If the Bible is true, then someone somewhere should be able to repeat the many signs and wonders that were regularly done among the people.
The lack of miracles today calls into question the plausibility of the miracles described in the Bible.
First of all, that doesn't mean that true miracles don't happen today,
Are you are arguing that there is a possibility that some Christians are secretly performing true miracles (e.g. raising the dead, healing all the sick, walking on water)? It is not likely, and that would be no way to attest to the truth of God.
and secondly, the fact that counterfeits exist doesn't mean the genuine does not exist.
That fact that true miracles are not found certainly call into question their existence. And the fact that magic tricks, deceptions, and fabrications do exist makes it is a likely possibility that is what the Bible describes.
Even if you've never seen a miracle, the fact that we're here seems kind of like a miracle in and of itself, doesn't it?
No.
Terms in these discussions can have many meanings and change at any time.
I am focusing on the performed miracles as described in the Bible to determine if your explanation for the evidence is plausible. If those miracles cannot be demonstrated, there is a glaring problem with claiming a miracle explains the evidence for the resurrection.
Since scientists use Bayes' Theorem all the time in weighing hypotheses against each other in light of the evidence, the consensus is that it is useful even when it doesn't yield absolute mathematical certainty.
Without inserting numbers into Bayes' Theorem and explaining how one determined those numbers, the real benefit of Bayes' Theorem is never utilized.
But even more than that, there is definitely a subjective element to the way Bayes' Theorem is being used to evaluate the resurrection. The background information involves presuppositions that may be incorrect. And the posterior probability is heavily dependent on the prior probability. What you put in is what you get out.
I don't know how you can even claim that it is being used to objectively verify the resurrection or theism.
Patrick,
I read through a number of your comments on the site you referenced, and you made some great points.
I'm just starting my series of posts on the problem of evil, prayer, miracles, etc. and hope you'll join our discussion.
Lowell:
I am not looking at this backwards; I am continuing where you left off. You stopped your examination of the evidence too soon.
I have not stopped. I am now beginning a series of posts where I'm looking at the subject of miracles from a different angle. The resurrection is one central miracle that can be examined empirically. However, the subject of miracles can also be studied theologically, including the question of why miracles don't happen very often. The Bible answers these questions in a very consistent way.
Without inserting numbers into Bayes' Theorem and explaining how one determined those numbers, the real benefit of Bayes' Theorem is never utilized.
People who utilize Bayes' Theorem do insert numbers.
But even more than that, there is definitely a subjective element to the way Bayes' Theorem is being used to evaluate the resurrection. The background information involves presuppositions that may be incorrect. And the posterior probability is heavily dependent on the prior probability. What you put in is what you get out.
You might find the peer-reviewed article by Lydia and Tim McGrew on the argument from miracles useful. They are experts on probability theory.
They reached the conclusion that the evidence can overcome a prior (im)probability of 10-⁴⁰. So they do not get into a discussion of the prior probability because it is too broad a subject. Their focus is on the specific evidence for the resurrection.
And since the probability that God exists and could and would raise His Son from the dead is nowhere near as low as 10-⁴⁰, the lack of a definite prior probability is no hindrance.
Sorry, for some reason my link didn't work before.
Anette,
Thanks for the link. It appears it will be helpful to me, but it will take me some time to get through. It has taken me a while to reach the understanding that I now have of Bayes' Theorem.
When you ran Bayes theorem:
1. What was the final value that you arrived at?
2. What numbers did you use to arrive at that value?
3. What was the mathematical process you used to arrive at those numbers?
If you personally didn't run the numbers, which is perfectly legitimate, then do you know who did and where can we find those figures?
Since Lydia and Tim McGrew's article is peer-reviewed what journal was it published in? I don't see the journal's name in the article whose link you provided.
Anette
Looking at your post that is dated 30th July 2010 you obviously adhere to Annihilationism. In my view with respect to the Problem of Evil this doctrine has a desastrous effect, as according to it all people who have not accepted God’s salvation are going to receive the same amount of punishment, no matter how they have lived, which might be regarded as unjust. Furthermore, at least those who have not accepted God’s salvation would not be compensated for their suffering in the afterlife. My attempt of a theodicy in the site mentioned above depends on the concept of an afterlife for all people.
Of course, this effect of Annihilationism doesn’t mean that this doctrine is not true. But it’s not simply the inconvenient effect that makes me be critical about it; it’s also that I doubt that the Bible supports it.
When the Bible talks about death, it needn’t refer to the bodily death. After having eaten the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve obviously didn’t immidiately drop dead, so the “death” predicted by God has to be regarded as a different kind of death. This kind of death might be called spiritual death. Other Biblical passages that obviously refer to this kind of death include Matthew 8,22, John 5,24, Romans 6,13, 7,9, and Ephesians 2,1.
Patrick,
I have modified my views somewhat since I wrote that post (and maybe I should make a note of). My current position can be essentially summarized as, "I don't know." I know that God will judge with justice and love, but I don't know exactly how that will play out.
In fact, I completely agree with evangelical Bible scholar Ben Witherington, who said the following on his blog after examining the traditional view and the annihilation view:
"So where does this leave us, if a good case, solidly based in Scripture, can be made for either anihilationism or everlasting punishment? Where it leaves me, at least, is that I have to be honest and say, either conclusion is possible, and equally orthodox. This is one of those points where equally orthodox Christians can agree to disagree and should not question each other’s orthodoxy because of it.
"It is also worth stressing that both cases rely on highly metaphorical language to make their case, which is why I would suggest that we back off from being overly dogmatic about our conclusions on this matter. I would also finally like to stress as well that in neither case are we talking about a scenario in which all persons end up being saved, and in neither case are we talking about anyone being saved who is not in the Lamb’s book of life. In both views, Jesus is the only savior for all the world, and having a positive relationship with Jesus in the end is the only way love wins.
"Based on all my work on the theology and ethics of the NT (see The Indelible Image Vols. 1-2), if I were a betting man (which I am not), I would bet that probably the annihilationist view is closer to the truth, based on the revealed character of God in Christ as both just and loving. But I don’t know that I can be sure about this when the evidence is so imagaic and so metaphorical."
Darkknight56:
If you personally didn't run the numbers, which is perfectly legitimate, then do you know who did and where can we find those figures?
I did not personally run those numbers, but the McGrews did in their article. Professor of philosophy Richard Swinburne also did in his books.
Since Lydia and Tim McGrew's article is peer-reviewed what journal was it published in? I don't see the journal's name in the article whose link you provided.
I don't know where it was published, but atheist Luke Muehlhauser of Common Sense Atheism said (in his apology to Lydia on her blog for seeming like he agreed with Richard Carrier in his unfair criticism of the article--which Carrier also apologized for):
"Carrier apparently has only a few years' experience with Bayes' Theorem, as the historical method section in Sense & Goodness Without God (2005) does not mention Bayes. When asked to guess at the competence in probability theory between two people who have been publishing peer-reviewed philosophy literature on probability theory for at least a decade vs. someone who discovered Bayes' Theorem in the last few years, I'm going to bet on the former in a heartbeat.
"I think Carrier is right about the need to do history with Bayes' Theorem, and I suspect you and Tim agree. But I worry about his execution, and would be overjoyed to see him team up with a formal epistemologist to rework "Bayes' Theorem and Historical Method.
"I haven't had time to consider Lydia's post above, or the Carrier article linked to at Reppert's site, in much depth. But I'm glad this discussion is happening and I wanted to apologize to you for saying "Yeah, it does seem like something slippery is going on." That was me getting caught up in the "yeahs" instead of taking the time to thoroughly compare Carrier's claims the words in your article! I hope you'll forgive that and harbor no hard feelings!" (Italics added.)
Anette Acker said...
I don't know where it was published,
Okay, so what is your basis for saying it was peer-reviewed? Was the mathematical portion (the Bayes Theorem part) peer-reviewed by mathematicians or statisticians?
Is there any group of mathematicians who are not also Christian apologists/believers who support the use of Bayes theorem in the way Lydia and Tim use it?
Anette Acker said...
They reached the conclusion that the evidence can overcome a prior (im)probability of 10-⁴⁰.
My browser displays the probability figure as ((10^-4)^0) which is ten to the negative 4, that quantity raised to the power of zero. Please let me know if that is correct. If it is then it is just another way of writing the number 1.
(10^-4) = (0.0001)
(0.0001)^0 = 1
Darkknight56,
It's 10 to the minus 40th power.
Okay, so what is your basis for saying it was peer-reviewed? Was the mathematical portion (the Bayes Theorem part) peer-reviewed by mathematicians or statisticians?
As I said, Luke Muehlhauser, who is very well read in philosophy, said that the McGrews had been publishing peer-reviewed philosophy literature on probability theory for at least a decade. That was my basis for saying that it was peer-reviewed. He had no motivation for making the concession he did and he and Carrier would not have publicly apologized unless the McGrews math really was correct.
Is there any group of mathematicians who are not also Christian apologists/believers who support the use of Bayes theorem in the way Lydia and Tim use it?
Yes, John Earman, who is an atheist. However, he didn't sift through the facts supporting the resurrection in the way the McGrews did. That was beyond the scope of his book. And that would have been very time-consuming. As the McGrews said:
"Measured by this standard, the argument from miracles is not purely philosophical. Its evaluation requires the patient sifting of a welter of details, the consideration of putatively analogous events, the assessment of the probability or improbability of fraud or muddle or the gradual growth of legend. And this specificity carries through to its conclusion."
"Yes, John Earman, who is an atheist."
It amazes me how many atheists you know who support the resurrection in some way. (That's a complement, by the way.) I do have to wonder, though, if all of these atheists support some aspect of Christianity then why are they still atheists? How can one do/be both? It's like being a meat-eating vegan.
Darkknight56,
These atheists do not support the resurrection in any way. Richard Carrier is a Jesus mythicist who harshly and unfairly criticized the McGrew article, but to his credit he followed Luke M's example in publicly apologizing. In doing so, he simply admitted that their math was correct. He made no concessions about the facts on which the math depends or the prior probability.
As for John Earman and Luke M, they are just particularly intellectually honest atheists. Earman says in Hume's Abject Failure that his goal in the book was to set the record straight, but he also says that he finds nothing attractive about Christianity, and if he had need of gods, he would go for the pantheon of Greek and Roman gods. Somewhere else he calls himself "cynical." So he has his own personal reasons for being an atheist.
I never did figure out why Luke M deconverted from Christianity (but I think he was only about 20 when he did). He stopped writing about atheism and philosophy of religion on his blog, and although I admit that I didn't read his blog very often, I never found a clear explanation for why he is an atheist. I read his blog to try to understand that.
When he announced that he was changing the focus of his blog, a Christian commented that he always felt like Luke was about to explain why he was an atheist, but he never got around to it. Those were my sentiments exactly. Luke would say, for example, that atheists lose debates because they are not prepared, but he never explained what they should have argued.
But I think he is a follower of Richard Carrier, so he doesn't come close to accepting the resurrection. In fact, to my knowledge he hasn't said much about the evidence for the resurrection.
Post a Comment