Correcting J. Warner Wallace on the skeptical argument from denominationalism

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Quick Shot: “If Christianity were true, there wouldn’t be so many denominations”

Response #1:
“Christianity isn’t the only worldview held by people who disagree.

That is irrelevant; ANY religion that claims exclusive means of salvation would be legitimately criticized if it came in so many contradictory forms as "Christianity" does.

And since unbelievers can know that God doesn't want Christians to engage in "word-wrangling" (2nd Timothy 2:14) and they can know by viewing the history of Christian differences that not even "word-wrangling" helps two opposing Christians figure out which one of them is being guided by God, the unbeliever can be confident that whatever 'god' is allegedly guiding these religions, if any, doesn't want them to seek to resolve doctrinal differences by having debates about the meaning of words.

Which is sort of like depriving a soldier of his gun, then telling him to survive an armed ambush.

In other words, if an unbeliever is serious about becoming a Christian, they must always obey 2nd Timothy 2:14, even if they have serious problems with the opinions held by whatever spiritual mentor they look up to.  That means they have to enter Christianity believing that 'god' doesn't want them to engage in the most objective method of resolving disputes (having discussions where the meaning of words is debated).  Therefore any biblical texts that reveal how to resolve doctrinal disputes, cannot be read to imply that Paul wanted his followers to engage in disputing of words.  Apparently then, the 'biblical' way to resolve doctrinal differences is for the Christian to simply preach at the "heretic", and cease associating with them if they fail to acquiesce by the second warning (Titus 3:9-11).

The notion that Paul or Jesus wanted their followers to imitate their own example of wrangling words, is clearly false.  

For example, atheists hold disagreements about secondary issues, even though all of them agree that God does not exist.

Atheists don't claim to be helped in their understanding by an infallible higher power.  Christians however boast that God guides their bible study.  So atheists can be perfectly certain that where two Christians hold contradictory interpretations of a bible verse, at least one of them MUST be in the wrong, and the only question is why the atheist should avoid inferring that the dispute falsifies other scriptural promises that this alleged God wants believers to agree on doctrine (1st Corinthians 1:10, including on eschatology, 2nd Timothy 2:16-18, and you resolve disputes by "warning" those who disagree with Paul, then excommunicating those who refuse to acquiesce by the second warning, Titus 3:9-11).

Paul actually thought that factions within Christianity performed the good work of revealing which leaders had actual truth on their side:

 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.
 19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. (1 Cor. 11:18-19 NAU)

Of course, he was wrong; as not even today's efforts to resolve doctrinal disputes in the church (various scholarly journals, movements like Evangelicals and Catholics Together, etc) "reveal" which denominations are "approved".  And 1st Clement testifies that the divisions in the Corinthians church continued after Paul died. 

Atheists also don't claim that one certain magical book states all the answers atheists would ever need to help resolve any possible disagreements.  But of course not only do Christian claim to have such magic book, they also disagree on how much content it had, and accuse the magic books of other Christians of distorting the truth.

But even if a group of religions all use the same magic book, but provide different advice on essentials like god's intentions and salvation, there is a reasonably fair probability that many of them are false.  That's enough to justify the skeptic in kicking Christianity to the curb.  What are they gonna do?  Get their Ph.d in New Testament studies?  They can already tell, based on other Christians with such ph.ds who continue to disagree with each other on biblical doctrine, that this would be a guaranteed waste of 10 years.  You may as well think spending 10 years getting your ph.d in quantum physics will enable you to figure out which school of quantum physics is correct.

If the experts in Christianity remain in perpetual disagreement, I wouldn't think anybody except the most bigoted ignorant fundamentalist would insist that unbelievers are still under some sort of 'obligation' to spend all of their free time researching Christianity's experts. Well sorry, but Romans 1:20 is only good at making you feel boastfully better about your contentions, quoting an ancient mystic does precisely nothing to place the unbeliever under the least amount of intellectual obligation to go searching for the right form of Christianity.

If a man has two kids, wife, mortgage, full time job, then his family would suffer if he simply dedicated all of his free time to such research.  You cannot play with the kids, sleep or have sex with the wife while googling "essential doctrine".  But if such a man thought taking the kids to the park was in order, that takes away from the time he has to involve himself in Christianity's in-house bickering bullshit.  Now what?  Will you become a comatose fool, like Jesus, and insist that this married father of two has an obligation to give up his wife, kids, job and house just so he can spend his every waking hour researching your stupid bullshit?  Jesus said his followers should give up custody of everything, including their kids (Matthew 19:29).  His stated purpose was to break up families:

 51 "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division;
 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three.
 53 "They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." (Lk. 12:51-53 NAU)

 34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
 35 "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;
 36 and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.
 37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
 38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. (Matt. 10:34-38 NAU)

You cannot even make a compelling case that any biblical bullshit applies to the modern age, as the biblical authors, in failing to explain various terms that have puzzled modern scholars, testifies rather strongly they did not intend their writings to be used by outsiders as distant as thousands of years into the future.  YOU have the burden to show any of this crap still applies today, and you aren't going to meet that burden.

Until you make the case that ignoring/rejecting Christianity puts a person in urgent danger, the "unreasonableness" of citing Christianity's differences to justify ignoring it wholesale, will be equal to the unreasonableness of citing differences among the schools of quantum theory to justify ignoring quantum theory wholesale? No serious argument for danger?  Not a lot of reason, beyond one's subjective idle curiosity,  to give a fuck about the subject.

And since there is no clear NT teaching showing Jesus hurling "hell" at Gentiles, while his known interactions with them never show him admonishing them to read the scriptures, or screaming about how their imperfect notions of his relation to the father can bar their salvation, and in fact often show that he was more worried to grant their selfish desires for miracles than push "you need to be saved" crap, we atheists are justified to say all that trifling bullshit that later NT authors created merely contradicts the more liberal view Jesus himself espoused.  Now what are you gonna do?  Provide compelling arguments that god inspired all the books in the NT canon?  Gee, no ancient and modern Christian scholars disagreed about that, did they?  LOL.

Atheists differ in their views, leading to a variety of categorizations and descriptions, including ‘Implicit’ Atheists, ‘Explicit’ Atheists, ‘Weak’ Atheists, ‘Strong’ Atheists, ‘Iconoclastic’ Atheists, ‘Pragmatic’ Atheists, ‘Mono’ Atheists, ‘Myopic’ Atheists, ‘Realistic’ Atheists, ‘Scientific’ Atheists, ‘Logical’ Atheists and many more. Like Christians who disagree on secondary issues, people who hold an atheistic worldview have similar disagreements. Would it be fair to conclude that atheism is untrue based on these disagreements?”

No, it would be fair to conclude that there is no infallible 'god' guiding atheists in their understanding, except for the trifle that maybe the infallible god wants certain seekers to be misled about the truth (and since Christianity's "Calvinism" cult preaches exactly this (including teaching this god infallibly predestines everyting people do, including skeptics who make these arguments), your protest that God always wants his sincere seekers to arrive at truth, is yet another division in Christianity the unbeliever is required to leave up in the air).

It wouldn't matter if some Christian denominations really were divinely guided today, the history of Christianity shows you will likely never be able to come to reasonably confident conclusions about the actual truth of the matter if you study that shit, the most you will ever do is draw the conclusion that you have arrived at the place god wants you to be...the exact type of subjective self-assurance that leads to Christianity's in-house doctrinal debates.

Response #2:
“I believe in the existence of the universe. You do too, right? Did you know that the people who understand the universe the best – astrophysicists and cosmologists – hold many disagreements?

Did you know that none of them claim to have derived their conclusions from divine inspiration, the way the authors of the biblical books did?

These scientists divide themselves into factions, including ‘Big Bang’ Cosmologists, ‘Steady State’ Cosmologists, ‘Conformal Cyclic’ Cosmologists, ‘Ekpyrotic’ Cosmologists, ‘Multiverse’ Cosmologists, ‘Pre-Big Bang Theory’ Cosmologists, ‘Quantum Theory’ Cosmologists and many more. Examining the same set of facts, these scientists, based on their disagreements, have separated into ‘scientific denominations’ (even though they agree on many essential issues). Can you see why disagreement between Christians doesn’t falsify the truth of Christianity any more than disagreement between astrophysicists falsifies the existence of the universe?”

No, what I see is that if people contradict each other on some issue, at least ONE of them has to be wrong.  Under such logic; if Pentecostals and Baptists disagree about whether speaking in tongues is a necessary manifestation in the life of a truly born-again Christian, then ONE of them MUST be incorrect.   Yet you Christians obviously provide no way to resolve this doctrinal contradiction, you simply tell people to prayerfully study their bibles and several good commentaries...as if Pentecostal and Baptist scholars never did that.  You would simply cite the biblical evidence you think supports your view, then pretend that it doesn't matter since it isn't essential doctrine. Then the Pentecostal would counter that what fruit must be minimally manifested by true believers before they can be accepted into the fold is clearly essential doctrine.

But you are even wrong with the "essential doctrine/non-essential doctrine" dichotomy:  It is never taught by Jesus or Paul or any NT author. Instead, they always claim that to disagree with anything they teach, is spiritually disastrous.  Paul cited Christian disagreement on eschatology as a subject that he forbade his followers from differing on:

 16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness,
 17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,
 18 men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some.   (2 Tim. 2:16-18 NAU)

Apparently, Paul thinks combating the theory that the resurrection has already taken place (an issue of eschatology) constitutes "empty chatter" that he warns his followers to "avoid".

The point is that not only is Christianity internally conflicted about its own doctrines, it also forbids doctrinally conflicting Christians from doing the one thing that is likely to help resolve the difference:  debates or discussions.  If you think nothing in the bible forbids friendly scholarly discussions between people who disagree on Christian doctrine, then apparently you never read Titus 3:

 9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,
 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
 (Tit. 3:9-11 NAU)

No, "warning" doesn't allow "discussion" or "debate", because discussion/debate necessarily entail disagreements about the meaning of doctrinally significant words, and Paul forbids Christians from having disputes about the meaning of words:

13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.
 14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. (2 Tim. 2:13-14 NAU)

Paul's extreme pessimism toward the alleged benefits of disputing the meaning of words, makes clear that he does not allow to his followers what he allowed to himself (initiating debates with heretics, Acts 19:8.

No, the mere fact that you can find some divinely inspired person in the bible doing something, doesn't automatically mean YOU have the right to imitate it:

 54 When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?"
 55 But He turned and rebuked them (Lk. 9:54-55 NAU)

Furthermore this "essential doctrine/non-essential doctrine" dichotomy evinces spiritual immaturity.  When you say you are free to disagree with other Christians about "non-essential" doctrine, you are implicitly assuming that even if the other guy is truly representing God's intent on a matter, such as eschatology, God "wouldn't care" that you disagree with God on those matters.  Try documenting THAT liberal loving crap from the bible.

Can you see why disagreement between Christians doesn’t falsify the truth of Christianity any more than disagreement between astrophysicists falsifies the existence of the universe?

No, rather, I see contradictions between purveyors of religion to logically require that at least one of them is wrong.  I also see how stupid it would be to pretend that if I did what many in the fray have done, and take the next 30 years to investigate the differences, I will be not be able to correctly tell which of them are in the right.  I am therefore quite reasonable to conclude that the biblical wording is FATALLY ambiguous, and is therefore unworthy of the notice of any atheist, if they choose to ignore it.

Atheists are not in any more danger for completely thumbing their noses at the bible, than they are in completely thumbing their noses at the writings of Irenaeus.

How many times must Christian scholars disagree on a doctrine, before outsiders become reasonable to conclude there is no more "god" guiding anybody in the dispute, than there is guiding disputing politicians?

Response #3:
“Why would you be surprised that people disagree with one another – in any field of study, worldview or system of belief?

I wouldn't...unless those people were claiming that an infallible higher power was guiding their understanding.  At that point, drawing inferences from the contradictions between the beliefs becomes reasonable.

People always disagree about something, even if it’s only a minor detail or issue. It’s the nature of being human, and it says much less about the truth of a claim than it does about the people who hold the claim.

You are missing the point.  It doesn't matter if God thinks Arminianism is true. That conclusion cannot be supported from the bible with any greater scholarly confidence than can Calvinism.  The ambiguity of the bible on the matter, and the disagreement among the "experts" on the subject, are going to make the atheist reasonable to be completely apathetic toward the entire business...whether or not one of the competing doctrines is actually true.

But if scholars have been fighting about the issues for centuries without resolution (Protestants v. Catholics, Calvinists v. Arminians, Fundametnalists v. Liberals, covenant theologians v. dispensationalists, witch doctors v. cessationists, Young Earth Creationists v. Old Earth Creationists, Paul v. Judaizers, up to and including disagreements on "essential" doctrine, see Eusebius of Caeasarea being accused of only pretending to agree with the Council of Nicaea on Jesus' nature, to say nothing of the bribes promised to the bishops for reaching a majority vote, etc, etc.), its a pretty safe bet that the wording creating the original doctrine at issue is fatally ambiguous and thus unworthy of the attention of anybody who chooses to ignore it.

In other words, there is a very good reason why Christians don't disagree about Jesus' gender, but yet  disagree about whether Jesus is equal to god.  If any 'god' is guiding any Christian in these debates, she appears more concerned that they agree on the minors (Jesus' gender) instead of the majors (Jesus' nature)...which might suggest it is the fundamentalists who are wrong, and their "god" cares far less about "doctrine" than they think.  Compare Jesus dismissing his Gentile followers with no admonition to study the scriptures, with Pharisee Paul's long ramblings insisting that studying the scriptures is vitally paramount.

Given that disagreeable humans differ in their views about secondary issues in nearly every worldview (atheism and theism included), should we reject all truth claims based on these inclinations toward disagreement?

If we have studied those issues for ourselves and found the original claims to be worded with fatal ambiguity, or found that the claims rest on highly controversial evidence that not even the experts can agree on, then I'm not seeing how the person who completely ignores the matter is doing anything the least bit unreasonable.  When serious danger is afoot, the experts usually don't disagree for centuries on what it is, IF it is, or how urgent it is. Therefore, I reasonably conclude that "true" Christianity does not preach any "danger" to modern day Gentiles...leaving me with no justification, beyond completely subjective curiosity, to give a fuck.

Wouldn’t it be wiser to examine the claims themselves rather than the people who hold them?”

Yes, but failure to be "wiser" doesn't automatically mean those who refuse to study that far are thus "unreasonable".  You cannot really say how much study somebody must do before they can be intellectually justified to start drawing ultimate conclusions about the subject.  And because you will quickly praise and encourage even ignorant people who want to "accept Jesus", you are apparently in agreement with me that a person can be reasonable to start drawing ultimate conclusions about matters of scholarly controversy with little or no "study".  The more you insist atheists have some sort of obligation to attain scholarly knowledge of the bible before they can criticize it, the more we expect you to encourage stupid interested people to delay accepting Jesus until they attain scholarly knowledge of the bible.

Every ex-fundamentalist agrees with me:   If we could only have known, back in our fundie days, what we know now, we'd never have given Christianity more than a passing glance.

Given that disagreeable humans differ in their views about secondary issues in nearly every worldview (atheism and theism included), should we reject all truth claims based on these inclinations toward disagreement?

Yes, when all of those humans insist they are all being guided by the same infallible god who never contradicts himself.  Not even the spiritually alive people most dedicated to this god can get their story straight, yet you "expect" spiritually dead people to recognize doctrinal truth anyway?  FUCK YOU.

Yeah, and I'm sure the snake-handling Christians of Appalachia are sure that my skepticism of their spirituality is just a case of "worldly reasoning".  Like it matters.