Triablogue's Jason Engwer puts a shitload of effort into trying to prove that the Enfield Poltergeist was real.
He does this so that he can then prove atheism wrong.
But as I've noted before, my skepticism of Jesus' resurrection renders the alleged wrongness of atheism irrelevant.
Even supposing atheism is wrong, that doesn't mean "atheist is in trouble with the Christian god".
All it means is that a god exists.
Since
a) the apostle Paul said Jesus' failure to rise from the dead would turn Christians into false witnesses who are still in their sins (1st Cor. 15:15), and
b) I continue beating down the way Engwer, Hays, Licona, Habermas and W.L. Craig interpret the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus,
it really doesn't matter if a god exists, the fact that I am reasonable to deduce this god is not the Christian god creates the stark possibility that the Christians are in just as much trouble with this god for misrepresenting him, as they think atheists are for denying his basic existence.
Before you can leap from "you are wrong" to "you are unreasonable", you have to show that the being wrong is more likely to lead to some type of disaster. But if the evidence for Jesus' resurrection is as unpersuasive and weak as I claim, the best the apologists could possibly be left with is that there is some "god" out there, so that atheists remain wrong even if it be reasonable to deny Jesus rose from the dead.
At that point, whether that god even cares whether anybody misrepresents him or denies him, would be forever open to blind speculation, except for trifling Christians who would automatically default to the OT god upon discovery that the NT is bullshit.
But according to Deut. 13, even when the prophet does a real miracle, he STILL might be leading people into error, and therefore, such miracle-worker would STILL suffer the wrath of this god.
That is, according to the OT principle, Jesus' miracle of rising from the dead does NOT end the discussion of whether the OT god approves of him. But I have yet to see any Christian argument that the OT YHWH approves of Jesus, they rather think his resurrection miracle is the end of the debate.
They also blindly insist that because Jesus uses the divine title, he IS YHWH, a contention that has kept the church divided since even before the Council of Nicaea.
Therefore, the Christians are getting precisely nowhere by wasting such enormous amounts of time trying to prove atheism wrong, or that a spiritual dimension exists, or that physicalism is false. Atheists don't start becoming unreasonable unless their being in the wrong can be proven to have likely disastrous consequences. Sure, I might be wrong to say Japan is located in Australia, but unless you could show that this wrongness will likely lead to harmful effects on myself, you are never going to "prove" that I "should" care about being wrong.
I'm pretty sure that Bigfoot is a hoax and was never anything more than a fairy tale and a man in a monkey suit...but why should I care if that is wrong and the creature is a genuine cryptid? Does Bigfoot denial have a history of causing skeptics to get the flu more often than the average person?
Because the evidence for Jesus' resurrection is poor, and because the NT doctrine of eternal conscious torment in the afterworld contradicts the OT concept of god's justice, the atheist has no reason to 'worry' about atheism being 'wrong', at worst they will experience nothing more than permanent extinction of consciousness, a fate they already accept. Pissing off god is about as fearful as pissing off a puppy.
Therefore, trying to prove atheism is wrong is a fruitlessly and purely academic waste of time (i.e., has no serious application to anybody's actual life beyond mere idle intellectual curiosity, and is equal to trying to prove somebody else wrong about whether the Trojan War ever happened).
There's a possibility that angry space aliens will zap you...but how much effort should an atheist put into protecting herself from such disaster? Maybe always wear a radar-deflecting hat?
There's a possibility that a wild animal will kill the atheist after they walk in the front door of their house, but how much effort should the atheist put into protecting herself from such possible disaster? Maybe peek in every window before going in the house, or installing motion detectors? FUCK YOU.
There's a possibility some "god" will roast atheists alive in hell forever, but how much effort should the atheist put into protecting herself from such disaster? Maybe spend the next 50 years trying to figure out which view of God is correct so they don't end up joining the wrong cult and end up making things worse for themselves by adding the sin of heresy to their existing sin of unbelief? FUCK YOU.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: in light of god's hiddenness on the one hand, and the Christian apologist's mouthiness on the other, it appears Christian apologists love atheists more than their own god does. Irony never sucked quite as much as that.
I'm not arguing in the following comments. YOu're free not answer any of them since I"m sure you've addressed them in your other blogposts.
ReplyDeleteBut not being familiar with your blogs, I do have some questions I would would try to find out what your views are for clarity's sake. In reading your blogs I would try to find out whether you claiming that since the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection is (in your opinion) insufficient to conclude Jesus did rise from the dead that that disproves Christianity? That doesn't seem to follow since the truth of Christianity, while it hinges on the historicity of the resurrection event (i.e. that it happened), doesn't hinge on it being historically likely to have happened given contemporary [IMO arbitrary] standards and methods of doing history.
Or are you claiming that you've disproven the resurrection, and therefore disproven Christianity?
Or are you claiming that if Christianity is true then the Christian God was morally obligated to give more publicly verifiable evidence of his existence than is available, and therefore that disproves Christianity? But many (not all) Christians including presuppositionalists and evidentialists like W.L. Craig argue that God has provided sufficient evidence for His existence apart from specifically Christian evidences, such that all humans are accountable and culpably guilty before God [again irrespective of whether they encountered Christianity's message/gospel or the alleged evidences for Christianity].
//I am reasonable to deduce this god is not the Christian god//
Do you have a specific "go to" blogpost that addresses this in-depth? I might add that many Christians believe that God wasn't obligated to either provide redemption at all, or even providing redemption (for at least some) was further obligated to provide more evidence for Christianity than is available. That would seem to presuppose a more Arminian conception of the Christian God. Which, Calvinists like myself think is less Biblically supportable than a more Calvinistic version.
//That is, according to the OT principle, Jesus' miracle of rising from the dead does NOT end the discussion of whether the OT god approves of him. But I have yet to see any Christian argument that the OT YHWH approves of Jesus, they rathter think his resurrection miracle is the end of the debate.//
Of course, Christians have produced defenses of the OT prophecies which we consider were fulfilled by Christ. Many of which address the the standard objections of distorting the the quotations and interpretations of OT passages. These are things which apologists like William Lane Craig and Mike Licona don't delve into. It seems Craig doesn't because he doesn't think they really work. He doesn't believe in Jesus because of the OT, he believes in the OT because of Jesus.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBTW, here is a list of useful Books in Defense of Jesus' Genuine Messiahship which I included in one of my blogposts.
DeleteMichael L. Brown is considered by virtually everyone as the World's Foremost Messianic Jewish Apologist. I agree. However, while I believe he does a great job in answering Jewish objections, he doesn't present the best case and evidences from OT. The other scholars below do a better job because they are scholars in the relevant fields. Brown's doctorate is in languages. I'm not claiming that all the other authors I cite below are scholars, but many [most?] are.
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (5 volumes) by Michael L. Brown
The Real Kosher Jesus by Michael L. Brown
Jewish New Testament Commentary by David H. Stern
Messianic Judaism: A Modern Movement with an Ancient Past by David H. Stern
Jesus the Messiah: Tracing the Promises, Expectations, and Coming of Israel's King by Herbert Bateman IV, Gordon Johnston and Darrell Bock
The Messiah in the Old Testament by Walter C. Kaiser
Messianic Christology by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
Footsteps of the Messiah by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
Are You the One Who Is to Come?: The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question by Michael F. Bird
The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? by Michael Rydelnik
Behold Your King: Prophetic Proofs that Jesus is the Messiah by William Webster
Return of the Kosher Pig by Itzhak Shapira
The Scepter and the Star by John Collins
The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology by Darrell Bock (editor) and Mitch Glaser (editor)
All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible by Herbert Lockyer
The Prophecies of the Old Testament Respecting the Messiah by John Gill (written in the 18th century, this work can be read at the very bottom of this link; Here's another link to another website)
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim (this link is not to the updated version, but to the original written in the 19th century and which is now in the public domain)
Messiah in Both Testaments by Fred John Meldau (introductory material on the subject)
Christology of the Old Testament by E.W. Hengstenberg (written in the 18th century)
Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)
Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament Christopher J. H. Wright
A Zeal For God Not According to Knowledge: A Refutation of Judaism's Arguments Against Christianity, 2nd Edition by Eric V. Snow
Christ in All the Scriptures by A.M. Hodgkin (or here, here)
[Recommended by Steve Hays]
The Servant King: The Bible's portrait of the Messiah by T. D. Alexander and Alec Motyer
Look to the Rock: An Old Testament Background to Our Understanding of Christ by Alec Motyer
The Christ of the Prophets by O. Palmer Robertson
The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? (NAC Studies in Bible & Theology) by Michael Rydelnik
The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament by Michael Rydelnik (Editor), Edwin Blum (Editor)
The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation by John H. Sailhamer
OLD TESTAMENT Commentaries Recommended by Steve Hayshttps://triablogue.blogspot.com/p/ot-and-nt-bibliography.html
AP: (and i'll ask you one more time to please confine yoru replies or posts to single sub-topics. The nore you say in a single post, the more likely the subsequent back-and-forth will become prohibitively voluminous).
DeleteYou argue that Christianity's truth hinges on whether Jesus rose from the dead, not whether it is "likely" that he rose from the dead. I think what you are missing is that since we live 2,000 years after the fact, and we cannot go back in time, we are forced to make less-than-absolute judgment calls about the 2,000 year old testimony. If it is reasonable to say, today, that the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is very poor, that will reasonably justify the skeptic to draw the absolute conclusion that he did not, in fact, rise from the dead, since in most people’s minds, what they deem “highly unlikely” usually morphs, without evidence to the contrary, into “actually didn’t happen”.
Think about it. It’s highly unlikely that a human being ever landed on the Sun. Will you trifle that it is unreasonable to draw the ultimate conclusion that we actually never did?
So while strict conformity to rules of historiography only allows for degrees of probability or improbability, it is also equally reasonable for a person to conclude that what’s highly unlikely, actually never happened. The technical objection that they could somehow miraculously be wrong, is inconsequential, since I've been in plenty of situations where I've changed my absolute position after being confronted with solid evidence that wasn't provided to be before that point. Therefore, the skeptic who jumps from “Jesus likely didn’t rise from the dead” to “Jesus actually didn’t rise from the dead” is not doing anything unreasonable, nor is he saying he will forever refuse further review of the evidence. I'm absolutely certain no human being has ever landed on the sun. But if enough legitimate scientists start saying this happened once in the past, I'd probably be willing to listen.
I’m confident enough to say Bigfoot is nothing but a hoax, but I’m obviously not going to continue holding that view when and if I ever come across better evidence of a very human like ape thing that has caused a revolution among primatologists.
The issue is not whether Christianity is true. The issue is whether today’s skeptics can be reasonable to claim it’s false. They can. I don’t have issues with Christianity. I have issues with fuckhead apologists who are ceaselessly insulting my intelligence by dogmatizing that it is only my sinful hatred of the divine that causes me to downplay the evidence for Jesus' resurrection.
"Or are you claiming that if Christianity is true then the Christian God was morally obligated to give more publicly verifiable evidence of his existence than is available, and therefore that disproves Christianity?"
Delete--------I would argue that if any "god" is as worried about our salvation as the Christian "apologists" seem to be, then that god would imitiate them...and do his best to make undeniably clear whatever doctrinal truths he thinks are necessary to salvation.
Hays the Calvinist will jump in at this point and insist that this doesn't hurt his own position because his god DOES make gospel truth undeniably clear to whoever he wishes to save. But that's a useless trifle, since I could simply respond that Hays also believes that the ultimate reason i reject Christianity is because Hays's hyperCalvinist god infallibly predestined me to...in which case finding fault with me for fulfilling God's will is like punishing your son when he does exactly what you want him to do exactly when where and how you wanted him to do it.
"But many (not all) Christians including presuppositionalists and evidentialists like W.L. Craig argue that God has provided sufficient evidence for His existence apart from specifically Christian evidences, such that all humans are accountable and culpably guilty before God [again irrespective of whether they encountered Christianity's message/gospel or the alleged evidences for Christianity]."
Delete----------I'm not seeing much point in that observation, as nothing about it affects me in the least. I'm quite familiar with the so-called arguments for general theism, and I find none of them to be the least bit reasonable.
Worse, the arguments for general theism do not get to the conclusion that Craig wishes. The mere existence of a god, if gtranted, does not automatically mean "he intends to punish those who deny his existence".
The only way you can move from god's existence, to atheism being dangerous, is with evidence that this god is angry at atheists, and you aren't going to get that from anything except "the bible"...and that's precisely where such attempt at greater nuance breaks down.
"Do you have a specific "go to" blogpost that addresses this in-depth?"
Delete-------No. But my numerous articles attacking the resurrection of Jesus are quite sufficient to reasonably justify a person to conclude that, if a god exists, it isn't the Christian god, even if one could trifle that other possibilities exist. Reasonableness of a theory doesn't require that one knock all other competing theories out of the ballpark.
AP says:
I might add that many Christians believe that God wasn't obligated to either provide redemption at all, or even providing redemption (for at least some) was further obligated to provide more evidence for Christianity than is available.
----------The only reason they argue such a trifle is because they know the available evidence is poor. So did Paul. That's why he had to jerk the OT out of context to draw his fallacious conclusion that unbelievers are without excuse. That's about as frightening to me as the Mormon apologist who says the only reason people deny Mormonism is the devil blinding their hearts.
AP says:
That would seem to presuppose a more Arminian conception of the Christian God. Which, Calvinists like myself think is less Biblically supportable than a more Calvinistic version.
---------A theological problem you cannot possibly ask an atheist to care about. However, I have no objection to responding to any specifically "Calvinist" or presuppositionalist argument you wish to make.
Barry said:
Delete//That is, according to the OT principle, Jesus' miracle of rising from the dead does NOT end the discussion of whether the OT god approves of him. But I have yet to see any Christian argument that the OT YHWH approves of Jesus, they rathter think his resurrection miracle is the end of the debate.//
AP responds:
Of course, Christians have produced defenses of the OT prophecies which we consider were fulfilled by Christ.
Barry now replies:
I didn't word that as accurately as I could have. I should have dropped the part about the Christians making no defense that YHWH approves of Jesus, since they obviously do. The point I wished to emphasize was the error of apologists in pretending that once a person admits Jesus rose from the dead, Jesus' approval by YHWH follows logically and automatically. That's absolute bullshit. Deut. 13, the prophet can still be false even if he does true miracles.
AP said:
Many of which address the the standard objections of distorting the the quotations and interpretations of OT passages.
--------I have also reviewed the defenses of the NT use of the OT, and I find them unpersuasive...the NT authors really do take OT texts out of context and engage in other forms of dishonesty in order to "get" Jesus out of the OT.
AP says:
These are things which apologists like William Lane Craig and Mike Licona don't delve into. It seems Craig doesn't because he doesn't think they really work. He doesn't believe in Jesus because of the OT, he believes in the OT because of Jesus.
-------Craig is correct about the failure of "messianic prophecy" arguments. And it should be disconcerting to Christians that one of the top conservative apologists in their camp does think much of trying to extract Jesus out of the OT.
But given the nature of fundamentalism, I'm sure that the fundamentalists would prefer to say Craig is simply "wrong" and "without excuse", instead of drawing the reasonable conclusion that Craig's committment to conservative Christian apologetics sort of argues that he would not boo "messianic prophecy" unless he had done a shitload of study and reluctantly concluded that this type of apologetic is based more on zeal than knowledge.
I also appreciate that Craig denies the "hyperbole" interpretation which Copan/Flannagan use to try and make the genocidal OT god appear more morally justified in the eyes of modern Americans.
I'll leave up your references to Christian apologetics works, but they are old hat to me. I argue on the merits that excluding Jesus from Isaiah 53, Daniel 9, Micah 5:2, etc is more reasonable than including him.
DeleteTo say nothing of how many times "typology" has convinced Christians that most such OT passages are not "predicting", rather, the similarity to something in Jesus' life is the result of nothing more than analogy or typology.
For example, Isaiah 7:14...the "sign" is not "virgin shall conceive". The "sign" is the timing: before the boy in question knows good from evil, the two enemy kingdoms Ahaz feared would fall. Hell, the Word Biblical Commentary is "evangelical" in purpose, yet it does exactly nothing to argue that this verse was a prediction of Jesus.
"Or are you claiming that you've disproven the resurrection, and therefore disproven Christianity?"
ReplyDelete----------I'm claiming that within the limits dictated by normative rules of hermeneutics and historiography, the conclusion that Jesus did not rise from the dead is very reasonably premised on the NT data. I'm not trying to "disprove Christianity". I've instead waged war on fuckhead Christian "apologists" who constantly overstate their case and insult my intelligence by saying all naturalistic theories to account for Jesus' resurrection are "unreasonable".
So you perhaps now understand why I've taken aim at fuckhead apologists like Hays, Engwer, Turek, Craig, Habermas, and lower life forms like scumbag James Patrick Holding.
The one exception is Mike Licona. I disagree with him, of course, but at least he doesn't find it necessary to insult his opponent's intelligence.