Dr. Dennis Ingolfsland, apologist who uses condescension to avoid a challenge

Dennis Ingolfsland is an apologist who operates an extensive online blog.

 I found out about him while surfing google for apologists that I could make debate-offers to.

Despite surfing around on his blog for about 5 minutes, I could not find a "reply" button, leading me to believe that he intentionally set up the blog to avoid allowing comments.  Let the world be silent before the Lord.

So I googled his name, found the university he works at and sent him the following rather respectful offer to have a serious debate about any one of a number of biblical problems.

From: Barry Jones [mailto:barryjoneswhat@gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 2:46 PM 

To: Dennis Ingolfsland 

Subject: request to have discussion or debate

    Hello,

    I was intrigued by your blog http://dennis-ingolfsland.blogspot.com/, but noticed that, despite having many controversial things to say, your blog doesn't allow the reader to respond.  Did I miss something?

    I am an atheist, formerly a fundamentalist Christian, who engages in bible study as a personal hobby, and I'd like to know if you would be willing to have some exchanges with me on the following topics, whether by email, through your blog, or whatever medium you prefer, on times and dates most convenient to you, no rush.

    I’m also willing to discuss any topic you raised at your blog, or any controversy between Christians and non-Christians you wish.  The below list of topics is suggestive only.

1. Bible inerrancy is too controversial to justify using it as a hermeneutic.  If you are going to say somebody’s interpretation of a bible verse is false, you need to provide something more than “it contradicts what the bible says elsewhere”.  The unbeliever whose interpretation of a bible verse is otherwise contextually and grammatically justified, is under no intellectual compulsion to toss it aside merely because it would contradict something the bible says elsewhere.  But if it be reasonable to reject bible inerrancy as a hermeneutic, many dogmas espoused by conservative apologists are accordingly deflated.

2. It does not matter if the views of a Christian scholar or apologist are “reasonable”, such views are usually never warranted with such blinding evidential force as to render any opposing interpretation “unreasonable”.

3. A careful examination of Paul’s prohibitions on debating unbelievers requires the conclusion that he would characterize ALL of modern Christianity’s attempts at in-depth examination of bible evidence and skeptical views, including most of what you post at your blog, as the precise type of word-wrangling he prohibited Christians from engaging in.  The other biblical texts that require Christians to do apologetics, require the type of apologetics that avoids the scholarly level of back-and-forth seen so often in blogs and theological journals.

4. There is nothing in the grammar, immediate context, larger context or genre of Genesis 6:6-7 to suggest that this statement about God’s regretting his own prior choice to create man, is an “anthropomorphism”.  It appears to be intended equally as literally as the rest of the chapter.  The Christians who ceaselessly invoke God’s alleged “infinite righteousness” in their fantastic philosophically lofty efforts to speculate that God allows evil for the sake of a greater good (William Lane Craig?), are choosing to prioritize good words and fair speeches above the unhappy biblical truth.

5. The resurrection accounts in each of the 4 canonical gospels contradict Acts 1:3

6. For the full duration of Jesus’ public ministry, James the brother of Jesus persisted in unbelief.  This is more than sufficient to defeat the resurrection hypothesis, especially as argued by the front line snipers such as Licona and Habermas.

7. A close examination of all the biblical and historical information on every “James” mentioned in the NT, provides the investigator no compelling reason to think James the brother of Jesus ever became convinced that Jesus rose from the dead.  If he was the exact "James" who later oversaw the original Jerusalem faction of the church, he likely obtained that position due to political appointment and social expedience, not personal faith.

8. Generously granting highly unlikely assumptions of apostolic authorship of the gospels, I count a total of 3 resurrection testimonies in the NT which come down to us today in first-hand form:  Matthew, John and Paul.  For this reason, typical apologetics arguments that say the resurrection of Jesus rests on the testimony of “many” eyewitness reports, is a deceptive exaggeration.

9. A close examination of the most explicit NT accounts of Paul’s experience of the risen Jesus provides the investigator no compelling reason to consider him an eyewitness of the risen Jesus.

10. The unbeliever can be reasonable to adopt the Christian scholarly consensus that Mark is the earliest gospel, and that 16:8 is the place where Mark’s input stops, meaning the unbeliever can be reasonable to conclude that the earliest gospel did not say Jesus actually appeared to any apostles (i.e., the later gospels, with their more richly detailed resurrection appearance narratives, are merely embellishing the more primitive story, hence the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is so beset with falsified evidence that unbelievers are reasonable to wash their hands of the entire business, as opposed to getting their ph.d in historiography).

11. Jesus taught a legalistic salvation totally contrary to Paul’s version of the gospel.

12. Jesus said the gospel to the Gentiles consisted of their obeying his actual words, not merely his “teachings”.  For this reason, Paul’s infamous apathy toward the actual words Jesus used during his public teaching ministry, condemns Paul as a deluded heretic.

13. God clearly isn’t doing his “best” to convince unbelievers that the gospel is true, therefore, they are rationally justified to believe that, even if the Christian god exists, he has far less “love” for them than the bible says.

14. The bible characterizes God as causing men to rape women.  It doesn’t matter if this could somehow be reconciled with the notion that God ‘loves’ those women, causing rape is simply so far departed from any reasonable human conception of love, that the unbeliever is reasonable to reject such biblical theology as nonsense.

15. Contrary to popular belief, “God’s mysterious ways” does not keep the apologist above water when cornered by a skeptic on a biblical issue. The excuse rather functions as an admission of defeat, both for the modern Christians and for the biblical authors who invented it out of a similar desire to get around irresolvable problems and move forward anyway.

16. In the days of Moses, god approved of sexual activity within adult-child marriages.  If Jesus was the Jehovah of the OT, then Jesus was approving of such activity back then, regardless of whether he changed his mind after the incarnation.

17. The bible makes very clear in numerous passages that heaven is physically "up there", the ascension of Christ in Acts 1 merely being the tip of the ice-box.  It is not reasonable for the apologist to pretend that this is just a case of god ‘accommodating’ the viewpoint of pre-scientific people.

18. Christians who preach about how God is able to see forward in time because he is outside of time, are preferring mystical philosophy to biblical doctrine.  Every biblical description of heaven indicates events take place there by means of temporal progression no less than they do on earth.  Biblically there is no option to believe that God exists outside of time.

19. Nothing in the OT predicted anything about Jesus.  I’m prepared to discuss Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 52-53, Micah 5:2, Daniel 9:24-27, Psalm 22, Psalm 16, etc.

20. Contrary to popular belief, the bible indicates God does not “need” to punish sin or be given a sacrifice for sin.  Jesus’ alleged death for sin on the cross boils down to little more than an evolution in Jewish thought which began to stray from earlier biblical truth.

21. If a little girl was raped to death yesterday in California, the book of Daniel would counsel that this is because the angel whom god appointed to protect that area of the world, lost one of his sky-battles with a more powerful demon.

22. Contrary to the claims of apologists like Frank Turek and Matthew Flannagan, there is no objective standard for morality, hence, nothing about human morality implies the existence of God.

23. If Copan and Flannagan were correct to interpret the “kill’em all” commands of the OT god as mere rhetorical exaggeration, and were correct to characterize this as a command to merely “dispossess” the Canaanites without mass-slaughter, this makes God out to be a greater moral monster than the traditional interpretation.

24. The average unbeliever would have full rational justification to completely avoid inquiring into any alleged evidence of modern-day miracles, and they'd still be reasonable to remain confident that all such claims are more than likely arising from hoax, delusion or honest mistake.

    -------------------------------------------

    I hope I have piqued your interest, and I hope you detect that I am sincere.  I have serious objections to Christianity that I'm willing to have examined by any apologist desiring to take their best shot for as long as they wish.  I look forward to dialoguing with you.

    Barry Jones

 ----------------------------------------endquote

 Dr. Ingolfsland's bio includes the following:

Dr. Ingolfsland has published two books (The Least of the Apostles and I Pledge Allegiance to the King), one evangelistic booklet (Will the Real Jesus Please Stand up) three Kindle e-books, and 40 magazine and journal articles in publications such as the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Trinity Journal, Bibliotheca Sacra, Princeton Theological Review and others. He has also published more than 80 book reviews and has presented numerous papers to biblical scholars at theology conferences.
Ingolfsland’s area of academic expertise is the historical study of Jesus. He has presented papers and participated in several panel discussions about Jesus at theological conferences. In 2014 he moderated the “Synoptic Gospels Study Group” at the annual convention of the Evangelical Theological Society. In in 2013 he moderated both the “Synoptic Gospels Study Group” and the “Sayings of Jesus Study Group” at the annual ETS convention.

 You should keep those credentials in mind. 

This otherwise highly educated Christian apologist did little more in his reply to me, than to assure me of how wrong and idiotic I was, he spouted a few derogatory comments suggesting I oppose the bible god because I have a possible history of drug abuse, crime, addiction to pornography, etc, then told me not to respond, because he would not reply.

 Nothing spells dispassionate scholarly rigor quite like "leeme alone!"

This is offensive because the way I worded my challenges indicated what was true, namely that I had already obtained a reasonable knowledge of how the front-line apologists were making their defenses.  Yet, Dr. Ingolfsland speaks to me as if I'm just a drunk atheist whose reasons for unbelief are laughably superficial and dishonest.

First, the apologists and Christians who think my publicly posting Dr. Ingolfsland's email to me is illegal, are wrong, the law does not recognize emails as private after they have been sent:

This was true in 2002, State v. Townsend, 57 P. 3d 255, 262-3 (Wash: Supreme Court 2002):

There are two types of computer communications at issue in this case. The first is standard e-mail communication in which the sender composes a message and sends it via the internet to the recipient's computer where it is recorded or stored until the recipient decides to "open" it. This process is most analogous to a letter sent through the mail. Although not addressed in Washington cases, other jurisdictions have found that the reasonable expectation of privacy in an e-mail, like a letter sent through the mail, ends when the recipient opens it. Guest v. Leis, 255 F.3d 325, 333 (6th Cir.2001); Commonwealth v. Proetto, 771 A.2d 823, 831-33 (Pa.Super.2001) (holding that there is no reasonable 263 *263 expectation of privacy in e-mail messages sent by man to 15-year-old girl), appeal granted, 567 Pa. 667, 790 A.2d 988 (2002). Once opened, the recipient has complete freedom to do what he or she wishes with the communication. See United States v. Maxwell, 45 M.J. 406, 417-18 (1996).

 And it remains true as late as 2018, from  US v. Bereznak, Dist. Court, MD Pennsylvania 2018:

...courts appear to be in general agreement that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in electronic content such as emails or pager messages once they are on a recipient's device. See, e.g.,
United States v. Heckenkamp, 482 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2007)("A person's reasonable expectation of privacy may be diminished in `transmissions over the Internet or e-mail that have already arrived at the recipient.'")(quoting United States v. Lifshitz, 369 F.3d 173, 190 (2d Cir. 2004)(finding no expectation of privacy in e-mail once received));
United States v. Jones, 149 F.App'x 954, 959 (11th Cir. 2005)(finding no reasonable expectation of privacy to prevent recipient from testifying as to contents of pager messages);
Guest v. Leis, 255 F.3d 325, 333 (6th Cir. 2001)("Users would [] lose a legitimate expectation of privacy in an e-mail that had already reached its recipient; at this moment, the e-mailer would be analogous to a letter-writer, whose expectation of privacy ordinarily terminates upon delivery of the letter.").
One reason for this is that once text messages have been received, the recipient could reveal them to anyone, and "[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public [] is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967). The Supreme Court "consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties." Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979). In United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court found that a defendant "takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to the Government." 425 U.S. 435, 443 (1976). In holding that the respondent had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his bank records, the Miller Court noted that the Supreme Court "has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed." Id.

With that potential quibble out of the way, here is Dr. Ingolfsland's condescending loquacious email reply to me, with my comments interspersed at the appropriate locations:
----------------------------------------

 On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:21 AM, Dennis Ingolfsland <ingolfsland@crown.edu> wrote:

    Barry,   

    Please excuse my bluntness, but contrary to your assertion, I don’t think you are serious. In fact, I think you’re just playing games. You atheists like to play a game with us Christians. It goes something like this: “If you Christians can’t prove to my satisfaction and beyond any shadow of a doubt that every word of the Bible is absolutely true, then I am justified in not believing any of it!”    

Straw man, on the contrary, there is no reason for the Christian, knowing nothing more about me at the time than my list of 24 challenges, supra, to conclude that I'm just a game-playing atheist whose ideas about burdens of proof are conveniently lop-sided in my favor.  Furthermore, I never expressed or implied that you'd have to convince me your answer to any challenge was true "beyond any shadow of a doubt."  I also never expressed or implied I'd believe atheism true until somebody could prove every word of the bible absolutely true. For somebody with a Ph.d, you sure are quick to make false accusations.

In fact, I'm quite aware of, and accepting of, the same burden of proof that Licona and other scholarly apologists admit:  it is the hypothesis or interpretation that has the most explanatory scope and power, that wins. 

    But the game is rigged. There is no certainty in this world! No one can prove Christianity beyond any shadow of a doubt any more than someone could prove atheism beyond any shadow of a doubt!

I never expressed or implied that Christianity had to meet such an intolerably high burden.  Straw man again.

If someone does not WANT to believe something, there is no amount of evidence in the world that will convince them (e.g. moon landing deniers or holocaust deniers).    

 Correct.  That's why you cannot make other Christians, whom you think espouse theological error, see the light. Christians, with all of their alleged extra access to absolute truth, are no less susceptible to allowing their personal desires to cloud their better judgment, than atheists.

    Frankly, some of your objections seem analogous to someone saying I don’t believe in modern medicine because 1) They haven’t cured cancer or the common cold, 2) A room full of doctors may well have several different diagnoses and proposed remedies to the same symptoms. 3) Hundreds of people have died in hospitals due to malpractice, 4) Big pharma is more interested in profits than actual cures. 5) Doctors are in it for the money, 6) Hospitals are just big business, 7) No one is actually trying to cure major diseases like Cancer because the researchers would then be out of business so the who thing is a charade, etc.    

Straw man again.  I would hardly have set forth the specific challenges I did, if I didn't have supreme confidence that I could demonstrate them to be true within the confines of the historiography and hermeneutics accepted by the majority of Christian scholars. 

    Of course this is nonsense, but if someone tried to defend the medical profession, their attackers could just dismiss the defenses as apologetic word wrangling or some such thing.

 Leaving you with no basis upon which to support other apologists in their many debates with atheists.  Apparently you think it is all a big waste of time.  Another division in the body of Christ.  

Not only that, but some of the arguments are unanswerable. It would be impossible to convince someone who didn’t WANT to be convinced, that most doctors really do want to help patients and that in spite of their bottom lines, Big pharma companies and Cancer researchers really do work to provide cures.    

I could just as easily have argued similarly that Christians only deny atheism because they don't WANT to be convinced of the truth.  But I was polite and sincere toward you without condescension.

    I’m sure you are well aware that there is absolutely nothing a good skeptic can’t challenge or doubt.

Not true.  Dishonest lawyers are experts at playing such games in trial in order to defend their client's alleged innocence, but on the whole the juries appear capable of knowing the point at which doubting the prosecutor's evidence of guilt becomes an irrational trifle.  Worse, there are many things you and I would agree exist, or are true, including bible history. If you've never met a skeptic who could really kick your ass all over hell and back in a debate about biblical matters, perhaps you can be forgiven for presuming my idiotic blindness.  Apparently, David Hume isn't the only one who regards personal experience as the ultimate test of truth.

Descartes thought he found something he couldn’t doubt with his saying, “I think, therefore I am” but later philosophers have rightly pointed out that even that can be doubted.

 Those philosophers are also wrong, a non-existing thing could never make a statement.  Existence is an axiom of speech...unless you think a non-existing thing could make a speech?

The fact is that there is no absolute certainty in this life—not even atheism or science is beyond doubt!    

Again, straw man:  I never expressed or implied that Christians either prove their beliefs absolutely, or concede the debate.  I believe your burden of proof is no higher than anybody else's:  beyond a reasonable doubt.  The standard used by everybody in daily life, in courts of law, and by the more scholarly Christian apologists such as Mike Licona.

    I once had an interest in Cell Biology so one of the biologists where I work recommended a book that she said was like the “Bible” of Cell biology at the time. I was amazed how often the text conceded that they just didn’t know how such-and-such worked, or there was simply no known explanation for this or that phenomena. A good philosopher of science who wanted to be obnoxious could have absolutely torn that book to shreds, figuratively speaking! In fact, the more we learn about the unbelievable complexity of even the simplest forms of life, the more random chance and natural selection seem impossible.   

The only problem being that you are thrusting these talking points out into your soliloquy in a speech that ends by telling me to avoid replying.  If you are so sure intelligent design is an obvious truth of reality, you should have no fears about your ability to steamroll an atheist in a debate about intelligent design.  Unfortunately, your soliloquy ends with your telling me to avoid responding, because by choice you refuse to communicate further.  If you can be reasonable to set your own subjective limits on how much obedience to Jude 3 you will permit, you cannot reasonably fault skeptics for similarly setting their own subjective limits on how often they will answer Christian challenges. 

    But to play your game just for a moment, take for example your first objection on inerrancy. It seems to me that several of the objections on your list have to do with efforts to reconcile the Bible with inerrancy, for example #5 (you’re still stuck in your fundamentalist background!).

 First, Objection # 1 stands on its own.  I was willing to attack the notion that bible inerrancy should be used as a hermeneutic.  That debate would not involve the question of whether any specific bible statement was true or false.

Second, it hardly matters whether you affirm or deny inerrancy.  inerrancy is a false doctrine that hangs around the neck of many Christians.  I am doing a lot of good to beat it bloody, even if you happens to be one of those Christians who don't believe it or don't prioritize it.

Third, I am not stuck in a fundamentalist background. I have chosen to attack several forms of Christianity, one of them being the fundamentalist type that you apparently don't aspire to.  The fact that you don't espouse that form of Christianity, doesn't mean it is completely irrelevant and can be dismissed without commentary.  Fundamentalists are wrong, but they also ensnare a lot of innocently ignorant people with their half-cocked arguments.  the more I attack false doctrines, the more hope of helping Christians out of the doctrinal hell-hole that they fell into.

Contrary to many fundamentalists, Christianity simply does not rise or fall on inerrancy (as evidenced by the huge number of biblical scholars who do not believe in inerrancy and yet are dedicated Christians).

 I agree.  I would  never foolishly pretend that if I can prove one genuine error in the originals of the bible, then the collapse of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy suddenly means the collapse of Christianity.

Unfortunately for you, there are well-informed scholarly Christians who insist that yes, Christianity does rise or fall with inerrancy.  A prime example would be Steve Hays.

Tyson

I'm not sure we're using "foundational" in the same sense. By "foundational" I mean that there are things in Scripture that, were they wrong or missing, would not destroy Christianity. For instance, Christianity does not rise or fall on Shamgar's killing of 600 Philistines with an oxgoad (Judges 3:31). Imagine we find out that Shamgar killed 30 men with a spear. Would you abandon Christianity because of the discrepancy? I should hope not.

Hays 

1. That's a hopelessly atomistic view of the issue. It's like saying, because I can survive frostbitten toes, because I can survive an amputated toe, I can survive Antarctica in my tighty-whities. The question isn't whether the body can survive the loss of a toe, but what sustains the entire body, toes included. 

If you jettison inerrancy, then you implicitly jettison the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture since it doesn't make a heap of sense to say a verbally plenarily inspired text is fallible.

Hays is obviously wrong as he thinks God inspired certain sinners to write out inerrant scripture, but did not take away their sinful natures at any time in the process.  Therefore, the idea that God can effectively guide his church using imperfect human books is not near the wild irrational thing Hays thinks it is.

Something can have all kinds of errors and still be essentially reliable—take CNN or the New York Times for example.   

Agreed.  Leaving me to question why you bring up such a thing, as I never expressed or implied that atheism wins unless you can prove the bible perfect in every way in absolute fashion. Christianity does not rise or fall with inerrancy, agreed. 

    Your 2nd and 24th arguments are basically regurgitating David Hume’s outdated arguments against miracles.

It's a pity that you are so confident I'm wrong in these propositions, when I've offered to support them with scholarly argument, and all you do is scoff, assure me I got it wrong, walk away and make clear you won't accept the offer to discuss the matter.

Some would say such a reply has more in common with fundamentalism than with scholarly acumen.

As for my point # 2, I was merely offering to argue that Christians do not win a debate by showing that their notion is "reasonable". The bible and the world are chock full of examples where reasonable people disagree about the facts.  It might very well be that the reasonable Christian interpretation of a matter isn't the only interpretation that can be shown to be "reasonable".

As for my objection # 24, this had nothing to do with Hume.  Had you been willing to discuss it, I would have pointed out that since Christians and unbelievers routinely draw inductive inferences about larger issues without knowing about every single piece of relevant evidence, then unbelievers cannot be charged with unreasonableness for doing, during miracle-investigation, what everybody else does in every other area of life:  deciding that the pool of data they sampled is sufficiently large to justify drawing conclusions from.

I would also have pointed out that because apologists would concede that there comes a time in the life of the unbeliever when helping his child with homework is reasonable, that is one potential justification for avoiding miracle claims.  Gee, how many other facets of the average unbeliever's life, would the apologist say are more important than miracle investigation?  Can we be reasonable to leave the internet long enough to use the toilet?  Or would reasonable people take the computer into the bathroom, because to miss that one provable and true miracle claim is to risk wrongfully deciding miracles are false, and ending up in hell?

If the unbeliever has a job which pays the bills, then how can you justify saying he should put the bible down, turn off the internet, and concentrate on his worldly job to any degree?  Isn't it true that such unbeliever is always merely one heartbeat away from the gates of an irreversible eternity of torment?  Isn't his spiritual condition more important than his worldly concerns?

 Must you not, consistent with your intense support of Christian apologetics, tell him that it would be more rational to get rid of everything in his life that gives him an excuse to cease the miracle investigations?

But if the unbeliever need not give up the normative daily things in his life that limit the amount of time he can spend investigating miracles (taking kids to school, having a job, sleeping, eating, etc), then you cannot really say at what point he is irrationally avoiding miracles and bible investigation.

Would you advise juries to never make a finding of "guilty", all because it's always going to be possible that the criminal suspect is innocent?  No.  The fact that there might be one piece of evidence out there they haven't seen yet, that would prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, does not make the jury unreasonable to find the prosecutor's case convincing.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if there is one miracle-claim out there that proves god's existence beyond a reasonable doubt, the skeptic who takes no longer to hear miracle evidence than a jury takes to hear evidence in a criminal case, is going to be reasonable to draw a negative conclusion if his reasons for it cohere with normative investigative protocol.

I don't know what your views on "hell" are, but if they are anything like those of the typical Southern Baptist, then my above-arguments show that there is too much urgent danger to justify sitting down and doing 20 book reports on the latest scholarly apologetics offerings.

Even non-Christian philosophers have pointed out the fallacies in his logic, but atheists generally don’t care as long as Hume serves their purpose.

 And you foster our allegedly apathetic attitude by mouthing off in what amounts to a hit-and-run reply.

But to answer on the merits, I'm quite aware of the problems in Hume's formulations, but his basic argument was reasonable.  His error in calling a miracle a "violation" of natural law does nothing to sublimate his general argument.  The more a claim's assertions depart from the hearer's confirmed experience of reality, the more the hearer is justified to demand a level of evidence that is greater in quantity and quality than what we normally expect to support claims that conform to normative experience.  A picture might be enough to show that you walked into a store.  But it wouldn't be enough to show that you levitated by supernatural power.

By the way, if you were genuinely sincere, I would suggest that you read Craig Keeners’ two volumes on Miracles in which he provides a devastating critique of Hume.   

Ok, then I must be genuinely sincere under your own criteria, because I previously sent Keener the ultimate challenge to his miracle claims, and, shock, surprise, neither he nor any of his supporters has ever dared to accept the challenge or answer my questions.

    Some of your other argument are just plain silly—I almost laughed out loud at #21!    

 You should direct your laughter to the book of Daniel which makes the claim that angels guard certain parts of the earth, and that earthly chaos arises when and if that angel loses a battle with a demon.  Here's what two Christian scholars have to say:

10:13 One of the strangest accounts in the Bible is now unfolded. The angel related that he was coming to bring Daniel the answer to his prayer but was delayed because “the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days.” Finally, Michael (whose name means “who is like God?”), one of the most powerful and important angels (“one of the chief princes”), came to the interpreting angel’s aid. Evidently the reason that Michael became involved and not another powerful angel was that Daniel was interceding for Israel, a nation especially entrusted to Michael’s care (v. 21).

The NIV’s “detained there with the king of Persia”827 could mean that the angel was prevented from leaving the area ruled by the human king of the Persian Empire. Yet the Hebrew word translated “king” is plural, and the concept of the angel’s being “detained with” the earthly kings of Persia seems

untenable. In the context of angelic warfare, these “kings” likely were spiritual rulers who attempted to control Persia.

Miller, S. R. (2001, c1994). Vol. 18: Daniel. Includes indexes. (electronic ed.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 284).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 

10:5–9 …A few passages, however, suggest that there are heavenly armies that oppose Yahweh, so that earthly battles reflect battles in heaven; whichever side wins in heaven, its equivalent wins on earth.

Goldingay, J. E. (2002). Vol. 30: Word Biblical Commentary : Daniel.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 291). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

You apologists are always screaming about how grossly immoral the pagan nations were.  If they really did engage in unrestrained bestiality and burning children to death, they likely also approved of pedophilia.  Unless you think the above-cited Christian commentators got it wrong (the first is an inerrantist, the second is an evangelical), then my challenge, about the bible explaining child rape in California on the basis of California's angel losing a sky-battle with a demon, is perfectly consistently with what the book of Daniel teaches.

    On #8, many (if not most) Christian scholars are even more skeptical than you.

 Which is another reason you should have cordially assumed that I'm not a wild-eyed skeptic guilty of the hair-brained half-assed stupidity that you apply to me.

They would say that Matthew and John were not eyewitnesses! In fact, I doubt that Wright would say Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses.

 That's correct, and when such an authority as Wright says such things, you cannot really say whether the investigating skeptic "needs" to do more investigation before his own negative conclusion can be reasonable.

But this was simply irrelevant to his arguments on the Resurrection (come to think of it, have you actually ever read N.T. Wright’s Resurrection of the Son of God or Mike Licona’s “Resurrection of Jesus”—or did you just skim them, or worse yet, just read the Amazon reviews?    

 Yes, I've read both of them.  Wright's attempt to avoid Mark's lost ending is unconvincing to say the least, and if he is correct, Mark's ending need not have said anything more than that the disciples saw Jesus in Galilee.  Nothing more is required from the earlier Markan material where Jesus promises to see them in Galilee.  That still leaves Wright with the earliest gospel having the least to say about Jesus' resurrection, rationally justifying the hypothesis that the later gospels have more detailed resurrection appearance narratives only because of emebellishment, not because Mark "chose to exclude" all that fantastic important stuff.

Licona fatally agrees with the majority of scholars that Jesus' family rejected him and his ministry at least as late as the crucifixion, and I capitalize on that admission by asking whether it makes sense to say that Jesus' own family, in that collectivist society where they could not avoid hearing about Jesus' miracles, should witness these allegedly genuine miracles for three years and still somehow persuade themselves, in this honor/shame society, that they were fakes or being done by Satan's power.

I've also reviewed and found wanting the arguments of Lunn and Snapp in their attempt to falsify the Christian scholarly majority view and assert Mark's long ending was authentically written by Mark.  No dice.

If your question about my scholarly research was sincere, would you have loaded it up with all that condescending context?

    Many of your arguments amount to “I’m right and all scholars who disagree with me are wrong”

They were presented as honest challenges and offers to deal with the best you could possibly offer in rebuttal, they were not presented as the juvenile rhetoric you claim. Can you think of anything more routine than for somebody to think that a scholar had gotten something wrong?  How does my disagreement with a scholar besmirch my sincerity or credibility?

and some other arguments are things that some Christians would agree with—but they are not sufficient to destroy their faith.

 My challenges to you were not intended to destroy anybody's faith.  They were intended to force you to admit that the skeptical view on those matters can be reasonable.  There's a big difference. Contrary to popular belief, your being reasonable to be a Christian doesn't automatically operate to make atheists unreasonable .  Sometimes data is sufficiently ambiguous that it allows two opposing hypotheses to be equally reasonable.  It's why juries deadlock and why dedicated fundamentalists often change their mind about bible doctrine several times in a lifetime.

    Christianity does not rest on inerrancy or the interpretation of this or that verse (One need only read James’ Dunn’s Jesus Remembered or Dale Allison’s “Constructing Jesus” to know that (and neither of them are even conservative, much less fundamentalist).  

 I agree, and I never expressed or implied that proving inerrancy wrong would collapse Christianity.  But that doesn't mean blasting inerrancy is pointless.  There ARE fundamentalist loudmouths in the world who push inerrancy to a degree that causes psychological harm for the less informed Christians.  I am doing something good in refuting these sorry bastards. 

So if you are really serious, I would suggest starting with the book, “There is a god” by the once world-renowned atheist philosopher, Anthony Flew (the atheist grand-father to atheists like Dawkins or Hitchings). He did not become a Christian but he finally concluded—after years of defending atheism—that atheism is simply not scientifically possible.   

Sorry, I disagree with your narrow minded idea that I cannot be serious unless I read books you recommend.  And I'm well aware of Anthony Flew and I've already publicly stated that I find that man to be a very poor excuse of an atheist.  I seriously wonder whether he was suffering from a brain disorder when he was debating Habermas on the John Ankerberg show.  Flew could have steamrolled Habermas, but instead appears to be throwing nothing but softball responses.  Here is how I responded to a YouTube video of the entire Flew/Habermas debate hosted by John Ankerberg:

Sorry, but as an atheist myself, I do not think Flew does very well in public debates, despite how much he is lauded by other atheists as a smart guy. Habermas does most of the talking, Ankerberg usually ends a segment after Habermas has had his last say, and the Christians in the audience were no doubt wrongly thinking that because Flew is a smart guy, his performance here shows them how weak the non-believer responses are. I would have argued that under Christian scholar consensus that Mark is the earliest gospel and ended at 16:8, it is reasonable (at least for the unbeliever who has a life and cannot just google Christian scholarship minority positions 18 hours a day) to believe that the earliest form of the gospel did not say a resurrected Jesus appeared to anybody, thus further implying, if patristic testimony can be trusted, that Peter also didn't tell the Roman unbelievers that Jesus made any resurrection appearances, thus further implying that fictional embellishment is the likely reason the later 3 gospels have resurrection appearance narratives, ultimately ridding Christian apologists of the very eyewitness evidence they admit is so crucial to their case...

Ingolfsland continues:

    Then read the Hidden Face of God by Gerald Schroeder which is the book that changed Flew’s mind. Schroeder is a brilliant scientist (from MIT as I recall, and not a Christian).   

    Then read Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer (And Signature of Controversy which is Meyer’s response to his critics). Meyer is a scientist and philosopher of science from Cambridge University who studied every significant theory of the origin of life ever proposed—and shows that all of them fail scientifically. (Some would say that the problem with atheists is not just that they are too critical, but that they are too selectively critical. If you would be as skeptical and critical about the origin of life as you are about the Bible, you would abandon your atheism and at least become agnostic)!   

    Then read James Dunn’s Jesus Remembered and Dale Allison’s Constructing Jesus. As I said, neither of them are conservative but they show how honest historians approach the Life of Jesus apart from any assumptions about the Bible being inspired, much less inerrant.    

    Finally, read the two volume set on Miracles by Craig Keener, The Resurrection of Jesus by Michael Licona and the Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright.   

I feel insulted that you could seriously think the person who submitted those 24 challenges to you, probably hasn't already heard of those books already.  Once again, you are letting your religious zeal get in the way of your better judgment. And your teaching position in a private Christian school can induce you to keep the Christian emotions running strong even if you feel you shouldn't.  We all want to impress our peers and our bosses.

    As I said, there is no absolute certainty in this world.

And I never expressed or implied that lack of absolute certainty in the Christian position thus lets atheists off the hook.

All we have is possibilities, probabilities, evidence, etc.

 Agreed.  I passed Philosophy 101 and Historiography Preschool about 15 years ago.

Two people can look at exactly the same evidence—whether in law, or science, or medicine—and come to radically different conclusions. If someone does not WANT to believe something, there is no amount of evidence that will convince them.    

 That's true for Christians no less than atheists.  So unless you say all debate between the two groups is a waste of time, you don't really have a point.  And the fact that I'm less skeptical than some Christian scholars, by your own admission, should tell you that I'm a bit more objective than you give credit for.

    The world-famous atheist philosopher, Aldous Huxley, once wrote,   

    “No philosophy is completely disinterested. The pure love of truth is always mingled to some extent with the need, consciously or unconsciously felt by even the noblest and most intelligent philosophers, to justify a given form of personal or social behavior, to rationalize the traditional prejudices of a given class or community…The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world [i.e. an atheist like himself] is not concerned exclusively with a problem of pure meta physics; he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do…” (Huxley; Ends and Means, London : Chatto & Windus, 1940. 272)    

Thanks for the reference, and I agree with him and you that complete objectivity is impossible.  I also appreciate Licona for holding the same view. 

And atheism is not a philosophy of meaninglessness.  You are assuming that God's existence is what gives rise to meaningfulness.  You are wrong.  Atheism only says there is no god.  What moral conclusions a person should draw from atheism, is another question.  And yes, I'm thoroughly familiar with Frank Turek and his "Stealing from God" stuff.  His blind assumption that any moral is necessarily objective, is laughable.  I've also steamrolled Matthew Flannagan, who similarly goes around pretending that moral relativism is fallacious.  Over the course of about a year, when I debated him and asked him what moral yardstick he was using to claim that babies shouldn't' be tortured, or that parents have a duty to avoid harming their kids, Flannagan went silent, and this last time, his website conveniently banned me, though in private email he denied banning me.  This convinced me that squeezing god out of morals is a very weak argument; it only works with those who already agree that the badness of some human actions is beyond dispute.  Flannagan's bible tells him that god put his laws into our heart, but Flannagan never goes there, he simply bans me when I ask the hard questions.

  For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness [atheism] was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired for simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom…There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people [in context, he is talking about Christians] and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever” (Huxley, Ends and Means, 273.    

    I admire Huxley’s honesty. He is saying that for him, and the other atheist philosophers he knew, they chose atheism because without God, they were free to live as they want. 

That's one of the benefits of atheism, but it no more follows that this is every atheist's reason to disbelieve, than the fact that some people use religion as a crutch because they have a weak mind, should mean this is the case for every person who becomes a Christian.

    At its heart, atheism is rarely, if ever, about problems in the biblical text.Atheism is a heart issue.

 Now you are just preaching the choir. I could just as easily say that Christianity is a heart issue, not an intellectual issue.  You are only a Christian because you WANT it to be true, etc, etc. 

Jesus and Paul teach that people are in sinful rebellion against God and that unless they repent of their rebellion and turn to Jesus they will face the wrath of God.

 Then they were liars, Saul must have heard the best quality Christian testimony available when he was imprisoning and torturing the Christians, yet after conversion, he says he obtained mercy because his violence toward the church was done in ignorance and unbelief:

 12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service,
 13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;
 14 and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus.
 15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. (1 Tim. 1:12-15 NAU)

I've never mistreated Christians anywhere nearly as violently as Paul did, so if anything, I am less culpable than Paul for "rejecting the truth".  If Paul can be considered to have acted ignorantly despite his likely having heard the best quality Christian testimony numerous times, I have supreme confidence, that, if Christianity is true, God will deem modern unbelievers even less culpable, given that we are now limited to 2,000 year old documents whose authorship and provenance are doubted by even many Christian scholars.

Atheists don’t want to be told they are sinners (although in your heart you know it’s true).

Yeah right.  And in your heart you know Jesus didn't rise form the dead, you just pretend he did because that's what currently keeps your bills paid.  Must you insult the intelligence of bible skeptics who are smarter than you give them credit for?  What did I do?  Steal joy?

The way to avoid that annoying guilt is to deny that there is a God and then to desperately look for ways to justify your belief (faith).    

Again, preaching to the choir.  I must be more objective than you.  I was willing to justify my position with scholarly argument and discussion with you.  You've chosen the lower road of insulting my intelligence, expecting me to think your sermon constitutes the very presence of God, and then walking away warning me that you won't reply further.

    So what’s your issue, Barry? Pornography? Self-indulgence? Dishonesty? Greed? Envy? Arrogance? Alcoholism? Drugs?

The innuendo suggests your fear of corresponding with me in a scholarly polite way on the merits.

You can continue to try to ease your conscience by denying God’s existence (is that working for you?),

Does believing in god take away that terribly empty feeling you get when you think about life without god?

or you can confront your sin by confessing your rebellion to God, asking his forgiveness, and committing your life to Jesus. He can give you the clear conscience and life of peace you are looking for.  

What you don't mention is that "committing your life to Jesus" is also found by many to do little more than cause them depression.  You wrongfully and blindly assume that any such problems are the sole fault of the imperfect sinner not being sincere enough, or not having the right theological views.

You also fallaciously and blindly presume that what you offer is available to me, when you bible makes it abundantly clear that God could be judging a certain person and refusing to give them the peace of mind even though they seek with a sincerity that produces tears of remorse (Hebrews 12:17).  Perhaps you should become a charismatic or a Pentecostal, so you can have enough discernment to tell whether or not the unbeliever you are dealing with really does have the option you think they do.  I wonder whether the children of Babylon had the option to avoid the rapes and murders that God foisted on them and their families in Isaiah 13:16.  Don't forget your bible teaches a corporate solidarity that punishes children for the sins of the fathers.  God didn't have to make David's baby sick for 7 days before killing it, but he wanted to torture that baby this much anyway because of David's sin:

 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
 14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."
 15 So Nathan went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.
 16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.
 17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.
 18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died.  (2 Sam. 12:13-18 NAU)

Ingolfsland continues:

    But if you come from a fundamentalist background you know all that. The problem is that you’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater! Fundamentalists generally define faith as some kind of intellectual belief in certain doctrines. Since you can no longer believe in all those doctrines, you reject Christianity.

 There you go again, blindly assuming things you couldn't possibly know.  What kind of university do you teach at?  KJV Only?

You also give no heed to my reasons for rejecting those doctrines.  

But as John Calvin wrote, faith “is more of the heart than of the brain, and more of the disposition that of the understanding” (Institutes 3.2.8; and no, I’m not a Calvinist).

 That's another problem:  I also reject Christianity because the bible supports Calvinism and thus supports a a stupid doctrine that says God openly forbids us from doing what he secretly causes us to do.  Yes, there are bible verses that oppose Calvinism, but that hardly means there can be none that support it.  There are.  

Saving faith is not just about believing certain doctrines like inerrancy. It is about sincerely repenting from our sin and turning our lives over to Jesus Christ in loving devotion as savior and king. Read my little booklet, “Will the real Jesus Please Stand Up.”    

What makes you think my stay in fundamentalism was all doctrine and no sincere repentance? A 2,000 year old book of questionable authorship that says unbelievers are without excuse and true believers never apostatize?  LOL.

    I’ve read all of the books I mentioned above as well as over a hundred other scholarly books on Jesus—including many critics who attack Jesus and the New Testament.

 So have I.

I find there is enough evidence for me to take an educated step of faith and follow Jesus.

 It doesn't matter if that is true.  It can also be reasonable to reject Christianity as a false religion. That which is "reasonable" cannot be nailed down with rigid certainty, and it is very often the case that reasonable people come to different but equally reasonable interpretations of evidence and history.  But clearly, your need to be dogmatic leaves no room for such realities.

If you don’t, we live in a free country and that’s your right.

I challenged your beliefs on the merits.  We've moved beyond what my rights are, and have entered the arena of whether my viewpoints are reasonable.

    I’ve lived a good life. I’ve been a good husband, father and grandfather. I’ve given thousands and thousands of dollars to good causes. Have helped feed starving children and taught thousands of people to love others and be compassionate to people. I didn’t do all this to earn anything from God. I did it because I am convinced of the love, grace and mercy God showed me on the cross of Jesus Christ.

 So?  Lots of non-Christians do all the things you just mentioned.  Must their non-Christian metaphysics be true?

So if you are right and I am wrong about all this, I will go to my death in peace, never knowing that I was wrong—but having lived a good, worthwhile life.    

    On the other hand, if I am right and you are wrong… We’ll let’s just say there is a lot at stake so it is worth the time to read all these books I recommend with a genuinely open mind—unless, of course, your atheism is driven by something other than serious intellectual doubts. (If you don’t read anything else, please, at least read my little booklet in the link).    

Do you believe that I am always just one heartbeat away from the gates of hell?  If so, how can you ask me to do things that logically imply I can safely delay the day of my repentance? Is there a reason that I should be confident I won't die in an accident in the two weeks it takes me to read the material you suggested I read?

If you think I could die at any moment, and if you believe there is no limbo or purgatory, we just go to heaven or hell at death, then isn't your asking me to read some books, really in effect asking me to be confident that I can safely delay my repentance?

    Well, I think I’ve said all I’m going to say on this topic. Please don’t bother to respond. I won’t answer. I’ve taken all the time I can afford to take on this. Whatever you decide, I wish you a good life.

    Dennis

Atheist rebuttal to Crossexamined.org on Objective Morality

This is my reply to an article by Cole James entitled

Objections to Objective Morality

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

I took a philosophy class while I was in college. The topic of this class was on contemporary moral issues, so you know we got into some heated topics. I heard every objection under the sun to objective morality.

No you didn't.  You didn't hear my objections.  You likely also didn't hear the professor ask you whether your refusal to support burning teenage prostitutes alive arises from the moral relativity of the culture you were born and raised in, or if it arises from morals put into your heart by the same God who ordered this atrocity in Leviticus 21:9.  

Everything from it was not very “tolerant,” to different cultures act differently so therefore there cannot be objective morality. I was the minority in this class to say the least!

 I think a moral relativist is stupid if they are pushing "toleration" as strongly as you imply.  There are purely naturalistic justifications for refusing to be tolerant of the practices of other cultures.  I have a naturalistic desire to see my children live and grow into adulthood, this doesn't need to imply any more spirituality than is implied from the fact that lower life forms also desire to see their young survive...lest you end up taking the position that the only reason the insects care about their offspring is because they were made in the image of god?

Objections Objective Morality

Objective morality means that moral statements like “murder is bad” is independent of the person saying it.

So go ahead, prove that "murder is bad" is objectively true, and prove it independently of the person saying it.  That is, prove it without relying on anything else that person says. 

Objective morality means that there is a standard of morality that transcends human opinions and judgements.

Would that be the morality of the god who ordered teenage prostitutes to be burned to death in Leviticus 21:9?  Would it be the morality of the god who "stirs up" the Medes to rape Babylonian women in Isaiah 13:13-17 (i.e., the horrific morality of the OT god is not limited to the Hebrews, God also applies it to Gentile nations)?

Morals are not invented, they are discovered.

That's right.  Little johnny thinks nothing of hurting his baby brother in a toy-war, and doesn't "discover" it is "wrong" until mommy or daddy impose their morals on his impressionable barbaric brain.

Now that our society has seemingly transformed into a “post-truth” society, objective morals have come under attack. A “post-truth” society is a society which is not concerned with objective facts, but rather, right and wrong are based on personal subjective feelings, tastes, and personal belief.

Then Christian apologists take part in such post-truth society.  God clearly approves of men raping women, today's apologists don't.  Everybody changes with the times.

As Christians, one of the best arguments we have for God is the moral argument.

Then it sure is funny that the bible nowhere indicates approval of using such argument to prove god.  Methinks you are so lacking in the Holy Spirit, you care more about all the bells and whistles you can invent to help God do apologetics, than you care about the truthfulness of your own witness in the "power of the Holy Spirit".  The biblical standard of truth takes a direct hit from it's own defenders.

Of all the attacks on Christianity and God, a Christian will most likely hear the most attacks on this subject. Why? Because everyone can relate to this topic. Each one of us every day makes moral judgements and decisions every day, ranging from opening the door for someone to helping someone who just got in a car wreck.

Since you claim such matters involve morals, go ahead: demonstrate that the Christian who refuses to open a door for someone, or the Christian who refuses to help somebody who just got into a car wreck, is objectively immoral for such omission.  Or you can save yourself a lot of headaches by admitting that many moral situations aren't governed by an absolute moral standard.

Just so we can have a basis for what the argument actually is, it goes as follows:

Premise 1: If objective moral values and duties exist then God exists

Premise 2: Objective morals values and duties do exist

Conclusion: Therefore, God exits

 Ok, so since the dictionary defines "objective" as "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.true for reasons independent of human opinion", you should be able to demonstrate any particular objective moral truth you wish, and do so without needing to hear any human being state their feelings or opinions on the subject.

You think rape is "objectively" immoral?  Go ahead, prove it without considering what any human being thinks or feels about it.   Just like you can prove the objective existence of trees without needing to depend on what other human beings think or feel about trees.

With the argument in mind, consider four objections:

    There are so many different cultures with different values, there can’t be objective morals! Look how different we are!

Off the bat, I agree with this objection. There are many different cultures appearing to be morally different on the surface. However, as one reads between the lines it becomes apparent that these different cultures are not really that different.

 Then because you morally approve of male genital mutilation (circumcision), explain the basis upon which you think female genital mutilation (clitordectomy) is "objectively" immoral.   Wouldn't subjecting female children to a procedure that inhibits the libido they will have as adults, prevent a certain amount of lust/sexual sin?  How can preventing sin be objectively bad?

It is important as we read between the lines to keep in mind that when looking at cultural diversity we need to determine whether differences are really about core morals or instead about application of that core moral truth. For example, what constitutes murder?

That doesn't matter to you, your problems are bigger than that.  The bible makes God's participation in all murders mandatory and unavoidable with the following texts:

 39 'See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand. (Deut. 32:39 NAU)

 5 "Since his days are determined, The number of his months is with You; And his limits You have set so that he cannot pass. (Job 14:5 NAU)

Suppose a man murders the cashier at a gas station.  Did God set a limit to the number of days this cashier was to live?  If so, how can god "set" that number of days, without himself being intimately involved in the immediate cause of their death (i.e., murder)?

How can you call murder objectively immoral, when God himself has equally as much involvement in murders as do the humans pulling the trigger?

What my classmates did not realize is that these difference were in how morals were applied, not a difference in morals. Peter Kreeft says this,

“No culture has ever existed which believed and taught what Nietzsche called for: a transvaluation of all values. There have been differences in emphasis, for instance, our ancestors valued courage more than we do, while we value compassion more than they did. But there has never been anything like the relativism of opinions about values that the relativist teaches as factual history. Just imagine what that would be like. Try to imagine a society where justice, honesty, courage, wisdom, hope, and self-control were deemed morally evil. And unrestricted selfishness, cowardice, lying, betrayal, addiction, and despair were deemed morally good. Such a society is never found on Earth. If it exists anywhere, it is only in Hell and its colonies. Only Satan and his worshippers say ‘evil be thou my good.’”

Kreeft and you are wasting time pretending that the absurd extremes some moral relativists take, constitutes the best which the moral relativism camp has to say.  Relativity of morals does not mandate that nobody give a fuck about anything except themselves.

Turek is an idiot to insist that all human beings become sociopaths when and if God's existence be denied.  If several sociopaths share a common goal and can see that they can attain it more efficiently by working together and making certain sacrifices for each other, they will.  The phenomena of one life-form cooperating with another to achieve a common goal has nothing about it mandating that God exist or that morals are objective.

It really comes down to a case-by-case basis. For instance, in the Hindu religion, they believe in reincarnation. Some of these people will starve themselves because they will not eat a cow. Why? Because they believe their great uncle died and reincarnated into a cow. Looking on the surface at this, it may look like there are differences in morals, but we need to read between the lines. As we read between the lines we see that the morals of our culture and their culture are the same. They think it is wrong to eat the cow because they believe that is their great uncle, we also believe it is wrong to eat our great uncle. As we can see, this really is not an objection, it is just a matter of not digging deeper.

Then how do you explain your differences with cultures that embrace endocannibalism?  How much reading between the lines must we accomplish before we find out that we and they agree about morality?

How do you explain our disagreement with cultures that eat their enemies?  If we read between the lines long enough, will we discover that we and they agree on the morality of it?

If we can avoid the stigma of what they do, by pretending its significance is limited to the reason why they do it, then why would you object to cannibalism?  That's just their way of dominating their enemy, and even modern American Christians generally support a military that obviously finds it morally good to dominate our enemies.

    Objective morality is not very tolerant! Relativism is much more tolerant of people’s opinions and beliefs.

This objection is entirely problematic. First, it is a self-refuting statement! By someone telling a person that his/her beliefs are not very tolerant, they in turn are being intolerant of the other person’s views. Moreover, this objection assumes that tolerance is really objectively good.

A second answer to this objection is, if relativism were true, why not be intolerant? Why should I be tolerant?

The new age fools who advocate absolute tolerance are indeed stupid, because there's at least one thing they don't tolerate; intolerance itself.  But too much tolerance would go against what the majority of Americans believe in, that is, that our society should be intolerant of certain practices.  This moral is itself relative, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Bunches of people with shared moral values have been grouping together for centuries, nothing about this requires implying "god".

Do you see where I am going with this?

Relativism is the view that morality is culturally based, therefore being subject to a person’s individual choice. With this view, there is no objective standard that a relativist can point to, to say that someone should be tolerant.

At root, this is merely an emotional objection. The person who puts out this objection probably does not want objective morality to be true because it will change their lifestyle. So called, “tolerance” feels better to them, and indeed it is a good quality (Paul thought so), but again, just because it feels good does not mean I ought to be that way.

I don't object to objective morality that way, so, those concerns are dismissed.

    There are so many different understanding of morals, there cannot be objective morality.

Just because there is widespread disagreement about a particular moral issue, does not mean that truth does not exist.

But the widespread disagreement makes it reasonable to presume that there is no moral "truth" about it, it is nothing but human opinion.  Just because you've never seen the tooth-fairy doesn't mean she doesn't exist, but what fool would rest their skeptical case on this trifling technicality?

Think of it this way, just because eight students have different answers to a math problem does not mean that a right answer does not exist.

 Fallacy of false analogy, answers to math problems are governed by mathematical principles that are universally recognized.  Answers to moral problems are usually controversial because the underlying principles are the subject of widespread disagreement.

Otherwise, you invite the criticism that you can resolve moral disagreements among Christians with the kind of finality with which mathematical problems are resolved.  Wanna go there?  If not, then drop the math-analogy, Einstein.

Philosopher Dave DeSonier says it best,

“Finally, even if one believes that morals (not just facts or practices) do actually differ between cultures, it does not logically follow that there must be no absolute, objective moral standards that transcend cultures.

It doesn't have to logically follow.  It is reasonable, even if not logically necessary, to assume moral disagreements between cultures imply that morality is ultimately relative.  Your above examples were carefully selected; apparently, you were aware of the harm to your case if you had cited suicide bombing or gang violence or torture of prisoners or what crimes deserve the death penalty, since different cultures  disagree with each other about those matters too, yet no amount of reading between the lines is going to indicate other cultures agree with America on basic morals.

Just because five independent observers of an automobile accident give very different accounts of the event, it would be false to conclude that there is not an accurate, objective, and true description of what actually occurred.”

Fallacy of false analogy:  the reasons why Christians find Leviticus 21:9 objectively immoral have nothing in common with the situation of witnesses to an automobile accident.  All DeSonier is doing at this point is blindly assume that moral truths are just like empirical truths.

Even the skeptic David Hume understood this much. He points out,

“the fact that different cultures have different practices no more refutes ethical objectivism than the fact that water flows in different directions in different places refutes the law of gravity.”

Same answer:  Hume's popularity with skeptics doesn't mean every view he held is considered gospel by skeptics.  My reasons for rejecting ethical objectivism continue to bulldoze your idealistic pipe dreams, whether you can find other atheists who disagree with me or not.  You need to worry more about the specific arguments and less about finding enemies who agree with some of what you believe.  I can find Christians who think god will never send anybody to hell, but why should you give a shit about that?  Then I don't give a shit about you finding atheists who espouse ethical objectivism.

I am very happy to disagree with atheist Dan Barker's arguments for moral objectivity.  Our recoiling from pain obviously doesn't prove anything, otherwise, we should avoid every situation that produces pain, such as visits to the doctor/dentist, and we should never attempt to reset a dislocated shoulder for someone if doing so would case them pain.   The home intruder recoils in pain when we shoot him dead, but what fool would argue that such recoil from pain made it immoral to shoot him?  If some pain can be reasonably said to achieve a higher subjective moral good, Barker's arguments for objective morality fail.

So we can see, that even though common objective morals might sometimes be hard to find or discover, it does not logically follow that therefore, there are no common objective moral values and duties.

Great.  When you plan to actually do what you are required to do, and fulfill your burden to cite an objective moral and the reasons why you think it is mandatory upon all human beings at all times, let me know.  But I'm an asshole, I won't be distracted by your technical trifles about how lack of evidence doesn't mean the tooth-fairy doesn't live on Pluto. If you claim x, you have the burden to prove x. We have no obligation to view you as God, view your opinions as gospel, and then worry about how to prove you wrong.  Get to work.

    I do not believe in God and I am a moral person. So you are saying that atheists cannot be moral people?

You must be a sorry apologist if the only way you can attack ethical relativism is by pretending these stupid amateur skeptical excuses represent the most powerful guns relativists can bring to the fight.  You couldn't prove the objective immorality of torturing babies, to save your life.  All you could do is insist such torture is objectively immoral, and then insist, equally blindly,  that anybody who disagrees with you is therefore too mentally unstable to be worthy of reasoning with.  But that's hardly "argument". Go ask Matthew Flannagan.  Every time I asked him what moral standard he is using to justify his belief that some human act is objectively immoral, he either disappeared, or his website conveniently decided, right at that point, to ban me for suspected but non-existent spam.  He denied in private email that he caused this, but he also didn't indicate he'd be trying to rectify this, and, shock, surprise, I still cannot post on his blog.  His apathy toward my inability to post at his website sure is convenient toward achieving the goal of ducking the bullet.

When you are faced with an adversary you cannot refute, just stop communicating.  It works for Matthew Flannagan, so it will also work for you and anybody else who prioritize the need to sell books above the need to be accurate.

This is NOT at all what objective morality means! Of course, an atheist can be a good moral person.

Then you apparently have never read your bible, which says nobody is good:

 18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. (Mk. 10:18 NAU)

  12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." (Rom. 3:12 NAU)

What’s ironic is that I know some atheists who are actually more moral than many Christians!

That's not ironic, a person's morality arises from a combination of their genetic predispositions and their environmental conditioning.  And since god doesn't exist, seeing no moral improvement in the lives of those who claim to have "accepted Jesus" is nothing new.  All they did was join a club and sign the local creed, which had about as much spirituality to it as joining the cub scouts does.  

A person does not have to believe in God to be a good person. This is more of an objection of epistemology, or how we know something. The atheist can know morality, but they cannot justify or provide logical grounds for it.

 Sure we can.  I require my son to take out the garbage because

a.  the garbage needs to be taken out, because I personally don't like a dirty smelly house;
b. his obeying me keeps chaos out of the house, and keeping chaos at bay is required if we are to live happily with each other;.
c. his obeying me instills in him an appreciation that obeying an employer leads to the productive job-retention we all need in order to pay rent/mortgage and keep a stable place to live.

Why would you think a reasonable atheist needs anything more than this to justify saying it is morally good to ask their child to take out the garbage and for the child to obey?

From the Christian worldview, we believe God fabricated a moral code into our DNA (Romans 2:15), other people think we know morality because of evolution. Again, this is a question of how we know something, not why I ought to do something.

 Again, that's technically true, but if morality does come from evolution, then that leaves you in the lurch, with nobody having any reason to link morality to anything higher, like god.

This objection confuses ontology (is there a moral reality) with epistemology (how do we know morality). On the naturalistic atheist worldview, they cannot justify why someone ought to be moral.

And moral relativism is a good explanation for why Christians often fail to convince other Christians on moral issues like age of consent, death penalty, military service, assisted suicide, abortion etc, even if relativism isn't the only possible explanation.

There is no objective standard for the naturalistic atheist to point to.

There's no objective standard for the Christian to point to either.  Your moral disagreement with Leviticus 21:9 proves the point, as does your inability to convince other Christians that their specific morals are wrong.

This objection is just a common misunderstanding of the argument. A simple clarification of what you mean by the moral argument will handle this objection.

As I mentioned earlier, in our “post-truth” society it is inevitable that a Christian will run into one of these objections.

But if I have any say in it, Christians will routinely run into MY objections, and they will need to up their game, or concede defeat, the way Matthew Flannagan did with his dishonestly preventing me from posting further at his blogs after I asked the question moral objectivists cannot answer.

As Christians, we have to be prepared to answer these objections and to show that belief in God is rational and reasoned (1 Peter 3:15).

 You are also commanded to avoid wrangling words (2nd Timothy 2:14) and it wouldn't be very difficult to show how the ceaseless back and forth bantering required when Christian moral objectivists debate atheist moral relativists, is a fine illustration of said prohibited "wrangling".  See how I hammered the ever-mouthy female Christian apologist Lydia McGrew with that verse here.

What I have seen in dealing with the students in my class who opposed objective morality is that it is more of an emotional problem.

 Then you need to get out of class more often.  I've steamrolled moral objectivity several times at this blog, and none of my objections are as simpleminded as the stupefied drunks you prop up here.

As I mentioned in objection three, the students in my class did not want objective morality to exist because it would have to demand a change in their way if living.

Maybe so, but your argument sucks because all you are doing is refuting two-year olds.  When you learn enough of this topic to play with the big boys, let me know.

Hopefully, after reading this, you will be prepared to give a defense of one of the most relatable and fundamental arguments for the existence of God.

Sure...if your Christian readers anticipate that their only opponents will be atheists who have a very superficial understanding of these issues.  But you only do your students much harm if you are trying to prepare them to ward off my own attacks.  You gave them precisely nothing to take on me.

 I now reply to some of the replies that article generated:

    Andy Ryan says:

    July 21, 2017 at 3:14 am

    “Premise 1: If objective moral values and duties exist then God exists”

    That’s a non sequitur. What’s the connection between objective morality existing and Gid existing?

    Second, never mind swatting objections, where’s your evidence that OM actually exists?

    “Therefore, God exits”

    That’s a funny typo!

Good call!  I already steamrolled Christian apologist Matthew Flannagan by getting down to business and asking him what standard he uses to justify saying parents have an objective moral duty to avoid harming children.  Suddenly, I wasn't able to post there anymore, and Flannagan didn't reply to that question either
 While he denied via private email he had banned me by choice, he also refused to carry on the conversation through my blog or private email.  Let's just say Flannagan is nowhere near the moral objectivity warrior he thinks he is.  He is also the new father of conveniently timed accidents

        Butch says:

        July 28, 2017 at 10:13 am

        The connection is simple and it’s a shame you’re blinded to not see it. Without God it’s just your opinion.

 So what?  How does re-characterizing the morals of most Americans as "just opinion" operate to show any deficiency?  Yes, morals are absolutely nothing but opinions.  So what?

        As for your other question; Why is it only relatively wrong to torture babies for fun?

Because the only highest demonstrable authority for calling it immoral is human opinion.

And you have no business asking that question anyway, since your God could have killed King David's baby quickly, but instead decided to torture the child with a great sickness for 7 days before finally killing it.  If your god tortures children, then you cannot cite child-torture as a case of objective immorality:

 10 'Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.'
 11 "Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
 12 'Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'"
 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
 14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."
 15 So Nathan went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.
 16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.
 17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.
 18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died.  (2 Sam. 12:10-18 NAU)

 Now what?  Did you suddenly become an open-theist?

I think any honest person knows it’s objectively wrong. Not relatively wrong.

 In other words, the only people your argument could convince, are people who already accept it.  That's the sign of a horrifically weak argument.

        If you hold it’s only relatively wrong then you have a serious problem that needs checked out!

So apparently god has a problem that needs checked out, since baby torture, being objectively immoral, doesn't allow for any exceptions?

And can’t say anything is wrong. Including raping your daughter and torturing her.

 Do you think the rapist continued to have sex with his victim after he was forced to marry her in accord with God's will?

 28 "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days. (Deut. 22:28-29 NAU)

Deuteronomy 22 is talking about the man who seizes the non-engaged girl (Hebrew: taphas, the same word used in Deut. 21:19 to describe forceful arrest of a resisting criminal). 

The rape-interpretation of the “seize and lay with her” of Deut. 22:28 is confirmed by the “he violated her” in v. 29.  The Hebrew word for violated is עָנָה/anah, which means to be bowed down, afflicted.  Every other time this word is used to describe two people interacting, it is always describing a man forcing a woman to have sex against her will (i.e., rape):

It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled (Hebrew: anah)  her. (Deut. 21:14 NAU, see chapter ? for detailed exegesis of this passage)

But the men of Gibeah rose up against me and surrounded the house at night because of me. They intended to kill me; instead, they ravished (Hebrew: anah) my concubine so that she died. (Jdg 20:5 NAS)

 However, he would not listen to her; since he was stronger than she, he violated (Hebrew: anah) her and lay with her. (2Sa 13:14 NAS)

Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David's brother, responded, "Do not let my lord suppose they have put to death all the young men, the king's sons, for Amnon alone is dead; because by the intent of Absalom this has been determined since the day that he violated (Hebrew: anah) his sister Tamar. (2 Sam. 13:32 NAU)

They ravished (Hebrew: anah )the women in Zion, The virgins in the cities of Judah. (Lam 5:11 NAS)

You can’t claim anything is evil. Including the God you seem to not believe in.

We can claim something is evil if it is reasonable to use our subjective standard of good and bad.  I claim rape is evil, because it interferes with her rights as they exist in this country.  I don't need to prove that America's hatred of rape reflects a transcendent morality in order to be reasonable to say rape is evil.

You are merely fallaciously assuming that nothing but an absolute standard of right and wrong will suffice.  You couldn't be more wrong.  You could never host a garage sale.  After all, there's no absolute guide to how much a used dvd player is worth, so that puts you in Shitsville for the rest of your life.

                Terry Lewis says:

                August 16, 2017 at 10:46 am

                Hey Andy!

                Thinking someone blinded is not an insult; it’s an assessment of their abilities. Or do you think there’s something insulting about being blind?

                “That torture causes suffering is a fact that is outside myself.”

                True enough… but this is not a moral statement. It says nothing about whether such suffering should or should not be inflicted on another person. What say you about that?

I think baby-torture is immoral because it takes away from babies everything that my genetic predospositions and cultural conditioning say babies should be allowed to enjoy.  I think this is the part where you say it is objectively unreasonable to go along with one's culture.            

    KR says:

    July 21, 2017 at 6:58 am

    Premise 2 is of course equally problematic. If there are objective moral values, they should be demonstrable facts – yet I’ve never seen such a demonstration. The question I keep asking but never get an answer to is: when people disagree on a moral issue, how do we determine who’s objectively correct?

 By asking what Frank Turek's interpretation of the bible is, of course. If you point out that other evangelicals disagree with his morals or theology, then you probably aren't one of the elect and can be conveniently ignored.