No, Mr. J. Warner Wallace: Hell is NOT "reasonable"

This is my reply to J. Warner Wallace's video on hell:

Is Hell Reasonable?

In the comments section I posed this on August 1, 2022----

Barry Jones0 seconds ago

I'm sorry, but there are numerous conclusive justifications for unbelievers to be skeptical of biblical "hell": 

First, Wallace is assuming that something written in a 2,000 year old books"applies to" people today. No historian has ever said the theology in an ancient book "applies to" today, so if Wallace thinks the bible is an exception, he has the burden of proof. And in my 25 years of counterapologetics, I've never seen any Christian apologist or scholar even get near showing that biblical "hell" applies to anybody today. 

Second, it wouldn't matter if biblical hell was intended as a modern-day warning to unbelievers: too many conservative Christians are abandoning the eternal conscious torment model and adopting the Annihilationism model. Why then should skeptics care? They already believe on naturalism that death constitutes permanent extinction of consciousness. 

Third, spiritually alive Christians disagree on whether hell is or isn't permanent extinction of consciousness. Clark Pinnock was one of the signers of the inerrancy-definition created by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, but he denied the literal interpretation of hell and favored conditionalism. See Pinnock, “The Conditional View,” in Four Views on Hell (Zondervan Academic, 1997). The debate appears to have no end. See Four Views on Hell (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology; Zondervan Academic; Second edition. March 8, 2016). if spiritually alive people cannot even agree on the nature of biblical hell, they are fools to 'expect' spiritually dead skeptics to discern the matter with any greater accuracy. 

Fourth, in the view cases in the gospels were Jesus deals directly with a Gentile, he never preaches hell at them, and if they do show faith, Jesus apparently prefers to keep his fellowship with them as short as possible. See the racist Jesus who seems to grant a miracle to a "dog" merely to shut her up. Matthew 15:22. 

Fifth, the traditional view of hell says God "must" judge sin either in the sinner or their substitute, but he cannot simply "let it go" because he is too holy. This is absurd: in 2nd Samuel 12:13-15, God "takes away" David's sin in the sense of exempting him from the mandatory Mosaic death penalty for murder. If God is holier than the Canaanite gods, the you might wish to think about it before you construe God's killing of David's baby in the following context as God accepting child sacrifice. Then in Acts 17:31, apostle Paul tells the pagan idolaters that God has "winked at" or "overlooked" their idolatry (The Greek word is hupereidon, and it means "overlook"). 

It doesn't matter what the bible thumper has to say about these texts, we skeptics are going to be reasonable to interpret them as proof that god can get rid of sin with a mere wave of his magic wand. That reasonableness will not disappear merely because a fundamentalist comes along and offers criticism. Christianity's inability to preach a consistent doctrine of hell has persisted too long in history, to justify thinking that some quick clever comment by Wallace is going to overturn it. 

The question is not whether the Christian can be reasonable to view hell the way Wallace does. Maybe they can. The question is whether SKEPTICS and UNBELIEVERS can be reasonable to view biblical hell as little more than an ancient abusive fairy tale. We can. 

And why does Wallace make his videos more dramatic than they need to be? Does he deny god's existence, and does he seriously believe the only plausible way to 'reach' today's unbeliever or Christian is through adoption of modern marketing and presentation methods that appear geared toward people afflicted with attention-deficit-disorder? If the Holy Spirit could bless Paul's ministry without all these bells and whistles, why does Wallace think these necessary?

----------------------end quote

I reposted the same comments to Wallace's reply page too, here's a screenshot:

==========================

For obvious reasons, there won't be any Wallace-followers or apologists offering any substantive rebuttal anytime soon.  When I hit back, I hit hard.

My question to Christian philosopher R. Scott Smith

 At the Christian apologetics site  https://www.moralapologetics.com/wordpress/msm13

  R. Scott Smith's article is linked.  So I went to his contact page and sent him the following questions:

Hello, 

I am an atheist, and I was wondering what you think of the following argument:  When most people really think about it, they do not seriously believe that unreasonableness is an essential component of faulty argument.  For example, jurors are "wrong" to convict an innocent person, but if trial consisted of the right combination of clever prosecutor and incompetent defense attorney, you could hardly blame the jury for thinking it reasonable to view the suspect as guilty.

If then it be true that unreasonableness doesn't necessarily inhere in all faulty arguments/beliefs, aren't you admitting there is at least a possibility, even if not a probability, that one's denial of God might remain "reasonable" despite being "false"?

I ask because it is my experience that Christians are constantly equating a skeptical belief or skeptical denial with "unreasonableness", as if they thought "inaccurate" and "unreasonable" were necessarily synonymous, which not even a thesaurus will confirm.

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

I now answer the relevant portion of his argument at 

moralapologetics.com/wordpress/msm13

Now, we will see when we explore ethical relativism that while there is a fact of moral diversity amongst people and cultures, nonetheless those differences may not be as wide or deep as we have been taught.

So I guess apologists are wrong when they get from the bible the notion that hundreds of thousands of Canaanites lived a morality that was diametrically opposed to the morality of the Hebrews.

Instead, we can identify common morals that may be applied differently (e.g., how people in one culture show respect for their elders, versus how people in another culture do so).

I'm not seeing the point, the fact that we are all mammals and desire to live together means were are going to discover that the best way to facilitate this is to agree on some common morality.  Frank Turek's statement that atheists cannot sufficiently or reasonably account for why most humans in history have eschewed rape, is absurd.  If you desire to live in groups, outlawing rape is one definite way to enhance group survival.  On the other hand, God's requirement to burn pre-adolescent girls to death (if she is having illicit sex in her father's house, she is likely not married and still living there, thus she is likely 12 years old or younger since marriage took place at early age back then) is so despised by Christians that we could use Turek's logic "we all know that rape is wrong" and say "we all know that burning teen and preteen prostitutes to death is wrong", and we'd have set a basis for beliving that God wanted us to believe that Leviticus 21:9 wasn't from Him.

Further, just because there is a descriptive fact of diversity, that alone does not give us ethical relativism, which is a normative thesis.

Correction, doesn't "necessarily" give us ethical relativism.  But I myself do not argue that my conclusions abuot such matters follow "necessarily", especially in the area of which morals are "right".  

Which means I don't need to argue necessity to win the debate, all I have to show is that my position on the matter is reasonable.  Reasonableness can exist even if the opinion in question doesn't follow "necessarily".  Just like we can be reasonable to call the police only to find out later that we misinterpreted the scene.

Granted, too, irreducibly moral properties would be rather “queer” given naturalism. But, perhaps there are independent reasons why we should question that assumption. In later essays, I will suggest a few such reasons.

I've been analyzing Christian moral apologetics for several years now.  Matthew Flannagan did little more than run away when I debated him at his blog and asked what moral yardstick he uses to decide whether some human act is morally good or bad.  I documented many such failures on his part.  Here's two:

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/11/matthew-flannagan-fails-to-show-child.html

 https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/07/my-latest-challenge-to-matthew-flannagan.html

Moreover, it is true that we may speak in ways that do not necessarily commit us to the reality of things we are talking about.

That's right.  The atheist who views his own morality as "absolute" is a fucking fool.

Generally, mere word uses do not have power to cause things to come into existence (except, for instance, stories). A scientific example was talk of phlogiston to explain combustion. Later, however, scientists discovered it was not real; instead, oxygen was what was involved.

Further, error theory does not explain why we find morality to be such a ubiquitous aspect of life.

Maybe so, but other atheist theories DO explain it.  Morality is found everywhere in human life because we are mammals and hard wired to be societal, and thus to prioritize that which contributes to group survival above that which inhibits it.  Little wonder then why most people eschew rape, child molestation, murder and theft, and have only good things to say about getting a job, raising kids, going to college, disinfecting the bathroom, etc, etc. 

After all, why talk morally if there are no morals?

Straw man, morals obviously exist, the problem is that they appear to be nothing more than opinions.  Atheists have just as much justification to talk about adultery as they have to talk about politics.  Nothing about those conversations express or imply that we are speaking about things that originate in something transcendent to humanity.

While error theory explains why we can talk morally, given naturalism, it still does not give us an adequate explanation of what morals are.

Easy:  when you say "you shouldn't steal" and "you shouldn't use the tv remote", these ultimately reduce to thoughts.   

If they are just the way we use words, then we can change morals by changing how we talk. In that case, murder could become right, and justice could become bad. But surely that is false.

What do you mean "surely"?  So at the end of the day, your argument for objective transcendent morals is nothing more than the fallacy or argument from outrage?

Murder is not intrinsically wrong merely because it is the "unlawful" killing of another human being, because this begs the question of whether such prohibitive law is itself always a good thing.  If the state law criminalized use of deadly force in self-defense, then killing in self-defense would be "murder", but that would hardly justify pretending that the law making it so was completely beyond criticism.

Probably wouldn't take me long to find many normal typical every day mature adult fathers who would make effort to murder the babysitter for molesting their child, even if the molestation did not put the child's life in danger (i.e., inappropriate touching, a crime that wouldn't justify use of lethal force).  Again, most of us are shocked by the news that a dead body with a bullet hole in its head was found in some ditch outside of town...but most of us stop crying if the news continues and says it is the body of a convicted pedophile who was recently paroled.  Our inability to cry equally giant tears when we hear of the death of a pedophile as when he hear about the death of a pedophile commits us to the premise that while the state law against murder is generally good for society, we are not foolish enough to think that it is an absolutely exceptionless standard.

Once again, most of us don't like gang warefare.  But if we heard on the news that two rival gangs met in a parking lot outside town and killed each other in a gun battle, most of us would be happy that additional human scum are not longer a threat.  It was murder, but the moral goodness of the result is no less apparent than the moral goodness of eating nutritious food.  And like it or not, yes, most people do believe the ends justify the means, even if they are willing to take the personal risks that would materialize if they lived in total consistency to that viewpoint.

As far as relative morality committing itself to the premise that in some situations, it would be morally good for justice to become bad, this seems to be a bit convoluted.  But even so, it isn't hard to imagine scenarios where a person believes that the way the law operates results in "bad justice", but where that person decides to just conform to it anyway.  The innocent suspect might be looking at only 2 years on a plea deal, but risks 20 years if he goes to trial.  He views his guilty plea as resulting in "bad justice", and yet it was morally good to him because he was forced to choose this evil over the greater evil of losing trial and getting 20 years.  Can it possibly be good for justice to be bad?  Yes.  In the civilized world we live in, any justice system is eventually going to put an individual in the situation of being required to either choose a lesser evil or a greater evil, so that their choosing the lesser evil ends up proving to be the "good" choice.

My general challenge to annoyed pinoy

I challenged "annoyed pinoy" at his blog as follows:

1 comment:

1. 
   barryNovember 7, 2019 at 4:01 PM

   I'd like to discuss with you various bible-related issues that you likely haven't dealt with before, skeptical arguments that you probably won't find answered at Triablogue. I will also proceed in the discussion one point at a time, as opposed to simply trying to answer a range of different points in a single post. Care to engage?

   ReplyDelete

1. 
   barryNovember 7, 2019 at 4:04 PM

   We can have the debate at your blog or mine, but I'd prefer just one since cross-posting while the debate is in progress I find intolerably tedious:
   
   https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/11/my-general-challenge-to-annoyed-pinoy.html

   ReplyDelete

Cold Case Christianity, quick shots, and stupid non-Christians

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

Cold Case Christianity: 

Quick Shot: “Truth cannot be known with any certainty”          

Posted: 15 Apr 2019 01:10 AM PDT

Our “Quick Shot” series offers brief answers to common objections to the Christian worldview. Each response is limited to one paragraph. These responses are designed to (1) answer the objection as concisely as possible, (2) challenge the objector to think more deeply about his or her claim, and (3) facilitate a “gospel” conversation. In this article, we’re offering “Quick Shot” responses to the objection, “You can’t be certain about Christianity because truth cannot be known with any certainty.”

Then you are apparently dealing with a very stupid non-Christian.

snip

Response #2:

“What do you mean by certainty? Do you mean “beyond a possible doubt”? If that’s the standard, we would be paralyzed by fear and indecision. Will my car explode when I turn the key today? I can’t be sure beyond a possible doubt. Will my next restaurant meal result in food poisoning? Again, I can’t be certain beyond a possible doubt. We can’t (and don’t) live by that standard, because, if we did, we wouldn’t want to leave our homes.

So apparently, you DO find human reasoning to be acceptable.  What makes you think it isn't acceptable when evaluating other claims, like the bible-god's not needing sacrifice in order to get rid of sin?

Instead we live by a lower standard known as “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is also the standard we apply to the most serious criminal trials. If it’s good enough to use in those trials, it’s also good enough for us to use in our daily lives.

And if it's good enough to use in criminal trials, its also apparently good enough, by your own estimation, to be used to analyze biblical claims.   Anonymous witnesses count for exactly nothing in most trials, because you cannot cross-examine them to make sure of their credibility.  If it were otherwise, anybody could get on the stand and say anything, and their anonymity would prevent the parties from uncovering truths about the witness's true level of credibility.  That is, the jury would be given nothing by which to decide whether the witness is believable.

So since most Christian scholars agree that the gospels are anonymous, and disagree more on to what extent any of their contents draw from eyewitness sources, if at all...it sucks to be J. Warner Wallace right about now.  If he had known how the gospels utterly fail the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of evidence used in criminal trials, he probably wouldn't have written the "Cold Case Christianity" marketing gimmick that currently pays for his air fare as he runs around making "appearances".

Do you honestly think truth can’t be known beyond a reasonable doubt?

In the case of ancient history, yes.  In the case of incoherent ideas like "god" that need endless ad hoc rescue to prevent them from being kicked to the curb, yes. 

Have you ever applied this standard to the case for God’s existence or the truth of Christianity?”

Yes.  Since "god" as used in traditional religious parlance is an incoherent idea (performs the physical functions of ears, eyes, etc, but without physicality) the only thing beyond reasonable doubt here is how undeserving "god" is of any serious discussion, except in the sense of explaining why it is reasonable to say "fuck you" to any Christian who wants to discuss theism.

 

I've also applied the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to the gospels, which are anonymous, and anonymous witnesses are of no value in court except in rare situations not applicable here.  The more anonymous the witness, the less you should put stock in anything they have to say.  And, of co)urse, the problem of anonymity (it prevents us from asking pointed questions) plagues apostle Paul too, since his identifying himself doesn't get rid of the problems in his "testimony".

Cold Case Christianity: Do Atheists Believe in Just One Less God Than Christians?

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

Do Atheists Believe in Just One Less God Than Christians?

Posted: 21 Sep 2018 01:13 AM PDT

 As an atheist, I used to challenge my Christian friends with a common objection heard across the Internet today. Although my formulation of the objection differed from time to time, it was a lot like the popular statement attributed to Stephen F. Roberts:

“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

My point was simple: All of us are atheists to some degree if you really think about it; we just disagree about which gods we reject. Christians are atheistic in their attitude toward, Zeus, Poseidon, Lakshmi, Vishnu, Cheonjiwang, Na Tuk Kong, Achamán, Huixtocihuatl and thousands of other historic gods. When asked, Christians typically offer the same reasons for rejecting these other “deities” that I would have offered for rejecting the God of Christianity. So (as I often claimed), if my believing friends simply approached Yahweh in the same way they approached other mythologies, they would inevitably take the final step toward rationality and reject all false gods.

I avoid that argument because Christianity, despite being false, obviously has more historical support than do the gods of other ancient religions.  You cannot get rid of Christianity quite as easily as you can get rid of Zeus.

This objection is still popular.

That's an unfortunate truth about modern-day culture.  Critical thinking has become an industry because the internet not only enables one to know more truth, it also facilitates ignorance.

I hear it (or read it) frequently in my efforts to make the case for Christianity now that I’m a believer. While there are certainly several valid responses, I’d like to offer one from my experience as a detective and case maker. I think it provides a brief, but rhetorically powerful rejoinder to this misguided, iconic objection.

In every criminal trial, a jury is asked to evaluate the actions of one defendant related to a particular crime. While there are millions of other people in the world who could have committed the crime under consideration (and indeed, millions of these people were actually available to commit the crime), only one has been charged. If the jury becomes convinced this defendant is the perpetrator, they will convict him based on their beliefs. They will convict the accused even though they haven’t examined the actions (or nature) of millions of other potential suspects.

 using the same logic, atheists can be reasonable to look at the evidence for Christianity and draw conclusions thereto, even if they haven't examined every supernaturalism argument in existence.

They’ll render a verdict based on the evidence related to this defendant, in spite of the fact they may be ignorant of the history or actions of several million alternatives.

So, atheists also can be reasonable to "render a verdict based on the evidence related to [god] in spite of the fact they may be ignorant of the history or actions of several million alternatives"

If the evidence is persuasive, the jurors will become true believers in the guilt of this man or woman, even as they reject millions of other options.

Same answer.

As Christians, we are just like the jurors on that trial. We make a decision about Jesus on the basis of the evidence related to Jesus, not the fact there may be many alternative candidates offered by others.

Then you cannot blame atheists for making a decision about 'god' on the basis of the available evidence, not the fact there may be many alternative candidates offered by others.

If the evidence is persuasive, we can reach our decision in good conscience, even if we are completely unfamiliar with other possibilities.

 Ditto the atheist.

Christianity makes claims of exclusivity; if Christianity is true, all other claims about God are false.

Correction, this is conservative Christianity which makes the claim of exclusivity.  It isn't like the liberal Christian inclusivists who believe in many other legitimate paths to God have never seen John 14:6 or the other standard biblical proof-texts that make up the exclusivist's entire reason for processing oxygen.

If the evidence supporting Christianity is convincing to us as the jury, we need look no further. In the end, our decision will be based on the strength (or weakness) of the case for Christianity, just like the decisions made by jurors related to a particular defendant must be based on the strength (or weakness) of the evidence.

And, as usual (and probably because you need to commit this error to sell books), you once again premise Christianity's truth entirely upon where the empirical evidence points...you leave no room in your argument for the biblical fact that there is an invisible subjective convicting of sin by the Holy Spirit that is also a part of, and more important than, the empirical evidence.  If you started pushing the subjective truth that the bible connects to one's ability to determine the truth of Christianity, logic would require that you stop promoting your book sales as obsessively as you do.  God has his part to play, which you cannot play for him, and since he played it for hundreds of years before internet, videos, printing press and electricity, you might consider that there is a genuine possibility you've blinded yourself too all these years:  the bible god, if he exists, thinks it much better for today's Christians to simply preach straight from the bible, plus nothing, and God will be responsible for making anybody sitting in the pews or on the street to become interested.

At the end of a trail, juries are “unbelievers” when it comes to every other potential suspect, because the evidence confirming the guilt of their particular defendant was sufficient. In a similar way, we can be confident “unbelievers” when it comes to every other potential god because the evidence for Christianity is more than sufficient.

Ditto the atheist.  Reasonableness in denying god's existence doesn't require refuting every possible argument for supernaturalism, for the same reason that the reasonableness of believing Jesus rose from the dead doesn't require refuting every possible argument for naturalism.