The Faces of Miracles - A Serialized eBook by Bill Dembski and Alex Thomas

This is my reply to an article by William Dembski and Alex Thomas, entitled

The Faces of Miracles — A Serialized eBook by Bill Dembski and Alex Thomas

NOVEMBER 4, 2019 by BILL DEMBSKI 

 The Faces of Miracles is an eBook written by Bill Dembski and Alex Thomas. It will be presented on this blog, BillDembski.com, over the next four months (November 2019 thru February 2020), with new installments typically appearing on Mondays.
 Table of Contents
0 Introduction [below]
1 Christopher Gunderson: The Face of Documented Medical Miracles [to be posted 11/11/19]
2 Benny Hinn: The Face of High-Octane Faith Healers [to be posted 11/18/19]
3 Thurman Scrivner: The Face of Bible Extremism [to be posted 11/25/19]
4 Eben Alexander: The Face of Near-Death Experiences [to be posted 12/2/19]
etc.
 ***
 Introduction
Most books on miracles reach one of three conclusions: Miracles happen. Miracles don’t happen. Miracles can’t happen.
 This book takes a different tack. Rather than settle the existence or nonexistence of miracles, we ask why we’re talking about miracles in the first place. Why do we make such a big deal about them?

I don't know, especially in light of the obvious fact that there is no record of Jesus using hell to threaten the Gentiles, therefore, the blind assumption of today's fundamentalists, that a hell of eternal conscious torment awaits anybody who knowingly rejects the gospel, is not a gospel truth.  Since I'm reasonable to reject Paul and the other NT writers, what they have to say doesn't bother me in the least.

I would hazard a guess that people still make a big deal out of miracles because people generally enter adulthood lacking basic critical thinking skills relevant to historical inquiry and criminal investigation, they are quick to believe hearsay (why do you think tabloids sell so well?) and many people have an agenda to attract attention to themselves or their religion, caring more about the fame and money than about actual truth.

What makes them an endless topic of debate?

The inability of the average person to use critical thinking skills, and the natural love humans have for mystery.  What makes soap operas, tabloids and gossip so popular?  Stupidity, right?

If miracles do indeed happen, why isn’t the evidence for them more convincing and obvious?

The way you ask the question, you aren't asking an atheist.  But I find telling your admission to miracle-evidence being so unpersuasive as to facilitate endless discussion.

If miracles don’t happen, why isn’t their absence equally convincing and obvious?

It is, depending on the type of miracle being alleged, but generally, the absence of miracles is not "obvious" because there are simply too many claims for them, and skeptics simply don't have enough time in their lives to provide comprehensive rebuttals to each.  Just like Christians don't have the time in their lives to track down every possible argument for naturalism (and it only takes one to disprove Christianity)...but they've decided that the arguments they do know about, are sufficient to justify their ultimate conclusion that naturalism to be false.

Miracles are neither like horses nor like unicorns. Horses have made themselves so clearly evident that no one can deny their existence. Unicorns have hidden themselves so well that no one is justified asserting their existence

Let's go further: anybody who says they saw a real live unicorn, is either deceived or a deceiver themselves, and this is a reasonable conclusion even if we skeptics have to admit that we haven't checked every square inch of the universe to be sure unicorns are 100% absent from existence.

Miracles occupy a middle ground that gives reasons to think that they exist but also raises doubts to question whether they exist.

Correct.

Miracles cannot be dismissed as the ravings of an unhinged or uneducated or unscientific fringe.

Correct, they can be dismissed as either the ravings of an unhinged or uneducated or unscientific fringe, or, they can be dismissed in the way that I dismiss them...on the merits of each case.  That is, the cases that Christians typically invoke to prove miracles, fall apart at the seams upon investigation.

Many normal, feet-on-the-ground, well-informed people believe that they or their loved ones have personally experienced a miracle, that they have good reasons for believing in miracles, and that miracles play an important role in the world.

So?  Many normal, feet-on-the-ground, well-informed people are also often liars or simply mistaken, and many found out later that their paranormal explanation for something was false.

As just one of countless examples, take Nobel laureate writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s description of his cure from cancer while a prisoner in the Soviet Gulag: 

In autumn 1953 it looked very much as though I had only a few months to live. In December the doctors—comrades in exile—confirmed that I had only three weeks left… I did not die, however. With a hopelessly neglected and acutely malignant tumor, this was a divine miracle. I could see no other explanation. Since then, all the life that has been given back to me has not been mine in the full sense: it is built around a purpose. [Solzhenitsyn 1975, pp. 3-4]

 Solzhenitsyn lived another fifty-five years.

This provides nothing intellectually compelling the atheist to "go check it out".  I would have to see his medical files to further check out this claim, and a search of google makes it reasonably certain these aren't going to be found.  See here.  But for now, he doesn't appear in this quotation to say that his doctors were baffled by this "cure", he only says that he himself "could see no other explanation".   Solzhenitsyn also was extremely controversial where he wished to publish, and he had an incentive to do what lots of people have done, and tell a miracle-cure story to increase interest in his writings.  After all, it only makes sense that if God cured him of cancer, God must have wanted him to publish his writings.

And you probably don't need to be told that because the suspect had a possible motive, that counts as legitimate circumstantial evidence, and if the jury chooses to believe it, that can be sufficient to justify declaring him guilty.  Nobody likes verdicts premised entirely on circumstantial evidence, but the reality of the world is that things would only get worse if we tried to fix the problem by forbidding any and all circumstantial evidence.  That would just motivate criminals to do an extra careful job of destroying the evidence directly linking them to a crime.  So unfortunately, circumstantial evidence is legitimately probative, and it isn't up to you to decide whether a person should or shouldn't credit such evidence.  It's up to the individual fact-finder.

Despite such widespread accounts of miracles, many people remain skeptical about miracles, thinking that most, or even all, miracle claims fall apart on closer examination. Who’s to say that Solzhenitsyn’s cancer was as advanced or serious as he claims?

EXACTLY.

Medical care in the Soviet Gulag was minimal at best. No official medical records of his cancer survive, to say nothing of X-rays or hard evidence.

EXACTLY.

Too often, the credibility of miracles depends entirely on human testimony, with its biases, and lacks scientific evidence, with its rigor.

EXACTLY.

Yet even scientific evidence of miracles, when it exists, can fail to convince. James Randi, for instance, is a noted skeptic and debunker of the paranormal. He has offered cash prizes to anyone who can prove a miracle. Yet no supposed miracle to cross his path has ever, in his view, merited a cash prize. Randi is aware of “spontaneous remissions” of diseases, in which people experience remarkable recoveries unexplained by medical science. But they cut no ice with Randi.

But because "spontaneous remission" is known to occur naturalistically (i.e., lacking the "context of religious significance" that Christian scholar Mike Licona thinks is required before one can call some event a "miracle"), those who pitch for the prize-money need to allege something more than the fact that they had real cancer, and then it really went into remission.  To my knowledge Randi has never maintained unreasonable skepticism toward purported evidence satisfying his challenge.

Such occurrences, rare though they are, provide good scientific evidence that certain people have been suddenly and inexplicably cured of their diseases.

But "inexplicable" doesn't equal "miracle", otherwise, we'd have to invoke "god" each and every time something happened for which we lacked a naturalistic explanation.  That would manifest a lack of critical thinking skills, since science has helped us determine the purely naturalistic cause for many things ancient people thought were supernatural (i.e., thunder, lightning, epilepsy, the body's ability to cure itself of most common ailments, germ-theory, etc).

Randi will readily admit that such cures have occurred. But he then denies that they are miracles. As he puts it, “one by one … these spontaneous remissions from things like cancer will be explained eventually. We just don’t have the explanation at this point. But that doesn’t mean they are miraculous.” [2011 interview with James Randi at Superscholar.org] In other words, an ordinary explanation acceptable to the most hard-nosed skeptic is sure to exist for every supposed miracle, but for now we just don’t know enough to say what it is.

If you lived in 800 a.d., would you rather the atheist living in the village with the Vikings acquiesce to "Thor" when they hear thunder?  Or would you suggest the atheist maintain confidence that a purely naturalistic explanation will become known someday?

To talk about being either convinced of miracles or skeptical about them presupposes a prior question: what do we even mean by miracles?

That would be your problem, as "miracles" are entirely the creation of theology, of which atheists have no burden.  If therefore the term you prefer to use in dialogue with atheists depends on assumptions the atheist doesn't share, that is not their problem.  You either find common terminonlogy ground, or you risk the atheist being intellectually justified to dismiss the discussion as nothing but smoke and mirrors about invisible nothings inside black holes that never existed.

Work on this book started when the authors contacted a well-known survey company to conduct a scientific poll of people’s attitudes toward miracles. We were prepared to spend a significant amount of cash to conduct such a poll.

Money that could have been better spent helping the poor or doing something Jesus obviously required, as opposed to engaging in ventures whose biblical justification remains debatable.

We wanted to understand not so much whether people believe miracles happen but the significance of miracles in their lives and thought. Even professional skeptics who debunk miracles for a living find them important (the empty set can nonetheless be an interesting set!).

Yes, one can find legitimate purpose in life by simply choosing to correct popular errors.  Ask any Christian "apologist".

After going round and round with the survey company, we did converge on a list of questions on which we could all agree (included as a chapter in this book, along with a discussion of its significance). But we could never agree on the definition of miracles.

A plight noticed by every other apologist, including Mike Licona. Again, a problem of your own creation.

The definition that we, the authors of this book, thought best focused not just on the extraordinariness of miracles but also on their supposed supernatural source: “a miracle is an event or act that defies ordinary explanation and whose occurrence seems to require some influence or power outside nature.”

Except that "outside nature" is nothing but sophistry and absurdity (like "north of the number 4"), and as such, it is certain that the person who accepts that definition, doesn't even know what exactly it refers to.  Meaning the definition isn't going to facilitate meaningful dialogue with anybody who insists that terms be defined coherently and correctly.  Again, your choice to push an issue that you cannot represent with normative language is not the problem of the atheist...unless you think it absurd to demand that key terms be clearly defined?

The survey company insisted that we limit the definition of miracle to events without ordinary explanation, omitting any reference to the supernatural. This, it seemed to us, missed the point of miracles, namely, that they are not just wildly unexpected events, but also experienced by people as a sign of divine or supernatural influence (like Solzhenitsyn above), pointing beyond a material world otherwise ruled by unbroken natural law.

Again, "beyond a material world" is mere sophistry, it speaks of no identifiable place, which means atheists are reasonable to reject that part of the definition.

To understand miracles as we proposed and to accept that they exist then means that the natural world cannot be a closed system of natural causes but rather must be an open system that can accommodate causes beyond nature.

Again, "beyond nature" is like "emotional dust particle".  I'm suspicious that the only way you can attempt a definition is to play these silly word games.  Seems to me this "other dimension" stuff you believe in is just a pack of lies and wishful thinking.  The issue is not whether miracles are real, but whether the evidence for any of them is so compelling as to do what fundamentalists wish, and render skeptics unreasonable to maintain denial.  The answer is, unequivocally, "no".

Miracles, if real, can therefore never be explained in ordinary naturalistic terms or duplicated by scientific experiments that rely on natural law.

Which might give you a clue as to how successful you'll be in trying to "prove" them to people who don't share your supernatural presuppositions.  But since words were invented to describe phenomena, feel free to try convincing a naturalist that miracles occur often enough to justify the invention of the word.  Then the naturalist will simply bite back with "fairy".  We also invented that word, but it never referred to anything real.

In the end, we decided to conduct our own “unscientific” poll of people’s attitudes toward miracles using the survey we had constructed in discussions with the survey company. Who knows, we may yet conduct a scientific poll with this company (we parted on friendly terms), but our findings from the unscientific poll, which we uploaded onto a popular educational website, were nonetheless revealing. Supplementing these poll results with extensive research and interviews has given us a wealth of insights into the range of attitudes toward miracles that people entertain.
 The Faces of Miracles is a work of clarification rather than persuasion.

May I presume you stopped thinking "persuasion" was a realistic goal after you made your own evaluation of some alleged miracle-evidences?

If at the end of this book readers better understand the impact of miracles on people’s lives, we will consider this book a success.

Amen.  If you translate it into Hindi, yo might convince a skeptical person living in India to take more seriously the claims of weeping statues and therefore the claims of some of those religions.  Nice going.  I'm sure your book made the devil happy.

We have tried to provide a representative cross-section of views on miracles. But we have made no attempt to be encyclopedic. The people whose views on miracles we examine are almost exclusively from the English-speaking world, contemporary or fairly recent, and either Christian or reacting to Christianity (as when a skeptic debunks Christianity for its reliance on miracles). And even within Christianity, we’ve tended to focus on that segment of Christianity we know best, namely, Protestant and Evangelical.
 Of course, miracles are not limited to Christians or Christianity. Indeed, accounts of miracles have been reported across the world and across faiths. But a book like this could easily have mushroomed if we also considered miracles outside the Christian context. Yes, it would have been interesting to cast the net wider to include such miracle workers as Brazil’s John of God and India’s late Sai Baba. But the supernatural power ascribed to them takes many of the same forms, at least in outward expression, as seen with the Christian faith healers we consider, even if the ultimate source of the healing power is understood differently. Accounts of miracles show common patterns, and those patterns are exemplified in this book. We therefore didn’t think we lost much by focusing on the Christian context.

Except that if you want Christian miracles to prove Christianity, you have to be willing to let Hindu miracles prove Hinduism.

To put our cards on the table, both authors are Christians and believe in miracles. But we also think that belief in miracles is never mandated: one can always find reasons, and not just spurious reasons, to deny that an event is a miracle, and thus to refuse to attribute the event to a supernatural cause.

That was rather shocking:  your Christian "apologist" friends on the internet would mightily disagree and say the evidence for miracles is "overwhelming".  But since you are smart guys, your revealing admission here will work wonders in getting some of your more foolish impulsive endlessly trifling babies on the internet to shut the fuck up.  Read Acts 18:26 to find out what god thinks about zeal that exceeds knowledge.  It isn't good.  Another example is 1st Cor. 14:23, where Paul concludes that the stupidity of the Corinthians would motivate unbelievers to call them insane, something that Paul "fears", and tries to "correct", which means he feared that the Corinthian errors would rationally justify such criticism.

The atheist philosopher Norwood Russell Hanson, for instance, declared that he would be converted to theism if he experienced the following miracle: 

The heavens open, and the clouds pull apart, revealing an unbelievably radiant and immense Zeus-like figure towering over us like a hundred Everests. He frowns darkly as lightning plays over the features of his Michelangeloid face, and then he points down, at me, and explains for every man, woman and child to hear: “I’ve had quite enough of your too-clever logic chopping and word-watching in matters of theology. Be assured Norwood Russell Hanson, that I do most certainly exist!” [Hanson 1971, pp. 313–14] 

But would the occurrence of such an extraordinary event truly have convinced Hanson that God exists? No doubt, Hanson would consider the experience of such an event remarkable. But alternative naturalistic explanations, such as aliens or hallucinations, would also occur to him, especially given his atheist presuppositions. Remarking on the importance of prior background beliefs in determining whether we accept or reject miracles, C. S. Lewis noted that he knew one, and only one, person who was convinced that she had seen a ghost, and yet this person didn’t believe in ghosts, not even after the experience. [Lewis, p. 1]
 The French skeptic Anatole France, in his book The Garden of Epicurus, described his visit to Lourdes, the French shrine where many people claim they were miraculously healed (see chapter 10). He notes that visitors to Lourdes left behind many crutches, thus testifying that they had experienced miraculous healing in their legs. But he then asked why no wooden legs were left behind. Is God unable to heal amputees? Indeed, no amputees are known to have been healed at Lourdes.
 But even if an amputee had been healed at Lourdes, Anatole France would refuse to admit that a miracle had occurred. As he put it: 

Speaking philosophically, the wooden leg would be no whit more convincing than a crutch. If an observer of a genuinely scientific spirit were called upon to verify that a man’s leg, after amputation, had suddenly grown again as before, whether in a miraculous pool or anywhere else, he would not cry : “Lo! a miracle.” He would say this: “An observation, so far unique, points us to a presumption that under conditions still undetermined, the tissues of a human leg have the property of reorganizing themselves like a crab’s or lobster’s claws and a lizard’s tail, but much more rapidly.” [France 1908, pp. 176–177] 

Let this statement sink in. It shows that no evidence could ever induce a thorough-going skeptic, like Anatole France, to admit that a miracle had indeed occurred.

Then allow me to provide the atheist world with the definitive solution:  We would all convert to Christianity if the Christian god simply did in our hearts, what he did in the heart of idolatrous King Cyrus (Ezra 1:1).  If God has the ability to make people believe whatever he wants, then this "evidence" shit is just a waste of time for everybody. 

Your 5-Point Calvinist friends will insist that God saves a person by that process known as regeneration before faith.  We all follow our hearts anyway, as must logically be the case.  So let god stir up our hearts, and we will be saved with no need to trudge through the epistemological muck of "evidence".

Or maybe asking God to do today, that which he allegedly did in the bible, is asking too much?  Yeah, let's watch Christians fight each other to death on whether that's true.  No thanks.

In every case, skeptics can cite the possibility of alternative naturalistic explanations. Accordingly, even if no clearly defined naturalistic explanation is on hand, skeptics can rationalize that no actual miracle has occurred, preferring instead simply to believe that we are for now ignorant of the underlying naturalistic causes. James Randi’s remarks earlier on spontaneous remissions took exactly the same skeptical approach to miracles. By presupposing that miracles cannot happen, such skeptics are unlikely to change their views about miracles no matter what the evidence.

Which is precisely why my Ezra 1:1 challenge, supra, is superior.  It causes genuinely saving belief, and if god can do that, fucking around with "evidence" is just a waste of time.  Of course the problem of the Ezra 1:1 god choosing to let sinners screw around with "evidence" is entirely on the Christian's head.  As an atheist, I say the god of the bible often sounds inconsistent because he is nothing more than a reflection of the inconsistent authors that created the biblical books.

Conveniently, Anatole France did not have to deal with anything so flamboyant as amputees being healed but instead with tamer purported miracles, like people simply being able to put away their crutches. Even in the Bible, no case is recorded of an amputee receiving back a lost limb. The case of the high priest’s servant, whose ear Peter cut off in the Garden of Gethsemane, comes closest to Jesus healing an amputee (see Luke 22:50–51). But even here, Jesus did not make a new ear grow from scratch, but rather reattached the old ear (which is what doctors do today with severed body parts).

But Jesus allegedly healed a man's withered hand (Mark 3:5), to say nothing of the resurrection of Lazarus, whose dead body had already undergone decomposition of some degree, John 11).  So God is "capable" of causing existing tissue to produce whatever is needed to be "restored", or he is capable of magically causing needed tissue to appear ex nihilo.  So the lack of reports of amputee-healings in history continues to blight zealous apologists as they try to pretend that perhaps a god of infinite ability might not "want" to engage in healing amputees.  And Jesus promised his followers would do "greater" miracles than he did (John 14:12), so its not biblical to say that god never promised to heal amputees.  This would be something "greater" than the healings of "sickness" that Jesus did.  But of course, this is all bullshit, since Christians cannot even do the lesser "healings" that Jesus is alleged to have done, let alone raising anybody from the dead.  There's a reason for the strict dichotomy between today's banal reality and the magical wonderland produced by the biblical authors.

The only widely discussed case of an amputee regaining a severed limb is the famous seventeenth century Miracle of Calanda, in which a Spanish peasant named Miguel-Juan Pellicer had his leg amputated in 1637 and then, while sleeping, is said to have miraculously recovered it in 1640. Interestingly, the new leg seemed identical to the one lost, having the same scars. Moreover, the place in the hospital cemetery where the old leg had been buried was found empty. So was this a case of a completely new leg growing back or of an old leg being resurrected and reattached? Was this a true miracle at all? [For an account of the Miracle of Calanda, see Clairval.com. For a skeptical response, see Skeptoid.com.]

You Protestants will be pleased to know that this was a specifically "Roman Catholic" miracle, so that under your own Protestant reasoning, this is not just proof of "god", but proof that the Catholic version of Christianity is acceptable to god.  How long must we study the Protestant v. Catholic debate, before we'll know enough to be able to tell whether this ancient miracle was holy or demonic?  Is there some rule of epistemology or historiography that puts the independent observer under any degree of intellectual compulsion to give two shits about ancient accounts of miracles?  NO.

Even to raise such questions is to raise doubts about this miracle. And indeed, doubts can be raised about any purported miracle. Miracles, should they happen, tend not to be over-obvious.

Another reason to suppose the god who parted the Red Sea is not at work in any of the more modern 'miracles'.  You can trifle all day long that asking God to act today consistently with the way he allegedly did in the bible, is asking too much, but this is obviously stupid and doesn't deserve significant "rebuttal".

If they are believed, it is often for personal rather than purely rational reasons, because the miraculous event fits meaningfully with a person’s life and not because it would convince any and all comers. Solzhenitsyn again: “Since then [i.e., since his miraculous healing from cancer], all the life that has been given back to me has not been mine in the full sense: it is built around a purpose.”

Ah, so there WAS a motive on the part of Solzhenitsyn to fabricate:  to give his writings an air of divine approval.  You know as well as I do that having a motive to lie is sufficient to permit the jury to decide for themselves whether the witness's uncorroborated claims are believable...and the jury won't be unreasonable merely because they didn't find the witness as compelling as you do.  The very fact that mature educated people can disagree on a witness's reliability more than likely means there are no definitive criteria for credibility judgments, and therefore, morality (here, you "should" believe the witness or you "shouldn't" believe the witness) is ultimately relative.

The jury verdict in the O.J. Simpson case is no exception; documentaries made after that verdict quoted the jurors as saying that freeing Simpson was the way they wished to respond to L.A. police racism, so this is not pitting once sincere juror against another, but pitting the more objective reader against biased jurors more interested in using a trial for larger political purposes and less interested in delivering a fair and just verdict.

One of us (BD) recalls visiting a large charismatic church in Korea. The church owned a property by a lake, and I was told the head pastor was preparing himself spiritually in order to walk on that lake so that, with television crews on hand, this miracle could be covered on national television and provide proof positive of God’s power on earth.

This church was headed by a first-rate liar, too.

That was almost two decades ago, and the miracle has yet to happen.

EXACTLY.

Perhaps if CNN had film crews out in Jesus’ day, they could have captured slam-dunk evidence of his miracles. But in our day slam-dunk miracles never quite seem to materialize.

EXACTLY.

***
 Despite the absence of incontrovertible miracles that would convince all comers, remarkable events that defy ordinary explanation and lead people to see a supernatural hand are widely reported and believed.

Such events also convince them that the Catholic church is the one true church, which by logical extension means the Protestant church is heretical.  Are Protestant apologists quite sure they want skeptics "investigating" catholic miracle claims?  How they fuck do the apologists know how the skeptic is going to react?  They don't.

Even skeptics will admit an uncanniness to the coincidental timing of certain events, rendering miracles plausible even if the skeptics themselves remain personally reluctant to embrace a supernatural worldview.

Yes, skeptics believe coincidences happen.  I'm not seeing your point...unless it was that coincidences would never happen unless they caused by god?

Take skeptic Michael Shermer’s article in Scientific American about an unusual event that took place on his wedding day. Shermer titled the article “Anomalous Events That Can Shake One’s Skepticism to the Core,” and subtitled it “I just witnessed an event so mysterious that it shook my skepticism.”
 What was the event? On Shermer’s wedding day to Jennifer Graf in 2014, the two of them witnessed her dead grandfather Walter’s 1978 Philips 070 transistor radio suddenly came to life, after not working for many years. Jennifer desperately missed Walter, who was closest to a father figure when she was growing up. On their wedding day, sounds of music in Michael and Jennifer’s home led them to a desk drawer where Jennifer “pulled out her grandfather’s transistor radio, out of which a romantic love song wafted. We sat in stunned silence for minutes. ‘My grandfather is here with us,’ Jennifer said, tearfully. ‘I’m not alone.’” After the wedding day, the radio never worked again.
 Shermer then asks how to make sense of this event.

Well, I'm a skeptic, so I think Shermer, or his wife, or both, are just making this up, as such a critical thinking skills prank sounds like something they would love to pull to mark a special occasion as their marriage.

He starts by half-heartedly invoking the high probability of anomalous coincidences when considered in light of the vastly many events people experience. But then he adds, “Jennifer is as skeptical as I am when it comes to paranormal and supernatural phenomena. Yet the eerie conjunction of these deeply evocative events gave her the distinct feeling that her grandfather was there and that the music was his gift of approval. I have to admit, it rocked me back on my heels and shook my skepticism to its core as well. I savored the experience more than the explanation.” [Quoted from his Scientific American article.]
 Shermer, nonetheless, continues to affirm his skepticism and refuses to ascribe this event to a supernatural cause.

Probably because "supernatural" is like "north of the number 4", we have no intellectual obligation to attribute occurrences to concepts that are incoherent.  By the way, one sure method to get people to believe in a higher power?  Make sure they win the lottery.

He therefore denies that it is a miracle in the sense defined in this book. And yet, given how this event shook his skepticism, Shermer would be hard pressed to deny that others might legitimately interpret this event as a miracle. That’s what his wife Jennifer did, at least initially, when she ascribed the event to her departed grandfather’s presence.

Instead of causing the Shermers to believe with his Ezra 1:1 power, "god" simply causes a radio to begin playing. To interpret this as a miracle of the Christian god is to therefore sweep all systematic theology off the table and into the toilet:  the "god" making this kind of stuff happen cares more about our feelings than whether we hold to propositionally correct doctrine.

By the way, you can cause a radio to play music if it is near enough to a cb transmitting that music. So that's a perfectly valid naturalistic explanation for why the speaker on a non-working radio will still transmit sounds.

Regardless, we are forced to take the word of a person who has an interest in debunking miracles, Shermer and his wife, who therefore might find it irresistible to mark off their wedding day with a clever prank that either both of them knew about or only one of them knew about.  Not enough here to foist an intellectual obligation on a skeptic, to the chagrin of most "apologists".

A common objection by skeptics against miracles is that strange connections among events, such as the one that shook Shermer’s skepticism, are in fact highly probable once we factor in all the events that happen that don’t draw our attention. The late skeptic Martin Gardner put it this way: “The number of events in which you participate for a month, or even a week, is so huge that the probability of noticing a startling correlation is quite high, especially if you keep a sharp outlook.” [Gardner, work cited in references below]
 But in fact, we often have no way to calculate the probability or improbability of startling correlations.

You don't need to.  You don't believe every coincidence is manufactured by god (unless you are a Calvinist), so your own realization that coincidences are often purely naturalistic, combined with the impossibility of giving anybody a reliable criteria for knowing when events are coincidental or caused by god, justifies skepticism.

Moreover, some improbabilities might be so extreme that no number of events in which humans have participated throughout history could raise the probability enough to make certain events seem plausible. Take 100 heads in a row with a fair coin, an event of probability one in a million trillion trillion (by comparison, there are fewer than a billion billion grains of sand on the earth). If all humans throughout history spent their time on nothing but flipping coins, it would still be vastly improbable that any one of them would ever witness 100 heads in a row.
 How improbable does a coincidence have to be before it becomes a miracle?

That's not the skeptic's problem, it's yours, since you choose to use the incoherent word "miracle".  No, you don't make a word "coherent" by simply noting that it has a dictionary definition.  Fantasy and religion have one thing in common:  the words used to communicate their unique concepts have no demonstrable ties to actually demonstrable reality.

Several decades ago, one of us (BD) experienced a coincidence even stranger, in his view, than the one recounted by Shermer. As he puts it, now in the first person: I was taking a year off from school working in the family business. My late mother was an art dealer who specialized in 19th and early 20th century American and European oil paintings. Within a few months, she was offered virtually identical paintings by a famous Austrian artist (Franz von Defregger). The paintings had the same dimensions, subject, and price. Both were overpainted prints, and so both were fakes. The first was offered from Melbourne, Australia, the second from Melbourne, Florida (the sellers were completely independent). Unfortunately, my mother paid for the fake from Australia and lost a lot of money on it (years of litigation failed to recover anything). My mother did not buy the other fake, but the people in Florida selling it had another painting by a famous Munich artist (Heinrich von Zügel), which my mother bought, and on which she more than recouped the loss to Australia.
 More significant than the multiple coincidences in this story is that it occurred at a crucial point in the life of my family, just as the mysterious radio coming to life happened at crucial time in the life of Michael Shermer and Jennifer Graf when they were getting married. Right between the loss to Melbourne, Australia and the recovery from Melbourne, Florida, my mother was becoming a Christian, embracing a newfound faith and encouraging my father and me to do the same (he and I became Christians a few months later). It was as though in this “miraculous” set of coincidences, God was providentially telling our family that he holds our lives in his hands and has the power to turn circumstances around on a dime. My parents (now both dead) and I always accepted this interpretation, regarding what happened as a miracle.

Apparently god cares more about our feelings than about systematic theology, so, to take your miracle claim seriously, the Christian 'god' that exists has no interest in the sin of doctrinal word-wrangling (2nd Timothy 2:14), a sin that internet "apologists" greedily and ceaseless engage in.

But if you have enough people on earth and enough people considering become a Christian, eventually you are going to find anomalies.

And I'm sure you have no interest whatsoever in the fact that coincidences happen to skeptics, and that these could also be taken as "proof" that any god that exists, cares more about the person than their beliefs, and as such, accepts them despite their skepticism.

So was it really a miracle? If by “really a miracle” one means an event that would convince any and all comers of its supernatural source, obviously no. Skeptics will find plenty with which to cavil in this story. But skeptics always find something with which to cavil (it’s their job).

Which wouldn't be the case if your god parted the Atlantic oceans so that a "wall of water" (Exodus 14:22) formed to the right and left from New York to Paris.  There is no room in physics for water to do anything except seek its own level, so anybody who saw that and concluded god did it would be reasonable, even if a naturalistic explanation might still be possible.

Yet no amount of skeptical cavilling would have convinced my family that this was not a miracle.

If it helped you feel better without also harming others, more power to you.

We experienced an overwhelming visceral immediacy as this story unfolded (the loss to Melbourne, Australia was particularly painful), which made any after-the-fact naturalistic rationalizations of what happened seem hollow. The proverb that says “someone with an experience is never at the mercy of someone with an argument” held true for us in this case.
 ***
 The danger that skepticism always faces is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, in this case utterly rejecting miracles even when there might be good evidence for them.

I don't see your point, Jesus is not recorded to have ever preached hell at Gentiles, and in several specific Gentile interactions recorded in the gospels, he chose to avoid telling them to "get saved", which apparently means that their "faith" in his ability to "heal" was all that was important...or he didn't want them to know enough to "get saved".  All this other crap about "bible study" doesn't issue from Jesus but from Protestants whose love of human tradition is equally as strong as Catholics love for it.

Nonetheless, skepticism has an important place in the discussion of miracles. Even if skepticism cannot disprove all miracles, it can legitimately disprove some. A lot of supposed miracles are frauds, and the skeptic does valuable service as a debunker of fraudulent miracles.

Hopefully god will remember that on judgment day.

Take the case of Peter Popoff, the fraudulent faith healer that James Randi exposed in the mid 1980s. Popoff was popular at the time, pulling in millions of dollars annually by convincing gullible people that he was God’s instrument to bring about their miraculous healing. Popoff’s real secret? He would send shills into an audience asking questions and gathering information. Then, come showtime, Popoff would mingle with the audience, exhibiting an uncanny knowledge about audience member’s lives, proclaiming their miraculous healing and deliverance.
 Randi, attending Popoff’s healing rallies, thought it unusual that Popoff would be wearing what looked like a hearing aid: why would a faith healer who touts God’s power to heal advertise being hard of hearing? So Randi and his team investigated and found that Popoff’s earpiece was in fact a radio receiver used by his wife, who read to him the names, addresses, and infirmities of audience members previously pumped for information by Popoff’s shills. Randi performed a great public service by exposing Popoff, which had the effect of bankrupting his ministry (for more details about the Popoff case, see the chapter in this book about James Randi).
 The fraud in the Popoff case was extreme. Yet in many accounts of miracles, fraud can safely be ruled out. In the story of the two Melbournes, the only fraud was in the fake paintings. With the two Melbournes, my family experienced a deeply meaningful coincidence (much like Shermer’s wife Jennifer Graf did over the old radio), and ever after we saw a supernatural or miraculous hand in it. It’s not that we had to strain to believe a miracle. We believed it, and it didn’t matter to us whether others interpreted it as a miracle. It was enough that we were convinced.
 Of course, people can be mistaken about miracles for reasons other than fraud. Another reason is self-deception, prompted perhaps by a desperate need to believe in a miracle as a last resort. And then there’s ignorance of underlying natural causes, if indeed there is an underlying naturalistic explanation. Skeptics like James Randi and Anatole France embrace a naturalistic worldview that makes miracles impossible and guarantees an underlying naturalistic explanation must always exist (if we could but know it).
 They may be right that supernatural explanations will in the end always give way to natural explanations.

That's quite revealing, coming from a smart guy like Dembski.

But if they are right, how can we know that? And if they are wrong, how can we know that? And what if no side in this debate is ever able to mount an airtight case one way or the other?

Those are not the problem of the skeptic, but of the Christian, who thinks he can make his case using "evidence".

Because such question show no sign of being resolved, a wide ranging and open conversation seems the best we can do to attain a genuine understanding of miracles. The Faces of Miracles is such a conversation.
 ***
 A prime reason that miracles are not universally convincing is that they tend to reside in a sweet spot or Goldilocks zone: not too little, not too much, just right. It’s not that a supposed miracle is so ordinary an event that it doesn’t capture our imagination (i.e., too little). It’s not that a miracle is so overpowering that it instantly overturns the worldview of skeptics (i.e., too much). It’s that a miracle is at once extraordinary but also deeply meaningful to the party directly experiencing it, enough to elicit faith in an underlying supernatural source, but not to compel faith (i.e., just right).
 Why aren’t miracles more overpoweringly obvious?

Because the god who parted the Red Sea and raised dead people, is nothing but a fiction.  This is more likely than the excuse that god has become camera shy.

One reason may be that humans are amazingly adaptable. What’s an extreme miracle today won’t seem extreme tomorrow. What was overpowering yesterday quickly becomes the new normal. Thus raising the baseline for miracles, even to new extreme levels, won’t convince skeptics any more than the current tamer stock of miracles. Recall that Anatole France would have regarded amputees receiving new limbs as unmiraculous. Rather, he would have concluded that “under conditions still undetermined, the tissues of a human leg have the property of reorganizing themselves like a crab’s or lobster’s claws and a lizard’s tail.”

Sure, but at that point I'd say the believer in god would also be reasonable to say human tissue simply isn't capable of doing that without outside intervention.

Another reason why miracles may not be more overpoweringly obvious is that it is in humanity’s best interests to keep them somewhat muted. The desire for miracles can become addictive, requiring miracles of ever greater intensity to experience the same “rush” (witness the Israelites under Moses departing Egypt: according to the story, they kept witnessing greater and greater miracles, and yet were never satisfied).

That's a false story, the idiocy of the Israelites is nothing but a literary device to make the story's moral and theological message more glowing and memorable for its originally intended pre-scientific illiterate addressees.

Moreover, the refusal to see something as a miracle is often less intellectual than moral. We ought to believe what we’ve been given enough evidence to believe.

Ok, then Catholicism must be true, because the eyewitnesses to the Catholic miracles never report them as demonic, but always as holy.  Now then, should we trust the eyewitness's interpretation of what they saw, yes or no?  or will Steve Hays trifle that we should trust the eyewitness's general report but remain skeptical of their own interpretation of it?

But to insist on overwhelming evidence quickly becomes unreasonable, inviting skeptics to keep raising the bar higher and higher.

A problem your god escapes by simply waving his magic Ezra 1:1 wand.

 The atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was questioned what he would say to God if, after dying, he met God and were asked why he hadn’t believed in God during his time on earth. Russell is said to have answered, “Not enough evidence.” So, if only God had provided enough evidence in support of theism, Russell would have been a theist? [This quote is widely available on the Internet, and Richard Dawkins attributes it to Russell is on page 104 of his book The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006). But neither Dawkins nor the Internet sources we’ve found that list the quote provide a reference to Russell’s actual writings. Still, we can well imagine Russell saying just this.]
 But what is enough evidence?

Once again, God's power to turn the heart, seen in Ezra 1:1, makes "evidence" irrelevant.  You must face the daunting prospect that the biblical 'god' thinks modern day "apologetics" is a waste of time.

And, at an even more basic level, what makes something to be evidence, supporting a claim or failing to support it?

Such a question puts you dangerously close to committing the sin of word-wrangling (2nd Timothy 2:14).

The problem with evidence is that it is not, and indeed cannot be, decided by evidence. Like the eye that cannot see itself, so evidence cannot see itself as evidence. Indeed, what determines whether something counts as evidence depends on what we, as human inquirers, are predisposed to take as evidence. And what if we, because of our naturalistic worldview, are predisposed to take nothing as evidence for miracles, like James Randi and Anatole France?

Then that would be a problem you'd have to confront them with, but count me out.  I'm willing to consider evidence for miracles, unfortunately, since you cannot even coherently define a miracle except in a question-begging way, that might pose a reasonably justified hurdle to the whole enterprise.  Just like a failure to coherently define key terms in any other debate precludes the possibility of reasonably certain resolution.

 Or what if we employ a double standard for evidence, accepting some things on minimal grounds but then, when it comes to miracles, raising the bar so high that nothing can count as evidence?

There are several justifications for raising the bar higher when it comes to miracles:

First, under your own reasoning, the most reasonable thing a person can do when unable to explain away a Christian miracle, is to repent and believe the gospel.  Unfortunately, Christianity is divided about what salvation actually is (no, not just Paul v. Judaizers, or Mormons v. Protestants, but Protestant v. Protestant, i.e., John MacArthur's Lordship salvation v.  Zane C. Hodges' Free Grace).  Miracles done in the context of Christianity usually don't enable the viewer to figure out which specific way of salvation is true, hence, miracles do precisely nothing to prevent interested skeptics from selecting the wrong version of Christianity and giving god yet another reason to be mad at them.  So the fact that a miracle would show that "Christianity is true" doesn't answer the question "which version?"...unless you are going to automatically assume that the miracle vindicates whatever way of salvation is taught in the specific church where the miracle occurred (in which case the miracles at Fatima and Mudjugogie prove the Catholic way of salvation is the right one)?

Second, Christians have fraudulently claimed miracles in history and in the world at present. Refusing to raise the bar high would likely force the skeptic to conclude that miracles occurring across a broad spectrum of theologically contradictory versions of Christianity all come from god...but then leaving the skeptic no way to figure out which of these reveals the "right" way of salvation.  So without something more theologically specific, God doing a miracle to make you think "Christianity is true" is about as smart as making sure you will run out of gas halfway to your destination.  If God is not going to perform miracles that specify which Christian method of salvation is the "right" one, then merely concluding "Christianity is true" does little more than land a shitload of endless theological back and forth bickering into the lap of a skeptic...who probably has enough unresolved issues in her life already and doesn't need several extra train cars full of it.  So "miracles" that don't point out the "right" way of salvation, can be safely dismissed as time wasting at best, and doors to demonic heresy at worst.

Third, refusing to raise the bar higher might cause the skeptic to think miracles claimed by several theologically contradictory Christian churches have equal likelihood of being genuinely from god, significantly increasing the odds that she will assume the "god" doing these miracles approves of many contradictory methods of salvation...inducing her to thus become a "liberal" Christian.  You wouldn't want that, would you?

Fourth, refusing to raise the bar higher for miracle claims might cause the skeptic, who has concluded a few miracles in theologically contradictory versions of Christianity were true, to just "flip a coin" and make a haphazard decision as which church was teaching the correct way of salvation...which puts her at unreasonable risk of picking the wrong way and ending up enduring the nasty surprise that Jesus said many would endure on judgment day (Matthew 7:21 ff).  And since the bible indicates that even the apostles sometimes tried to figure out god's will by a method nearly identical to "flipping a coin" (Acts 1:26), the skeptic might be inclined to further conclude that "flipping a coin" in order to help reveal god's will about the most important matters, is "biblical".

Fifth, refusing to raise the bar higher for miracle claims would only be something that a Christian would complain about, when in fact raising the bar of evidence higher than normal is not, per se, an intellectually objectionable or unreasonable action.  On the contrary, raising the bar of evidence higher only makes good common sense when the matters that need to be decided are extremely debatable points of philosophy, theology, and hermeneutics, points that not even the Christian scholars can agree on.  I suppose a Mormon could complain that my rejection of the book of Mormon is premised on a standard they deem "too high" , but they cannot demonstrate that such a complaint deserves a hearing unless they can show that I am being hypocritical in employing the higher standard.

Sixth, the Calvinist sense of cause and effect would counsel that God does some miracles today to 'harden' skeptics even more in their unbelief, in which case the apologists who berate a skeptic for refusing to believe in god in light of an undeniable miracle, are berating god's purpose in doing that miracle.  In other words, certain Christian doctrines would justify condemning skeptics for obeying god's will.  Only in Christianity does such stupid contradictory nonsense sound the least bit plausible.

So it only makes sense, in light of Christianity's internal contradictions, both within the bible and among its many denominations,  to insist that, before we get ready to embark upon an investigation that has potential to tear our families apart (Matthew 10:35) and convince us to give up custody of our kids and go homeless and jobless solely for religious reasons (Matthew 19:29), we set the bar just a bit higher than we set it for purely naturalistic claims.

This was philosopher David Hume’s objection to miracles, arguing that we should always discount the testimony of miracles in the face of the low prior probability of miracles. But where did he get that low prior probability?

His own experience in life.  You may say that pool of experience is too small to justify dogmatizing that miracle claims are false since the skeptic cannot claim to know that other people haven't experienced miracles.  But Hume's argument is not one of factual certainty, but of reasonable certainty.  No, we cannot know for certain that nobody else has experienced miracles. But we are quite aware that a) every miracle claim we have ever chosen to investigate had strong earmarks of being fraudulent, and b) not even most Christians claim to experience miracles, and b) within Christianity there are "cessationists", or Christians who insist that the bible teaches the age of miracles died out before the end of the 1st century, which if true, justifies a ore intensely skeptical attitude toward modern day "miracles".  Thomas Schreiner is the James Buchanan Harrison professor of New Testament interpretation and associate dean for Scripture and interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.  Such a conservative as this makes several assertions that skeptics happily applaud:

I doubt the gift of miracles and healings exists today, for it isn’t evident that men and women in our churches have such gifts. Certainly God can and does heal at times, but where are the people with these gifts? Claims for miracles and healings must be verified, just as the people verified the blind man’s healing in John 9. There is a kind of biblically warranted skepticism.

See here.

These problems with miracles make skeptics reasonable to maintain skepticism toward all "miracle" claims, and that reasonableness is not going to disappear merely because you can find a baffled doctor or two. 

Philosopher John Earman, himself an atheist, has debunked Hume’s argument, showing it to depend on a faulty conception of probability. [See Earman book cited below.]

Except that what Earman is opposing is the same exact mindset that all people have toward claims that substantially depart from their own experience of reality:  skepticism.  Winning the lottery, getting a hole in one, abduction by space aliens, miracles performed by heretics, etc.  What Earman never touches is whether a skeptic can be "reasoanble" to dismiss miracle claims a priori (i.e., immediately, with no intent to perform the slightest investigation). Yes, they can.  My research on the bible indicates that the doctrine of eternal conscious torment in flames (the standard southern baptist view of "hell") is not what Jesus taught, and therefore, even if Christianity is "true", the fact that it doesn't threaten a fate worse the the consciousness-extinction which atheists like me already accept and embrace, makes us reasonable to deem Christianity's alleged "truth" as irrelevant.  Just because something is "true" doesn't automatically obligate the investigator to conclude that it is relevant.

But the animating impulse behind Hume’s objection, which is to deny that miracles can have any legitimate evidence in their favor, remains.

He could possibly be wrong, but then again, we are only talking about whether taking the Humean viewpoint is "reasonable", not whether it is "accurate".  Indeed, whether miracles happen or don't happen is largely decided by principles of historiography, and historiography is an art, not a science, so you can only answer such questions in degrees of probability, a notion that all of Christianity's premier resurrection scholars (Licona, Habermas, Craig) would agree with.. 

If the common man often uses absolute terms of assurance when speaking of ancient events, that's why he is a "common" man and not a "scholar" or "historian".  Inaccurate colloquialisms do not determine historical truth, any more than "i watched the sun set" determines cosmological truth.

 If God is the ultimate source behind miracles, and if through miracles God attempts to communicate with humans, then God’s job is not to regale us with a freak show of spectacular sights but rather to get our attention and focus it in ways that make the world a better place (a world that desperately needs improvement because it is filled with moral and natural evil).

Then your god is stupid because whatever miracles he allegedly does, are not distinguishable from fake miracles.  Under Ezra 1:1, your god could just make me desire to obey his will, negating any need for miracles whatsoever (cf. Daniel 4:33, god will also take away a person's rational senses whenever he wishes, a stupid bit of intertestamental fiction that unfortunately binds "bible believing" Christians).

Why does your god want me to make my own subjective decision about when to cut off the miracle-investigation and start drawing ultimate conclusions, if he fears that my unbelief will cause me to make such decision too hastily and I'll end up concluding miracles are fake?  Maybe God is a Calvinist, and doesn't infallibly guide me into truth because I'm not one of the elect?  Gee, how long must an unbeliever, a Calvinist and an Arminian debate that before the unbeliever will become reasonable to start drawing conclusions?  5 minutes?  6 days?  10 years?

You also forget Calvinism:  if God truly wants to save me, I'm definitely going to get saved, no doubts about it.   What do you do with a skeptic who says Calvinism is the more biblically justified view, and therefore, his current skepticism wasn't his choice, he was instead infallibly predestined to be this skeptical at this point in his life?  Answer:  you try to convince him that he has an intellectual "obligation" to wrangle with you about the alleged errors of Calvinism...while you personally believe that with every passing second, he could die and end up in hell...and yet you want him to waste his time wrangling words with you about non-essentials?

In particular, humans do not become better humans, and thus do not make the world a better place, because God provides such overwhelming evidence of miracles that they feel compelled to be good.

Then your god is irrational to bitch at them.  His magic wand is capable of turning the heart of pagan idolaters far more vile than today's atheists (Ezra 1:1) and turn the heart of believers so horrifically steeped in pagan sexual sins that their heart is turned away from God (Deut. 17:17, 1st Kings 11:3, Proverbs 21:1).   When you have the ability and opportunity to prevent a problem without causing further probelms, and you just sit around doing nothing, you deprive yourself of the right to bitch about the fact that the problem continues to exist.

Thus, even Judas did not feel compelled to be good, instead thinking he could betray Jesus with impunity, the very Jesus he had seen daily and who is regarded as the greatest miracle-worker in history.

Sorry, I don't believe every gospel story and I see no reason to worry about any such "truth".  I teach bible skepticism purely as a hobby.

 The potentially dizzying effect of miracles on the miracle worker may impose another limitation on miracles: perhaps God is protecting us from the hubris that thinks we mere humans can produce miracles at will. Miracle workers can easily get full of themselves; after all, a supernatural source appears to be using them as a channel for miracles. That’s heady stuff, and it tends to go to their heads.

A psychological reality that god can easily control with a wave of his magic wand.  See Ezra 1:1.

 I (BD) recall in 1979 being at miracle rally of the late R.W. Schambach. I personally did not witness any notable miracle at this rally. Yet at the rally, Schambach claimed, without offering details about time and place, that he had gone to a hospital wing in some developing country

...and I won the lottery, but the records have been erased by the CIA.

and cleared out from that wing all its sick patients by successfully praying for their healing. Even for those whose worldview allows for miracles, Schambach’s claim to have cleared out a hospital wing will seem farfetched.

Yup.  And I don't personally see any difference between "clearing out a hospital wing" and "he healed them all" (Matthew 4:24).

 It’s worth putting such grandiose claims (and faith healers are notorious for grandiose claims) in perspective. Jesus himself didn’t perform miracles indiscriminately.

Yes, he did, Matthew 4:24 is only one such report.

For instance, the fifth chapter of John’s Gospel describes the Pool of Bethesda where a “great multitude” of sick people lay, waiting for a miraculous stirring of the water by an angel, so that the first person to enter the pool, once stirred, got healed.

Except that Bruce Metzger tell us the part about the angel (John 5:4) is most certainly a late interpolation:

5.4 omit verse {A}
Ver. 4 is a gloss, whose secondary character is clear from (1) its absence from the earliest and best witnesses (î^{66, 75} a B C* D W^supp 33 it^{d, l, q} the true text of the Latin Vulgate syr^c cop^{sa, bomss, ach2} geo Nonnus), (2) the presence of asterisks or obeli to mark the words as spurious in more than twenty Greek witnesses (including S L P 047 1079 2174), (3) the presence of non-Johannine words or expressions (kata. kairo,n, evmbai,nw [of going into the water], evkde,comai, kate,comai, ki,nhsij, tarach,, dh,pote, and no,shma – the last four words only here in the New Testament), and (4) the rather wide diversity of variant forms in which the verse was transmitted.

TCGNT, p. 107 

Jesus, visiting the pool, chose one person to heal, and he did it on the Sabbath, getting himself in trouble with the authorities. Why didn’t Jesus clear everyone out at the Pool of Bethesda, healing all the sick people there, as Schambach claims to have done at that undisclosed hospital wing?

Well since he is often reported to have healed "all" the sick and lame in the large crowds that allegedly followed him (Matthew 4:24, 8:16, 12:15, etc), and since even conservative Christian scholars admit John might be presenting as history something Jesus didn't actually say or do (see my challenge to Triablogue here), I would say you need to first establish the historical reliability of John before your question about Jesus' apparent inconsistency would become relevant to me.

Or consider the healing of the lame man by Peter described in Acts 3. Jesus had by this time been crucified and resurrected, so he was no longer physically present. It was therefore up to his disciple Peter to heal this man. Who was this man? According to Acts 3:2, he “was lame from his mother’s womb” and needed to be “laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple.” But think what this means. Jesus had for years been going to the Jerusalem temple. He must surely have seen this man, and not once but repeatedly. Why, then, didn’t Jesus heal him when he had the chance?

You are assuming this part of Acts is historically accurate.  I don't.  Acts is a romantic fiction, and if any of its statements about the apostles were historically accurate, this would probably be a miracle.  Acts is little more than a fiction intended to convince newbies that apostle Paul's gospel really is divinely sanctioned.  For example, Paul never quotes Jesus to establish essential doctrine, and neither did the apostles in how they resolved the Judaizer controversy in Acts 15.

Paradox and puzzlement often accompany miracles.

And since the average skeptic has a life and not much money, choosing to avoid issues in the world that a) don't directly affect her, and b) are found paradoxal and puzzling by many others, are actions that are reasonable.  You cannot say exactly how much time I should spend between dinner and going to bed, on "investigating miracle claims", or whether doing so through books would be better or worse than doing so through Google, or whether such investigation should involve my kids, etc, etc.  There are so many unknowns you freely admit to,  you'll have to admit that you don't really know at what point the "miracle" crap becomes an intellectual obligation on the skeptic (and therefore the point wherein she becomes a "fool" to turn away from miracle-evidence), strongly suggesting that morality is ultimately relative.

Not only do purported miracles tend not to be overobvious,

Being done by a god who allegedly thinks the stain of sin has corrupted the mind of the miracle-gazing sinner, increasing the chances that they will exploit any trifle they can to get away from admitting the miracle is genuinely supernatural.  What else does god do?  Allow 3 year old kids to babysit infants unsupervised?  Maybe he knows that the ensuring disaster will create Frank Turek's "ripple effect" and this evil will somehow cause some homeless militia member of the Congo to let his wife go to church in the year 2050?

but their timing and connection to other related events often makes little logical sense.

Making it obvious that skeptics are fools to turn away from miracle reports.

If miracle A happens, we might expect miracle B to happen. But such correlations are often absent. Take Demos Shakarian, a well known charismatic leader from a generation back. He saw his mother die of an inoperable cancer but his sister healed from a horrendous car accident. It’s more satisfying to the mind, which yearns for consistency, to see neither miraculously healed or both miraculously healed. But why one and not the other? Miracles seem to occur selectively, and often with no rhyme or reason.

Meaning the intellectual obligation that requires skeptics to investigate miracles also requires them to do scholarly level research on fairies...after all, how do you know all those allegedly eyewitness accounts collected by the Fairy Investigation Society were false?  See here.  If you say the truth about fairies doesn't affect you one way or the other, you are correct, and I similarly state that the truth of Christianity poses no danger to me either.

Will you say most fairy-accounts were proven false, therefore, it is reasonable to assume all of then were false? 

Wow, I didn't know you were an atheist who commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.

[See Shakarian reference below.]
 Miracles can also seem inappropriate and unfair. Why does one person receive a needed miracle but not someone with an even greater need?

The alleged 'god' behind these miracles "delights" to inflict misery on people whenever he feels like it, see Deut. 28:63.

And why do some miracles seem so trivial, especially against the backdrop of horrendous evil in the world?

Maybe the god doing these things is just a very powerful idiot?

Sure, Solzhenitsyn getting cured of stage-four cancer in the Soviet Gulag seems like a worthy miracle. But miracles can do better than that. What about the miraculous deliverance of untold torture victims from the hands of their tormentors, to say nothing of the miraculous alleviation of a famine by manna from heaven?

Ironically, most Christians don't "get" that the place where Moses had Israel live for 40 years was a barren place where vegetation and water were scarce, therefore, the only way to make plausible the story of hundreds of thousands of Israelites continuing to live in such land for 40 years, is tell about food-miracles like "manna".  Apparently including miracles to "explain" how they never ran out of clothing (Deut. 29:5).

You'll excuse me if I find the tale of the 40-year sojourn on the wilderness as mostly fiction.

Yet miracles, at least in our day, don’t seem to reach quite that far.

Science has a habit of shoving superstition into the dark more and more as knowledge grows. 

 On the other hand, what are we to make of Michael Shermer and his wife hearing romantic music from a defunct radio?

publicity stunt, especially since the "miracle" had nothing specifically "Christian" about it and could very well have led them to adopt a non-Christian view of the paranormal.  Desperate Christian apologists will trifle that the radio miracle was done by Satan, but that doesn't become an intellectual obligation upon the skeptic until the bible's view about the devil is proven to be more reasonable than the non-biblical view.  That's never going to happen.  Next?

Or my (BD’s) family losing money on one art deal only to regain it, by strange coincidence and with interest, on another?

Was the Christian god also behind the coincidence of the Titanic sinking some years after publication of a book about a sinking ship named "Titan"? Was the Christian god behind the coincidences between Lincoln and Kennedy?  If so, then apparently the Christian god, by trying to get our attention in an indirect way, disapproves of the direct way that today's Christian 'apologists' try to do so.  Another justification to reason from 'miracle' to 'god' to "Christianity is false".

The god who causes miracles in the world apparently doesn't find it necessary to use those occasions to warn the skeptical watchers about the perils of hell, perhaps making reasonable the skeptical assumption that any such god doesn't think skeptics are in any danger of any "hell".  When you add this to the fact that even "orthodox" Christians either deny literal eternal conscious torment version of hell (7th Day Adventists) or else allow that people not as bad as Hitler will get a second chance in the afterworld (Catholics, purgatory), it should be clear that the skeptic is reasonable to laugh at the "threat" of "hell".

Against the grand scheme of things, such miracles seem hardly momentous. From my present vantage, I (BD) would much prefer to swap miracles, seeing a complete loss of money in those past art deals, but seeing my severely autistic son (now 16 years into his disability) miraculously cured.

That comes from your sense of morality, and according to Frank Turek and most Christian apologists, your morality comes from god.  So putting 2 and 2 together, you get "I wish to experience these miracles because God wants me to", getting god in trouble for then failing to do what he promised.  If those wishes aren't from god, that means some of your morality doesn't come from god, leading to stupid questions about how you can know which of your moral sentiments come from god and which don't, a subject I'm sure will divide Christians.

Alas, miracle swaps like this are not an option. The inequities that surround miracles may be there to remind us that the ultimate source behind miracles (God, for most of us) cedes little if any control over them to us.

"may be"...that is your argument?

One sees this lack of human control over miracles in the otherwise ordinary lives of many faith healers, who in themselves and their families exhibit the same frailties, sicknesses, and tragedies common to humanity. Indeed, those who claim to be channels for miracles display limited success at resolving their own problems through miracles.

Excellent point.

For instance, healing missionary John G. Lake, six months after arriving in Africa, saw his wife die; faith healer Smith Wigglesworth did his healing crusades assisted by his deaf daughter; Oral Roberts was freed to pursue his healing ministry once his disabled sister died (he also saw two of his own children die, one in an airplane crash, the other by suicide).

 ***
 One final point worth pondering before we end this introduction is how belief in miracles correlates with mental health. We submit—based on our experience, though without scientific proof—that an optimistic openness to miracles is good for one’s mental health.

Not for those who are serious about it.  Their interest in miracles can do nothing but cause them to involve themselves in a whole new slew of debate and uncertainty known collectively as "biblical theology".  You aren't taking into consideration the hundreds of thousands of testimonies of ex-Christians who say their constantly telling themselves the bible is more accurate about reality than their own experiences, drove them mad.  Apparently, there are some people who have no problems with mystery and contradiction, and other people who find them unbearable, and there is no way to motivate the former to be more critical minded, nor motivate the latter to be more liberal.

In general, confidence and optimism tend to be good for people, even if these are not totally realistic, because they keep us engaged in life and looking for solutions.

Then you need to watch "The Shawshank Redemption".  Hope can be a dangerous thing. 

For example, the Protestants most vocal about doctrine and apologetics are quite sure that the "hope" of Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, etc, is leading them straight to eternal perdition.  Perhaps taking such threats seriously might counsel that is it more reasonable to avoid miracles about as often as smart girls avoid hypocritical abusive boyfriends.  Avoiding a shitload of depression and misery is as easy as simply staying away and refusing to play with fire.

So too, an openness to miracles can push us outside the box and help us meet grave challenges in novel ways, even if at the end of the day no miracle occurs.

For example, investigating miracles might help us solve our financial problems by motivating us to join a prosperity gospel cult.  We won't ever actually "get rich", but our feeling the need to line the pockets of insatiably greedy charlatans will help us be more accepting of our lot in life.

 Yet if an optimistic openness to miracles is healthy, we also find another attitude toward miracles that is unhealthy. Call it a relentless insistence on miracles or an unwillingness to accept life in the absence of miracles. Some of life’s challenges are so severe and intractable that barring a miracle, the challenges will persist and profoundly burden, or even end, people’s lives (think of a stage-four cancer or a chronic disability). If confronted with such a challenge, it’s one thing to be open to miracles. But it’s quite another to chase relentlessly after miracles, not resting content unless a miracle is received, and refusing to make peace with the challenge otherwise. This is bad. The secret to life is playing the hand you’re dealt, and when belief in miracles turns into an uncompromising demand for miracles, you effectively refuse to play the hand you’re dealt.

Thanks for the additional reasons why a skeptic might consider that being open to miracles could turn them into a religious fanatic.

 Psychiatrist Elizabeth Kübler-Ross described five stages of grief that arise when people must deal with a severe challenge. According to her, these stages occur in the following order: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance. Anyone who relentlessly insists that the only way to meet a life challenge is for a miracle to occur stays stuck at the denial stage.

Then the advice in James 5:14-15 is asking the reader to do things that your expert Ross said will keep a person stuck in denial.   cf. Jesus' promises that you could get anything you want by prayer by simply believing seriously you've already received it, Mark 11:24.  Go ahead and make the passage inapplicable to sinful requests, it is still a guarantee that any godly thing you want will be given to you if you make yourself believe you have already received it (what Norman Vincent Peale would later call "The Power of Positive Thinking")

Because miracles are rare (if they were common, they would not be miracles),

False, if you define "miracle" as an "act of god", then god could do a million miracles per hour in the life of each person on earth, and they would not cease being miracles.  You have falsely imported "rare" into the definition of miracle, but the only reason is because you think they don't happen that often, which seems to indicate that you made no room for the possibility of millions of miracles being done for people who end up never reporting them.

and because they seem to become rarer still when people insist on them, such denial can go on for years and make the challenge doubly challenging: not only do people deal with a challenge that doesn’t go away, but by insisting on a miracle to resolve the challenge, they rob themselves of the peace that acceptance of their situation could bring.

Excellent point.  Another reason to fear that openness to miracles might cause one to become a deluded religious fanatic.  You cannot deny the sincerity of Christians who end up in cults, so apparently, sincerely seeking after god's help is zero guarantee, whatsoever, that god will keep you on the safe path as you investigate miracles.

 To sum up, this book dispassionately presents a variety of perspectives on miracles as they are actually held by real people.

Which means asshole Christian fundamentalists would disagree with you since your failure to call names and "shame" miracle-deniers might operate to make skeptics feel more intellectually justified.  Another fracture in the body of Christ.

Rather than merely give these perspectives abstract names (e.g., “skeptical debunker” or “faith healer”), we also provide names and faces. This makes our discussion personal and memorable, and also avoids shoehorning people into categories that they don’t precisely fit.

Good idea.

Hence, The Faces of Miracles.
 As already noted, this is a work of clarification rather than persuasion or proof.

So the asshole fundamentalist Christians, whose group I might possibly join if I start becoming more interested in "miracles", would accuse you of wasting god's time on "clarifications that don't try to persuade", which they will say is in direct defiance of Jude 3.

Our aim is to assemble a rich diversity of perspectives on miracles, presenting them on their own merits and in their own voice, letting the reader draw comparisons and form conclusions.

A scholarly undertaking that has no parallel in the known actions of anybody in the NT, perhaps suggesting that you veer toward the edge of biblical acceptability because the devil is using you in a clever way, when it could be argued that a "real" Christian spends their time instead doing things that are undoubtedly "biblical".

Why is such clarification about miracles important?

It isn't.  As I show in my articles and in upcoming publications, there is no threat to skeptics even if we assume Jesus rose from the dead.  As I also show, the probability that Jesus stayed dead is far higher than the probability that he resurrected. I say that after comprehensively reviewing the published works of Licona, Habermas and Craig, among others.

We live in an age that craves pat answers. Miracles happen and anyone who disbelieves in them is a knave. Miracles don’t happen and anyone who believes in them is a fool. The truth is more complicated.
 Bill Dembski
Alex Thomas

Perhaps your book would be most useful to fundamentalist apologists who constantly put labels on people and refuse to believe that the truth is more complicated.

Cold Case Christianity: Is God Real? Examining Atheistic Explanations for the Laws of Logic as “Brute Realities”

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

Is God Real? 

Examining Atheistic Explanations for the Laws of Logic as “Brute Realities”

January 11, 2019 God

All rational discussions (even those related to the existence or non-existence of God) require the prior foundation of logical absolutes.

Which is precisely why the laws of logic are axiomatic or "brute truths".  If they are the foundation for all rational discussion, then they must be presumed true even for communications that ask about the origin of logic itself.  The only serious answer the atheist can give to "where does logic come from" would be an answer that is logically valid, thus committing the fallacy of begging the question. 

You can, of course, break the circle by giving a non-logical answer to that question, but then the lack of logic in your answer will justify the hearer to ignore the answer.  Hence, logic itself is properly exempt from questions of origin.  Those who disagree simply don't like the idea of "axioms".

Only theism, however, can adequately account for the existence of the transcendent Laws of Logic.

No, when theists 'account' for the existence of logic, the theist, like everybody else, is begging the question, since any answer she gives will have logic inhering in it already.  There is no possible way to appraise logic from the "outside", and we are forced to use logic to test logic, which is why it is automatically fallaciously circular to pretend one can "account for" logic itself.  You may as well use the shovel to dig around looking for the same shovel.

And your comment falsely presumes the laws of logic are "transcendent", which, to your audience, doesn't  mean "axiomatic", but rather "from God".

If God exists, He is the absolute, objective, transcendent standard of truth;

No, the god of the bible is not perfect (Genesis 6:6-7), and in the 1st century imperfect gods were routinely worshiped.  Being 'god' does not automatically prove some absolute objective standard of truth.  But your automatically equating "god" with "absolute" is what lots of ignorant Christians do.

the Laws of Logic are simply a reflection of His nature.

First, fallacy of begging the question.  Your answer is in logically correct form, which means your answer is assuming as true the very question at issue.  If you gave a non-logical answer, this would properly break the circle, but then nobody would listen to you.  You are thus using logic to test logic.

Second, you also say certain human morals are a reflection of god's nature (Frank Turek makes a big deal out of moral realism), but there, you admit we can violate this aspect of god's "nature", while we cannot violate the laws of logic.  That is, your "nature of god" explanation is full of holes.

Third, if logic is an inescapable truth of god's nature, and if people in hell won't be able to subvert the laws of logic, then your god will also be part of hell, when in fact the Christian babies you cater to insist that hell is "separation from God", not merely separation from his love.

We will shortly find out whether you have demonstrated that logical laws reflect 'god's' nature.

God did not create these laws. They exist as an extension of His rational thinking,

So you agree god has a physical brain?  Or will you say "non-physical thinking", then start citing to the Enfield Poltergeist and Amittyville horror to prove that non-material thinking is possible?

and for this reason, they are as eternal as God Himself.

But if fundamentalist evangelical scholars Copan and Flannagan are correct, "kill'em all" in the bible was a case of typical Semitic exaggeration.  We thus have to wonder if those other OT texts you read like a newspaper headline, are also less than literal...such as those texts that talk about how long god has existed...like Psalm 90:2.

Is God real?

No, "god" as defined in traditional theism is a completely incoherent concept, and just like "fairy" does not escape the criticism merely because we invented a definition for it. 

Without God as a source for the transcendent Laws of Logic, this question (and any logical journey toward the answer) would be impossible to examine.

So?  Logic is axiomatic, so the failure of "explanation" is all that can be expected, there is no such thing as accounting for the origin of axioms.

But then again, you only write for Christian babies, you have neither interest nor ability to take on the better informed skeptics like myself, so you likely perceive your "apologetics" arguments as little more than preaching.   So you need to stop wondering why skeptic find none of your apologetics the least bit compelling.

As an atheist, I rejected the existence of God and offered a number of objections and alternative explanations in an effort to account for the Laws of Logic.

Which meant that you were committing the fallacy of begging the question.  It also shows that back when you were an atheist, you either didn't know, or didn't care, what "axioms" were.

In yesterday’s post we outlined the theistic explanation for these laws. Today and tomorrow we’ll examine several naturalistic objections to see if any of them might offer a viable alternative. We’ll begin with efforts to describe the Laws of Logic as “brute realities” of the universe:
 Objection:
Aren’t the Laws of Logic simply the “brute” characteristics of reality? Both material and immaterial things must abide by boundaries of existence in order to exist in the first place. The “Laws of Logic” are simply a part of these boundaries. They are not transcendent laws from a Transcendent Mind; they are simply among the natural boundaries of existence.
 Both theists and atheists agree the Laws of Logic are brute somethings. Atheists might claim Logic is a brute, innate fact of existence, while theists might argue Logic is a brute, innate reflection of the nature and thinking of God. In either case, these laws would have to be eternal, uncaused and necessary.

No, logic is caused.  Logic is relative to language.  Where there is no language, there is no law of non-contradiction.  You may say matter never violates the law of non-contradiction in absence of language, but you cannot communicate that idea without language.  Having logic apart from language is like having spelling apart from letters.

Nothing can exist without the simultaneous existence of these laws. But let’s now look at how both sides account for their existence:
 On Atheism
The brute Laws of Logic simply exist. They are eternal and uncaused. Nothing can exist without them. That’s just the way it is.

Forgetting your "uncaused" falsehood, yes, the laws of logic are axiomatic, and therefore, properly exempt from the question of why they exist, or where they come from, except the obvious fact that they inhere in language.

On Theism
God is eternal, uncaused, omniscient and omnipotent.

You pretend as if classical theism is just as foregone a conclusion as Jesus' resurrection, despite your knowing that many Christian scholars deny God's "omniscience" and "omnipotence".

He is the all-knowing and all-powerful Creator;

same answer.

the necessary, uncaused first cause of all matter, space and time.

Except that there is no evidence, whatsoever, that matter itself can come into existence, and the 1st law of thermodynamics proves that the universe is of infinite age.  The reasonableness of that position is not going to disappear merely because you quote the bible or connect the big bang with Genesis 1:1.  You either show that matter itself can come into existence (which you won't do apart from favoring the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics over all the other schools), or you are forced to agree that there is no evidence that matter cannot come into existence, and therefore, if it does exist, has simply always existed.

He has thoughts and possesses a particular character, essence and nature.

So God has a physical brain?  Or will you cite to ghosts and things that go bump in the night and J.P. Moreland's defense of mind-body dualism to pretend that non-physical thinking is a legitimate concept?

Because He is all-powerful and all-knowing, these attributes are perfected (an all-powerful and all-knowing God has the power to eliminate imperfection).

Sorry, I'm not a classical theist, because the bible authors did an imperfect of job of covering up their god's imperfections.  if you don't need much of a reason to be completely apathetic toward a sadistic lunatic, I don't need much of a reason to ignore the divinely caused atrocities in Deut. 28:15-62, which that god will be "delighted" to inflict on disobedient people, v. 63.  Those atrocities include rape (v. 30) and parental cannibalism (v. 53-57).  No thanks.

The Laws of Logic are simply an attribute and reflection of God’s perfect existence;

But we can break the moral laws that you say are a reflection of his existence, so apparently, if something reflects god's nature, we can break it.  Since we cannot break logic, it probably doesn't reflect your god's nature.  Otherwise, you'll have to explain how humans could have ability to break god's morals but not his logic.  Before you tell the babies that god gave Adam and Eve "freewill", I suggest you consult with Steve Hays or other Christian who is a Five Point Calvinist.  I'll look you up again in about 35 years so I can see whether god's likeminded ones, armed with the same bible, were able to get their act together in how they understand god's "clear" word.

God does not create these laws, they are an innate and immutable aspect of His nature.

And space dust comes from flying pigs.

As God is necessary for all else to exist, so are the Laws of Logic. They are merely a reflection of His Being, and they permeate all of His creation.

You have demonstrated NOTHING.  You are simply insisting that it is so.  I don't feel sympathy for you because you should know enough to realize that when you are dealing with an issue that has no empirically demonstrable ties to physical reality, you are dealing in a horrifically nebulous area highly prone to flights of imaginative fancy.  No, atheists are not exempt from such stupidity. 

Both the atheist and the theist agree something is eternal, uncaused and necessary. But when the atheist says the Laws of Logic “simply exist”, he’s begging the question; he’s not providing an explanation for the eternal, uncaused and necessary existence of the laws (saying they exist does not provide us with an explanation for their existence).

That's because anything that is "axiomatic" is by definition exempt from the question of origin.  Apparently, you think it proper to ask where axioms come from, perhaps indicating your abilities in philosophy are no better than your abilities in apologetics.  But as long as your childish bullshit keeps the money rolling in, makes sense to be childish.

Theists, on the other hand, can make a case for God’s existence from a number of evidential lines, providing a reasonable foundation from which logical absolutes can then be elucidated.

Nope, I've already explained why logic is an axiom, and therefore, not subject to "where did it come from" analysis.

In addition, atheism fails to explain how the Laws of Logic can be eternal and uncaused and what role they play in causing all other contingent realities.

Because those logical laws are axiomatic, and hence properly exempt from efforts at "explaining" their basis or origin.

Theism, on the other hand, accounts for the existence of the Laws of Logic by pointing to the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent uncaused, first cause possessing perfect rationality (by virtue of His limitless power) who also acts as the first cause of all other dependent (contingent) creations.

No, you are just a classical theist who mistakes his classical theism for "theism" proper, despite knowing of other Christian scholars who deny classical theism and adopt open-theism.

Objection:
Aren’t the “Laws of Logic” simply the result of observations we make of the world in which we live? We discovered the Laws of Physics from our observations of the natural world; can’t we discover the Laws of Logic in a similar way?
 The Laws of Logic are conceptual. They only exist in the mind.

Which is physical.

They don’t describe physical behaviors or actions of matter, but instead describe conceptual truths.

Which is why they are nothing more than the function of language.

Logical axioms are statements dealing with conceptual patterns and processes of thought.

Oh, ok:  so you know that logic is axiomatic...so why are you pretending atheists cannot "account for" logic, when anything that is axiomatic is exempt from such questions?  Maybe your desire to preach is greater than your desire to understand correctly?

Consider the analogy to physics as a point of contrast. Newton’s three Laws of Motion (for example) may be conceptual as statements, but they describe actual physical behaviors we can observe. This is an important difference relative to the Laws of Logic. Logical absolutes cannot be observed and do not describe the behavior or actions of material objects.
 Now let’s consider an example atheism might present as proof we learn the Laws of Logic from our observations of the natural world. Someone might argue our careful observations of a sea shell, for example, reveal Laws of Logic. Recognizing the shell exists only as a shell (it is not a fish – nor does it ever become a fish) we might then posit and formulate the Law of Identity or the Law of Non-Contradiction. From this simple example, an atheist might claim the Laws of Logic can be discovered from observations of material objects.

Not this atheist...he knows that when we begin to use language to communicate about the sea shell, we will be presupposing the validity of the very logic that is being questioned.  Logic is axiomatic.  YOU are the one who is in the wrong for pretending we can legitimately inquire into logic's origin. The only thing we can say is that it is relative to language.  There are no "laws of logic" that matter "obeys" in the absence of language.  You have to use language, such as "why don't rocks violate the law of non-contradiction whenever language-producing life forms aren't nearby?"  No language?  No logic, real easy.  But even this attempt to locate the origin of logic commits the fallacy of begging the question since the attempt presupposes the validity of the logic being questioned.

But let’s think carefully about this.

Did you mean "let's use logic to evaluate itself"?

Yes, the shell does not change. And yes, we can observe this physical reality. But we then do something very interesting; we assign a logical absolute to the observation we just made.

Because we have language.

We assign something conceptual to our observation of matter. The mere fact we made an observation and then assigned a logical absolute to the observation does not then account for the existence of all logical absolutes in the first place.

I agree that the kind of atheist you respond to here, is indeed in the wrong.

Our observations may support the pre-existence of logical absolutes, but this does not mean our observations established the Laws of Logic. See the difference?

Yes, but you continue failing to see that because the law of logic are axiomatic, it is fallacious to ask for their basis or origin.  Once again, to even try to do so, is to beg the question, since your comments would be already presuming the very validity of the logic you are otherwise trying to 'account' for. 

We don’t form the Laws of Logic from the observations; we instead confirm the pre-existing logical truths with our observations.

Only if we have language.  Last I checked, bacteria don't wonder about the law of non-contradiction.  You will never demonstrate logic to exist apart from language.

The Laws of Logic pre-exist our arrival in the universe.

No, they are relative to language.  You may as well talk about "quickness" in absence of movement.

We discover them, and in so doing, discover something about the nature of the universe’s Creator.

Atheism's alleged wrongness is irrelevant:  Jesus' resurrection is provably false, which means Christianity is false, which means Christianity has been misrepresenting the OT YHWH for 2,000 years, and since the OT is far more explicit that God hates false prophets than that he hates those who completely ignore him (Deut. 13, Deut. 18), we can be sure that, if the god of Judaism is the god the Christian will fall back on after discovering Jesus didn't rise from the dead, this god is likely more pissed off at Christians than at atheists.

Hence, god's basic existence is irrelevant, even if true.  You simply have no credible evidence that the alleged "wrongness" of atheism is supposed to be some type of urgent danger.  Not so.  Also wouldn't matter if the danger to atheists was real, you cannot demosntrate any such contention.  Well gee, what do you do if you checked the house and found no intruders?  Stay outside forever merely because to be wrong is to risk death?  No.

The Laws of Logic pre-exist our arrival in the universe.

No, they are relative to language.

We discover them,

Because we have chosen to define certain things as opposites. 

Triablogue, History and methodological naturalism

This is my reply to an article by Steve Hays at Triablogue entitled

"I never claimed to be doing history"

Friday, November 01, 2019

In addition, "history" is ambiguous. It can mean different things:
i) What actually happened in the past

If that's what the speaker means, then they lack epistemological sophistication unless they claim to be direct eyewitnesses, since it's obviously true that whether some event "actually" happened can only be gauged in terms of probability.  If the common person fails to make such critical distinction and equates probability with actuality, that doesn't change anything I just said.  There is no such thing as "actually happened" for the investigator looking at third-party sources, there's only "degree of probability".

However, I don't find it necessarily fallacious for the person who thinks there's a high degree of probability, to regard this as "actually happened".

ii) What demonstrably happened. What historians think happened. What historians think probably happened or probably didn't happen, what definitely happened and what definitely never happened.

I think that's far closer to the truth.

iii) So "history" in the sense of (ii) comes down to the personal judgement of individual historians.

And since the rules of historiography cannot be employed in mechanical fashion, so that making a probability assessment for a historical event is as easy as figuring out whether baking soda and vineger fizz when mixed, it will prove impossible to get people to agree on many events for which we have only ancient and disputable evidence. 

In other words, when your case is limited to ancient disputed evidence (and inerrantists, evangelicals and "reformed" Christians disagree about the degree to which the gospels are historically reliable), you'd have to be high on crack to pretend that this case can be so good that only "fools" would deny it.  Hell, juries today that deliberate about evidence that was created as late as two years before, often cannot come to agreement after the american judicial system has done its best to get through the dross and provide them with established facts.  Any Christain who come bobbing along and insists 2,000 year old documents of questionable authenticity/authorship and text are "reliable" is more interested in yelling for Jesus than in common sense.

iv) Ehrman appeals to historical criteria, but criteria are value-laden and mirror the worldview of a given historian.

That's a good thing, since there is no such thing as presuppositionless analysis.  Presuming the reliability of one's 5 senses is far more objective than one's suspicion that maybe they are just brains in vats wired up by space aliens to think they are people on earth doing investigation.

For Ehrman, "history" is what's left over after you filter the historical evidence through the pasta strainer of methodological naturalism.

That's a good thing too, otherwise, the cops, to be fair, would have to spend equal amounts of time pursuing leads generated by purely naturalistic methods, and leads generated by purely psychic or "prayer" methods.  If your own kid was kidnapped, you would put no faith whatsoever in having the cops focus all of their energies in leads generated solely by the prayers of other Christians, you would instead ask that  they presume the infallibility of their 5 physical senses and pursue any leads generated by purely non-supernaturalist investigation methods, like empiricism.  When you child is kidnapped, you suddenly (and conveniently) lack the motive to highlight the alleged "fallacies" of empiricism.   The more the cops fail to follow leads generated by purely naturalistic investigation methods, the less likely you'll ever see your kid again.

But there's no presumption that we should operate with methodological naturalism unless metaphysical naturalism is true.

We atheists don't have to prove something "true" to regard it as a safe assumption, we only have to show that it is a reasonable position to take.  Metaphysical naturalism is what's behind all scientific progress, while attempts to grow in knowledge by purely supernatural means have provided precisely nothing, except the very type of word-wrangling that your apostle Paul specifically forbade (2nd Timothy 2:14).

You will exclaim that the OT prophets accurately predicted events hundreds of years ahead of them.  I am quite aware of the apologetic of "predictive prophecy" and after having examined all the OT texts Christians constantly put forward (Isaiah 7:14, Daniel 9, Micah 5:2), I still find faulty exegesis, naturalistic guessing and late authorship to account for any such cases more reasonably than the "god told them" explanation, which, by being grounded in an infinite complexity, obviously violates Occam's Razor far more than any naturalistic explanation would.

In other words, when I say supernaturalism does not have as good of a track record of helping us discover "truth" as non-supernatural methods have, I know what I'm talking about and I defy any "apologist" to prove different.  We've discovered a lot of truth since the Enlightenment...which of those truths were uncovered by God revealing something supernaturally to any human being?  NONE.

Or maybe the deep thinkers at Triablogue will attack my "scientific progress" model and claim that their bible-god doesn't care about mankind's scientific progress and shouldn't be presumed to desire to give any such knowledge by supernatural means?  Ok, how many Triablogue members live a daily life that is enhanced by that modern technology and discovery that this bible-god allegedly doesn't care to reveal supernaturally?  Do you use a computer, cell phone or debit card?

If God doesn't wish to supernaturally reveal "scientific" discoveries, might that argue that God is against the unbelieving world trying to advance in technology?  What did God fear might happen when unbelieving mankind tried that before?  Read Genesis 11:6.

So that's a dishonest shortcut. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, methodological naturalism has all the advantages of theft over honest toil.

The atheist who depends upon his naturalistic presuppositions to interpret new evidence, is no more "dishonest" than the Christian who depends on her supernaturalistic presuppositions to interpret new evidence.   The question is which person is more reasonable.

What you need to do is show that the naturalistic presuppositions are false or fallacious.

I've read Triablogue's entries alleging that empiricism is "fallacious".  You've never shown any such thing, and the fact that even sincere committed bible-centered Trinitarian evangelical Christians think presuppositionalism is total bullshit, is quite sufficient to justify the atheist outsider, if they choose, to regard that debate as utterly futile, and to therefore avoid it entirely and then go forth in the world interpreting new evidence in the way that everybody else does...by the use of their 5 physical senses.

Cold Case Christianity: Correct: there are no good reasons to believe in miracles

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

 

Cold Case Christianity: Quick Shot: 

“There are no good reasons to believe in miracles” 

Posted: 28 Oct 2019 01:44 AM PDT

Response #1:
“How do you define ‘miracles’?

That's not our problem.   Just like the little girl who says "how do you define fairies?"  If she believes in them, and wants us to believe also, it's her burden to provide coherent definition.  But have fun defining "miracle" in a way that an atheist cannot correctly criticize as question-begging.  Act of God?  Phenomena for which no possible naturalistic explanation will work?  Phenomena for which no known naturalistic explanation will work? 

A miracle is commonly described as an event ‘that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws.’

But since science is an on-going enterprise, what we thought naturally inexplicable today could very well be naturally explicable tomorrow.  Now, you can be "reasonable" to believe a miracle-report, but that doesn't render the skeptic unreasonable.  Reasonableness takes far more into account than simply whether a belief is "accurate".

Given that definition, most cosmologists (even atheist cosmologists) already believe in at least one miracle. The ‘Standard Cosmological Model’ for the origin of the universe (the theory accepted by most astrophysicists) is ‘Big Bang Cosmology.’

Then count me out.  The Big Bang is garbage scientifically, as admitted by several creationist organizations (ICR, AiG, etc) who also say the BB is unbliblical to boot.

This model describes a universe that came into existence from nothing.

No, the BB says the universe exploded from a singularity.  Your additional theory that the singularity popped into existence from nothing, cannot be defended.  All you can do is talk like an advocate of the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics, and then pray your readers don't discover that some schools of QM are deterministic.

If all space, time and matter began at a point in the distant past and came into existence from nothing, the cause of the universe must itself be non-spatial, non-temporal and non-material.

Logically, that's correct.  But there is no such thing as "non-spatial".  Yup, I'm a physicalist.

That means the cause of the universe ‘is not explicable by natural or scientific laws.’ Since the cause and the origin of the universe already falls into the definition of ‘miraculous,’ why would anyone doubt the veracity of other miracles?” Since the cause and the origin of the universe already falls into the definition of ‘miraculous,’ why would anyone doubt the veracity of other miracles?

Easy, because the people who reported those miracles are either too unknown to enable a credibility assessment, or what they say wasn't corroborated by others, or their reports are given an unknown number of years after the alleged event, or they have credibility problems justifying skepticism toward their testimony.

Response #2:
“Some people reject the existence of miracles based on their belief that the only forces governing the universe are ‘natural,’ ‘physical,’ or ‘material.’

That's because words like "supernatural" and "non-physical" and "immaterial", when used the way Christian apologists intend, constitute incoherent concepts.

As far as natural law, we might be wrong, but the point is we are not "unreasonable" to judge reports of phenomena based on our prior experience.  Only fools would pretend to be totally objective in evaluating a report no matter how far it departed from their experience of reality.  In that case, I'd be so busy investigating non-Christian miracle claims, I'd never have any time to look into Christian miracle claims.  You wouldn't want that, would you?  Well then gee, exactly how comprehensive must one's investigation into "miracles" be?  Not longer than it takes to respond to your internet posts?  Not longer than it takes to read "God's Crime Scene"? 

And how would you feel if you found out that, after i accepted your challenge to check out miracle claims, I went to the local bookstore to get your latest book and I died in a car crash along the way and went to hell?  Wouldn't you feel guilty for necessarily implying (by telling me to "check it out" something that takes time),  that I could safely delay the day of my repentance?  Maybe you need to revise your apologetics invitations in accordance with Ezekiel 3:18.

For example, if you reject the existence of anything ‘extra’ or ‘supra’ natural, you’re not likely to believe in miracles that violate natural laws.

Correct.  The notion that there's an "outside the universe" is incoherent and that's enough to justify rejection of the concept.

But, we have a shared knowledge of non-physical and non-material realities: we have a daily, common experience of consciousness and mind,

False, consciousness and mind are physical, this is more reasonable than a theory saying they come into the head from another dimension.  My theory violates Occam's Razor less, so its going to remain reasonable even if not infallible.

and we also experience free agency.

Your Calvinist brothers will now accuse you of heresy.  But either way, freewill doesn't make sense.  Free from what? The laws of physics?  No, the chemicals in our brain determine our moods and feelings, which obviously affect our choices.  The fact is that we automatically assume, from the lack of scientific evidence otherwise, that we are "free to chose".  But the sense of freedom is illusory.  The dog probably feels free to do what he wants too, but you'd probably say dogs don't have freewill because they don't have the "image of God".

Strict atheists (like neuroscientist and philosopher, Sam Harris) reject the existence of mind and free agency because they know they cannot be explained physically or materially.

No, he doesn't reject "mind", he rejects the mind/body dualism as understood by Christians.  He simply thinks the mind is nothing more but the brain in action.

If our common experience reveals the existence of non-material and non-physical realities that cannot be governed by ‘natural,’ physical law, why would anyone reject the reasonable existence of other realities that aren’t governed by ‘natural,’ physical law?”

We wouldn't, but whether the alleged existence of those other realities is "reasonable" is precisely where we will continue to disagree.  But either way, you haven't shown that anything real can possibly be "non-physical", so your analogy places no intellectual constraint on me.

Response #3:
“A famous skeptic named David Hume argued against the existence of miracles because he believed that evidence for what occurs repeatedly (or regularly) ought to outweigh evidence for what occurs rarely.

He was correct. If belief in actual 'truth' is the goal, then we should not believe reports of what occurs rarely unless the evidence for any such event passes more strict tests of authentication than the evidence we have for common events.  Extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.  So I don't believe my buddy when he says he got a hole in one on the golf course unless I'm satisfied this claim passes more strict tests of authentication than we normally require for common claims.

Since miracles occur so infrequently and are rare in our uniform experience, Hume argued that we shouldn’t believe in them.

...unless the evidence for them outweighed the evidence we have for normal events.

But miracles are – by definition – rare events that violate natural laws and common experience.

No, a miracle by definition is an act of God, so unless you wish to piss off your Calvinist brothers and assert that god hardly ever acts...

If we are willing to accept the evidence for rare events (like the evidence offered by ‘Big Bang’ Cosmologists), and our most common, uniform experience is non-material and non-physical (our experience of consciousness and free agency), why would anyone reject the existence of a miracle on the basis of its rarity?”

This reasoning doesn't place an intellectual obligation on me, as I deny the BB, I deny that humans have free agency,  and deny that any real thing that is "real" can be "non-physical", which linguistically seems to have a lot in common with "non-cheesecake".

My Trinity-rebuttal to AnnoyedPinoy

"Annoyed Pinoy" regularly posts at Triablogue.  See here.  He defends the Trinity doctrine at one of his own blogs.

I posted the following challenge to him at that blog (see here).

I now crosspost that here in case it happens to disappear:

Trinitarians get around Mark 13:32 by limiting Jesus' confession of ignorance solely to his "human nature".  But since one's "nature" is their inherent feature and thus something the person cannot avoid implicating, then if Jesus had two natures, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that BOTH of them were implicated in his confession of ignorance (i.e., the divine side of Jesus admitted being ignorant of something). 

The reasonableness of implicating both of his alleged "natures" is not going to disappear merely because you feel forced under biblical inerrancy to automatically favor any view about Jesus that will make sense of the premise that he could both know and not know one single factoid at the same time. 

You probably believe that a person's mind is their "spirit", and if so, this would be the case with Jesus who became a "real" human being (i.e., became a higher-order mammal whose mind was capable of operating separately from its body).  Ok, was Jesus speaking with his "mind" when he confessed this ignorance?  Is Jesus' "mind" the same as his "spirit"?  Was Jesus' speaking from his "spirit" by divulging the ignorant state of his "mind" in Mark 13:32?  What exactly would be "unreasonable" in saying Jesus' was speaking from his "spirit" in Mark 13:32?   

Was Jesus' spirit separate from the Holy Spirit?  Mark 3 would seem to disallow this with its warning that accusing Jesus of demon-possession constitutes blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as it falsely equates the Holy Spirit with demons...which implies that Jesus' "spirit" is the Holy Spirit, there is no lesser "human spirit" in addition to his "Holy Spirit".  Jesus also breathes on the disciples in John 20 and says "receive ye the Holy Spirit" powerfully supporting the notion that his spirit is the Holy Spirit, and there is no fourth identity called "human spirit" in existence here.  

Therefore, if Jesus was speaking his "mind" in Mark 13:32, he was also speaking from his "spirit" in Mark 13:32, and thus his confession of ignorance constitutes the Holy Spirit's ignorance, which then saddles god himself with this ignorance. 

Was the day of Christ's return missing from Jesus' "mind"?  Was it missing from his "spirit"?
If you try to get away from this by positing that Jesus had a "human mind" that was separate from "Holy Spirit", you'll end up with 4 people in the Trinity...at least during his earthly life, even if there were only 3 people in it before the incarnation. 

Remember, there are only 3 persons you are allowed here, no extras!

Seems to me that reading Trinitarian theology back into Mark 13:32 comes at great intellectual sacrifice, and doesn't even conform to normative hermeneutical convention, since what the originally intended audience likely understood Mark 13:32 represents a normative rule of interpretation, and common sense would insist that Mark's orignally intended audience, back there in 60 a.d., likely had views of Jesus far less theologically sophisticated than the views espoused by the "orthodox" at Nicaea.

So Mark's originally intended audience would more than likely have denied Jesus' alleged omniscience, and if other parts of Mark indicate Jesus knew all things, this is either typical Semitic exaggeration, or Jesus inconsistently held an unrealistically high view of himself, or Mark's gospel is merely inconsistent about the matter.

I personally prefer  the second.  Mark's obvious apathy toward Jesus' childhood is more consistent with the theory that he was something of an adoptionist, even if, like most people, his entire story is not consistent with everything adoptionist.

Regardless, bible inerrancy is a false doctrine, so I'm quite  reasonable to feel comfortable with the possibility that the interpretation of Mark 13:32 that causes Mark to contradict himself, is the correct one. 

This is despite the fact that Mark nowhere claims that Jesus is equal with God. 

James Patrick Holding violates his own advice

Mr. Holding introduces Galileo's "insulting" demeanor with "unfortunately".  From "Blowing the Doors Off", p. 375



This is sort of like Hitler telling a friend "Unfortunately, that Nazi guard doesn't know how to treat Jews politely."

But if the reader takes Holding's point to heart, they will conclude that Galileo would have been smarter to learn how to make his case politely. 

Which means they would eventually conclude that James Patrick Holding could similarly have avoided his own legal troubles (multiple lawsuits against him for libel) if he had learned to make his case more politely.

It would thus appear that Holding is willing to give to others the false appearance that he doesn't think it is ever morally justified to use insulting language, including situations where biblical truth is being suppressed or misrepresented.

James Patrick Holding and his followers violate 1st Corinthians 5:11

James Patrick Holding's alleged magnum opus is his absurd defense of insulting his critics (i.e., nothing in the bible or the early church fathers condemns his constantly insulting the non-Christians who disagree with his opinions, see here. (he has configured his website to make sure I cannot access it, probably because he doesn't have anything to fear from my criticisms.)

When apostle Paul required Christians to disassociate themselves from the so-called Christian "brother" who sins, he gave a list of such sins.  One sin listed was "reviler":

 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.
 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Cor. 5:9-13 NAU)

What does "reviler" mean?  According to standard grammatical authorities:

BDAG and GINGRICH say it is an "abusive person"

TDNT says:

ἀντιλοιδορέω antiloidoreÃoÒ [to revile in return]
 This common word group has the secular sense of reproach, insult, calumny, and even blasphemy. In the LXX it carries the nuance of wrangling, angry remonstrance, or chiding as well as the more usual calumny. Philo has it for mockery or invective. In the NT the verb occurs four times and the noun and adjective twice each.
 1. loiÃdoros occurs in lists of vices in 1 Cor. 5:11 and 6:10. In Acts 23:4 Paul is asked why he reviles the high priest, and in his reply he recognizes a religious duty not to do so. In Mart. Pol. 9.3 the aged Polycarp cannot revile Christ; to do so would be blasphemy.
 2. Christians should try to avoid calumny (1 Tim. 5:14), but when exposed to it (cf. Mt. 5:11) they should follow Christ's example (1 Pet. 2:23; cf. Mt. 26:63; Jn. 18:23), repaying railing with blessing (1 Pet. 3:9). This is the apostolic way of 1 Cor. 4:12: “When reviled, we bless” (cf. Diog. 5.15). By this answer to calumny the reality of the new creation is manifested. [H. HANSE, IV, 293-94]

DANKER says

λοίδορος,ου,ὁ [fr. a source shared by Lat. ludus ‘game’] insolent person 1 Cor 5:11; 6:10.  

"insolent" means:

Showing a rude and arrogant lack of respect (English Oxford);
(of a person or a person’s behavior) intentionally and rudely showing no respect (Cambridge);
insultingly contemptuous in speech or conduct (Merriam-Webster)

So it's pretty safe to say that the standard grammatical authorities tell us that the "reviler" brother that Paul tells Christians to stay away from is the "brother" who is constantly abusive in speech, or insulting, constantly engaging in angry wrangling/mockery, and doing this in a rude disrespectful way, or otherwise engaging in insultingly contemptuous speech. 

What we can reasonably thus conclude that the smartest Christian apologist in the world is completely blind to the basic NT ethics taught in this passage.

Or perhaps, being so smart, yes he knew about it, but chose to ignore its obvious meaning, likely because he has a genetic defect that causes him to suppress and excuse away anything that might reveal a character flaw and pretend his own opinion is infallible.

His babies will scream "there's an exception for skeptics who publicly criticize our faith!"

The trouble is that I've already gotten statements from legitimately credentialed scholars, some of whom previously publicly endorsed Holding, who said they see no biblical justification, whatsoever, for today's Christian to be insulting toward anybody, including critics and skeptics. See here.

For example, see my blog piece showing that Dr. Michael Licona and Dr. Gary Habermas likely think James Patrick Holding is a piece of shit scumbag, since even back in 2004 they were jointly insisting that it is biblically unacceptable for a Christian to insult "skeptics".  See here.

Gary Habermas once publicly endorsed Holding.  Licona's daughter is the wife of Holding's ministry partner Nick Peters.  One might reasonably speculate that this family has often had friendly conversations about Holding's infamously foul mouth (I have emails showing Habermas rebuking Holding for it), and not even the world's smartest Christian apologists (Licona and Habermas) can see any biblical justification for, and see only biblical condemnation against, Holding's genetically defective tendency to insult anything he hates.

Holding's babies will scream "we are employing riposte the way Jesus and Paul did", but the clear prohihbition against reviling in 1st Corinthians 5:11 makes it clear that God doesn't want you to do something merely because Jesus and Paul did it.  Whatever first-century "riposte" was, its limits are clearly specified in that verse.  No, the name-calling nature of ancient agrarian cultures doesn't automatically mean you are justified to imitate it. 

For the Holding-babies who continue to support him regardless, you might want to read about God's instituting America's libel-laws in Romans 13, then ask yourself why Holding is unable to escape the current libel lawsuit I've filed against him.

If it is so easy for Holding to prove this current lawsuit to be frivolous or unfounded, why hasn't he prevailed with a motion to dismiss yet?   Might it actually be a bit harder to disprove my allegations, than it would be to state the first letter of the English Alphabet?

Could it actually be that the world's biggest scumbag apologist actually did cross the line into legitimately actionable slander?  Gee, you've never heard of honest-appearing Christians being exposed as scandalous wolves, have you?

If that is a possibility, then why haven't you given serious consideration to apostle Paul's demand that you dissociate yourself from "brothers" who are "revilers"? 

James Patrick Holding violates Proverbs 26

 17 Like one who takes a dog by the ears Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him.
 18 Like a madman who throws Firebrands, arrows and death,
 19 So is the man who deceives his neighbor, And says, "Was I not joking?"
 20 For lack of wood the fire goes out, And where there is no whisperer, contention quiets down.
 21 Like charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, So is a contentious man to kindle strife.
 22 The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels, And they go down into the innermost parts of the body.   (Prov. 26:17-22 NAU)

V. 17, Mr. Holding has an obvious history of "exposing" strifes in the lives of his critics.  That's at issue in the current libel lawsuit against him.

v. 18, you cannot escape the condemnation in this verse by pretending that your hurling of arrows was for the cause of "truth".  the person you give that defense to would have to decide whether you are being honest or are instead trying to mask your sinful love of gossip and meddling.

v. 20, the ending of "contention" is presumed a good think to the author.  You cannot escape the condemnation in that verse by saying you started a contention and strife "in the name of truth".  The person yo make that excuse to will have to decide whether you are being honest or dishonest about your alleged concern for "truth", and there is a possibility they will conclude that you couldn't care less about truth, you just love gossip.
v. 21, a general love of starting contentions and strifes is condemned by this author, and given Holding's history of it, no, his excuse that he only does it for the sake of the truth, is bullshit.  Holding has a genetic defect that causes him to love strife more than the average person.

Inerrantist Christian scholar D.A. Garrett:

Type: Thematic (26:17–22). These proverbs discuss anyone who involves himself or herself in the affairs of others, who spreads gossip, or is a general source of mischief. Metaphors of violence and destruction dominate this text since these qualities characterize the aftereffects of the busybody.
26:17 Verse 17 could be translated, “Like one who seizes the ears of a passing dog is the one who meddles.”Busybodies cannot resist the temptation to inject themselves into private disputes, and they have no excuse for being surprised at the violent outbursts that are sure to follow.
26:18–19 Verses 18–19 could be taken to condemn any kind of antics (such as modern practical jokes played on a groom on his wedding day). While practical jokes can be destructive and hurtful, the larger context here implies that such may not be precisely the nature of the deceit implied here. Rather, this is a person who enjoys gossiping about or tampering with the affairs of other people. Such a person will purposefully confuse others and engage in a kind of social disinformation. When called to account, he or she will treat the whole thing as a game and be oblivious to all the hurt such actions created.
26:20–22 Verses 20–21 describe the slanderer as the fuel that maintains quarrels. In the absence of such a person, old hurts can be set aside, and discord can die a natural death. Even so, we often find a juicy tidbit of defamation irresistible. Verse 22 is a direct warning to the reader. Gossip makes its way to the innermost being of the hearer; that is, it corrupts the soul.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 214).

 

James Patrick Holding and his followers violate Proverbs 20:19

 19 He who goes about as a slanderer reveals secrets, Therefore do not associate with a gossip.
(Prov. 20:19 NAU).

How could you possibly argue that you associate with James Patrick Holding, but you don't associate with a gossip?

Maybe you think the "gossip" condemned here is something different than James Patrick Holding's obsessive need to dig up personal strifes and evils in the lives of his critics?  Break out the chocolate, you are about to have a bad day.  Evangelical Christian scholar R.E. Murphy:

19 The first line is very similar to 11:3a. The slanderer is one who goes about talking, although the etymology of the word רכיל is difficult. Naturally, such a person is to be avoided. The parallel with the “open mouthed” (see Note 19.a.*) would seem to indicate a character that we would term “loose-lipped.”
* 19.a. This verb seems to have two meanings: “open” and “simple/foolish.” In either case, irresponsible speech is meant.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Proverbs.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 152)

The dictionary defines "loose-lipped" as "fond of gossip".  If you think Mr. Holding only yaks about issues of biblical scholarship, you might ask him

a) why he is being sued for defamation for the third time, and
b) why his lawyer has told him he won't be escaping this third one with a Phariseeic technicality, like he did the last two times, but must answer to a jury on the merits

Or maybe you are a clever person, you caught the gag, and you won't be asking Holding any such thing, because to do so is to perhaps reveal that you love hearing gossip, which makes you just as bad as the person who spreads gossip, see Proverbs 17:4.

James Patrick Holding AND his followers violate proverbs 18:5-8

 5 To show partiality to the wicked is not good, Nor to thrust aside the righteous in judgment.
 6 A fool's lips bring strife, And his mouth calls for blows.
 7 A fool's mouth is his ruin, And his lips are the snare of his soul.
 8 The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels, And they go down into the innermost parts of the body. (Prov. 18:5-8 NAU)

Once again, the fact that some strife is logically required in our search for justice, does not mean gossip is holy.  The fact that you can say you were searching for "truth" by inquiring into the strifes others have endured, doesn't mean you are free from the charge of loving gossip for the sake of gossip.  The person you speak with will have to decide whether you pay attention to strife so much because of your excuse that you are a truth-robot, or if that's just a bullshit excuse to cover up your sinful love of strife.  They might be reasonable to say you are full of shit, you only care about the thrill of gossip, you care nothing for actual truth.
This is more especially so with Holding's idiot followers who have been manifesting their spiritual depravity/immaturity for years. 

Holding's libelous words about me qualify as little more than the gossip and strife which this proverb condemns.  Inerrantist Christian scholar D.A. Garrett says:

18:5–8 The chiasmus in vv. 6–7 is obvious (lips, mouth, mouth, lips). Somewhat less conspicuously, v. 5 refers to heeding evil talk at the gate, and v. 8 describes the pleasures that malicious slander can give. This section appears to be further commentary on 17:27–18:4. In official proceedings, whether they be court cases or community decisions, one obviously should not take the side of an evil person (v. 5). The odds of such happening are reduced by the fact that caustic and selfish people347 expose themselves by their words (vv. 6–7). On the other hand, many have a perverse attraction to malicious gossip (v. 8). This points to the need to be a judicious and thoughtful listener.
347 One needs to bear in mind that the “fool” of Proverbs is not a buffoon or simpleton. He or she is rather an obstinate, selfish, and obnoxious individual.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 164)

The word "caustic" means : "marked by incisive sarcasm" or "sarcastic in a scathing and bitter way".

Gee, Holding has never been guilty of being "caustic" has he?  Of course he has, Gary Habermas rebuked him for it according to email communications between the which I forced Holding to disclose, but which Habermas asked me not to divulge the contents of.  

Evangelical Christian scholar R. E. Murphy says:

6–7 Both of these verses deal with the organs of speech (lips/mouth used chiastically), as employed by a fool, and hence they point out the bad effects of his talk. 6 It is not clear if the “blows” in line b are to be understood as a punishment that the fool receives (therefore, in a judicial case), or merely as a violent dispute that is brought about by his heedless speech. 7 This verse is a drastic and dramatic description of the price the fool will have to pay for his unbridled speech: it is a deadly trap; see also vv 20–21.

8 This verse appears also in 26:22, where it is perhaps more suitable to the context. ...“Dainty morsels” is a common, if uncertain, translation. Experience bears out the attraction that gossip exerts over human beings; it enters deeply into a person; the second line suggests this penetration and perhaps the hearer’s relishing, if the translation of v 8a is correct. For harmful effects of gossip, cf. 16:28.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Word Biblical Commentary : Proverbs. 

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 135). Dallas: Word, Incorporated

Since Holding is obviously guilty of being obstinate and obnoxious gossip, and since he has never manifested the slightest desire to repent of these moral defects, you will have a difficult time trying to reconcile your belief that "scholarship is all that matters for a Christian teacher" with the bible, which requires teachers to be morally qualified too.