This is my reply (revised/updated January 5, 2018) to an article by Steve Hays entitled:
I ran across a village atheist website with "Ten
Questions a Christian Must Answer". At last count it had about 1250
comments.
I'm going to ignore most of the questions because I've
answered them or questions like them before. These are cliche questions. But
there's one question I'll single out. Indeed, I've seen two variations on the
same question:
How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to
you? Jesus is all-powerful and timeless, but if you pray for Jesus to appear,
nothing happens. You have to create a weird rationalization to deal with this
discrepancy. How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to
you? Jesus could appear to you, but he doesn’t. He appeared to Paul after he
died, so it’s not like he hasn’t done it before. He could appear to give you
advice for a tough decision, give you comfort in person like a friend would, or
just assure you that he really exists.
i) I explain the fact that Jesus never appeared to me
because I never asked him to appear to me.
Perhaps as a Calvinist your answer should have been that Jesus hasn't appeared to you because he didn't want to. Saul the Pharisee didn't ask Jesus to appear to him either, but Jesus allegedly appeared to him nonetheless.
ii) In addition, Jesus never promised to appear to every
Christian, so there's no expectation that he will appear to every Christian.
But according to Mark 11, Jesus did promise fulfillment for the wishes of those who, when praying, believe that they have recieved the requested item:
21 Being reminded, Peter said to Him, "Rabbi, look, the fig tree which You cursed has withered."
22 And Jesus answered saying to them, "Have faith in God.
23 "Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him.
24 "Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.
25 "Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions. (Mk. 11:21-25 NAU)
Since the prior verse speaks metaphorically about moving mountains, Jesus was apparently broadening his promise so that as long as what the Christian was praying for wasn't sinful, then the only reason they didn't get what they prayed for is because they didn't believe strong enough that they had received it. Some would argue that Jesus consistent failure to personally comfort his followers constitutes a "mountain" most believers would wish to be cast into the sea. Matthew has Jesus speak similarly:
5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
6 "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
8 "For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
9 "Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone?
10 "Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he?
11 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him! (Matt. 7:5-11 NAU)
Perhaps Steve will counter by saying Jesus is not good, therefore, an appearance of Jesus wouldn't be included in the list of good things God intends for his followers to receive?
iii) Moreover, I don't view Jesus as a genie whom I can
summon to do my bidding.
Then you need to take a more careful look at the prosperity gospel bullshit that Jesus taught as represented above.
iv) As far as decision-making, that doesn't require private
revelation. Throughout Scripture, you have people making decisions because God
providentially orchestrated events in a certain way or implanted subliminal
suggestions. So I can do God's will without even thinking about it.
Under your Calvinism, you are doing god's will should you rape a little girl to death. You probably shouldn't boast about how you do god's will no matter what.
And even at the level of private revelation, that doesn't
require a dominical vision.
But Jesus promised those who were sufficiently faithful that their requests would be granted. Have fun trying to pretend that despite Jesus issuing such promises in broad terms, he expected his readers to believe that some morally good requests would never be granted even in situations where his required criteria were fulfilled.
What about an audible voice or revelatory dream? To
demand a personal audience with Jesus is an arbitrary stipulation, even if we
grant the general principle.
Nobody is "demanding", the challenge was why a "prayer" for Jesus to personally appear, is never fulfilled.
And if God wants believers to view him as a father in intimate terminology (Romans 8:15), then God is to be blamed for giving believers the false expectation that God is willing to personally interact with them.
v) There are many well-documented reports of Jesus appearing
to people, viz.,
https://epistleofdude.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/visions-of-jesus/
Well first, the author of the Jesus Vision book dude is quoting there, doesn't think his descriptions constitute "well-documented",
since he cautions that they are merely "exploratory"
Steve isn't different from most apologists. He will push another's testimonial evidence farther than those who supplied it wanted him to.
Let's take those miracle allegations quoted by "dude" one at a time:
Case 2: Robin Wheeler
A google search for "miracles 'Robin Wheeler' turned up nothing to help investigate this, beyond Dude's blog piece and the
google books version of the book Dude was referencing.
Attention, dude and Steve Hays: Please provide this Robin Wheeler's true current legal name, current residence or mailing address, phone number and email address, so that I can begin my investigation. Otherwise, admit that you think criminal investigators are wrong when they are dissatisfied with the mere existence of filed affidavits, and wish to depose alleged witnesses to find out whether there are errors, deception or misunderstanding in their affidavits.
In addition, I emailed the following to the author of the book
epistleofdude is referencing:
Dr. Wiebe,
The miracle testimonies contained in your Visions of Jesus: Direct Encounters from the New Testament to Today. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997, are being used by Christian apologists to fend off skeptics who say miracles don't happen. See https://epistleofdude.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/visions-of-jesus/
Steve Hays references that website, saying the cases in your book are "well-documented", see http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/01/ten-questions-christians-must-answer.html
Can you put me in contact with the persons in that book whom you say experienced visions of Jesus? Please provide any currently valid contact information for them. Seems obvious that if the Christian god exists, he wouldn't want unbelievers to trust in Jesus-vision testimony that turns out to be false.
If you cannot provide their current contact information, please specify why, and forward to them my email address, telling them that I am interested in investigating their stories as they appear in your above-referenced book.
Thank you,
Barry
Also, neither Hays nor "dude" tell the reader that the cases they quote were placed by Dr. Wiebe under his own chosen heading
"Group 1: Trance and Dreamlike Experiences"
One has to wonder whether
any amount of documentation would ever be sufficient to morally compel skeptics to trust that some trance or dreamlike "experience of Jesus" was something above and beyond naturalistic human imagination.
Also, Steve Hays asserted that atheists were irrational to require interviewing miracle claimants and that we are irrational for thinking email and telephones aren't sufficient to the task:
If, however, an atheist is so irrational that he refuses to believe testimonial evidence unless he personally conducts the interview, then that's his self-imposed burden of proof.
....ii) I'd add that his complaint is very quaint, as if he were living in the 18C, and had to interview witnesses face-to-face. Has he never heard of email or telephones?
So perhaps Steve similarly feels Dr. Wiebe is irrational for wanting to conduct face-to-face interviews and do more research into specific claims where the claimaints refuse to participate by telephone:
Wieber also admits excluding out-of-body claims, other claims and one where the claimant said it was God
but not Jesus, when in fact including these might have made the study a bit more objective (i.e., the tendency for visionaries to have theologically incorrect views of Jesus suggests "heretical" Jesus' visions arise from nothing more than the heretic's naturalistic imagination, arguing that the same is true for those claimants whom apologists think describe a theologically correct Jesus.
Wieber also said there that some of the claimants were "reticent" to speak about their experiences, which is problematic since it implies the claimant isn't so sure it was Jesus that they are willing to do with the experience what the Jesus of the NT wants them to do with it (i.e., the Jesus of the bible wants his followers to evangelize the world, and apparently wanted his original followers to use their visionary experiences to underscore their preaching).
dude continues:
Robin had very little contact with the church or with
Christians for the first thirty-eight years of his life. He occasionally went
to a Catholic or an Anglican church when he was young, but he had no interest
in religion until neighbors moved in who were quite religious. His wife became
a Christian as a result of their influence. This annoyed him greatly,
especially when she prayed openly for him. One Saturday night several weeks
after her conversion he had what he described as a battle with an evil creature
as he was trying to sleep.
"
trying to sleep"? So was he
actually asleep during this confrontation (which would initially argue it was a dream) or, did it take place before he actually nodded off (which would initially argue the event had reality outside of his own mind)?
Its face resembled a human face without skin, and it
frightened him.
Sorry, but too many people have been frightened by the likes of Freddy Kruger, to say this alleged event had serious plausibility, sounds like Wheeler saw one too many horror movies (even if this vision took place before the first
Nightmare on Elm Street movie came out, it isn't like Kruger was the first time movies had ever depicted monstrous humans lacking facial skin), and while dreaming, Wheeler's unconscious mind did what it routinely does for billions of other people during sleep, and mixed up various realities in his life, here, mixing images he'd seen before, with the religious influences in his life.
He tried to fight off this creature, but he was not successful.
What was the creature doing to attack him.. Trying to bite him? Drag him down to hell? What exactly was the monster's act that was being interpreted as Wheeler's lack of success?
Just off to his right
Surely Jesus' standing to a person's "right" is sheer coincidence with the biblical teaching that standing on a person's "right" symbolizes agreement between the two?
stood a man wearing a brown sackcloth robe with a sash
around his waist.
Jesus hasn't upgraded his wardrobe since the 1st century?
Robin never did see above the shoulders of this second
figure,
And if you were on trial for murder, and the only witness against you admitted they couldn't see the upper half of the person who pulled the trigger, you'd no doubt scream your head off that the testimony is more prejudicial than probative and seek to have it thereby excluded.
but he considers it to have been Jesus.
So not even the claimant can be sure, but "considers" it to be Jesus. Let's just say I'm not pissing myself with worry that Jesus is the least threat to anything I hold dear. Especially given that God predestined me to think the way I do.
Robin tried to tie up the
creature with the sash from Jesus, and as he did so Jesus disappeared. Again
and again he would struggle with the monster, and each time Jesus would appear
long enough for Robin to grab the sash, and then would disappear.
Robin’s wife was with him while this struggle was taking
place. She told me that he levitated for long periods of time that coincided with
the struggles,
Please provide the full current legal name of Robin's wife and her presently valid contact information. I'd like to do what criminal prosecutors do, and conduct a deposition to see whether or not the testimony can hold up under cross-examination.
I think this is the part where Steve argues, without actually saying so, that he thinks it is methodologically improper to peer into miracle-testimony
that deep. Of course you think that way Steve; if you were to think otherwise, it would take less than a week to debunk your bullshit fantasies.
So by pretending further investigation is not "needed", Steve also achieves his secret goal of keeping a kick to the teeth from actually reaching his teeth. The less we investigate, the less change that Steve will endure his opponent
positively discrediting the female religious fanatic who swears she saw her husband levitate while battling demons...and where positive discrediting cannot actually be achieved, the loser in the debate can always say "my theory remains a valid possibility".
One wonders whether smart guy Steve is aware that you don't stay afloat in a debate by merely correctly noting that your theory remains a possibility. You only stay afloat where you show a) your theory is no less justified than your opponent's, or b) your theory is more justified than your opponent's.
and seemed to go in and out of consciousness.
She says that
Robin floated in midair in a horizontal position about a foot above the bed.
And Steve probably thinks only fools would automatically assume this couple's prior viewing of the "Exorcist" movie had something to do with this.
His body was in a perfectly rigid position, and all the veins in his body were
bulging.
Aha! A difference from the portrayal of levitation in the Exorcist, so obviously, that movie surely had nothing to do with this testimony. Snip:
COMMENT This is one of the few experiences involving a struggle
with forces considered to be diabolical. Robin’s wife clearly understood the
levitation she witnessed to be an intersubjectively observable concomitant, but
no one else was there to see it. Their children and pets were elsewhere in the
house, and slept through the bizarre events, even though Robin shouted all
night long.
The children stayed asleep while Robin shouted
all night long? Give me a fucking break.
Robin and his wife said that they interpreted this deep sleep as
indicative of unseen forces that were controlling the events of that night.
Robin’s wife evinced no surprise at the fact that he had levitated, for she
said she had witnessed levitation of other people on several occasions.
Now these miracle-claimants are claiming to have seen real levitation concerning other people.
Both
said they had been involved in “occult” practices earlier in their lives.
So they were prone, beforehand, to be open to nonsense crap like dreamvisions and levitation.
I would challenge Hays, again, to produce the one Jesus-vision story in the book he thinks is the most credible and explain why, and stop pretending that the high number of the stories intellectually compels the objective person to believe that at least one of them is genuinely supernatural in origin.
By the Holy Spirit of atheism, I predict that Steve, worried sick as he obviously is that actually putting his money where his mouth is will open him up to the real possibility of being steamrolled, will fight tooth and claw like he has in the past, to avoid doing this, and instead argue that the sheer number of reports, without consideration of their respective merits, still makes a resurrected Jesus a greater likelihood than a Jesus who stayed dead.
Unfortunately, because he takes a stupid position, he can be forced into such a dilemma. Steve clearly has no desire to open Pandora's Box by citing to the one Jesus-vision of modern times he thinks most impervious to falsification, and in normal every day life, a person doesn't run from such a challenge because they are afraid of winning, but because they are afraid of losing.
So...Steve...what exactly is unreasonable or irrational about the skeptic who asks the Christian apologist to cite the one modern-day miracle claim they think most impervious to falsification?
In what way does the challenge to produce your best case, suffer from any methodological flaw or epistemological shortcoming?
Or does there come a time when the objective reader is intellectually compelled to conclude that the reason you dance around these legitimate challenges is because you are, with very good reason, deathly afraid that once you commit to a specific case, it will, upon analysis, start falling apart at the seams?
Back to Hays:
To say Jesus doesn't appear to people because he doesn't
exist backfires, considering the many reported examples to the contrary.
There's no dearth of evidence.
There's also no dearth of evidence for UFO's but they are still bullshit, lies and misunderstandings when specific cases are examined more closely.
And since you refuse to distinguish in the many reports between encounters with the real Jesus and encounters with a demon imitating Jesus, then under your logic, we need not distinguish between encounters with the real Mary and encounters with a demon imitating her, in which case your logic would require the conclusion that "to say Mary doesn't appear to people because she didn't exist, backfires, considerating the many reported examples to the contrary. There's no dearth of evidence."
But if YOU can overcome quantity with quality (i.e., closer analysis of specific Marian apparition claims reveals misunderstanding and outright deception), then skeptics can also overcome quantity with quality (i.e., closer examination of Jesus-vision stories reveals misunderstandings and outright deception).
So apparently, Steve will have to take the position that the only time quality of investigation can trump sheer numbers of reported cases, is when Christian apologists need to employ that tactic to get rid of supernatural events they deem heretical. Nobody else is allowed to use quality of investigation to trump sheer numbers of reported cases.
I don't title these blog pieces as "
Demolishing Triablogue" for nothing.
And if an atheist discounts these reports as tall tales or
hallucinations, then his challenge was duplicitous. If, when you call his
bluff, he says it doesn't matter, then he was arguing in bad faith all along.
Then I'm not with those skeptics, I've issued a clarifying challenge to help guard against fraud or misunderstanding. Asking you to produce the
one case you feel is most impervious to falsification, is rational, reasonable and legitimate. And if your theory is true, you shouldn't have any trouble or hesitation putting your money where your mouth is and committing to any specific case.
vi) From what I've read, reports of Jesus appearing to
people typically involve situations where they didn't ask or expect Jesus to
appear to them. It wasn't in response to prayer, but an unsolicited visitation.
Provide the one case you think is the most impervious to falsification.
vii) Furthermore, when Jesus appears to people, it may be to
summon them to a life of costly discipleship. So there's a tradeoff. A grueling
vocation in exchange for the vision. I don't envy St. Paul's life.
It "may be". No argument. Atheism "may be" true.
ix) I'm not vouching for any particular report.
Because you know that if you did, you'd get the shit kicked out of you in every way conceivable, so, being forced to become an atheist
or adopt a weaker methodology making Christian claims easier to "prove", you choose the latter, no doubt through holy tears of indescribable joy.
I'm just
responding to the atheist on his own grounds. I don't presume that every
reported dominical apparition is legit.
And you carefully dodge the bullet thereby. Again, Steve, pick the one vision story from these sources you think is the most "legit" and let's get started.
I can't assign percentages. But I do
think that if you have enough reports by prima facie credible witnesses, that
makes it likely that some reports are true.
But you cannot know the witnesses are "credible" until you submit their claims to analysis and cross-examination, since both sides agree the world is full of false miracle reports. Yet this need to examine on a case by case basis is exactly what you so feverisly insist isn't necessary. Well then what, Steve? Maybe if I pray to God, God will tell me in a vision which of the modern-day miracle claimants are credible and which aren't?
Under your logic, because other religions also report tons of religions visions, some of them must be true as well. You will say its just the devil who is responsible for non-Christian visions, but on the contrary, you don't allege merely that some Jesus visions are "supernatural", you are arguing from sheer numbers that some Jesus-visions really involve the real Jesus.
So if Mormons or whoever also report Jesus visions, then by your own logic, some of those reports are not merely real supernatural experiences, some of those reports really are Jesus, i.e., the real Jesus really is advocating Mormonism. If you don't like that conclusion, then provide criteria by which a person can tell whether the Jesus in the vision is the real deal or a mere demonic imitation. And when you say "the bible", prepare to agree that it is reasonable for the objective reader to take your advice, discover that "biblical Christianity" is equally as internally splintered on everything conceivable as "American politics" is, and to thereby stop giving a shit about modern day miracle claims while they take the next 50 years to make sure they've understood the biblical message correctly, since they know at present that men who have already accomplished that much learning
still disagree with each other on every biblical subject imaginable...thus justifying the observer to reasonably conclude that their present kids, family, job and life deserve more attention than does that field of esoteric quantum mechanics otherwise known as Christian apologetics.
Sorry Steve, but the threat of a suffering conscious eternal torment would only compel rather stupid and gullible people to prioritize biblical truth as highly as you think it should be prioritized.
By the way Steve, can you really say it is unreasonable for skeptics to deny the miraculous?
Under your stupid Calvinism, I only deny the miraculous because God predestined me to.
What could be more reasonable than me doing what your God
wants me to do?
Then again, you
are comfortable with the stupidity of a doctrine that says God gets angry at people for doing
what he caused them to do, so no, I don't expect that reasoning with you has the least potential to do anything more than what it does for barking Pentecostals. You'll just tell yourself that if I'm actually in the right on the point, well, God predestined you to misunderstand me. There's no reasoning with the idiot who thinks Allah wants him to fly a plane into a building, and there's no reasoning with an idiot who blames his inability to see reason on fatalistic determinism.
Now rattle off the names of 20 Calvinist theologians who insist it is error to equate predestination with fatalism, so people who need to work to pay the bills can just sit home on the internet worrying about all your trifling dogshit.
x) Likewise, I don't need to personally experience something
to know it's true. Secondhand information suffices for most of what we know.
No, most of what I know doesn't come from second-hand sources, but from my own personal experience of the world. The only time I believe second-hand information is when it conforms to my prior experience of the world, or I am able by investigation to verify by other means that the secondhand sources were truthful (otherwise, you'd have to argue that we are always irrational to suspect somebody of lying before we have tangible evidence of such).
Why carve out an ad hoc exception in this instance?
Maybe because while Christians themelves cannot even agree on which single modern-day miracle claim is true, both Christians and atheists agree that plenty of them have been legitimately debunked (in which case, the exception wouldn't be ad hoc)?
Maybe we carve out an exception for the same reason
you don't think every reported Jesus-vision is true. So far, you haven't told us why you doubt ANY of them. But the fact that you don't believe all of them means you cannot criticize the atheist who says it makes more sense to deal only with the specific cases the apologists consider the most impervious to criticism, otherwise the sheer numbers would not justify believing Jesus merely lives, but that he also confirms theology that you believe is "heretical".
Since you don't have any criteria by which to decide whether a god who sends strong delusion to people would or wouldn't ever appear by vision and 'confirm' false theological beliefs of heretics, your predictable knee-jerk reaction that it is just Satan who pretends to be Jesus and confirms false theology in many modern-day vision claims, is so highly speculative and self-serving that there is no compelling reason to give two shits about it.
In that case, the more you accept that Jesus really is appearing to people today, the more you have to accept that he is confirming theology you think is false.
meyu1/04/2018 2:42 PM☍I saw this also. What I have found on this site are atheists
who just want to trip up Christians while not willing to defend their atheism.
Then come to my blog, where I trip up Christians and defend atheism. When Steve advises you against it, just tell him that God gave you a vision of his secret will, and God's secret will is for you to come to this blog. That'll shut him up.
