Randal Rauser's Blog, page 76

Turning an atheist argument on its head

Today, I came across this Twitter profile. So of course, I had to reply:

“‘Non-believers CANNOT justify their godless beliefs, making theism the JUSTIFIED POSITION. Prove me wrong.’ I should try reasoning like ‘Artie’ more often. It makes things so easy!”

This prompted a reply from “Jeffrey” followed by my rejoinders:

Jeffrey: “How is this different from someone asserting that fairies live in elm trees and another person lacking that belief? Does non-belief have to be justified? Is fairies existing the default position or self-evident?”

Randal: You’re right. I think atheism is as silly as the belief that fairies live in elm trees. So get to work and give me an *argument*.

Jeffrey: Those weren’t rhetorical questions. They were genuine questions.

Randal: And I gave you a very serious answer. When you identify what is wrong with my response you will know what is wrong with your original comment/question.

Folks like Jeffrey make at least two mistakes. First, they assume that their personal plausibility structure provides a privileged epistemic position for their beliefs as if others are automatically placed on the defensive if Jeffrey happens to find their beliefs implausible. But of course, life don’t work like that. Jeffrey’s plausibility structure doesn’t enjoy a privileged position. Or to put it another way, two can play at that game.

Second, folks like Jeffrey seem to assume that “positive existential claims” are particularly in need of justification (especially if those claims involve existential claims outside of Jeffrey’s plausibility framework). But again, that’s false. For example, the existence of the external world or other minds is the positive existential claim, but if there is a claim in need of justification in that sense, it is the denial, not the affirmation.

If anything, the Christian would say it is the same when it comes to denying God’s existence, and consequently, when somebody like Jeffrey compares belief in God to belief in some arbitrary fairy, he merely shows his provincial ignorance for the very different plausibility frameworks of other people. In this regard, his position is comparable to the benighted North American who, never having traveled overseas, has no conception that a person could use anything other than a knife and fork to eat their meals: anybody who uses “chopsticks” to eat their meals must first defend their rejection of the knife and fork!

The post Turning an atheist argument on its head appeared first on Randal Rauser.

My Tribute to My Father

My dad died on April 3, 2019. Ten days later on April 13, we held the memorial service, and I was honored to take part. This is important to me, not simply because I loved my dad and I grieve his passing but because I value others thinking about life and death from the perspective of eternity. With that in mind, here are my thoughts:

If you’d like to hear my mom, or my brother, or my wife and daughter (they performed wonderfully!), or anyone else (all very much worthwhile!) I would admonish you to rewind to the beginning of the presentation.

The post My Tribute to My Father appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Does God want everyone to join a single church?

This is a link to my fourth and final dialogue/debate with Catholic Apologist Trent Horn. In this round, we debate the question of whether God wants every person to join the same church. Not surprisingly, Trent, good Catholic apologist that he is, argues that God wants everyone to join the Catholic church. Meanwhile, I argue that God sovereignly wills some degree of ecclesial pluralism such as the simultaneous existence of distinct ecclesial communions (Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Orthodox, etc.) all of which are in accord with the divine will.

My favorite response to the debate is found in this faithful Catholic named John Paul who comments the following on Trent’s website:

“Thanks for this, Trent. I can’t believe how half-baked his stance is. I was expecting substance somewhere from his side, but he didn’t have a leg to stand on. Non sequitur after non sequitur. Grateful to hear this conversation!”

Half-baked? Not even one leg to stand on? Lol.

You can listen to the exchange here.

The post Does God want everyone to join a single church? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

A simple illustration of the craven nature of the Republican party today

I just watched the MSNBC program Kasie DC in which the host, Kasie Hunt, interviewed Republican politician Rob Woodall. After Woodall defended Trump and dismissed the Mueller Report, Hunt asked him whether he had read the report. He replied that he had not. He had not even read a report that identified ten instances of potential attempts to obstruct justice. And yet, he was defending the position that Congress ought not to investigate any further.

This is extraordinary, a craven example of political partisanship and an abdication of one’s public duty as a representative of one’s constituents.

Let’s put it like this. Imagine that the board of a corporation hires a forensic accountant to investigate the actions of the CFO. The accountant submits his report in which he identifies ten apparent cases of financial misconduct on the part of the CFO. And now imagine that in response, some members of the board decline to read the accountant’s report even as they continue to defend the CFO and his continued role in the corporation.

If I were an investor in that company, I would be outraged by such irresponsible conduct. American voters are the investors. One can only hope that their outrage catches up with the egregious nature of political misconduct that is on full display.

The post A simple illustration of the craven nature of the Republican party today appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Reflections on a study Bible for atheists

Note: this is a revised version of an article I originally published in 2014.

The online community of activist atheists tends to speak of their rational superiority to religious people. But the fact is that rarely have I seen such egregious, unchecked bias as I have among this group. And in this article, I would like to consider an interesting example. It is an endorsement for the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible (SAB). We’ll get to that endorsement below. But first a word on the SAB itself.

The SAB is a KJV version of the Bible. As you may know, the KJV is a four-hundred-year-old translation based on inferior manuscripts and wrought in high falutin’ Elizabethan English. While the King James was a very good translation for its day and it has retained its literary quality, for accuracy and ease of use, it has been surpassed by many contemporary translations. Nonetheless, that is the translation selected for the Skeptic’s Study Bible and it also includes short commentary on the biblical text by a fellow named Steve Wells. You can visit the SAB online here.

So let’s take a quick look, beginning with the question of credentials. That is, what academic training does Wells have to undertake this project and provide reliable analysis of the biblical text? In the section on “Frequently Asked Questions,” he addresses the matter of academic training directly. Here Wells admits that he has no formal training in any fields relating to biblical studies. Surely that is disqualifying, no? However, he then adds that he does have training in other fields:

“I have a B.S. in Botany and a more than 50 semester hours of graduate credit in Chemistry and Mathematics, with 20 years of experience as an industrial statistician. And although I am not a Bible scholar, I have spent many years studying the Bible, and I rely on and cite the work of scholars, updating the SAB with the most recent and best information available.” (source)

An obvious question: does Wells really think that a degree in biology and some work in chemistry, math, and statistics, equips him to provide a reliable set of readers notes for the Bible?

We can put the problem this way. Imagine that you’re looking to hire an architect to build your dream home. Jones submits a proposal to become the architect and so you query Jones on his formal academic training in the field. He admits that he lacks any formal education in engineering or architecture. However, he adds, he does have a B.A. in English literature and he has also taken some courses in history and psychology. Moreover, he also notes that he has 20 years of experience as a high school teacher. And although he is not an architect, he assures you that has spent many years studying architecture on his own and relies on the work of “scholars”.

Simple question: would you trust this man to build your house? Needless to say, the question answers itself: clearly, Wells is not off to an auspicious beginning.

And that leads us straight into the question of why Wells chose an extremely dated Bible translation like the KJV as the basis for the SAB. His three replies to this question are not inspiring. He says:

“There are no copyright restrictions on the KJV.

“It is still the most familiar version and some Christians consider it to be the only “authentic” version.

“It has not been subjected to cosmetic editing, as have some of the more modern versions.” (Source)

Let’s take a look at these reasons, starting with the concern over copyright restrictions. Imagine a person writing a work of academic scholarship who cites in their bibliography Edward Pusey’s dated 19th-century translation of Augustine’s Confessions. When asked why they chose the inferior Pusey translation over Chadwick’s vastly superior contemporary translation, they reply: “Because it’s available online for free.” Needless to say, that is not a response to inspire confidence in the scholarly seriousness of the author.

Second, Wells says the KJV is “most familiar” to Christians. But if you are concerned with understanding the nuances of the text, then the familiar cadence of the KJV is quite irrelevant. The KJV is full of archaic words and phrasings that people no longer understand. Here are a couple of examples from 1 Samuel 30, the first of an obsolete word, the second an obsolete expression:

1 Samuel 30:13: “my master left me, because three days agone I fell sick.”

1 Samuel 30:31: “And to them which were in Hebron, and to all the places where David himself and his men were wont to haunt.”

Three days “agone”? As you might have surmised, that is an archaic way of saying “ago”. As for our obsolete phrase, I know that teenagers are “wont to haunt” outside the local 7-11, but I don’t ever use that phrase.

Consequently, while the “thees” and “thous” of the KJV sound to many people like “the Bible,” the fact remains that much of the KJV is hard for a contemporary reader to understand.

As for Wells’ second statement about the KJV being “the only ‘authentic’ version’” for some Christians, he refers here to a tiny minority of KJV only advocates. These are people who believe the KJV is itself a form of divine revelation.  To be blunt, these idiosyncratic and conspiratorial views are in the same category as people who believe the 1969 moon landing was staged. And Wells chose the KJV in deference to them and their concerns??!!

Finally, Wells says the KJV “has not been subjected to cosmetic editing” like “some … modern translations”. What is he talking about here? What is his evidence? This bizarre quip is a great example of why formal academic study is important.

Next, take a look at the key that Wells provides to go along with his notes (I took a screenshot of the image from his SAB website.)

I just want to highlight a few of these symbols. Let’s start with the laughing face intended to flag “Absurdity”. Does this inspire confidence that Wells has produced a work of sober, objective scholarship?

How about the sleeping emoticon intended to flag “Boring Stuff”? Does this suggest that Wells takes his subject matter seriously?

This is a particularly egregious example of selection bias. At the beginning, Wells provides the categories through which he will read the Bible.

In short, Wells is an uncharitable non-academic with no degree in the relevant fields who has produced a childish and silly set of readers notes for the obsolete KJV.

This brings me, finally, to that endorsement that I mentioned above. Despite the fact that it is a bad joke, the SAB still receives glowing reviews from atheists. Consider this endorsement from Michael Shermer:

A stunning achievement … I have an entire bookshelf of bibles and biblical commentaries, concordances, appendices, and the like, but the SAB is by far the best tool for biblical research I have ever come across. (source)

I can agree with Shermer on one point: the SAB is indeed stunning …  stunningly bad. This kind of ridiculous endorsement doesn’t actually tell us the SAB is good. Rather, it tells us that Shermer is wholly lacking in critical nuance, charity, and objectivity when it comes to engaging with the views of Christians.

Sadly, when it comes to the way atheists read the Bible, Shermer’s attitude seems to be more the rule than the exception. The Skeptic’s Annotated Study Bible claims to offer a reasonable and skeptical analysis of the biblical text. But in fact, all it demonstrates is that we should be skeptical of the skeptics.

The post Reflections on a study Bible for atheists appeared first on Randal Rauser.

How do you know you’re not dreaming?

Chinese philosopher Zhuang Zhou once dreamed he was a butterfly. When he woke, he observed, “Am I a man who dreamed he was a butterfly or a butterfly who dreams it is a man?” And so, the epistemological question is this: how do we know that reality is not a dream?

I’m going to offer this response: reality is not riddled with continuity errors, but dreams are. For example, the other day I dreamed I was swimming in a pool when I saw a battery on the bottom of the pool. I reached down and grabbed it. But when I pulled it out, it had become a pair of scissors. Classic continuity error. If that happens to you, you’re dreaming. By contrast, if your reality evinces enduring stability and continuity, you’re likely awake.

Enduring philosophical problem solved!

Next question?

The post How do you know you’re not dreaming? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Responding to a half-baked objection to hell

This morning I tweeted a link to an article I wrote on the complexity of salvation: “If God wants us to be saved, why isn’t salvation simple?” This prompted a response from a gentleman on Twitter named David Reilly. Reilly believed that this fact constitutes an objection to Christian faith. I argued to the contrary that it does not. Here is our brief exchange:

David: In my opinion, strong evidence that Christianity is false. One would reasonably expect that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would give a simple message, especially when the consequences of getting it wrong are eternal damnation. Oops there’s another one with no agreement.

Randal: Your argument is based on the premise that people end up separated from God because they non-culpably misinterpreted ambiguous evidence. This I deny. Indeed, I don’t know a Christian who would accept that premise. So your argument fails.

David: My argument is not “non-culpably…” but rather that those people believe as fervently as you that they are “with God” and you are separated from God. So this is an epistemological problem. Personally I believe it’s strong evidence that it’s all man made.

Randal: If you don’t assume that individuals who end up separated from God are non-culpably separated, then there is no problem. It’s like saying “I don’t believe that anyone goes to jail who isn’t guilty.” You just defeated your own objection. Thanks, I guess!

David: Well I’m an atheist so I can be fluid on my theology :). I’m just trying to make a point about epistemology. When I talk about hell it’s the same idea. I believe that hell is a myth, but if hell and conscious eternal torment were real, etc.

I think this is a helpful exchange because David expresses a very common objection, and yet, in my view, it is based on spurious assumptions. No Christian believes that people end up alienated from God eternally through no fault of their own. Rather, any person who ends up alienated from God is lost because of their own culpable choices.

To be sure, there is much else to be discussed and debated about topics like the nature of election and the nature of hell. But the bottom line remains that however those other details get worked out, any person who is separated from God is separated because of their own guilt and as a manifestation of divine justice.

The post Responding to a half-baked objection to hell appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Why evangelicalism often fails to be effective

What is more important? Being an evangelical, conservative, and/or fundamentalist Christian? Or just being a Christian? I believe it is more important to just be a Christian.

Why does this matter? Because evangelical, conservative, and/or fundamentalist Christians often spend more time defending their boundary markers than the boundary markers of Christianity simpliciter (aka mere Christianity).

For example, there is more attention given to biblical inerrancy than to biblical inspiration. There is more attention given to young (or old) earth creationism than to the doctrine of creation. There is more attention given to the penal substitution theory of atonement than to the doctrine of atonement. There is more attention given to the battle against gay marriage than to the institution of marriage. There is more attention given to the prohibition of physician-assisted suicide than to an understanding of what it means to live and die well. There is more attention given to the status of Israel as a current geopolitical entity than to the status of Israel as God’s people in salvation history. There is more attention given to the eternal conscious torment theory of hell than to the observation that people even now are embarked on perpetual cycles of alienation and self-destruction.

I am reminded, at this point, of one of Stephen Covey’s famous habits of highly effective people: The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.

Is it any wonder why evangelicals have often failed to be effective?

The post Why evangelicalism often fails to be effective appeared first on Randal Rauser.

I’m no psychiatrist, but … is televangelist Kenneth Copeland a psychopath?

You tell me: in my non-expert opinion it is either that Copeland is a psychopath or he is possessed by demons. (Okay, I admit that it is also possible that he is a psychopath possessed by demons, but Ockham’s razor requires me to start with the simpler explanations.)

Those crazy eyes are the stuff of nightmares…

Did you notice that Copeland said he has led 122 million people to Jesus? That’s 119 million more than Billy Graham. So that’s why he needs those jets!

By the way, as I recall in my book What’s So Confusing About Grace?, my grandmother died in the early 1990s listening to cassettes by this creep which promised her healing even as she sent him a portion of her meager pension.

The post I’m no psychiatrist, but … is televangelist Kenneth Copeland a psychopath? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Agnostic Atheists?

I find a significant lack of clarity these days among self-described atheists and agnostics about the use of these terms. With that in mind, I tweeted this morning about the importance of an atheist being able to articulate what it is they don’t believe in and why. This spurred some conversations, as you can imagine. I am providing an excerpt below in which I make a claim to another person when a fellow named Braden asks what is the proper term for being without belief, if not atheism.

Randal: Are you referring to the recent practice of defining atheism as the lack of theistic belief? Yeah, I think that trend is obfuscatory, but if you insist, for that definition the theism in question is merely the lack of atheism.

Braden: What term would you recommend those who lack a belief identify with?

Randal: Agnostic. [In another tweet I defined “agnostic’ courtesy of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “an agnostic is a person who has entertained the proposition that there is a God but believes neither that it is true nor that it is false.”]

Braden: What about someone who is an atheist (hard atheist) with respect to one definition of god, and an agnostic with respect to another definition? Should they choose one over the other, or combine them?

Now I’d like to provide a quick reply to Braden.

Braden, if you believe some definitions of God surely are not actualized in reality, but you are generally agnostic about the existence of God, then you should call yourself an agnostic.

By analogy, I believe that there is no extra-terrestrial intelligence living on Mars, but that is consistent with my general agnosticism about the existence of ETI in the universe: on that question, I am agnostic.

Of course, if somebody asks me whether there is ETI on Mars, I will say “No, I don’t believe so,” just as you should answer a question about a concept of God you believe to be false by saying “No, I don’t believe so.” But that is fully consistent with agnosticism about the general concept of God or ETI in the universe.

The post Agnostic Atheists? appeared first on Randal Rauser.