Dialogue With an Atheist About Miracles and the Influence of First Premises on One's Methodology and Openness to Evidences and Proofs (vs. "DagoodS")
DagoodS is a former Christian with whom I have dialogued several times. Recently I met him. He did a presentation on evidences (or lack thereof, from his standpoint) for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I wrote an account of my opinion of the meeting: 16 Atheists / Agnostics & Me: Sounds Like a Good Ratio! Further Adventures at an Atheist "Bible Study" Group With Former Christians Jon and "DagoodS".
Since that time he has made some replies in the combox for the aforementioned post and in another (not always directed towards myself) for a related post from Protestant apologist Cory Tucholski ("Dave Armstrong vs. the Atheists"). I have collected comments of his that have relevance to the subject matter of my title (and of course I reply). Further installments will be added as they occur (the dialogue on this may still be ongoing). His words will be in blue.
The background of much of the discussion was this statement in my "16 Atheists . . ." paper:
DagoodS was saying that it is more difficult to believe an extraordinary miracle or event than to believe in one that is more commonplace. True enough as far as it goes. But I said (paraphrasing), "you don't believe that any miracles are possible, not even this book raising itself an inch off the table, so it is pointless for you to say that it is hard to believe in a great miracle, when in fact you don't believe in any miracles whatsoever." No response. I always try to get at the person's presuppositions. That is my socratic method.
This being the case, for an atheist (ostensibly with an "open mind") to examine evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, is almost a farcical enterprise from the start (at least from a Christian perspective) because they commence the analysis with the extremely hostile presuppositions of:1) No miracles can occur in the nature of things.
2) #1 logically follows because, of course, under fundamental atheist presuppositions, there is no God to perform any miracle.
3) The New Testament documents are fundamentally untrustworthy and historically suspect, having been written by gullible, partisan Christians; particularly because, for most facts presented therein, there is not (leaving aside archaeological evidences) written secular corroborating evidence.
* * * * *
Hi DagoodS,
Thanks for droppin' by!
It was nice to finally meet you, Dave Armstrong. A few points…in my defense. I don't try to "poke holes in the Bible." I attempt to poke holes in certain claims about particular Bibles. For example, you touched on contradictions. As you and I agree there are contradictions in the Bible,
I think there are very few, and what few there are are due to manuscript discrepancies, and what minor ones can be found (about numbers or whatever) do not affect any Christian doctrine.
this wouldn't pertain to you, but to others who claim inerrancy, I do question the viability regarding the claim. The same way you would.
No one denies that it takes faith to believe that the Bible is inspired.
What I have shown in past dialogues with you, I think, is that many of your alleged contradictions simply aren't that in the first place, by the rules of logic that atheist and theist agree upon. In other words, it is a logical discussion, not a theological one, when the claim is that contradiction is present.
As to naturalistic presupposition…I agree that is a difficulty for the apologist in discussing the Resurrection. Alas, it is part of human make-up. We all have biases. As a naturalist, I am going to look for a natural explanation. As a theist, I could understand a theist looking for a supernatural explanation in certain events.
No quibble with that statement!
If the apologist agrees the evidence for the Resurrection is not persuasive enough to convince a naturalist a miracle occurred, I am perfectly fine with that.
It is scarcely possible, like I said in the post, to convince an atheist / agnostic of the Resurrection, since all miracles are denied from the outset. So the discussion has to first be, whether miracles are possible and whether they have in fact, occurred.
But then that discussion itself necessarily goes back to theistic arguments about God, since God is necessary to perform the miracle in the first place; otherwise, the laws of science and nature determine what happens.
Therefore one has to engage in two huge discussions before we even get to a sensible, constructive discussion about Jesus' Resurrection.
But many apologists—especially those using the Habermas method—appear to claim the evidence is sufficient to even convince a naturalist.
I am sort of in the middle. I think the evidence is sufficient, but the hostile premises of the atheist / agnostic are so contrary to it that he or she cannot be convinced, on that basis. It also takes faith to believe, and that faith is given only by God's grace (I'm sure you're familiar with that aspect of Christian theology). If that grace is rejected, then the person won't believe in a thing like the resurrection because the faith required is not there. It does take faith. If Habermas is discounting that, then I have a problem with his analysis. But I don't think he would deny what I am saying here.
In those situations I try to explain why the evidence is not enough. Why we have legitimate (often un-addressed) concerns regarding the evidence claimed.
Yeah, that's fine. I just think that the premises involved are crucial, and the role they play are profound and compelling according to your own worldview. And they need to be discussed as well. I always go to the premises because I am a socratic in methodology and that's what socratics do.
*shrug* If you are saying it is useless to even discuss the assertions surrounding the Resurrection unless the person is first a theist—
I would never say that. That is more the position of presuppositionalist apologetics, which is mostly the reformed / Calvinists and some Baptists. That has never been my point of view at any time.
I would think this provides support to the reasoning that the evidence is insufficient to prove a miracle happened.
I assert both: the evidence is sufficient, but people's opinions are formed from their presuppositions and natural biases, based on what they read and who they hang around with.
I think almost exactly the same about God. I believe that knowledge of Him is innate in human beings and evident from observing nature (Romans 1). But for many reasons, this can be unlearned (again, due to influences that a person chooses, and environments), and so there is such a thing as an atheist or an agnostic.
* * *
I do not say, did not say and have never said the New Testament documents are worthless as history. Again… this is coming from one perspective. I DO say we must treat the documents for what they are. They are not history as a 20th century historian would record them, the gospels (for example) are bios as a 1st Century Mediterranean author would present them.
I confess slight pique at being compared to a "butcher approaching a hog" when referring to my treatment of the Bible. I have studied it at some length; I know some things; I clearly do not know everything. If one disagrees with my argument, or my consideration of what is being presented…so be it. Present your own, and let the better argument win. If I am missing something, or am being biased–please, please, please feel free to point it out.
But Dave Armstrong has said all this about me before. I've learned (mostly) to shrug off the invectives and let the arguments speak for themselves. If one is left with the impression I am a "butcher approaching a hog" I evidently need to better my presentation to correct that misrepresentation on my part. All I ask is this: Please don't take the word of one (1) person without hearing other's impressions, or my own perception.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
* * *
I think John 20:24-29 [the Doubting Thomas account] is a non-historical pericope incorporated to address certain concerns in the Johannine community. However, lest I be accused of treating the story like a "butcher approaching a hog," (*wink*) let us assume arguendo the story is historical.
Remember, it is claimed the primary reason we are unconvinced Jesus' resurrection did not occur is that we "…don't believe that any miracles are possible, not even this book raising itself an inch off the table, so it is pointless for [a non-believer] to say that it is hard to believe in a great miracle, when in fact [the non-believer doesn't] believe in any miracles whatsoever." . . .
We skeptics . . . aren't dismissing apologetic claims off-handedly or disdainfully. Certainly I have considered my own naturalistic bias, and whether it presents a hinderance to believing the resurrection stories. (Although in my case, being a deconvert, I was actually biased the other way—FOR the story.)
I just don't see many apologists addressing the story of Doubting Thomas as to why, if he wasn't convinced by MORE evidence than I have, that I should be persuaded by LESS evidence. I don't see many grappling with the fact a miracle-believing theist was not compelled to believe when he had so much more access to the evidence than I ever could.
* * *
What I tire of is the presentation of evidence and when I remain unpersuaded, my lack of belief is dismissed as "that's because you don't believe in miracles." Thomas believed in miracles; he wasn't convinced. Protestants believe in miracles; they are not convinced. It isn't the belief/non-belief in miracles—the evidence presented is not compelling to that person.
The insinuation is that this is my position, but of course I have never said this. It is projected onto me as a straw man. I don't think that this is the key or only factor, only that it is one of many relevant factors for why someone disbelieves in miracles.
I'm all for evidence. That's what apologetics is about. There are plenty of books documenting hundreds of miracles, often with medical documentation: both by Protestants and Catholics. I have them in my library. Let DagoodS go read several and then come back and tell us if he thinks the evidence is compelling for any one of them.
If he says "no" to all, then excuse me if I suspect (not positively assert) that his original presuppositions have something (not everything) to do with it.
All I'm saying (as a socratic who examines root assumptions) is that the hostile presupposition is indeed a relevant factor. If there is no God, there can be no miracles, period; therefore, there can be no particular miracles. The entire edifice stands together, in unity. It simply can't possibly be denied that this is a relevant consideration.
I think it is mostly a case of DagoodS not liking when anyone points this out because atheists such as himself pride themselves on their intellectual openness and willingness to go wherever "evidence" leads, yet in fact they are quite closed-minded, and they hate when a Christian has the audacity to point this out. That's why they detest critiques of their deconversion stories. They don't want to deal with someone who may know more about some of the particulars of certain beliefs that they rejected, than they do.
It is relevant to suspect that no evidence is sufficient to convince an atheist of a miracle if said atheist actually examines hundreds or thousands of documented cases and never met a miracle that he liked (i.e., believed). Sorry; presuppositions are always A factor in things, whether the person who holds them thinks so or not.
If DagoodS wants to deny that (and it is what I am saying), then he merely shows himself to be quite philosophically and epistemologically naive. I was trying to get at some of this during his presentation but was never really allowed to.
* * *. . . as to miracles, I will be happy to ponder them. And the facts. I quite agree there are people diagnosed with diseases who are subsequently determined to be disease-free. Happens all the time. Sometimes because of mis-diagnosis, sometimes because the body cures itself.
And certainly some of these people attribute the condition of being disease free as a "miracle." Some do not. . . .
1) The sources are not the best evidence. What I have typically seen is, "_____ [insert name] was diagnosed with incurable cancer, but later was determined to be disease-free. The doctors cannot explain how it happened." But I don't have the actual medical reports, the actual doctors statements, the doctor's names, (just "doctors"). These are hearsay statements…not the best evidence to convince something outside our normal experience.
Further, I have seen Christians make claims (like "willing to die for a lie") and upon reviewing the actual sources, find the source doesn't say what was originally claimed.
2) The methodology is troublesome. How do we determine between:
a) A natural cure we do not know yet;* * *
b) A natural cure we will never know; or
c) A supernatural cure?
. . . in reviewing your blog entry on the topic (as referred to here), you didn't raise MORE evidence I missed. You didn't indicate I presented the evidence incorrectly. You didn't deal with the evidence regarding the resurrection at all. The only thing you complained about was the predisposition of non-believers.
Why do you have this notion that I have to discuss all that? It is your perspective on what I may want to write about, that has nothing to do with what I either write about in fact or should write about. I was simply giving a narrative account, not even doing apologetics per se. You in effect demand that I gotta write about what you want me to write about. In other words, it is not to your particular taste. But then you are making the same minor complaint that I did when I said a lecture was not to my taste. So why does my slight criticism bother you, since you make one of the very same nature back to me?
Just like you have the right to not like my format or presentation, I reserve the privilege to respond to what you say and see it as complaining.
And to complain about it! LOL
As a poor argument. I argue, for the reasons discussed at the meeting when you first presented it, for the same reasons I listed above, that the argument fails.
So you say. First you need to accurately understand your opponents' argument. You have been caricaturing my opinion on this and making a straw man up till now. Perhaps you finally get it, now that I have clarified.
Sure I am biased. Always admitted it. So is every human…
Absolutely. That is what I have always believed, too.
yet to claim we must first change our presuppositions, and THEN be convinced by evidence appears to me to be backwards. We change our presuppositions BY evidence—it is what causes us to change!
It is both. I don't think we can choose. It's a variation of the old universals vs. particulars debate in philosophy. It simply can't be denied that a starting point of "no God; therefore no miracles; therefore no particular miracles" is neither open-minded nor conducive to a conclusion that a miracle has occurred in Instance X. That is not rocket science. If a thing is deemed impossible from the outset, then it is not likely to be arrived at, no matter what evidence is presented. This is what you don't see.
One has to allow the possibility. In this sense, the only people who were open-minded to all possibilities in that room were myself and your friend Jon, who runs the group. He doesn't rule out the possibility of a miracle. Everyone else did (unless there was one other; I'm not sure).
Take examples from science. Say that a person fifty years ago denied the very possibility of continental drift or warm-blooded dinosaurs (I believe that neither idea was accepted then). A second person hears about those theoretical concepts and accepts the possibility that they may yet be proven to have occurred. According to you, it makes little difference what presuppositions are involved, as long as the evidence is compelling. But it clearly does make a difference. The person who is open to a possibility is more likely to accept a demonstration of the possibility as a fact than the one who has ruled out the possibility from the outset.
I don't see that it is even arguable. Yet you seem to be (incredibly) asserting that it makes no difference.
You didn't change from a Protestant to a Catholic because you changed your presuppositions from pro-Protestant to pro-Catholic. You changed because you reviewed evidence that caused the change. The evidence comes first; not the presuppositions.
Generally this is true, but it is still both factors. Accumulations of details and facts and evidences can cause one to change their basic premises (God exists or He doesn't, morals are absolute or relative, the universe is materialistic or dualistic, etc.) and then many other things change along with them.
You don't want to believe in a miracle (have a vested interest not to) because to do so also requires you to believe in God. You are predisposed not to believe in God because then you would be accountable to Him and would be bound by certain rules that may not be to your liking. It's always more than merely abstract reasoning. The will and grace are also involved. This is Christian belief.
Not to mention we have the additional problem that the evidence—in fact BETTER evidence—was not convincing to those already pre-disposed to believing it, i.e. Doubting Thomas.
He simply needed more evidence. He is like your typical atheist. But Jesus made it clear that his case was not normative, but rather, excessive, by saying, "have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" (John 20:29 (RSV).
Again, presuppositions come into play. You pass off the whole thing as a later interpolation anyway, so why even bring it up? If you want to argue from historical example, you can't use one that you yourself don't regard as historical fact.
Could it be "A" factor? Sure. So could being raised in a Christian home, being left-handed or having a tragedy in one's life. Rather than deal with the peripherals, I prefer to deal with the hard stuff first. I prefer to deal with the evidence.
It's not peripheral at all. It is smack dab in the center of the issue: how one arrives at fundamental premises and how these go on to influence all their reasoning that is a result of the prior premises and presuppositions. You want to do Aristotle only (particulars and sensory evidence). I want to do both him and Plato and Socrates (universals and premises and ideas prior to experience). My epistemology is far broader than yours. What you see as a trifle and peripheral issue and complaint is to me central and crucial to the whole discussion.
If, as you say, the the evidence is sufficient then I say, leave it at that.
It is sufficient. That's why I don't feel compelled to go out and argue about it (you're the one who is hung up about that), because it is quite sufficient for any fair-minded inquirer open to it.
Like I said above, if you're so enthralled about evidences for miracles, go out and read a hundred books giving documented accounts of miracles and come back and tell us how many convinced you (or why they didn't; why no evidence was ever sufficient for you to accept a belief [factuality of miracles] that would require you to again believe in God [Who performs them] ).
Good evidence overcomes even the most hostile opponent, regardless their presupposition. It does every day.
Absolutely not. If a man doesn't want to believe something, he will not, no matter how compelling the evidence is. Like the saying goes, "a man convinced against his will, retains his original belief still." Very true. I see it all the time in my apologetics rounds.
Rather than deal with the peripherals, I prefer to deal with the hard stuff first. I prefer to deal with the evidence.
[second reply of mine to the above statement]:
What you overlook is that you already have to have an interpretive grid or framework in place in order to interpret the evidence in the first place. There is no such thing as a clean slate. If you deny that prior interpretation is required in order to weigh the evidence and have some method of determining what is compelling evidence, then you are epistemologically naive.
I would recommend that you read a critic of positivism such as Michael Polanyi or even Cardinal Newman's Essay of the Grammar of Assent.
This is true of miracles and it is true of theistic arguments and interpretation of the Bible. Thus, my notorious statement that you and other atheists who are obsessed with finding alleged Bible contradictions, approach the Bible like a butcher approaches a hog. You have no intention of giving the documents even minimal respect. It's pure skepticism. You disrespect it as your presupposition and therefore you keep "finding" out information that causes you to hate it all the more.
Don't give me this line of hooey that you are approaching it with total objectivity and fairness, that just so happens in each and every case to cause you to then conclude that (surprise!) it is untrustworthy and contradictory. You find what you want to find because your mind is already made up before you begin any particular "study."
If I'm wrong, it is easy for you to prove it (at least in a single example). Show me a time when you set out to show that the Bible was contradictory, but then you discovered that [in a particular case] it wasn't, and that the Christian argument was more plausible. If you can show me one instance of that on your blog, great! But just one would not prove you were fair-minded about it, either. That's only one instance. Several such instances would show me that you were truly open-minded and didn't have an "anti-Bible" agenda.
But if you never conclude other than what we expect from you (biblical contradiction) then don't expect us to stop questioning your hostile premises and a hostile overall agenda. It's perfectly reasonable and plausible for us to conclude what we do, from the "evidence" of your relentlessly skeptical conclusions.
You are biased against it and the Christian is biased for it. But in terms merely of literary study or research, clearly the person who loves and respects a document (whether it is a religious document or not) is in a much better place to accurately interpret and understand it (despite quite possible mistakes arising from too much favorable bias) than the one who hates the same document for some reason: thinks that it fosters immorality, is a bunch of fairy tales, is the result of cynical after-the-fact tampering, contains moral and logical and theological ludicrosities, presents a false metaphysic, etc.
Once again, I don't see how that is even arguable. But you have to fight against it in order to maintain this farcical facade of supposed neutrality, extraordinary open-mindedness and superior intelligence and logical acumen, that most agnostics and atheists seem to assume is true of themselves as a matter of course, over against us (as the caricature would have it) evidence- and reason-fearing, gullible Christians.
It's part of the atheist persona and self-perception: "we are the open-minded, smart ones. We go where evidence leads; those Christians don't do that; they are dogmatic, anti-science, anti-reason, and prone to belief in fairy tales and myths."
For this reason I wrote an entire book recently, showing the overwhelming historical influence of Christianity and a larger theism on the history of science. I'll send an MS Word version to any atheist who requests it, for free.
Dave Armstrong's Blog
- Dave Armstrong's profile
- 20 followers
