Their intentions were the best, but between them Joel Watts and Glenn Peoples have managed to throw me and my blog into a lions’ den, atheist John W. Loftus’ blog Debunking Christianity. I already reported on John’s first response to my post on Haiti. Since then he has responded twice more, here and here, with increasing length in each of his three posts.
In a comment on the second post John writes:
Peter, nice to see your comment but prepare to get fried. If the regular visitors here at DC don’t do this, I will later.
So he can hardly complain at me changing the imagery from a frying pan to a lions’ den. Or perhaps I should have gone for an earlier chapter of Daniel and the burning fiery furnace.
Now as a Christian I trust as Daniel did that God will protect me in the lions’ den. But I feel safe in this particular lions’ den not just because I trust in God but also because, as far as I can tell so far, there is only one lion in it, and perhaps a few cubs, and the lion and its cubs seem to have no teeth or claws. John Loftus is hitting me with childish arguments. He tries to pretend that they have some force, but they have none at all. I have already demolished most of them in my various comments on his posts.
As far as I can see, John’s main argument centres on a rather obscure point. He insists that God could have forced King Charles X of France to change his mind, about imposing reparations on Haiti, without violating that king’s free will. His evidence for this proposition is that some people in the Bible sometimes did what God asked them to do. He completely ignores my point that a lot of other people persistently refused to do what God wanted, and God did not force them to do it. So, John’s argument seems to run, since God did not force the king to repent, God cannot exist, QED. Or have I missed some step in the argument? Can he really not see how weak and full of holes this is? He doesn’t seem even to allow consideration of the possibility that God chooses to let people disobey him, that he has chosen to give us free will.
John claims on his profile page that
I have three master’s degrees in the area of the Philosophy of Religion along with some Ph.D. work. I majored under William Lane Craig and earned a Th.M. degree at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 1985.
My first reaction to this is to despair of the quality of American education, including at TEDS, if they give master’s degrees to someone who has apparently failed to master even the basics of the philosophy of religion, who does not demonstrate any understanding of metaphysical libertarianism or compatibilism – I link to Wikipedia articles which could help to introduce John to these subjects. Or perhaps he is not really ignorant of these things, only feigning ignorance as a debating tactic. Either way, that means it is a waste of time to debate with John, so I won’t do so any more.
magnumdb, commenting on John’s blog, linked to an interesting piece Why It’s So Tricky for Atheists to Debate with Believers, which describes
a pattern. Believers put atheists in no-win situations, so that no matter what atheists do, we’ll be seen as either acting like jerks or conceding defeat. … these “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” tactics aren’t really valid criticisms of atheism.
It seems to me that John Loftus has found a way to respond to these tactics: if you can’t beat them, join them by copying them. I already noted that by him I would be “damned whatever I write”. It seems he wants me to “be seen as either acting like [a] jerk[] or conceding defeat.” Well, I am not going to play his little game. I am getting out of the lions’ den unharmed by his childish arguments and without conceding any measure of defeat.
Peter,
Not sure I threw you in…I rather enjoyed your post on Haiti, but nevertheless you are in.
Joel, I’m not really complaining! Thanks for getting an interesting debate going.
Jumping over from Debunking Christianity. To read a few entries and say thank you for answering my question.
Here is my general problem with the whole atheist vs. theist (or believer vs. non-believer, however you want to label it) back and forth: everyone, on both sides, speaks past each other. And I do not see how it can be otherwise. I read your posts and am not convinced by them at all, while you and your fellow believers seem to think that its a slam dunk. And, it is true going the other way – you read something that I or another non-believer posts – we think it is utterly convincing, you, not so much. I think this is because your arguments presume belief, my arguments presume dis-belief. You believe in God and that the Bible expresses his will. I do not. It is futile to try to reconcile these views. It inevitably boils down to the childishness of “Yes, it is!” “No, it isn’t!” “Yes, it is!” and so on. Or, people resort to ad hominem attacks (both sides, yes) which as anyone remember from Debate 101 is the weakest form of argument!
But now I am finally getting to my point here which is that, given the futility of the debate, I have always tried to judge people by what they do and not what they think. For me, the key is The Golden Rule: follow that you will be a good person. As Hillel said, “the rest is commentary.”
Cecilia, welcome! Yes, I agree that we talk past each other.
I don’t claim that any of my arguments are a slam dunk. I know they have their weak points. My main claim is rather different, that my opponents’ arguments are so often even weaker, often laughably so to someone who has an elementary understanding of theology. It is only their side who see any force in those arguments at all. I might have expected better of former minister and “master” of philosophy John Loftus, but apparently not.
We can agree on the importance of the Golden Rule. And because of that I am about to edit this post to tone down what I wrote about John’s apparent ignorance of philosophy.
Eureka! So, after I read your post I looked up the definition of “theology” in my handy dictionary.com gadget: “the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God’s attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.” This, I think, is why atheists and theists talk past each other. You see, to an atheist “theology” is no different from astrology or alchemy (sorry, but that is true), we simply do not believe in God or divine things or divinity, etc and therefore “understanding theology” is simply not relevant to our worldview. That is why I don’t understand why atheists even engage in discussions of theology with theists and vice versa. For me, an argument based on theology is no more convincing or relevant in shaping my worldview than an argument based on astrology. Theists believe in God, atheists don’t and never the twain shall meet.
Well, Cecilia, I see your point. But there is another side to this. For centuries, indeed for two millennia at least, theologians have been presenting and criticising arguments for the existence of God, and how this is compatible for example with the presence of evil in the world. There is a huge body of scholarly literature on these subjects. Then in jump atheists who claim to have the final answer to these questions but refuse even to interact with what scholars in the past, and the present, have to say about the same issues.
It’s a bit like a fundamentalist believer (not me!) offering the last word on the origin of species, proving that evolution wasn’t involved, but refusing to read the works of Darwin, Dawkins etc just because they believed in evolution.
If you want to argue with someone convincingly, you need to know their subject as well as your own. Otherwise your ignorance quickly becomes very obvious and you get laughed at, and your opponents run rings round you. So atheists who want to debate Christianity, or even convincingly debunk it, need to bite the bullet of studying theology.
Of course this doesn’t fully apply to John Loftus. He claims a master’s degree in theology. But, assuming he did actually learn something, he seems to be affecting ignorance of the subject. That may make him look good in the eyes of his fellow atheists, but it is hardly going to help him convince any Christians.
John Loftus has followed up with a fourth short post which, although not explicitly a response to me, was clearly prompted by what I have written. I am grateful for all the attention. But this latest “attack” by the “lion” has so little force that it was already completely parried by the first paragraph of the first comment, even though that commenter appears to be a fellow atheist.
Peter,
Over at DC you wrote:
Well, in that case I am very glad you are not God, because I would not want you, or anyone, interfering with my free will, turning me into a robot, by forcing me to change my mind.
Have you never prayed to God for Him to soften some-one’s heart, to see the error of their ways, to change their life style? If so, given your view set out above, why? If not, then most Christians of my acquaintance would find your view very odd.
Samphire, that is a very good question. God often does show people various things including the error of their ways, and when he does this it may be in answer to the prayer of others. What he does not do is force anyone to change their lifestyle or behaviour, or force them to repent and believe in him.
Now I accept that many Christians, especially Calvinists, do pray for God to change other people or make them believe. But I would not do that because I consider it to be a fundamentally wrong thing to pray. That is partly because I am not a Calvinist, but more or less an Arminian, believing that humans have free will to believe and be saved or not believe as they choose.
Hi Peter,
I am still enjoying your blog and even your exchange with the toothless atheists. However, I would ask you to consider removing the hyperlinks to the atheist web site as that increases their “page rank” in search engines like Google, especially coming from a well-established and popular blog like Gentle Wisdom.
God bless!
I’m learning from dealing with an atheist son. One cannot prove, nor disprove, the existence of God with logic. If it were that easy, everyone would be convinced–either we would all be believers, or we would all be non-believers.
Thus, entering into a “he said, she said” duel with an atheist merely makes them more resistant to the good news message. The best thing in my circumstance is to be ready to help supply diapers and baby food when the pantry is low, and to continue to love and to pray for he and his family. Eventually, they might be willing to trust the almighty with their lives. But surely, arguing won’t win anyone into Christ’s kingdom.
You made the right choice.
God often does show people various things including the error of their ways,…
Can you give me an example from your own experience, Peter?
Tyson, I see your point. But I don’t think it is the Christian way to shun one’s opponents. Anyway, John’s ratings are much higher than my own, so any exchange of links will be to my benefit more than to his.
W^L+, I agree with you. That’s why I’m not going to argue any more on this matter.
Samphire, in my church we make regular use of the gifts of prophecy and the word of knowledge. If you don’t know what these are, see my introduction linked to here. These gifts are not usually warnings for people to change their ways, to repent, but occasionally they are. More typically I would suggest that God speaks more directly to sinners prompting them to repent and turn to him. I have also heard of many cases, including close friends of mine, of people having dreams about Jesus leading them to turn to him.
Pingback: A Few (Older) Posts on the Rise of (Atheist) Fundamentalism | The Church of Jesus Christ
“Samphire, in my church we make regular use of the gifts of prophecy and the word of knowledge. If you don’t know what these are, see my introduction linked to here. ”
I’m afraid your link to “Gifts of the Spirit” did not work. Is it broken?
”These gifts are not usually warnings for people to change their ways, to repent, but occasionally they are. ”
So, it’s not God doing the prophecy but members of your church. That’s not the same thing. Your original assertion was: ”God often does show people various things including the error of their ways,…”. With respect, you have not yet shown to me that it is God doing anything.
”More typically I would suggest that God speaks more directly to sinners prompting them to repent and turn to him. I have also heard of many cases, including close friends of mine, of people having dreams about Jesus leading them to turn to him.”
You originally said “God often”. Now you seem to be trimming by saying “More typically”. Which is it?
As for non-believers in “many cases” turning to christianity as a direct response to dreams I have never heard of such a thing. When you say “many cases” approximately how many: 5, 10, 25, 1000? I have dreams about the Queen wanting to come round for tea. Should I invite her? I also have very occasional dreams in which, if I concentrate hard enough, I can fly just by holding my arms out. However, when I awake I don’t test such dreams by jumping out of the window.
I see that you graduated as a physicist. As such, what do you think is happening when people dream? Are you suggesting that Jesus directly manipulates the chemical and physical processes going on in the brain during sleep or is it perhaps that it is a natural experience no different to any other type of dream and that it is no more than the brain doing a bit of book-keeping and stock-taking? Even my dog dreams. From his REM and twitching limbs he appears to be chasing a squirrel up a tree. But the squirrel and the tree aren’t real.
So, in the case of dreams, perhaps it is not God showing people anything but rather it is the sub-conscious trying to make sense of conscious, wide awake thoughts, a normal biological response rather than a numinous experience? In asking these questions I am trying to tie you down to explicit language and meaning rather than the wishy-washy anecdotal commentary you have so far engaged in.
Samphire, strange that the link didn’t work for you. I checked earlier and again now. Here is a direct link to the PDF file. Or is the problem that you don’t have a PDF reader installed?
I believe that God speaks through Christians (and sometimes others) with these gifts of the Spirit. You don’t have to agree.
I would consider “more typically” to be stronger than “often”. The former implies to me more than 50% of all cases, whereas by the latter I might have meant only a few times a year spread around the whole world.
As for people becoming Christians as a result of dreams, I am talking of thousands. Consider the quotation (source given) at the top of this page, which agrees with what I have heard from other sources, including personal testimony, in the same region of the world. I make no attempt to explain these dreams except to say that I do believe in a spirit world and that spirits are able to communicate with human beings. If you presuppose that there is no such world, there is no point in me trying to argue against your presuppositions.
In a closed country like Iran is it not more likely that Christians would claim that they became converted by a dream rather than by dropping a proselytising fellow Christian in the mire?
As for the 3 stories in the linked webpage the first was about an Arab who was able to read and understand a Christian Bible. Likely? In the second story, it was God who spoke to the believer rather Jesus. Do God and Jesus share the night duties? How would one know whether it was God or Jesus doing the talking?
A story was sent to me today from a YEC friend in America. He was shocked by the story which related to the closing for the day of a muslim-run store in Houston in order to commemorate the martyrdom of a 9/11 bomber. I had the pleasure of pointing out to him that he was the victim a hoax.
It is my experience that those who, like you, believe in spirits are too ready to believe anything which suits their case, no matter how unsupported it may be by any real evidence. After 2,000 years of being led by the Holy Spirit Christianity still does not seem to know what it really believes.
Who was it who said “Mythicism begins with myth and ends with schism”?
Samphire,
You wrote, “After 2,000 years of being led by the Holy Spirit Christianity still does not seem to know what it really believes.”
I find that accusation ironic, because I think it’s amazing that Christians still largely believe the same things after 2,000 years. What Paul said he received and passed on to the Corinthians “as of first importance” in 50 A.D. is still received and passed on today. (1 Cor 15:1-8) To me, that is only possible by the leading of the Holy Spirit. Christianity has flourished across cultures and time despite our best efforts to screw things up. 🙂
On the other hand, I would say that it is the secular world that really doesn’t know what it believes.
Tyson, thanks for saying what I might have replied to Samphire, if I hadn’t decided that it was no more worth debating with him than with John Loftus. What, thousands of Iranian Christians, who can’t meet together or openly declare their faith, manage to conspire together to mislead us poor westerners about how they became Christians?
Tyson,
I call Peter to give evidence on my behalf. Here is what he said above:
“That is partly because I am not a Calvinist, but more or less an Arminian, believing that humans have free will to believe and be saved or not believe as they choose.”
Whose opinion does the Holy Ghost support, Calvanism or Armianism?
What is the evidence of those epistles scholars tend to agree were written by Paul that Jesus was God or that Paul believed in the Trinity?
How about literal YECism against OECism?
Protestantism v Catholicism?
Are these all such minor and irrelevant differences such that nobody has bothered to enquire of the HG which alternative might be correct.
Samphire, do you want me to start rehearsing the divisions among atheists? Are there not some rather large ones between, for example, the Dawkins and Loftus types of this world and Marxist communists? And then it is well known, isn’t it, how the latter divided into Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists etc etc. At least these days we different Christians are mostly talking to one another on civil terms.
Peter,
“What, thousands of Iranian Christians, who can’t meet together or openly declare their faith, manage to conspire together to mislead us poor westerners about how they became Christians?”
I was not suggesting any such thing. But are you suggesting Christians never lie to further their cause? If so, I suggest you read the transcript in the Dover trial.
Yet to come is the finding in the John Freshwater/Mount Vernon Middle School case which I suspect will suggest that Freshwater was less than frank in his evidence.
Peter Kirk Says: Samphire, do you want me to start rehearsing the divisions among atheists? Are there not some rather large ones between, for example, the Dawkins and Loftus types of this world and Marxist communists? .
Hi Peter this is a interesting subject, are you saying athiests also have a book or faith they all fallow thats central to their belief system?.
Im not sure im following how you judge the same difference applys to the disagreement we see within Christianity,when all Christians follow the bible thats central to their world view.Would you please explain how the two should be compared equally.
Personally because atheism is not based on any central faith or book,i would have thought division in their thinking would seem quite natural.
Samphire, I accept that Christians sometimes lie. What I have trouble with is your suggestion that thousands of Christians, without any collusion, chose to tell exactly the same lie.
Brent, I see your point. But a major cause for divisions among Christians is that many have chosen to reject the teaching of that central book and put their traditions ahead of it.
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom» Blog Archive » An “Atheist” Perspective on Haiti
Peter Kirk says:But a major cause for divisions among Christians is that many have chosen to reject the teaching of that central book and put their traditions ahead of it.
Thanks Peter.Would it be correct that many other Christians would just as likely also be quite prepared to declare the very same about you.This ongoing disagreement has been a slight problem.And historically no problems ever been fixed without first recognizing the honest problem that actually need first be faced.Would you agree?.
So far we have a game like pass the parcel and the music never stops,everyone just keeps claiming someone else is chosen to reject the teaching of that central book
Do you think it could maybe be likely there is honestly a little more to the problem?
Brent, I agree that ongoing disagreements between Christians are a problem, and one which needs to be faced with honesty. Indeed many of the disagreements have been faced with honesty over the last few decades. The result is that many past misunderstandings, even the basic one behind the Reformation, have been largely resolved on the doctrinal level, with only extremists not accepting a more or less agreed position. I accept that there are still real theological differences between Calvinists and Arminians, but even these can be resolved or at least greatly reduced if faced with honesty.
Of course different Christian denominations are mostly continuing as separate organisations with their various traditions and structures. But increasingly they are doing so in a friendly way, and with no real differences in their thinking on fundamental issues.
And there are Christian groups who continue to fragment over small doctrinal differences, but these are mostly on the fundamentalist fringe. Anyway, the doctrinal differences are in fact very often a cover story for leadership struggles – in these circles the only acceptable way of rejecting someone’s leadership is by pinning on them an accusation of doctrinal error. And the differences are usually so minor that these are not significant cases of variant thinking among Christians.
Peter,
“The result is that many past misunderstandings, even the basic one behind the Reformation, have been largely resolved on the doctrinal level, with only extremists not accepting a more or less agreed position.”
Our discussion was about the Holy Ghost. So what flavour of “extremists” in your opinion have not listened to the HG? How has modern christianity been driven to evolve by humanist considerations?
Although your ecumenical movement may have arrived at some point where you can now stomach worshipping with Roman Catholics I assume that you do not venerate Mary (whatever happened to her?) as do they or allow the Pope to determine your theological beliefs.
Isn’t it the case that you have only been able to do this by sublimating your differences in theology and allowing your common humanity to shine forth?
But what would happen if one of your RC friends invited you to visit the bones of the current saint who is doing the rounds of the faithful? If she comes to Chalmsford would you go?
Or even Chelmsford?
Peter,
“Samphire, I accept that Christians sometimes lie. What I have trouble with is your suggestion that thousands of Christians, without any collusion, chose to tell exactly the same lie.”
I was not suggesting any such thing although I do think it strange that within the man-made boundaries of Iran Jesus relies mainly on dreams to get the message through whereas in 1950’s Britain, rather than dreams, He chose the agency of wide-awake Billy Graham conventions.
Why is it Iranians just get to dream the message whereas we had to be bussed up to Haringey Dogtrack at a price for a tedious evening standing on cold concrete terraces? (Still, old Billy did well for himself which is the important thing. Even though he’s been retired some years the last time I checked he was collecting a $400,000 a year pension).
But please let me have sight of the full documentation proving your case and I will let you have my further thoughts on the matter.
In the meantime, perhaps you would reply to my comments on the nature of the dreaming process.
Peter,
“John Loftus is hitting me with childish arguments. He tries to pretend that they have some force, but they have none at all. I have already demolished most of them in my various comments on his posts.”
Have you actually read John’s book? Your arguments indicate that you haven’t.
This discussion on God changing the mind of one man in order to save the lives of millions is an interesting one but is a very minor matter compared to much of the content of his book. I think your critical view of John’s theological expertise might moderate upon reading it.
However, one thing I will say on the subject is that your response is exactly the same in its outcome as it would have been if God did not exist. Indeed, it is God’s thundering silence and inactivity in such matters which leads many of us to unbelief.
The idea that Jesus specialises in coming to Iranians in dreams only emphasises our difficult in taking your arguments seriously.
Samphire, I don’t want to name any specific “flavours” of Christianity as not following the Holy Spirit (not “Ghost”, in modern English that’s a very misleading mistranslation). But certainly humanistic trends have influenced Christianity.
I think Roman Catholics have always accepted, at least in theory, that veneration of Mary is secondary to worship of God and Jesus. Of course the authority of the Pope is still a sticking point, but that is a matter of order more than doctrine.
If a friend asked me to visit the bones of a saint I would do so, and honour a godly woman if that’s what she was, but personally I wouldn’t pray to the bones because I don’t believe they have any power.
Of course one reason why God uses dreams in places like Iran is that the authorities don’t allow Billy Graham type rallies. I don’t believe Billy charged for entry at Haringey (although your buses cost someone something). His crusades, and pension, were paid for out of gifts from grateful supporters. You may be able to pin financial irregularities on some American preachers, but Billy has always been careful to be beyond reproach on such matters.
As for dreams, I believe that God and the spirit world more generally can communicate with humans, and one way they do this is through dreams. That doesn’t of course mean that all dreams are completely God-given. I don’t expect you to agree since apparently you don’t believe that there is any spirit world.
Samphire, your latest comment was caught as spam probably because ten comments on one post are considered excessive, and for good reason. I don’t actually want to cut you off, but this exchange is beginning to get tedious.
No, I haven’t read John Loftus’ book. Maybe he has some better arguments there. But if so, why doesn’t he bring them out on his blog?
“No, I haven’t read John Loftus’ book. Maybe he has some better arguments there. But if so, why doesn’t he bring them out on his blog?”
Many of them he does over time. You’ll need to stick around.
As for the Holy Ghost I am a KJV man when it comes to terminology. Perehaps you would expand on the difference between the HG and the Spirit as in, say, John 7:39.
A KJV-only atheist? That’s funny!
The Spirit in John 7:39 IS the Holy Spirit.
Peter Kirk Says: But certainly humanistic trends have influenced Christianity.
Yes i agree i think we can be sure thats exactly how Christianity came about,with humanistic trends.
Because long before christianity there was sacrifice and virgin birth and there was said to be visions and divine messages.And many ideas of gods and faith practices.
All these groups and beliefs shared only one thing in common,human trends.
Still human trends simply do not properly explain or prove it has to do with leadership struggles.Whether it was humans earlier use of sacrifice or human use of the bible.And with taking into account the very many beliefs on earth.It becomes clear if gods do even exist they havent ever passed on clear concise information.
Peter you can be suggesting it has to do with leadership struggles,but although you suggest that, that wont do anything to change the fact ideas and information about gods have never ever been either concise or universal.
And i still say you are simply entering into a game of pass the parcel by trying to suggest otherwise.The very same pass the parcel game that is likely to have been played between different fractions of faithful folks involved in different faithful acts of sacrifice,way back in many years gone past.Some maybe sacrificed only animals, others maybe sacrificed some humans as well as animals,and some folk questioning would have likely been told.Look its just to do with “leadership struggles”.
But its not really ever been much about faithful folks simply being completely honest,is it?.
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom» Blog Archive » Hebrews: Only One New Priest and Sacrifice
“A KJV-only atheist? That’s funny!
The Spirit in John 7:39 IS the Holy Spirit.”
Why funny? Like you I am English. Sorry, I should have written British”.
The reason I argue from the language of the KJV is because I involve myself in discussions with Young Earth Creationists who are mainly English-speaking Americans. Apparently, so I learn from them, God is English and has preserved his message to mankind within the pages of the KJV. For them it’s the KJV or nothing. I am not sure if such preciousness extends to Spanish-speaking Yankees.
But, Americans aside, you say that the Holy Spirit is the Holy Ghost. However, the Bible seems to differentiate between the two. The KJV mentions the “Holy Ghost” about 80 times (I think) but the “Holy Spirit” only about 7 times. So what is the difference between the “Holy Spirit” and the “Holy Ghost”?
I’m sorry, but that comment makes no sense. You are assuming that the KJV is the only bible. Most Americans don’t believe that, actually.
In the original languages, there is no difference.
Samphire, I understand why you use KJV against YEC people, but don’t confuse me with one of them! As Joel says there is no distinction between “Holy Spirit” and “Holy Ghost” in the original Greek. But the translators of KJV were not very consistent in this, as also for example in their rendering of Greek agape – “charity” in 1 Corinthians 13 but “love” in most other places.
Joel,
I certainly don’t assume there is only one Bible. There are hundreds – all different. Nor did I say that most Americans believe that the KJV is the only bible; most Americans would have difficulty naming the first five books of the OT let alone in knowing what KJV stood for. However, there is a small percentage of American fundamentalists engaged in the most vicious war over the matter. Google In Awe of Thy Word or G.A.Riplinger or click on
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/ripwhit1.html
and marvel.
As for “in the original languages, there is no difference.” perhaps you are unaware that we don’t have the original manuscripts. We don’t even have copies of copies of them. What copies we do have have over 300,000 differences between them.
Yes, Samphire, there are differences between New Testament manuscripts, but there is not one manuscript which makes a distinction between “Holy Spirit” and “Holy Ghost”.
You seem, once again, to be arguing from the KJVO position. We may not have the original MSS, but we do have the Scriptures, nevertheless.
You argument of Ghost and Spirit is invalid
Pingback: I made it into the Bibliobloggers Top 50! - Gentle Wisdom