tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-46443463324618645582024-03-19T14:05:42.599-04:00The Cumulative Case: Christianity & ReasonIf Christianity is true, it should be supported by science, reason, and history. Here we dig into these subjects and find that the God of the bible is the Creator of the heavens and the earth. Whether you are a Christian or a skeptic, we hope you will see the mounting evidence for the reasonable faith of Christianity.Greg Reeveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04032820880096965508noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-12834457836622389262016-08-02T00:15:00.000-04:002016-08-02T00:19:16.169-04:00The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentHere at The Cumulative Case, we are working towards developing the case for God's existence (and specifically the Christian God) from several different lines of argument. In this post, I will introduce the Kalam Cosmological argument, as popularized by apologist Dr. William Lane Craig.<br />
<br />
(Note I have already talked about it in previous posts, such as <a href="http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com/2014/10/in-beginning.html">here</a>, but will introduce it anew.)<br />
<br />
This is a philosophical/logical argument, whose premises are based on evidence from both science and philosophy. It is set up as a syllogism, so if the first two premises are true, the conclusion logically follows. The syllogism goes like this:<br />
<ol>
<li>Everything that comes into being has a cause.</li>
<li>The universe came into being.</li>
<li>Therefore, the universe has a cause.</li>
</ol>
<br />
<a name='more'></a>This argument of course does not get you all the way to the Christian God. However, from this argument, we can deduce many different attributes of this cause, and these attributes go a long way towards specifying what the cause is like. We find that this cause is a lot like the Christian God.<br />
<br />
For example, if there is a cause to the universe, it must be outside the universe (transcendent). It must be timeless, spaceless, eternal, powerful, and intelligent.<br />
<br />
The one that is most difficult to grasp is that it must be personal. That is, it is not just a "force" of nature. It must have mind and will, in order to choose to create. This is because, a force of nature does not choose. As soon as the right ingredients and conditions are in place, the effect (the universe) flows from the cause (the putative "force"). But how would this force exist by itself for all eternity in a timeless state, then suddenly (out of nowhere) find itself with the right ingredients and right conditions to birth the universe? Only a personal agent, with the freedom to choose, could do such a thing.<br />
<br />
In later posts, we will look more deeply into the individual premises and also objections.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-5360017164777693722016-03-10T21:45:00.000-05:002016-03-10T21:45:33.724-05:00In the Multiverse, Are You Just a Brain?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWrqm0H5d6U4tPGobxNIK-D0h6DAYbRnJ7xktqq2bDRxQRDzhBLyewuOMgYp1b_lSHezPSLDtPYXMx0wpYEXUf_tHtCn4fastb9aPegyI1XKzwLYGgH-PUJjiMCBsIgJ5zC0TQ0hFBQ4M/s1600/Untitled.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWrqm0H5d6U4tPGobxNIK-D0h6DAYbRnJ7xktqq2bDRxQRDzhBLyewuOMgYp1b_lSHezPSLDtPYXMx0wpYEXUf_tHtCn4fastb9aPegyI1XKzwLYGgH-PUJjiMCBsIgJ5zC0TQ0hFBQ4M/s1600/Untitled.png" /></a>The idea of there being multiple, parallel universes "out there" sounds pretty cool. But does this <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWrqm0H5d6U4tPGobxNIK-D0h6DAYbRnJ7xktqq2bDRxQRDzhBLyewuOMgYp1b_lSHezPSLDtPYXMx0wpYEXUf_tHtCn4fastb9aPegyI1XKzwLYGgH-PUJjiMCBsIgJ5zC0TQ0hFBQ4M/s1600/Untitled.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a>really make sense? Many atheists would say yes, perhaps because it helps to avoid the conclusion that God created our universe. In particular, it looks like our universe is exquisitely designed for the existence of life. But if we're one of many, many universes out there, then there's bound to be one like ours that can support life, right?<br />
<br />
Well, yes, maybe, but as we'll see, punting to the multiverse proves too much. In essence: if there are so many other worlds out there that can be appealed to in order to explain improbable events, then anything, no matter how crazy sounding, can happen. In particular, it should lead you to believe that only you exist.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
In our <a href="http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com/2015/12/did-our-universe-come-from-multiverse.html">previous post</a>, we discussed how the multiverse hypothesis does not get around the problem of the beginning of the universe. At best, it just moves the problem back one step. We still face the problem of a cosmic beginning. And if so, there is still the problem of a cosmic Beginner.<br />
<br />
In this post, we focus on the fine-tuning argument, which essentially says
the universe appears highly finely-tuned for the existence of advanced
life. This observation is a relatively non-controversial statement based
on scientific evidence. For example, if the strength of gravity were just slightly stronger, then only black holes or neutron stars would form. If just slightly weaker, then space would be filled with only gas clouds. In either case, no planets would ever form.<br />
<br />
If our universe is unlikely to have formed naturalistically, then that argues for a God who created it. But if there are a large number of universes out there, then surely at least one can support life, right? And it's no wonder that we live in one of those that can support life, because otherwise, we'd be dead!<br />
<br />
Not so fast. <br />
<br />
It turns out that our universe, with its incredible order and structure, over a vast history of 13.8 billion years, is so improbable, that it's actually more probable for just our solar system to pop into existence randomly, fully formed. Because remember, the quantum foam generates universes from random fluctuations in energy. A random fluctuation in energy can much more easily produce a fully-formed solar system like ours than produce an entire ordered universe that unfolds in such a finely-tuned manner. Cosmologist Roger Penrose calls the improbability of the solar system popping into existence "utter chickenfeed" in comparison to the improbability of our entire universe being formed.<br />
<br />
But what does this mean for our observations of our universe? Because it is so vastly improbable that a universe such as ours exists, even compared to our solar system inexplicably coming into existence, the only rational thing to conclude is that <i>the rest of the universe is an illusion.</i> We just think we see other stars and galaxies out there, but we don't. They're really not there. We just think we see the cosmic microwave background radiation, but we don't. We just think we can observe most of our universe's history, as several generations of stars formed and exploded, showering their heavy element contents across the universe. But we don't. In all probability, none of that is real.<br />
<br />
But why stop there? Why stop at concluding our solar system is real, and everything outside it is an illusion? Because the smaller we take the real universe to be, the higher probability it can POOF into existence. So we would have to conclude that just our planet is real, and everything else out there is an illusion.<br />
<br />
"But wait," you might say, "we need the sun's radiation to live." Of course! But even the past is an illusion. This planet poofed into existence just milliseconds ago (so that we did not have time to "need" the sun's radiation and gravity), with no cause or explanation, as simply a fluctuation in the quantum foam. That's right, the Earth and everything in it came into being, fully formed, with all of our memories of the past in place -- but they're illusions that did not really happen -- and with everything external to our planet an illusion.<br />
<br />
Sound far-fetched? News flash: in the multiverse that's far more probable than our universe being real.<br />
<br />
But why stop there? Why say that planet earth is real? As long as we recognize that we were most likely formed from a quantum fluctuation just milliseconds ago, with the past and the universe external to our planet as illusions, why not realize that it is far more likely that <i>only you exist</i>? And that your experiences of everyone else (and all other things in your life, including your memories of the past and even your own body) are all illusions? In other words, you are what is called a "Boltzmann Brain:" a single brain that just poofed into existence without cause or explanation. <i>This is far more likely than the orderly universe as we observe it, with all of its 13.8 billion year orderly history unfolding perfectly to eventually result in the planet Earth, life, and the human race. </i>You are most likely a Boltzmann Brain. <br />
<br />
Sound absurd? It should! But the absurdity of this conclusion is not a reason why you should reject what I am saying. It is a reason why you should reject the theory that forces this conclusion.<br />
<br />
To put it directly: if you accept the multiverse hypothesis, this leads you to rationally and logically conclude that, with all probability, you are the sole observer in this universe, and everything else is simply an illusion (including the thought process that led you to believe in the multiverse theory). Since you can't really live like that (try it: it will turn you into a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGsywJGz_P0">sociopath</a>), the only recourse is to reject the multiverse hypothesis. That, or delude yourself into thinking that we just live in an incredibly improbable universe with no explanation. But that would not be following the evidence where it leads.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-29990960608308070532015-12-05T22:38:00.002-05:002015-12-05T22:38:58.685-05:00Did our universe come from the multiverse?The multiverse theory (the idea that our universe is just one among many other universes out there) is an exceedingly popular idea among science fiction fans. I mean, think of all the <a href="http://www.paradoxthefilm.com/">movies</a> or star trek episodes that take advantage of multiple, parallel worlds? <br />
<br />
But the multiverse is also popular with atheists. Why? Even though there's no scientific evidence for it (and can never be), these champions of rationalism prefer the multiverse theory because it seems to solve two phenomena that are often attributed to God: the beginning of the universe and the fine tuning of the universe.<br />
<br />
But does the multiverse really solve these problems? (Hint: the answer is no.)<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
First, we will explain the problem. Traditionally, scientists thought that the universe was
eternal and uncaused. But now we know the universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago. At that point, all space, time, matter, and energy came into being seemingly out of nothing, with no explanation, in an event called the "big bang." But since it's absurd to posit that the universe really came into being from <i>nothing</i>, <i>with no explanation</i>, this begs the question: what caused the universe to come into existence?<br />
<br />
As explained <a href="http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com/2014/10/in-beginning.html">previously</a>, the cause to the universe must be something that is beyond space and time, and God fits this bill. Note that simply asking, "Well, if God created the universe, then who created God?" is not a viable objection, because by definition, God is eternal and uncreated. Also note that this is not a cop-out, because the traditional explanation is that the universe was eternal and uncreated.<br />
<br />
But now, with the multiverse hypothesis in play, there is another cause that could also "fit the bill" of being beyond space and time: whatever generates these universes! This "multiverse generator" is often called the <i>quantum foam</i>, or a roiling sea of energy that has the potential to bud off bubble universes due to random fluctuations in this energy. So even if our universe had a beginning, maybe the eternal, uncaused entity is the quantum foam?<br />
<br />
Unfortunately for multiverse proponents, the quantum foam itself must have had a beginning. So appealing to the multiverse to avoid the theistic implications of the beginning of the universe just moves the problem back one step. You are still looking at a cause for the quantum foam that must be eternal, uncaused, powerful, and personal. This doesn't quite uniquely define the God of the bible, but we are close.<br />
<br />
We will discuss the implications for fine-tuning in a later post.<br />
<br />
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-36055018448381195452014-10-03T00:54:00.000-04:002014-10-03T09:16:40.967-04:00In the Beginning...The opening verse to the bible says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." For <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIlPWTz29hhleVukrsf5oGo3N_R3AJzwzYP6SIoG53s-PASihFpjvMMP1IhFKvD-P7HOGsgBbHFJMmN3i_Y635ATVKBSPTjF0CYRAf9MruPydwRbSHOLF_D1xZpGbNgXowctMHQFb717A/s1600/Big-Bang.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIlPWTz29hhleVukrsf5oGo3N_R3AJzwzYP6SIoG53s-PASihFpjvMMP1IhFKvD-P7HOGsgBbHFJMmN3i_Y635ATVKBSPTjF0CYRAf9MruPydwRbSHOLF_D1xZpGbNgXowctMHQFb717A/s1600/Big-Bang.jpg" height="112" width="200" /></a></div>
millennia, there was no empirical evidence to suggest there was such a beginning. Indeed, many people thought that the universe was eternal. Nowadays, of course, we know different. Virtually all of the scientific evidence we have points to a beginning to our universe at some finite time in the past (i.e., the "Big Bang"). So, is this scientific fact, that the universe had a beginning, reason to believe in the God of the bible?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>I think the answer is a resounding "yes", and I am not alone. For example, Robert Jastrow said in his book <i>God and the Astronomers</i>: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.</blockquote>
A simple way to frame the argument for the existence of God from the beginning of the universe, sometimes called the "Kalam Cosmological Argument," goes like this:<br />
<br />
Premise 1: Anything that begins to exist has a cause.<br />
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.<br />
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe had a cause.<br />
<br />
At this point, the question you have to ask yourself is, "What was the cause?" Evidently, the cause has to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial (a spirit-being), eternal, powerful, and personal (i.e., an intelligent mind with will). Sounds a lot like the God of the bible to me.<br />
<br />
PS: Of course, there could be other potential beings that fit this bill that are not the God of the bible. But just getting to some infinitely powerful God does a lot of good.<br />
<br />
PPS: Of course, there are objections to this argument. They will be covered in later posts.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-47008254311636361992014-09-16T23:44:00.000-04:002014-09-16T23:44:54.220-04:00Harry Potter vs Jesus<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo_5zMb23BjH83UOAYgJnJrbvVpKFnnJcOhE8gHlXjW7Ug8VaLCjigUvXVRfRLydclEIUX_BcAIG9_2isZH2Ak4fGfrhEFbyHslLKn3QfdyjGYtk4S5Ovd7c-rOJ6qrax2zAn7HfdeKq0/s1600/harry+potter+vs+jesus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo_5zMb23BjH83UOAYgJnJrbvVpKFnnJcOhE8gHlXjW7Ug8VaLCjigUvXVRfRLydclEIUX_BcAIG9_2isZH2Ak4fGfrhEFbyHslLKn3QfdyjGYtk4S5Ovd7c-rOJ6qrax2zAn7HfdeKq0/s1600/harry+potter+vs+jesus.jpg" height="241" width="320" /></a></div>
There is a common trend among internet atheists that, if you want to prove that Jesus didn't exist, all you have to do is show similarities between Jesus and some other mythical figure. Of course, this approach doesn't work for two reasons. First, it ignores the wealth of positive historical evidence we have for His existence. Second, superficial similarities are irrelevant; the differences (of which there are many), are what's important.<br />
<br />
Don't be fooled: these arguments are vacuous.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-38217272287984465682014-09-12T23:33:00.001-04:002014-09-12T23:41:21.350-04:00God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac: a horror?<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq-7wq9HZcCRQDrB1wGBwK4fNnwGSZaEL1VwZYvvrEVtBbJ7moiTFBv7kEf_6ZDsymcCcnABS1_LKYuBuFinuYmCoaQZzmZ-fjnkROv7u77L_hiwkZkT8fhsMmX3LJdw92MlevDRbnnd4/s1600/abe-and-isa.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq-7wq9HZcCRQDrB1wGBwK4fNnwGSZaEL1VwZYvvrEVtBbJ7moiTFBv7kEf_6ZDsymcCcnABS1_LKYuBuFinuYmCoaQZzmZ-fjnkROv7u77L_hiwkZkT8fhsMmX3LJdw92MlevDRbnnd4/s1600/abe-and-isa.jpg" height="320" width="212" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Statue of Abraham & Isaac (Princeton)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The story of God asking <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022">Abraham to sacrifice his son</a> disturbs many people, and has been a favorite point of attack by atheists on the Christian religion. The stance is that anyone who thinks he hears a voice telling him to kill his son is psychotic, and any God that would ask someone to do that (even if He were never planning on letting it happen) is a horrendous deity. But is this attack fair? I think not. In fact, I think that every single one of the folks attacking this story, were he in Abraham's shoes, <i>would have done the exact same thing that Abraham did. </i>Furthermore, an honest look at this story shows us that the bible does not want us to have blind faith, but instead a faith defined by trust build on evidence. Here's why.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>To critique this story, you must do what is required of every sound biblical criticism: understand the context. You can't just read a passage in isolation and pass judgement. You have to ask, "What is the larger context of this story? How does it fit in?" The context includes the rest of the chapter, the rest of the book, and the rest of the bible. It also includes the historical context in which it is written. To get a grasp of this passage, however, all we need is to understand what has happened in Abraham's life until this point.<br />
<br />
First, Abraham is called out of his land to travel to a distant land. He is called by God, although we are not told exactly how God communicates with him. We can only deduce that it was very convincing, because Abraham left his home just on the authority of God's voice alone.<br />
<br />
Since then, God has radically transformed Abraham's life, making promises to him that were perhaps unbelievable at first, yet (1) were backed-up by the miracles God performed in front of Abraham, and (2) were even at this point beginning to be fulfilled. Most importantly, God promised Abraham a son, from whose seed the entire earth will be blessed. Keep in mind that Abraham was 100 years old, and his wife was not only in her 90s, but had been barren her whole life (she's never had children, despite their trying).<br />
<br />
So the existence of Isaac was not only a miracle in and of itself, but it was also the beginning of the fulfillment of a major promise from God. Furthermore, according to God's own, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+17%3A15-21%2C18%3A17-18&version=ESV">explicitly stated plans</a>, Isaac's life (and his survival until adulthood in order to have children) was really important to God Himself.<br />
<br />
All of this must have been in the front of Abraham's mind. God had walked with him for more than 25 years at this point, showing Himself to be a trustworthy God. Abraham knew Isaac was important to God. He must have known his faith was being tested, and he was confident that <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen+22%3A8&version=NIV">God would provide</a>.<br />
<br />
As a result, Abraham is commended in the New Testament as a model of strong faith. However, usually when we think of Abraham's faith being tested, we think of it as a blind faith. But Abraham's faith was built on nothing less than the miracles he witnessed, as well as the beginning of the fulfillment of the child of promise. No, his faith was not blind, but instead based on evidence. He knew that if God were to fulfill His promises to Abraham, then Isaac could not die (or at least that the God of all creation could overpower death). So he was not blindly jumping off a cliff; he knew there would be a net at the bottom.<br />
<br />
The same goes for us today. Our faith, as the bible describes it, is built on the strong and confident trust in Jesus Christ, who has proven Himself to be real and trustworthy, as well as worthy of worship. Universally, the bible does not speak of blind faith, but instead on a faith based on evidence presented to us. The story of Abraham is no different.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-78464086670100386272014-09-02T22:11:00.000-04:002014-09-02T22:11:37.132-04:00Dawkins vs. BayesRecently we've taken a look into several atheist arguments that seem valid on the surface, but are actually circular reasoning. In particular, we've discussed <a href="http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com/2014/07/richard-dawkins-circular-reasoning-on.html">Richard Dawkins</a>, <a href="http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com/2014/07/bart-ehrmans-circular-reasoning-on.html">Bart Ehrman</a>, and <a href="http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com/2014/08/humes-maxim-and-circular-reasoning.html">David Hume</a>. Dr. Dawkins assumes God cannot exist in his attempt to prove God does not exist. Dr. Ehrman assumes miracles are probability zero (i.e., impossible) in his attempt to show that miracles are not accessible historically. Hume assumes one must see a miracle in order to prove a miracle. But besides circular reasoning, what do each of these have in common? Each of their arguments are easily defeated by simply applying rigorous probability theory.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
The rigorous probability theory that I speak of is called Bayesian inference, which is a way of assessing how strongly a piece of evidence supports a particular theory. In Dr. Dawkins's case, when you apply Bayesian inference to the problem of fine-tuning, you must compare two probabilities: the probability that the universe is finely-tuned by accident, and the probability that God exists. Since the first is so low, the only way to escape the fine-tuning is to retreat to the position that God cannot exist. Which is what Dr. Dawkins does. (See <a href="http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com/2014/07/more-on-richard-dawkins-circular.html">here</a> for our previous explanation of this.) Unfortunately, this is also circular reasoning, a.k.a, being so convinced of your presupposition that no amount of evidence will ever sway you, a.k.a, believing without (or in spite of) evidence, a.k.a., blind faith.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-38224645574625519922014-08-18T23:12:00.002-04:002014-08-18T23:12:56.134-04:00Hume's Maxim and Circular ReasoningRecently, here at The Cumulative Case, we've looked at a few quotes from atheists, including <a href="http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com/2014/07/richard-dawkins-circular-reasoning-on.html">Richard Dawkins</a> and <a href="http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com/2014/07/bart-ehrmans-circular-reasoning-on.html">Bart Ehrman</a>, that show their circular reasoning. Here, we will look at another popular quote, often called "Hume's Maxim", which again falls victim to circular reasoning.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><h4>
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (or "ECREE") -- common atheist saying, based on David Hume's maxim<sup>1</sup>.</h4>
<div>
Atheists are very fond of using this saying. Most recently I noticed it being used in a debate between atheist cosmologist Lawrence Krauss and William Lane Craig. But what does it mean? Simply put, it means that in order to convince someone that a miracle has happened, the evidence needs to be just as miraculous. Mundane evidence, such as personal testimony ("I saw the limb grow back!") is not enough, because it is more likely that a person is lying or mistaken than that an actual miracle (a very unlikely event) took place.<br />
<br />
There are several problems with ECREE, the first being that it is demonstrably false. When David Hume wrote his essay, <i>Of Miracles</i>, from which this soundbyte is derived<sup>1</sup>, he was not aware of the rigorous method that we can use to test truth claims. This method, called Bayesian Inference, is beyond the scope of this blog post, but suffice it to say that the unlikelihood of the evidence is not the only probability you must weigh when determining whether there is evidence for a miracle. You must also weigh how likely it would be for the evidence to be as observed if the miracle did not actually occur. In some (but definitely not all) miracle claims, this can easily outweigh the unlikelihood of a miracle.<br />
<br />
The second problem for ECREE is that its reasoning is circular. It is saying that, in order to prove a miracle, you have to demonstrate another miracle. But how will you ever prove the second miracle? Well, of course you'd need a third miracle. And to prove the third? You get the picture. It seems to me the use of this maxim, while not only an improper way of determining probabilities, is also a convenient philosophical shield against honestly considering miracle claims in the first place. It is assuming such a high price to prove a miracle that one can never be proved.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
1 - Hume's actual quote is here: "[N]o testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony
be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the
fact, which it endeavors to establish".</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-48884837583269399552014-08-10T22:37:00.002-04:002014-08-10T22:39:56.447-04:00Bart Ehrman and self-contradictionWhen in an argument with someone, have you ever contradicted yourself?
You say one thing one moment, then turn around and say the exact
opposite, just a few minutes later? It appears Bart Ehrman is guilty of
this when he discusses whether or not historians can conclude that
miracles have happened in history.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
It appears that Dr Ehrman cannot decide whether he thinks miracles are impossible or not. This is a very key point, because in order to maintain an appearance of having an "open mind", Dr Ehrman must avoid saying (explicitly) that miracles are impossible. Because if he says they are impossible (ie, probability zero), then he is assuming his conclusion without looking at evidence.<br />
<br />
So, with one side of his mouth, he says that miracles are not impossible. For example, in a debate with William Lane Craig on the Resurrection (transcript can be found <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman">here</a>), he says, "What are miracles? Miracles are not impossible. I won’t say they’re impossible."<br />
<br />
But in the same debate, with the other side of his mouth, he says,"by definition a miracle is the least probable occurrence." He probably doesn't realize the implication of that statement, but as I've said <a href="http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com/2014/07/bart-ehrmans-circular-reasoning-on.html">before</a>, if this is his definition of a miracle, then he thinks miracles are impossible. A clear self-contradiction.<br />
<br />
<br />
In case you think I am being uncharitable, he says that you can come up with any wild and crazy scenario to explain the empty tomb and the Resurrection appearances, and that scenario would always be more preferable than the Resurrection itself (a miracle). In other words, for him, in practice, a miracle really is the least probable event, and thus really has a zero probability. Circular logic at its worst.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-8070952490278440602014-07-14T23:40:00.001-04:002014-07-14T23:40:42.297-04:00Bart Ehrman's Circular Reasoning on GodIn a debate, everyone wants to claim they have reason on their side, often to the exclusion of their debate opponent. Atheists have even gone so far as to hold a "<a href="http://twobooksapproach.blogspot.com/2012/02/reason-rally-secular-values-and-reason.html">Reason Rally</a>" in the name of atheism. In this regard, here at The Cumulative Case, we've been examining some logical blunders of leading proponents of atheism. In our <a href="http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com/2014/07/bart-ehrmans-circular-reasoning-on.html">last post</a>, we discussed how Bart Ehrman's claim about miracles (that they are, by definition, "always the least probable explanation for what happened") equates to the presupposition that the probability of a miracle is zero, which is blind faith of the worst kind. Does he make any other logical blunders in his position on God and miracles? The answer is yes, and there are many.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
For example, in his debate with William Lane
Craig (transcript can be found <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman">here</a>),
he says, that "historians cannot
presuppose belief or disbelief in God, when making their conclusions." The great irony about this statement is that, in his presupposition that
the probability of a miracle is zero, he smuggles along with it a
presupposition that God <i><u><b>cannot</b></u></i> exist. (Sound familiar? That's the maneuver that Dawkins tries to pull that I discussed <a href="http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com/2014/07/richard-dawkins-circular-reasoning-on.html">here</a>.) Because if God exists, then miracles are possible. And even if God <i>possibly</i> exists, then miracles are still possible. The only way that miracles are impossible is if God cannot exist. In other words, in saying miracles are the least probable event, he is implying that <i><u><b>the probability that God exists is zero</b></u></i>. <br />
<br />
And if your presupposition is that the probability of God is zero, then you
are making just about the strongest presupposition about (dis)belief in
God that you possibly can! So how can he say both that "historians cannot presuppose...disbelief in God" while at the same time presupposing that God's existence is impossible? Is it because he doesn't realize the implications of his definition of a miracle? Or could it be that he hides behind these rhetorical, but intellectually absurd statements so that he doesn't have to face the facts? It may very well be that Dr Ehrman, consciously or not, is using these empty claims in an
illegitimate attempt to shield himself from the obvious conclusion: God
exists and raised Jesus from the dead. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-57877211135436884912014-07-11T23:23:00.002-04:002014-07-14T23:50:14.979-04:00Bart Ehrman's Circular Reasoning on MiraclesCircular logic: that's what happens when you arrive at a conclusion only because you assumed it was true from the start. <a href="http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com/2014/07/richard-dawkins-circular-reasoning-on.html">Last time</a>, I highlighted a particular claim by Richard Dawkins that showed his faulty reasoning through circular logic. This time, we'll look at a quote from Bart Ehrman.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h4>
"[M]iracles, by their very nature, are always the least probable explanation for what happened." -- Bart Ehrman from <i>Misquoting Jesus</i>.</h4>
Ehrman has made this particular claim in his book Misquoting Jesus, and also in other places, including debates <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRTUrvTTRAQ">with William Lane Craig</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iE6YX9O5tE">with Mike Licona</a>. This is a modern paraphrase of David Hume (more on him in a later post). The problem with this claim is, if you start out with the assumption that something is the least probable explanation, then that means <i>its probability is identically zero</i>. That is the only probability that can be the least, because if it's not zero, then there could be something with a smaller probability.<br />
<br />
Do you see the circular reasoning here? If you start with the assumption that the probability of a miracle is zero, then of course you will conclude there can be no evidence for a miracle. This is like sticking your fingers in your ears and making nonsensical noises so you don't hear evidence. This is like shielding yourself from taking a hard look at the evidence, no matter where it leads. It's assuming miracles can't happen before even entertaining the evidence. This is blind faith.<br />
<br />
But it gets worse for Dr Ehrman. He traps himself in an incredibly ironic situation in which his presuppositions about God color his historical inquiries. See <a href="http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com/2014/07/bart-ehrmans-circular-reasoning-on-god.html">here</a> for details. <br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-16641670724229129252014-07-08T23:50:00.002-04:002014-07-08T23:50:36.061-04:00More on Richard Dawkins' Circular Reasoning.In line with our <a href="http://cumulativecase.blogspot.com/2014/07/richard-dawkins-circular-reasoning-on.html#more">most recent post</a> here at The Cumulative Case, which
exposes Richard Dawkins' circular reasoning, there is a nice <a href="http://twobooksapproach.blogspot.com/2009/08/probability-of-god.html">post</a> from
the <a href="http://twobooksapproach.blogspot.com/">Two Books Approach</a> that discusses the same idea. Below is the relevant
excerpt from that post (But math-o-phobes beware: there is a dose of Bayesian inference!). Enjoy!<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[T]he statement "no matter how improbable this universe is by chance, the probability of God is even less" is tantamount to saying "the probability of God existing is zero." Think about it. The only non-negative number that is guaranteed to be smaller than all positive numbers is zero. This is quite a strong statement. It goes far beyond saying God doesn't exist. It says that God cannot exist. In other words, Dawkins is using an assumption that God cannot exist to try to prove that God does not exist. It is a completely circular argument.<br />
<br />
Here's another way to think about it, for the more math-oriented folks. In probability and statistics, the proof we're trying to make is something called a conditional probability. We see an improbable universe around us. What is the probability that God exists given we live in an improbable universe (ie, what's P(G|U))? Using Bayesian inference, we can easily come up with:<br />
<br />
P(G|U) = P(G)/(epsilon + P(G)).<br />
<br />
Here P(G) is the prior probability that God exists, and "epsilon" is the small chance that this universe came together by coincidence (all scientists would agree that epsilon is very small...something like 10^-50 or less). When doing Bayesian inference, you often have to bring in some a priori assumptions to assign prior probabilities (hence the name), so we have to guess at what P(G) is. But you never outright assume that P(G) is identically zero (or one). That would be the same as saying "no matter what our studies tell me, I will choose to believe X." (That's called blind faith.) Usually, when you don't know, you simply set your prior probabilities equal to 1/2. It's easy to see that P(G|U) (the probability that God exists given the universe we live in) would be extremely close to one for any reasonable choice of P(G). The only choice that makes P(G|U) small is P(G) = 0. Which is apparently what Dawkins wants to say. </blockquote>
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-68705848742785569972014-07-07T23:17:00.001-04:002014-07-08T23:43:12.353-04:00Richard Dawkins' Circular Reasoning on Fine-TuningI have recently noticed atheists making a lot of claims that are not based on reason, but on their own philosophical presuppositions. Problem is, this is circular reasoning. Over the next series of posts, we'll take a look at a few of these claims; today, we'll focus on a claim by Richard Dawkins.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h4>
"It doesn't matter how unlikely the universe is, God is more unlikely." - a paraphrase of Richard Dawkins's "central argument" in <i>The God Delusion</i>.</h4>
This idea focuses on the fine-tuning argument, which essentially says the universe appears highly finely-tuned for the existence of advanced life. This observation is a relatively non-controversial statement based on scientific evidence. Atheist Richard Dawkins, in <i>The God Delusion</i>, admits the statistical improbability of the universe, but he dismisses this as a case for God by saying that God is even more improbable. But this just reflects his own presuppositions about the probability that God exists, and does not rest on any real evidence. And the problem with making such a presumptive dismissal is that if you continue to hold this position as the evidence for the fine-tuning gets stronger (which it does every day), then you are in essence saying that the probability God exists is smaller than any small number you can come up with. In other words, you are <i>assuming from the beginning</i> that the probability that God exists is <u><b><i>zero</i></b></u>.<br />
<br />
This is circular reasoning of the worst kind, and amounts to the atheistic version of blind faith. If you start off by assuming that God cannot exist<sup>1</sup>, then no amount of evidence, no matter how strong, can budge you. Dawkins is essentially saying, "I don't care what the scientific evidence for fine tuning says, I will choose to believe that God does not exist." That is not reason or rationality, that is blind belief. Belief, as it were, in spite of the evidence.<br />
<br />
<sup>1</sup>Note: I'm not saying does not exist; I'm saying <b><u><i>cannot</i></u></b>. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-25625222167095517212014-05-27T22:58:00.003-04:002014-05-27T22:59:23.563-04:00A Hostile Witness to the ResurrectionWhen someone testifies against themselves, or against their own position, you can be pretty sure of that testimony. Such is the case with biblical scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman. There are a lot of things that Dr. Ehrman says that go against Christianity. But in the end, he actually gives the Christian faith a lot of credibility. In the end, he almost proves Christianity to be historically accurate for us.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
First off, in his book "Did Jesus Exist?", he does Christianity a great service by arguing that Jesus did in fact exist in the first place. While this was never really a question (almost no scholar would take the radical position that Jesus did not exist), there are a lot of easily-led layfolk out there who would jump on the bandwagon of "Jesus-mythers" like Richard Carrier. So it is nice to have someone who writes at the popular level, and who has the readership from the internet atheist audience as Dr. Ehrman does, putting that myth (of Jesus being a myth) to rest.<br />
<br />
Second, even in his books that directly attack Christianity, he gives a lot of ground to the historical credibility of Christianity. For example, in his latest book, "How Jesus Became God," Dr. Ehrman admits some historical facts that are very important to Christianity. A few of these are:<br />
<ul>
<li>Jesus was a real historical person, a Galilean Jew who preached the
kingdom of God. Ehrman has devoted a whole book to defending this fact.</li>
<li>The canonical Gospels are the earliest and, for all practical
purposes, the only valuable sources of detailed information about the
historical Jesus. The “Gnostic” gospels and other apocryphal writings
date from much later and are not significant sources of historical
information about Jesus.</li>
<li>Jesus thought he was, or at least would become, the Messiah.</li>
<li>Jesus was crucified at the order of Pontius Pilate.</li>
<li>Jesus actually died on the cross.</li>
<li>Some of Jesus’ original followers sincerely believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead.</li>
</ul>
<br />
For more on this see:<br />
http://str.org/blog/agreement-with-ehrman#.U1xgRlcvn8s<br />
<br />
That blog post quotes this other, more comprehensive blog post on Ehrman's newest book:<br />
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2014/03/how-jesus-became-god-or-how-god-became-jesus-a-review-of-bart-ehrmans-new-book-and-a-concurrent-response/#commentspost Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-34839275471035445562014-05-18T23:19:00.000-04:002014-05-18T23:58:58.305-04:00The "Minimal Facts" ApproachIn our last post, we introduced "The Minimal Facts Approach" for the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This approach has been described by Gary
Habermas and Mike Licona and can be found in their book, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886">The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus</a>." In brief, the five "facts" that Drs. Habermas and Licona use in this approach are:<br />
<ol>
<li>Jesus died by crucifixion</li>
<li>His tomb was found empty</li>
<li>The disciples believed and preached He is risen (indeed)</li>
<li>Paul the church persecutor was converted</li>
<li>James the skeptic was converted</li>
</ol>
<br />
<a name='more'></a>As I described before, and has been laid out elsewhere, the hypothesis that makes the most sense of all five of these "facts," by far, is the resurrection as described in the gospels. (For a good treatment of this, see <a href="http://worldviewofjesus.com/2013/02/03/minimal-facts-argument-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ/">here</a>.) However, most skeptics do not accept this conclusion.<br />
<br />
But what kinds of counterarguments are presented to avoid this conclusion? Are they well-thought-out rebuttals to the conclusion? Plausible alternative explanations? Yes, attempts have definitely been made at alternative explanations, although none have been shown to be plausible. In fact, they mostly hold the day for skeptics simply because they are naturalistic explanations and do not have to "invoke" a divine intervention. So while they have poor explanatory power and scope, they are still preferred (by those who wish not to believe) because they leave out God. (This is of course not an argument, but the result of a presupposition; of a philosophical precommitment to naturalism, but I digress...).<br />
<br />
However, in talking to atheists, I have found the most common reason given to avoid the resurrection conclusion is they are skeptical of Habermas's claim that these "facts" are agreed upon by the majority of scholars. In other words, the Minimal Facts Approach has mostly come under fire not
because the historical "facts" are not agreed upon by scholars, but
instead because many non-believers want the statements that "the vast
majority of scholars agree on this or that fact" to be peer reviewed. Folks do not trust Habermas when he says these "facts" are agreed upon. In other words, the most intense objections are not well thought out
rebuttals to the data or to the inference drawn from the data, but
instead attacks on the integrity of the Habermas and Licona. That is when you know
you have a good argument.<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-41537085168600090762014-04-26T21:26:00.000-04:002014-05-18T22:39:44.347-04:00Jesus is risen: a well attested historical eventThere are several things about history that we can be very sure of. Napoleon was a short man. George Washington cannot tell a lie: he chopped down a cherry tree. Socrates was forced to take hemlock. Oh, and Jesus Christ rose from the dead.<br />
<br />
But how can such a (seemingly) far-fetched and miraculous event be something we are certain of? The answer: it is the most plausible conclusion from what we know historically.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Consider the following events that are generally agreed upon to have happened:<br />
<ol>
<li>Jesus lived in first century (AD) Israel and died by crucifixion at the hands of the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate.</li>
<li>His tomb was discovered to be empty.</li>
<li>His disciples suddenly became fearless, preaching that Jesus was risen and almost to the man going to their death proclaiming this.</li>
<li>The enemy of Christianity Saul of Tarsus suddenly believes in the risen Christ and devotes the rest of his life to Christ.</li>
<li>The skeptic James (brother of Jesus) suddenly believes in the risen Christ and devotes the rest of his life to Christ.</li>
</ol>
What explanation do we have for these "facts"? By far, the best explanation is that Christ actually did rise. It's not even close. Note that "facts" 3-5 all refer to people who suddenly change and are beaten and even go to their deaths because of their faith. If these guys made this up, they certainly would have admitted their lie. <br />
<br />
These "facts" are what has been called "The Minimal Facts Approach" that has been championed by Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, and is laid out wonderfully in their book, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886">The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus</a>."<br />
<br />
PS: the part about George Washington was, of course, tongue-in-cheek.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-73583841571627924942014-04-13T23:00:00.000-04:002014-04-13T23:09:04.233-04:00Can miracles happen?The question of miracles can be quite divisive...even within the Christian community. How does God act today? Does he still perform miraculous healings? If so, where are they? If not, why not? These are very difficult questions to wrestle with, and it is not always clear how to answer them.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, one question is very clear to answer: "Has science disproved the possibility of miracles?" The answer is a very definitive and resounding "<b>NO!</b>"<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>"But wait," you might ask, "science has shown that the world operates according to an inviolable natural law. What room then are there for miracles to occur?" And further, "Even if miracles <i>could</i> happen, they are so rare that it would be foolish to believe one, now matter how much 'evidence' there is for it."<br />
<br />
But while these objections may seem plausible, they do not show that "science" has disproved to possibility of a miracle. Scientific research and our knowledge about the natural world and how it operates could not even <i>in principle</i> show a miracle is impossible. All it could do is help us understand what would happen were the intervening hand of God to...well, to not intervene. The only way you can go from that step to concluding miracles are impossible is if you presume beforehand that God cannot or does not intervene (i.e., if you have a philosophical precommitment to naturalism.) But isn't that the whole question in the first place? You cannot assume your conclusion beforehand: that is circular reasoning.<br />
<br />
OK, so what about the second statement? Miracles are so rare, perhaps even the least likely thing that could happen in any circumstance, it would be foolish to believe in one, even if there is good evidence. There are so many problems with this, it's hard to put it succinctly, but here are three quick problems with this statement. First, frequency is not the same as probability. Just because miracles don't happen often doesn't mean it can't be the most probable explanation for a particular event. Second, if miracles are the least likely thing that could happen, this is <i>mathematically equivalent</i> to saying the probability is zero. So if you take that point of view, you are again doing circular logic by assuming your conclusion beforehand. Third, if you don't think you can ever believe in a miracle, no matter how much evidence there is, that is the precise definition of blind faith. Again, the problem of the philosophical precommitment (i.e., the circular logic). No good.<br />
<br />
In other words, miracles are not an impossibility, and never will be, no matter how much we discover about the natural world. Does this mean miracles happen today? No. I believe they do, for other reasons, but that is not what I am saying here. What I'm saying is, the possibility of miracles, in the right context, should be on the table.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-78200099732661488202014-03-31T22:18:00.005-04:002014-03-31T22:29:46.702-04:00Is Jesus the Only Way?<br />
Have you ever been infuriated by someone who insisted their favorite sports team was better than yours? For the most part, these things are a matter of preference, so any argument that one franchise is historically and exclusively better than all the others is just someone's opinion.<br />
<br />
But is the same true in religion? Is religion a matter of preference, or is it a matter of what is really and actually true? If it is simply a matter of preference, then the common claim that Christians are arrogant because they claim Jesus is "the only way" may hold some water.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>But if the question of religion is a question about what is real and true, and addresses concerns about the way the world really is, then claims to exclusivity are not arrogant; they are instead statements about the way the world really could be. In other words, if Jesus Christ really is the exclusive Messiah of the one true God, then saying "Jesus is the only way" is neither arrogant nor modest; it is simply the truth.<br />
<br />
Anyone saying that such a claim denigrates the other religions of the world (because how can we say that when all religions lead to God) is actually, in a backhanded way saying that Christianity is false. But it goes even further: an underlying assumption of this pluralist way of thinking is that each religion is just a matter of preference. But this is not fair, as nearly every religion claims to be itself objectively true! So saying that all religions are a matter of preference and thus should all be taken as equally true is the same as saying all are equally false.<br />
<br />
Of course, the problem gets worse for the religious pluralist: the claim that all religions lead to God is itself an exclusive (and thereby arrogant, if you are playing by their rules) claim. This is because the pluralist claims to have "special" knowledge (how could they know all religions lead to God?), and indeed, this knowledge goes against the central tenets of most major religions.<br />
<br />
So I will continue to unashamedly say that Jesus is the only way.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-45604687279188363052014-03-18T22:08:00.003-04:002014-03-18T22:08:39.299-04:00Cosmos 2: Why even talk about Bruno?When was the last time you watched a movie sequel that was as good as the original? Some are fantastic, such as the Dark Knight, the Empire Strikes Back, and Terminator 2, but others are simply horrendous and don't even make it to the big screen. Fact is, sequels are almost never as good as the original. I have a sense that the reboot of <i>Cosmos</i> (or "<i>Cosmos 2</i>") might be one of those that fall horribly short.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The original <i>Cosmos </i>was a hit, and has been said (<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/03/why-em-cosmos-em-can-t-save-public-support-for-science/284355/">here</a>) to have "kicked off a decade-long 'popular science boom.'" But when Fox's <i>Cosmos 2</i>, hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson, premiered last week, viewers were not treated to exciting scientific breakthroughs, nor even a solid view on how scientific investigation has impacted our society and world. Instead, as many have noted, we were fed propaganda about how religion has stifled scientific progress, furthering the myth of the conflict between science and faith.<br />
<br />
The biggest complaint? That the first episode focused so much of its time on an overblown and inaccurate story of Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for heresy in 1600. If you want a more accurate picture, you can Google Giordano Bruno and you'll get 100s of hits describing what was wrong with the episode. That's right: for once maybe you can trust the internet.<br />
<br />
And you know it's bad when the National Center for Science Education (an organization that has not always supported evangelical Christianity) laments how Cosmos 2 has distorted the facts of history (see posts <a href="http://ncse.com/blog/2014/03/why-did-cosmos-focus-giordano-bruno-0015457">here</a> and <a href="http://ncse.com/blog/2014/03/burning-obsession-cosmos-its-metaphysical-baggage-0015452">here</a>). Another blogger <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/13/five-things-neil-degrasse-tysons-cosmos-gets-wrong/">poses the question</a>, "Why would a science program devote 25 percent of its first episode to the persecution of someone who was not a scientist, was not accepted by scientists, and published no science, but was instead a martyr for magic?"<br />
<br />
It kind of makes me wonder: what were they thinking? It could not have been a mistake, as it is apparently quite difficult to separate his views about essential Christian doctrines from his execution for heresy. How could they have made such an obvious historical error? And why even talk about this fellow when his story that is largely irrelevant to what is claimed to be the point of the program: to promote the wonders and beauty of scientific discovery in our universe?<br />
<br />
However, to be fair, there were some redeeming qualities to the first episode of Cosmos 2. In the first few minutes, Tyson says, "Test ideas by experiment and observation, build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail, follow the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything." Wise words from a man so dedicated to driving a wedge between science, reason, and faith. It kind of makes me think of quotes by two other men of history whom I highly respect:<br />
<ul>
<li>"Test everything. Hold fast what is good (I Thess 5:21)." </li>
<li>"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world (I John 4:1)."</li>
</ul>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-54831924890530104872014-03-17T23:50:00.000-04:002014-03-17T23:53:35.779-04:00Is Jesus just a retelling of other myths?One of the myths that's been going around the internet these days is that Jesus was himself a myth. These folks like to claim that Jesus didn't actually exist! This is quite a radical claim; indeed it is far more radical than the claim that Jesus simply was not who Christians say he was. This is the claim that Jesus was completely made up by first century crazy people.<br />
<br />
Well, it turns out that such a claim has no actual historical data on its side. In fact, in regard to the credentials of those who hold this "mythicist" view, Bart Ehrman makes this point (quoted from his HuPo article <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html">here</a>):<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the
real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job
in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is
likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology."</blockquote>
Of course, Dr Ehrman is no friend to evangelical Christianity. This is what we call "hostile witness testimony," where someone on the other side of the debate is making your point for you. Such a testimony carries more powerful weight than if it came from an evangelical scholar.<br />
<br />
So, for what it's worth, I think we can close the case on the question of whether Jesus was a myth.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4644346332461864558.post-77542344061536918652014-03-11T21:45:00.000-04:002014-03-11T23:26:16.078-04:00The Cumulative Case for ChristianityHave you ever seen a TV show in which a criminal is being brought to trial, and the cops or prosecutors are lamenting over the fact that their case is entirely "circumstantial"? Or maybe the defense attorney is confident in a victory because of that fact? These (fictional) scenarios portray "circumstantial" evidence in a very negative light. However, the fact of the matter is, if you have enough circumstantial evidence, then your case becomes nearly air-tight. <br />
<br />
The evidential case for Christianity is a very strong case because it is based a panoply of circumstantial evidence. Each piece adds more weight to the Cumulative Case for Christianity. Denial of any one piece of evidence is like trying to remove a single stone from a mighty fortress: you may think you have done something until you realize the fortress is built on a massive foundation. Yet to deny enough of the evidence to try to shake the foundation requires such extreme (and unfounded) skepticism that such a position does not hold up well to criticism.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
It is really impossible to list all of the evidences in favor of Christianity, and also those in opposition to naturalism, which I consider to be the zeitgeist and current "en vogue" challenger to Christianity, but here are a few important ones:<br />
<ol>
<li>The origin of the universe (sometimes called the Cosmological Argument: if the universe had a beginning, who is its Beginner?)</li>
<li>The fine tuning of the universe (sometimes call the Design Argument, or the Teleological Argument)</li>
<li>The origin of life (a scientifically intractable problem)</li>
<li>The Argument from Reason (how can we reason if Reason did not produce us?)</li>
<li>The Moral Argument (we all recognize a moral law; who then is the moral Lawgiver?)</li>
<li>Fulfilled prophecy in the bible</li>
<li>The resurrection of Jesus Christ</li>
<li>The occurrence of miracles </li>
</ol>
<br />
Each one of these, of course, has its counterarguments, but for each one the strength of the counterargument is that most would prefer a natural explanation to a supernatural one...even if the natural explanation is unsatisfactory, unsupported, and improbable (compared to the supernatural one). But there are only so many times you can plausibly deny pieces of the Cumulative Case before you have gone off the deep end into a hyper-skepticism that you would never apply to any rational decision you would make in any other area of life.<br />
<br />
The Cumulative Case for Christianity is incredibly strong, is only getting stronger, and is here to stay. So hold on as we explore the depths of this Cumulative Case. Or, as Morpheus (quoting Carrol) said, "I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11409235969396601376noreply@blogger.com0