Debunking Christianity: Three Questions Facepalms Concerning the Function of Theism in the Modern World

It's arguments like this one that make me feel sorry for Harry H McCall. I mean could he truly believe he's making cogent and devastating arguments against Christianity? If he does, then I wonder what criteria is he using to determine what a good argument is and what a bad argument is. This one is truly bad. He should have called the post "Three FacePalms Concerning the Function of Theism". No worries, I fixed it.

1. Should it be an ethical mandate for science to remove a whole section of God’s creation from the face of the earth (for example, the total elimination of certain harmful parasites, germs and viruses)?


The premise should be rejected at the start. Science cannot and will not be able to eliminate anything from the face of the earth unless God allows it. McCall also fails to state what he defines as harmful. Also what ethical criteria is he using? If there is no God, then why would it be ethical to work against natural selection and evolution?

2. If no (to protect theism), should humanity be left to suffer with these divine creations as the Will of God to protect religion?



How does not eliminating harmful parasites, germs, and viruses protect theism? McCall also seems to assume he knows what the Will of God in this is while he has no clue. Guess he did not understand the Bible.

3. If yes, then should the logical next step be to eliminate God (Theism itself) as an ethical failure due to the fact that science is having to cleanup up God’s many malevolent creations?

Given that neither the first nor second "questions" are logical, it makes no sense to assert malevolence on God's part in any way. Let's let Apostle Paul help McCall out with the reason why the created order is the way it is now. 

¹⁸ I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. ¹⁹ For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope ²¹ that^[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
²² We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. ²³ Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. ²⁴ For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? ²⁵ But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
²⁶ In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. ²⁷ And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.
²⁸ And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who^[i] have been called according to his purpose. ²⁹ For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. ³⁰ And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. - Romans 8: 18-30

God has not eliminated the pains and suffering in this life (all due to sin) because God is waiting for all those who will be saved to be actualized. Clear now? You're Welcome, Mr McCall.

Debunking Christianity: Three Questions Concerning the Function of Theism in the Modern World

Debunking Christianity: What Will Christians Do In Heaven For All Eternity?

There is something I just don't get about the mind of an apostate: Why do they think they only started thinking when they left God?  I mean did Loftus ever stop to ask the question he is is considering in this post? I know some people like apostates claim that when they asked other Christians questions like this they were shamed and told that it was disrespectful to question God. I know there are some people who don't really think and that is wrong but even if you are one of the laity this is no excuse. Church leaders even have less excuse. Loftus claims to be a former pastor and claims to be education in theology and philosophy. What was his excuse when people in his flock came to him questions like this? How did he answer this question for himself? Obviously he would not have answered it the same way he does now. Some of his "scenarios" he outlines in this post tells us he has no idea what he is talking about. Did he ever know?

Christians concoct many different scenarios about what they'll do in heaven for all eternity. None of them make good sense. Will they eternally play golf? Baseball? How about hockey, football, or even rugby? Boxing anyone? What about bear hunting? Hey, guys, how about having everlasting sex with a harem of 70 virgins? Oh, sorry, wrong religion. Regardless, what if YOU were part of a harem of 70 guys for some nymphomaniac in heaven who is just as ugly as YOU are? More seriously, what about being in a prostate position eternally worshiping God? This just seems boring to most Christians, that's all. I can hear some of the saints in heaven now:

Hey, God, can I get up and do something productive? Do you sincerely not want me to do anything now that I'm here? Doing productive activities is self-fulfilling and makes me happy. Let me do something, please, anything. Can I at least get up and stretch, or go catch up with the "few" family and friends I have that made it here? If nothing else, your wonderfulness, can I go to the bathroom? ;-)

So most Christians envision they'll be given other worlds to rule over by God when they die depending on how well they behaved here on earth, even though I can hear murmurs of dissatisfaction: "Hey God, you said you forgave all of our sins so why does that guy get a bigger world to rule over than me?" However, if believers are given their own worlds to rule over, just who do they think they'll rule over? Will these creatures have free will and will they also rebel? Will the ruler of each of these worlds have to be crucified as Jesus was in order to save them from the wrath of God? I can't imagine believers signing up for a future excruciating crucifixion when they signed up to be in heaven. But if the creatures to be ruled over don't rebel then Jesus was a failure as a ruler over his world. I know I know, "ours is not to question why, ours is but to do and die."

If Loftus wasn't leading so many people astray by letting them think their doubts and skepticism actually have weight his lack of biblical knowledge would be laughable. He paid lip service to the fact that various people would answer the question differences, and then pretended that Christians don't really know anything although the Bible give us firm facts about things we can know for sure about heaven. Also I'd like to know how bear hunting is "productive".  

1. We will be like the angels - so no marriage according to Jesus (Matthew ). Sorry, Muslims and Mormons.

²⁹ Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. ³⁰ At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. ³¹ But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, - Matthew 22:29-31

2. No suffering. No pain. No sin.

3. No way is it going to be boring, exploring the new created order. For example, will there be entropy? What will be the limitations to our new bodies be?

4. We won't be gods of our own planets. Sorry, Mormons.

5, Even if we spend all of our time prostrate before the throne of God, in worship and adoration - it won't be boring because everytime we look at the throne we will see something different.

6. If we spend an eternity in worship of God, it won't be enough, God is worthy of more. 

7. Whatever we do in heaven it will be be better to what apostates and people who reject Jesus is going to be doing. 

Debunking Christianity: What Will Christians Do In Heaven For All Eternity?

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Should Science Be Viewed As a Metal Detector?

Apparently John Loftus' last post on science and religion provoked enough of a response that he felt that he needed to post another in response to someone who disagreed with him.

I haven't found another blog like DC where intelligent Christians and atheists meet to debate the issues. I like it. Perhaps one of the reasons is because of comments like the one from a Keith R.:

Hi, John, I’m a long time reader and sometime commenter on DC. Of the many atheist and theist blogs that I follow I would have to say that you are the best at consistently coming up with interesting topics and arguments even though I disagree with almost everything you say.

I've heard this from others several times before. There aren't too many people out there who understand the mind of the believer and who blog on a daily basis like the writers here at DC (including Hector Avalos, Harry McCall, Jonathan Pearce, Phil Torres, and the articulate articulett). Just the same, Keith R. disagreed with my recent post, Enough of This Utter Nonsense, On Knowing the Supernatural. He wants us to think of science as a metal detector, and as such, it cannot detect anything that isn't metal. Hence, there are things that science cannot detect, supernatural things. *POOF* Therefore a trinitarian incarnational atoning resurrecting ascending and soon to be returning God exists. Get this? Neither do I.

While I would not throw Keith R out of the church for taking his position, mine is a little different. I would not say that science is incapable of telling us anything about God  I would say that science is incapable of giving us the kind of detection and evidence that Loftus thinks that he needs.

Keith (may I just use your first name?) argues that "science should be viewed as a metal detector. It does a great job of detecting metal objects just as, by analogy, science is great at studying the natural world." But it cannot detect anything else except metal, soooo, "science’s inability to detect the spiritual world because it is designed to study the physical world doesn’t mean that the spiritual world doesn’t exist or that science is to blame for not detecting it." Link.

*cough*

According to the Bible, the natural world points to God. Studying it shows us that God does exist. It is true that that you can't get the Gospel out of it, God's triunity, or the purppose for creation. That is why we have history, archaeology,  many other pieces of evidence, the Bible, and personal relationship.

I've heard a lot of analogies like these from believers. None of them show anything significant at all. What this particular analogy conjures up in our heads is the prior knowledge we have that most things in the universe are not made of metal. There is water, sand, dirt, all sorts of animals, plants, rocks, and gases. We know this. So the analogy plays with our heads precisely because we have prior knowledge that most objects in the universe are not metal. This is clearly stacking the mental deck in favor of that which Keith wants us to consider. His analogy would therefore more accurately be stated like this: If all we had was a metal detector then how can we know if non-metallic objects exist in a world where all we ever experienced are metal objects?

I'd argue that it is possible to know that the supernatural does indeed exist and those who don't experience cannot conclude that there is no God because they don't detect  God. 

So let's go back in time. The ancients agreed upon four elements in the cosmos: earth, water, air, and fire (some included Aether, the mysterious element). These elements referred to the phases of matter: earth is equivalent to solid, water is equivalent to liquid, air is equivalent to gas, and fire is equivalent to plasma. No metal is specified here. As science has progressed it has discovered 117 elements to date.

Um...excuse me. The Bronze Age is ancient times. Metal was known. And many such paradigms would consider metal to be one kind of "earth". Hasn't Loftus ever watched Avatar the Last Airbender  which is based off such conceptions.

So if Keith wants a proper analogy to science it would be an Element Detector, not just a metal detector. And what detects the elements? Our five senses, along with the many instruments scientists have produced to enhance them, beginning with the telescope and the microscope. So to put this into perspective Keith is asking if there is an element that we cannot detect with our Element Detector. Think about this, please! The only way we have for detecting elements is with our present Element Detector. If there is any other reliable way I'd like to know what it is. Faith in a private subjective experience has a proven track record of repeated failures. All we have to do is look at the difference between our reliable Element Detector compared with faith as an "element" detector seen in these two world maps.

The "Element Detector" is not just our five senses and other technological instruments. It's our perceptions and reasoning  powers - hardly reliable. The funny thing is I keep reading Loftus as saying that our minds and perceptions are flawed and easily biased  yet he loves to pretend they are good enough to conclude that there is no God.

What more can I say at this point? If there is a supernatural "element" who wants to be detected by us there is no other way but to provide our senses with objective reliable data. We cannot detect that which is undetectable. It is impossible for us to do anything different if this supernatural "element" expects us to be reasonable people.
 
By what standard doe Loftus know that he is "reasonable"? The thing Christianity posits is that without God calling us Himself, we cannot know Him. We can only know of Him.

Private subjective experiences by contrast, do not count for anything at all. Even if someone had one, he or she should doubt it as an unreliable brain fart.

It's interesting how Loftus jumps to the conclusion that something is wrong with a person if he/she experiences God but does not consider the possibility that it his faculties that have failed.

Such experiences happen during a trance-like moment of mediation, or prayer, or singing songs of worship to any and all supernatural "elements" from the beginnings of human civilization.

That's not how the Bible describes a single encounter with God. It's doesn't describe any of my  experiences or anyone I know. If this is what Loftus experienced, this might explain why he was never born again.

Just think of the trance-like state that believers would attain during the cadence-like rhythmic beating of the ancient Aztec drums as a high priest gutted a virgin on the altar, in sacrifice to Xipe Totec, so the sun would rise the next day, or the rain would come. They knew with certainty that their god existed and that he wanted them to sacrifice that virgin based on the same private subjective experiences Christians have today. Yep, the same exact ones. If this isn't what's going on in the heads of believers of all shapes and stripes, then what is?

Not the same at all. I don't have to go my own subjective experiece. God would not tell me something that would conflict with any of the messages He gave us through His Word. If my thoughts or conclusions conflict with the Bible (and that has happened), the red flag is waving. I know that I need to re-align myself with what the Word is. An Apostate is one who refuses to do that.

So it isn't the case, as Keith opines later, that his God doesn't want us to have absolute knowledge of his existence lest he force us into believing.

Many Christians take this viewpoint because they believe that God willed for humanity to choose God of our own free will without intrusive influence. While this position is not one that salvation hinges on, I don't agree. Without God we cannot choose Him. (John 6:44;Romans 8) .

The case is far far less than this. His God has not given us ANY evidence of his existence at all except for private subjective experiences and the 2nd- 3rd- 4th-handed written testimonies from ancient Christian believers who had private subjective experiences.

That is not true. We have creation. We have moral laws engraved in our minds. We have Jesus' Resurrection. We have the Bible which is extremely more reliable than Loftus likes to pretend. 

Keith simply does not think of his God as a reasonable one, for a reasonable God who wants, no demands, reasonable belief should give reasonable people what reasonable people need to believe. I am not demanding anything of God. I am a reasonable person who needs what Keith's God is not providing. I am not alone. His God doesn't even abide by the parable of the Lost Sheep. He's losing many of his sheep every day and is doing nothing objectively to keep them in the fold.

Loftus is  incorrect. No one is reasonable - at least on God's level. I want to know what makes Loftus think he is reasonable? And why does he think God owes him to provide the evidence he thinks he wants? I'd argue that if God did, it would not make a single difference in Loftus' decisions. God does abide by the Lost Sheep Parable.   To argue that God doesn't care about a single one of his sheep is to assume that there are sheep going to hell. That's not possible. God's not loosing a single sheep. John Loftus and other unbelievers should consider the possibility that maybe because they don't hear his voice is because they are not His sheep. The failure is not in God but in us. Jesus said the following:

¹⁴ “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— ¹⁵ just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. ¹⁶ I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. ¹⁷ The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. ¹⁸ No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” - John 10:14-18

And Jesus also Said.

²⁵ Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, ²⁶ but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. ²⁷ My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. ²⁸ I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. ²⁹ My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all^[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. ³⁰ I and the Father are one.” - John 10:25-30

Debunking Christianity: Should Science Be Viewed As a Metal Detector?

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: On How to Answer a Presuppositionalist

John Loftus has recently posted an attempt to answer the challenge to Atheism posed by Presuppositional Apologetics.  He fails. I'm not even willing to describe it as a "good try" because that would be lying. 

Tim Shaughnessy is posting at DC a one note song. It doesn't matter what tune we sing, his song remains the same:

Christianity only has ONE presupposition. We presuppose the truth of the bible. God and his word cannot be divorced and are synonymous with one another so we could also say that we presuppose the God of the bible as true.

Okay then, let's sing this note. Let's presuppose the Bible and the God in it, yes! But let's first understand the Bible and the God in it. Q.E.D.

Could the God of the Bible exist but the Bible be false? Nope.  However just like Loftus is woefully incapable of correctly describing what "faith" is and is not, he doesn't know what Presuppostional Apologetics is. I have collected a few audios and videos and articles that would help anyone who is confused. Just follow the link.

Debunking Christianity: On How to Answer a Presuppositionalist

Debunking Christianity: In a Godless Universe the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting is What We'd Expect Would Happen

John Loftus attempts to argue that the shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School was exactly what we should expect because there is no God. I disagree. This is indeed facepalm worthy. But let us attempt to think through his argument, because he obviously didn't.

Even though I'm a godless atheist I say this. Don't quote me though, at least not without my explanation. I'm not speaking about a godless ethic, that supposedly atheists do these kinds of deeds, and/or that they have no ethical standards to condemn such terrible senseless acts. I do have an ethic and I do condemn these kinds of deeds. That's a topic for another time so don't derail what I'm saying with irrelevant comments. What I'm saying here is something different.

For the sake of this post, let's grant that a godless atheist like John Loftus does have an ethic and can condemn these kinds of deeds such as murdering children and their teachers as wrong. I am willing to allow for that because the Bible is more than clear that he can grant anyone that much grace even a godless atheist.  I agree that what Loftus is saying is something qualitatively different.

People are not too good at comparing hypotheses but that's what we must do. Most often in our debates we latch on to a theory and seek to confirm it, ignoring competing ones. It's called confirmation bias, and psychological studies show we all have a strong tendency or bias toward our pet theories. We don't give competing theories the time of day. We ignore them as false and sometimes even ludicrous.

Agreed. Let's see if John Loftus can avoid this trap as he tries to compare his godless hypothesis with Christian theism.

But if we compare the godless hypothesis that there is no god with the God hypothesis that there is an all powerful, perfectly good, all knowing deity, it's patently obvious that the best explanation for this horrible tragedy is the godless one. Now believers may think they have good reasons to accept the God hypothesis anyway, but this tragedy is not one of them to say the least. Let me briefly explain.

So we have a conclusion drawn that the godless hypothesis explains such a terrible thing such as this. We immediately run into a problem: What does he think the godless hypothesis explain? Does it explain how a man could walk into a school and gun-down twenty young children - boys and girls; six and seven years-old - and six of their teachers?  Does it explain the big question why?  What is it he is trying answer? Maybe as he explains what he mean, Loftus will tell us what he means as he explains how the godless hypothesis provides answers.

In a godless universe shit happens without rhyme nor reason. Life is predatory from the ground up. Creatures eat one another by trapping unsuspecting victims in unusual ways, launching surprise attacks out of the blue, and hunting in packs by overpowering prey with brute force and numbers. Sometimes a creature just goes wacko for no reason at all. Humans are not exempt. Sometimes the wiring in our brains goes haywire and we snap. We too are violent and we inherited this trait from our animal predecessors. We also show care and concern to our kith and kin but we can lash out in horrific ways at what we consider an uncaring world.

So the godless hypothesis is answering the question "why?" with things "happen without rhyme or reason". Then he gives examples from nature.  He raises more questions than answers.  Is it condemnable when "Creatures eat one another by trapping unsuspecting victims in unusual ways, launching surprise attacks out of the blue, and hunting in packs by overpowering prey with brute force and numbers." or when a "creature just goes wacko for no reason at all"? If not, then why is it condemnable for that man to kill those 26 people?  If so, why?

In a universe where there is an all powerful, perfectly good, all knowing God this tragedy is not what we would expect to happen.

Why? I see no reason to make that conclusion. Loftus neglects the Biblical description of the universe with human beings enslaved to sin with hearts inclined to evil - I'd expect nothing different. Instead, I'd wonder why such things don't happen more often.

And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. - Genesis 8:21

There were innocent children who were brutally massacred. We would not expect that after praying the Lord's prayer to a loving heavenly father that such a deity would allow this to happen, just as we would not expect a father in that school to sit by and do nothing while the gunman killed his children.

Hmmm...just who does Loftus think prayed the Lord's Prayer before this happened. Our society took prayer out of of public school, remember?

What could a loving heavenly father have done? There are tons of things. Just have the gunman's brakes fail on the way so he would crash his car into a telephone pole and die. If God knew the man would one day kill these people then he could have killed him in a thousand unsuspecting ways like this. He had twenty years to do it. God could have snapped his omnipotent fingers causing the man to have massive amnesia such that he wouldn't know who he is, or what he was going to do with his guns that morning. God could have caused his guns to misfire if nothing else. God did nothing that a loving father would have done.

Just how many times do you think that God has done exactly that. How many school shootings have been avoided through God's direct actions - restraining evil? We don't know. We only know about the times God has allowed such things to happen. While we don't know why God allowed this, we can trust that God really knows best and God has a purpose for everything God allows to happen. God has the right to do as God wills because everything belongs to God.   

When comparing these two hypotheses the God hypothesis fails and the godless hypothesis prevails, hands down, no question, no ifs ands or buts about it.

I'm amazed that any rational person would really think that "stuff just happens" is a viable answer and would think that the godless hypothesis. Really? Really? It's the godless hypothesis that fails. So what answer does the Bible give? Here are two of my favorite verses on the subject:

¹⁸ I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. ¹⁹ For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope ²¹ that^[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
²² We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. ²³ Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. ²⁴ For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? ²⁵ But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. - Romans 8:18-25


Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. ² Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? ³ I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. ⁴ Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? ⁵ I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” - Luke 13:1-5

Silly godless atheist, Theodicy is for Christians.

Debunking Christianity: In a Godless Universe the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting is What We'd Expect Would Happen

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Three Biblical Spirits of Which One is Likely to Affect People This Holiday Season

It's always pathetic when Harry McCall attempts to be "Biblical".  Maybe he should look up the word. I think that maybe he's just trying an attempt to be funny. He fails because he attempts to throw the Bible "under the bus". If you are going to try to show that the Bible doesn't make sense, one should avoid illustrating how little they actually don't understand what they read. The purpose of Harry McCall's post is to describe different "spirits" in the Bible and the only "spirits" we should embrace during the holidays should be alcohol. Really bad argument.

A. The Holy Spirit (The promised “Comforter”, Acts 2: 4)

Acts 2:4 is discussing the first time the Holy Spirit fell on the Believers at Pentecost. I guess he thinks the account is untrustworthy and isn't as great as getting drunk.  I wonder why he would ignore such better scriptures that really describe what "Comforter" really means.

¹⁶ And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— ¹⁷ the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be^[c] in you. John 14:16,17

The tongues in Acts 2:4 were just an outward sign for the Believers that aren't meant for unbelievers like McCall. An unbeliever cannot be filled with this spirit. Jesus also tells us what the Spirit does!

²⁶ “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. ²⁷ And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning. - John 15:26,27

Jesus also said:

I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” - Luke 24:49

So the spirit is not only truth, consolation, but power.


B. An Evil Spirit (Afflicted Saul, 1 Samuel 16: 14)

¹⁴ Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil^[a] spirit from the Lord tormented him. - 1 Samuel 16:14

Hmmm.... The Spirit of God leaves,,,,and an evil one comes and torments. Without God equals "being godless". No wonder so many godless people are tormented.

C. The Distilled Spirit (Lives in a bottle before possessing humans. Often cohabits with either of the above spirits! (Proverbs 23: 31 -32)

 ³¹ Do not gaze at wine when it is red,
    when it sparkles in the cup,
    when it goes down smoothly!
³² In the end it bites like a snake
    and poisons like a viper.

McCall wants to pretend that the passage is talking about a spirit like the spirits he already mentions in his parts a and b. If you look at the passage, all it's saying is that alcohol abuse will destroy you. Who can argue against that? I've seen alcoholism do exactly that - destroy the alcoholic and the people around him/her.

May your Holiday Season be a spirit filled one! Harry 

Obviously, McCall is trying to insult God using the Bible as well as tell his friends " happy holidays." There is a problem when you misuse the Bible. Just tell the truth. McCall hates God and willing to lie about what God said. Before I sum this up, take a look at what Greg Gay wrote. He tried to help McCall out by pointing out other passages that describe spirits I guess in an attempt to show that drunkenness is better.

Greg Gay Collapse

D. The Spirit of Jealousy (When children see what their brother or sister got. Numbers 5:14,30)
E. The Spirit of Whoredoms (Hosea 5:4)

1. Numbers 5:14
   And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled: Numbers 5:13-15 (in Context) Numbers 5 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
2. Numbers 5:30
   Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.
   Numbers 5:29-31 (in Context) Numbers 5 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations

So who really want to be filled with Jealousy? You can't be jealous and contented simultaneously. Passages about jealousy in marriage misses the point. It's not a sin to want what is yours. It's a sin when you want what belongs to someone else. If your spouse cheats on you, you are supposed to feel Jealous. The problem begins with your response. If you have the Spirit from part a, you will respond differently than you would if you are filled with any other kind of Spirit.

As for the Spirit of Whoredoms

⁴ They will not frame their doings to turn unto their God: for the spirit of whoredoms is in the midst of them, and they have not known the Lord. - Hosea 5:4

Notice that the passage is not just about adultery and prostitution. It is about idolatry and Rejecting God and embracing your rebellion against God.  Again this is atheism defined and godlessness illustrated. So what spirit do you want to be filled with? Truth land consolation? Evil? Jealousy? Or Whoredoms? So what is a better passage explaining what we should choose in regards to drunkenness?

¹⁷ Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. ¹⁸ Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, ¹⁹ speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, - Ephesians 5:17-19

Gee....I wonder why Harry didn't think this one through? It is much better advice - good not just for the holidays but perpetually.

Debunking Christianity: Three Biblical Spirits of Which One is Likely to Affect People This Holiday Season

FacePalm of Day - Debunking Christianity: How do Believers Distinguish between Fact and Fiction?

Well quite a few facepalm worthy posts have come out of Debunking Christianity today. Where to start? Well, I decided to focus on Harry McCall's post about miracles because, in all honesty, it's really easy and I don't have a lot of time. He tries to show a contradiction in what miracles Christian accept and what we don't. He make a few bad arguments and missteps and while pointing them out won't change him or his views it's worth the exercise to correct error.

Here are Four (among many) Christian miracles:

1. There was a talking snake in Eden that talked (in Hebrew) to Eve.



Um...where does the Bible say the serpent spoke Hebrew? Before the Tower of Babel, no mention is made of what language was spoken. It could have been "Elvish" for all we know. 

2. Joshua made the sun stand still.
3. Jesus arose from the dead.
4. St. Raymond of Penyafort had a Sailing Cloak.

Here is the account of St. Raymond and the sinful prince and king:


Um...how can a monarch be a prince and a king at the same time?

This prince was an accomplished soldier and statesman, and a sincere lover of religion, but his great qualities were sullied by a base passion for women. He received the admonitions of the saint with respect, and promised amendment of life, and a faithful compliance with the saint's injunctions in every particular; but without effect.

St. Raymond, upon discovering that he [I'm assuming it's this prince doing the entertaining] entertained a lady at his court with whom he was suspected to have criminal conversation [read "illicit sex"], made the strongest instances to have her dismissed, which the king [is that the prince or his father promising but not exexuting?] promised should be done, but postponed the execution.

The saint, dissatisfied with the delay, begged leave to retire to his convent at Barcelona. The king not only refused him leave, but threatened to punish with death any person that should undertake to convey him out of the island.

The saint, full of confidence in God, said to his companion, "A king of the earth endeavors to deprive us of the means of retiring; but the King of Heaven will supply them."

He then walked boldly to the waters, spread his cloak upon them, tied up one corner of it to a staff for a sail, and having made the sign of the cross, stepped upon it without fear, while his timorous companion stood trembling and wondering on the shore.

On this new kind of vessel the saint was wafted with such rapidity, that in six hours he reached the harbor of Barcelona, sixty leagues distant from Majorca. Those who saw him arrive in this manner met him with acclamations.

But he - gathering up his cloak dry - put it on, stole through the crowd, and entered his monastery. A chapel and a tower, built on the place where he landed, have transmitted the memory of this miracle to posterity.

This relation is taken from the bull of his canonization, and the earliest historians of his life. The king [what about the prince?] became a sincere convert, and governed his conscience, and even his kingdoms, by the advice of St. Raymond from that time till the death of the saint.

Questions:

All four miracles are venerated by honest sincere Christian faith as having factually happened.

A. Form the view of an outsider; how does a non-Christian tell which of the above miracles (if any) are factually true?



My question is why would you think any of them is not factually true? Can God do anything or not? By definition, I would not consider a "talking snake" a miracle of God. I mean God would not perform a miracle to purposely mislead someone to disobey Him. There is a lot that would have to be taken into account to see if there is any reason to conclude that a miracle factually happened. Given that this isn't the purpose of McCall's post, I see no reason to recount them all here. 

B. How does one Christian faith (Catholicism) know historical truth by faith; while another Christian faith (Protestantism) knows the same historical truth to be a pious religious fraud?



I would not discount the story of St Raymond as a fraud. Why should I? Can God do what the story says happened? Yes! Why not? God made an axe head float in the Old Testament. Jesus walked on water in the New Testament. Why would this be such a stretch? And according to the story, people turned form their wickedness and obey God because of the testimony of this Miracle. It's a win-win.  I see no reason to discount it.

C. How can Protestants attack miracles (which Catholics believe to be true) as pious lies (St. Raymond), but immediately reverse themselves and claim to know real historical Biblical truth with the very same level of faith (Jesus’ Resurrection)? 

Here is where McCall falls flat. As a Bible-believing Christian, I can't discount any miracle claim without studying it and looking to see if it's true no matter what religion is claiming the miracle. By the same token just because a miracle is true doesn't make a religion's claim true. God can and does allow the devil to perform miracles. And sometimes God has mercy on people who are not Christians and sovereignty does miracles for them as well.  Miracles are not a sufficient proof for find truth. Look at what the Bible says about matters such as these:

^[a]If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, ² and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” ³ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. ⁴ It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. - Deuteronomy 13:1-4

This argument being made by McCall is what a failed arguments looks like, folks .

Debunking Christianity: How do Believers Distinguish between Fact and Fiction?

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Dr. Doug Geivett Strongly Recommends Against My Book Proposal.

John Loftus has posted a recent conversation he had with Dr Doug Geivett on Facebook regarding an idea he had regarding a book written by Christians and Atheist about Biblical interpretation. When Dr Geivett politely declined, John Loftus took it badly and personally. I think it's worth looking at what was said.

Previously I made a book proposal:

Let's have a four -five -six views book with this as a question: "Why are there so many ways to interpret the Bible?" A proposed title might be this: "Five Views on Why Christians Disagree," or something like that. Then invite me as a contributor. I've written on this issue, calling it The Problem of Divine Miscommunication. See here.

Doug Geivett, a Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Talbot School of Theology strongly recommends against it. Now isn't that interesting? Why would he do so? He doesn't explain. He refuses to explain.

On the face of it, one might wonder with Loftus why would Christian think that such a proposal is a bad idea. But in light of Loftus' attitude in response and what the Bible says about unbeliever's abilities to understand the Bible, Dr Geivett's response makes sense. Maybe the reason that he does not answer Loftus in the way Loftus wants is because Geivett recognizes that it's a waste of his time. 

Here's the story:



I messaged him on Facebook with a link to my proposal asking if he or anyone else he knows might be interested in editing such a book. His response:

Hi, John. To be honest, I really would not be interested. And if I were advising Christian publishers of the sort you have in mind, I'd strongly recommend against it. This isn't a personal thing. But I don't think it serves the cause. My recommendation is that you continue to pursue secular avenues. Maybe they would be interested in your proposal.

Feeling a bit slighted and testy I responded:

So why did Loftus feel "slighted and testy"? Dr Geivett was not rude or dismissive and suggested a different take. Loftus' ego was bruised in my opinion. 

So, you don't think my arguments can be answered or what? It would be an apologetics work. Someone must answer them. Or, is it your view that it's best to ignore arguments whenever needed? I'm puzzled. I do have a few bites though. One Greek Orthodox scholar can argue it's because of Romanism and sola Scriptura. A liberal wants to argue that there are simply different voices in Scripture. An evangelical wants to argue it's because as human beings we lack understanding. In any case, thanks for the response. I'm certainly happy I'm not an apologist in this day and age, that's for sure.

Oh wow. Nice way to stay civil, Mr Loftus. Loftus gets meaner as the thing goes on. 

Geivett:

John, this is just the sort of response that leaves me cold, this tendency to jump to certain conclusions without adequate evidence, and to psychoanalyze those you disagree with. Take your two questions and ask yourself, "What is the most likely thing Geivett believes about these things, given his record?"

Notice the condescending tone?

Geivett was condescending?  So how is saying I'm certainly happy I'm not an apologist in this day and age, that's for sure. or saying that he can't answer his arguments is not condescending? It is. Pointing out that Loftus psychoanalyze people he disagrees with and jumping to conclusions is not condescension or insulting because it's true.


Loftus:

I don't know your record enough to know what you believe. I do know you're into guessing games. You could have told me why you think it doesn't serve the cause, but you didn't. No, I don't think a deluded person such as yourself thinks he cannot answer my arguments. I was giving you an opportunity to answer them. Now why does this project not serve the cause?

Hmmm...an admission that Loftus does not know Geivett's record so that the rest of the comment is pointless. Oh...and I guess referring to a person as deluded whom you don't know enough to know what they believe or that they can't answer your arguments is never insulting or condescending? I see! I sure hope Loftus does not really think that because that is stupid.

Geivett:

John, I got your message, which is why I replied. Think what you will about "guessing games," but understand that this kind of rhetoric is bound to alienate people you seem to want to talk to.

More condescension. I want to talk to him and so I must be more humble since, after all, I'm talking to the great and mighty Geivett. If you want to get my ire think or say that. Sooo...

Looks like Loftus has some kind of inferiority complex. Why else would he take Geivett's comments so negatively and offensively? He said, "No, I don't want to work with you on this." So what? Is Loftus so immature that he cannot take a "No"? Looks that way.

Loftus:

Ahhh, you fail to understand me then. I can't convince you that you're wrong. I intend to marginalize you. Play guessing games if you want to. I am dead serious. I think I understand full well what you mean when you say this book project will hurt the cause. You are afraid.

I suppose you think Randal Rauser hurt the cause by co-writing a book with me too, eh? Tell me straight up what you mean, that's all, no more guessing games.

I sent that yesterday morning. His response? Click on the red button in the upper right. ;-)

Crickets? LOL. Like threatening to marginalize him and calling him a coward fosters good will and open dialogue? Nope. 

So I was wondering aloud. Why would he say my book proposal doesn't serve the cause? I'm supposed to figure this out on my own. Any suggestions?

Yup. Let's look at the Bible's  answer. It answers the question in more than one place, but here is two of my favorite.

⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:6-8

It's pretty clear that a person who is an unbeliever cannot understand God's Law - the Bible. Therefore an Atheist like John Loftus is ill-equipped to critique interpretations of the Bible. They cannot understand it let alone submit to it.

¹³ This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.^{[a] 14} The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. ¹⁵ The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, - 1 Corinthians 2:13-15

Bottom line is that John Loftus, or any Atheist, is not equipped to discuss why people who claim to be Christian interpret the Bible differently or who is right or who is wrong. I think a book about how different people interpret the Bible and why is a good idea. I would like to see the contributing author breakdown be the following scholars:

a. A Jew
b. A Mormorn
c. A Jehovah Witness
d. A  Reformed Baptist
e. An Anglican
f. A Lutheran
g. A Methodist
h. A Roman Catholic
i. A Liberal
j. A Greek Orthodox
k. A Baptist
l. A Calvary Chapel

It would be good if each scholar discussed what makes their denomination distinctive and define what the Gospel is.  They could even include a brief historical of each church and discussions of core theology and why they look at the Bible the way they do. Focus on how they view Sola Scriptura and Biblical inerrancy. Can you have Bible inerrancy without Sola Scriptura? The core idea is a good idea but I don't think that Atheism has anything to add to the conversation.
 
Debunking Christianity: Dr. Doug Geivett Strongly Recommends Against My Book Proposal.

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Either Choose Science or God, You Cannot Have Both

John Loftus has been busy today. He has posted two articles today attempting to explain why he thinks you can't have science and believe that God exists. He is wrong, but it is entertaining to see him failing to do it...kinda like the proverbial train wreck. You can't just look away. There is quite a lot to look at but I will be looking at one of them.

I think for a blog post I pretty much nailed it, arguing that science would not be possible if there were a miraculous intervening God. But since science does work then there isn't a miraculous intervening God.

The first article goes off the rails really fast. First mistake: Loftus assumes that either God always intervenes or never intervenes in the natural order of the universe. Where does he get this from? It's not from the Bible.  There is no reason to make either assumption.

So choose ye this day: Either science isn't possible because there is a miraculous intervening God, or science works precisely because there isn't a miraculous intervening God.

False choices because Loftus pretends that there are only two mutually exclusive options.  He ignore the Biblical testimony. He bases his ideas of what God's intervention should look like based on what he thinks God should do. This is wrong.

Christian philosopher Victor Reppert objects of course, on two grounds as far as I can tell:

Reppert's first objection? This:

OK, so skepticism about God is front-loaded once we start doing science? Is this the materialist equivalent of presuppositionalism? If this is the case then it is otiose to mention particular scientific developments as evidence against theism. Science, by its very nature, could never say anything else.

Scientists require evidence before accepting a hypothesis, and so science can only investigate that which is detectable. This is its limitation. We all know this.

So he agrees with Reppert here. 

So it operates on the principle of methodological naturalism. It cannot do otherwise. Science assumes there is a natural explanation for everything it investigates precisely because this is the only way it can work.

And like he said that is its limitation. That means science cannot tell you everything there is to know. 

If natural explanations for events were not possible because God regularly intervened in the world, then science simply would not be possible. Since science does work then a miraculous intervening God does not exist.

Notice the qualification Loftus keeps using in describing God: "miraculous intervening". The Bible  tells us that God makes science possible because it is God that keeps the laws and nature going as it is. God set it up. All science is built on the idea that the laws of nature are repeatable, reasonable, predictable, understandable, and definable. Science is making since of those things but it doesn't explain why reality is set up that way. The Bible tells us God did this to make Himself known to His creation. The Bible tells us that God set all of it up and put it in motion and sustains it. Therefore the Bible completely disagrees with Loftus that if God continuously intervenes we can't do science.  Instead it's because of God that we can do science.

Now there are ways that science could detect the existence of God even if he didn't intervene in the world today, but so far this is not what we find. In any case, that wasn't even my point.

The fact that the universe exists at all shows us that God exists. 

The fact is that it didn't have to turn out that science works. God could have made science impossible by intervening into our daily lives just as ancient superstitious people thought he did.

 Loftus cannot demonstrate that God does not intervene in our daily lives. He does. That is why science works.  That is why we have order and random chaos.

That it has turned out the way it has is evidence a miraculous intervening God does not exist. You cannot say this is "a materialist presupposition" without taking into consideration what could have been.

Exactly. Why would having mass mean having gravity? Why is there equal and opposite reaction for every action? Why would celestial bodies orbit one another in elliptical paths? Why is everything in quantum physics comes in factors of 2 and 4? Why is energy in discrete packets? So much! It's God signing His work.

If God regularly intervened in the world then science would be impossible. The fact that he doesn't is significant. It's evidence he doesn't intervene at all, if he exists in the first place.

How does Loftus know God doesn't intervene in the world? He doesn't know that, nor can he prove that God doesn't. 

Reppert's second objection? This:

I want to make sure I have this straight. If Jesus resurrected from the dead, the science buildings in all the universities should fall down, or never have been built in the first place.

This would, of course, be news to hundreds of living scientists, not to mention the likes of Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, et al.

If God exists then it's entirely possible he could do a select few miracles here and there in the world, occasionally. So the Christian God could have resurrected Jesus from the dead (who else would have done this?) and science could still be possible.

But herein lies a problem fit for God.

The more God intervenes then the less likely science is possible.

Hold up. Why? Oh yeah, because if  Loftus allows for Reppert's point he might actually learn something.

Conversely, the less God intervenes then the more likely science can work.

Still don't get why that's even a reasonable assertion. The Bible points out that it's God who sustains all things. This is what is making it possible for science to be done.You want to know who to thank for science:

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, ² but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. ³ The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. - Hebrews 11:1-3

But science is not only possible it has amassed an impressive amount of knowledge which has produced our modern world. So how likely is it that God has intervened compared with the weight of knowledge science has produced? At best, if God has intervened at all then he has done so in such minimal ways as to be indistinguishable from him not intervening at all.

Nope. Without God, nothing we have would have been possible. 

The lack of divine intervention in our world is counter-productive for a God who wants us to believe or fry in hell.

Loftus, like many, make  a mistake. We have to reach God and know God as God is on God's terms. God is far from hiding.

We are supposedly created as reasonable people.

Adam and Eve were created as reasonable. The rest of us are born in sin and shaped in iniquity - enslaved to sin and so blind that we actually like what we are doing although it is killing us. "Depraved" is the term the Reformers used. Without God we have no hope of getting out of that - characterized by irrationality and unreasonable. 

Reasonable people need evidence. Reasonable people must go with the statistical trends. Reasonable people must compare comparables.

And that is the problem. Unregenerate and unrepentant people don't have the gift of comparables. You can't compare your life with God unless you have ever known God.  

Given the fact that science works precisely because God does not intervene, then it seems to reasonable people that he doesn't intervene at all.

The fact that Loftus can't see that God gives science meaning shows how unreasonable Loftus' conclusion is.  He can't know that God does not intervene at all.

And if that's the case it's reasonable to think he didn't raise Jesus up from the dead either. It's also a good reason to think he doesn't exist at all.

That is why Loftus desires to deny the intervention of God in daily life so much: so her can deny the Gospel and ignore his personal depravity. 

Why would God be like this? Since he's portrayed as a reasonable God and a reasonable God would not do this, then a reasonable God probably doesn't exist at all.

Hint: God isn't like that. Therefore you can't really seriously follow this line of reasoning. 

Debunking Christianity: Either Choose Science or God, You Cannot Have Both

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Two Scenarios From Dr. Matt McCormick and His Conclusions

John Loftus posted an article from Dr Matt McCormick's blog where Dr McCormick discusses the implications on atheism and agnosticism  from the Divine Arguments argument. Loftus quotes the following.

Scenario A: God isn’t real and we fail to find good evidence for supernatural beings.

Belief in situation A: irrational.
Agnosticism in situation A: irrational.
Disbelief in situation A: reasonable/rational.

Scenario B: God is Real, but Hiding.

Belief in situation B: irrational.
Agnosticism in situation B: not an epistemically responsible position.
Disbelief in situation B: reasonable/rational. Enjoy.

McCormick's whole argument is assuming that the Hiddeness of God is something that given weight falls and leads to atheism. There are many formulations for the idea but let's stick to McCormicks and examine if this philosophical idea holds any weight.

I’ve been thinking about the arguments for atheism from divine hiddenness.  Here’s a way to argue for atheism in that vein with some similarities to Drange and Schellenberg and with several improvements on the argument of my own. 

I've often thought about "divine hiddenness" and I don't think it squares with the Bible or observation. 

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. - Romans 1:18-20

The Bible does not tell us that God is hidden in the slightest. In fact it tells us the opposite. The idea of hiddenness comes from people who like to think they have an excuse for why they don't experience God the way they think they should if God exists. This thinking is backward. God reveals Himself to us on His terms not ours. 

²⁴ “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. ²⁵ And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. ²⁶ From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. ²⁷ God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. - Acts 17:24-27

Add this one.

⁵ By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.”^[a] For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. ⁶ And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. - Hebrews 11:5,6
 

We need to be like Enoch and remember that God is not hiding from us. We hide from Him.

Imagine two scenarios, both where it would appear that God is hiding. 

Scenario A:  God isn’t real and we fail to find good evidence for supernatural beings.

Suppose that beings humans find themselves in this situation: 

There is no supernatural being of any sort.

Furthermore,  

 a.  there are no empirical indications of a supernatural beings

No proof of that. We have creation,

b.    none of the conceptual arguments for supernatural beings are compelling

 Says him

c.    we have made substantial efforts to uncover supernatural beings. 

Like what? How about seeking God with a whole heart?

d.    none of our attempts to discover supernatural beings have succeeded

What are they?

e.    the available evidence concerning supernatural beings are inadequate.

So he admits that there is some available evidence but how does he know it is inadequate?

f.     there is a presumption that supernatural beings are the sort of entity that, if one were to exist, then it would manifest in some fashion that is detectable by beings with our cognitive faculties. 

This is a presupposition that God has not revealed Himself that is detectable to us. Not true.

g.    the presumption that supernatural beings would manifest in some way has not been defeated.

Yes it has because that is what God has done. 

h.    naturalized models of supernatural belief formation are well justified by the evidence and they provide a better alternative account of the origins of supernatural beliefs.   

I wouldn't agree to that all. Asserting it does not make it true. 

Question:  What is the reasonable conclusion to draw about supernatural beings in this situation? 

Would non-belief be epistemically inculpable in this situation?  That is, if humans  conclude that there are no supernatural beings, would that conclusion be unwarranted?  

What about believing in a supernatural being?  And would being an agnostic be epistemically culpable or inculpable in this situation? 

It seems to me for a number of reasons that disbelief in supernatural beings would be justified.  Disbelief would not be epistemically culpable.  Furthermore, believing in a supernatural being in this situation would be epistemically culpable and irrational.  I even think that being agnostic in this situation, particularly given the point in h., would be unreasonable/culpable.  

That is:

Belief in situation A:  irrational. 

Agnosticism in situation A:  irrational. 

Disbelief in situation A:  reasonable/rational.  

If McCormick's assumptions were true then I would agree with his conclusions. Unfortunately they are not and we have no reason to accept them. 

Scenario B:  God is Real, but Hiding

Suppose that humans find themselves in this situation: 

God exists and possesses the power and the knowledge to make himself known to humans. 

Yet for reasons unknown to humans, God insures that: 

a.    there are no empirical indications of God

False

b.    none of the conceptual arguments for God is compelling

That is true about all the concepts outside the Bible.

 

c.    we have made substantial efforts to uncover God,  

“And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every desire and every thought. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever. - 1 Chronicles 28:9

Just follow the command Solomon got. 

d.    none of our attempts to discover God have succeeded

Maybe none of his, but there are a lot of people would beg to differ. 

e.    the available evidence concerning God is inadequate. 

The more we learn in science and technology the more we find  evidence concerning God.  

f.     there is a presumption that God is the sort of entity that, if God were to exist, then God would manifest in some fashion that is detectable by beings with our cognitive faculties.  

And God does exactly that. 

g.    the presumption that supernatural beings/God would manifest in some way has not been defeated.

The fact that there is a universe rather than nothing defeats the idea that there is no God. 

h.    naturalized models of supernatural belief formation are well justified by the evidence and they provide a better alternative account of the origins of supernatural beliefs.    

Naturalized models are not justified or explain all of our observations better than God's revelation of Himself. 

Question:  What is the reasonable conclusion to draw about supernatural beings in this situation? 

Would disbelief be epistemically inculpable in this situation?  That is, if humans  conclude that there are no supernatural beings, would that conclusion be unwarranted? [yes] Notice that the evidential situation for humans is exactly the same in both scenarios. [No it isn't, because God has revealed Himself]  So the answers to our questions about what is the reasonable conclusion to draw must be the same, with some interesting side notes. [Only if make the same mistaken analysis]  Ironically, despite the fact that God is real in this situation, it seems to me that disbelief, given the evidential situation would be justified.  That is, the atheist in the world where God is real but hiding, would have a well-justified but false belief. [God is not hiding.] We couldn’t find epistemic fault with the conclusion that this atheist has drawn.  The apocryphal story about Bertrand Russell is relevant.  After a lecture about atheism, a member of the audience asked him, “Prof. Russell, what are you going to do after you die and then in the afterlife you show up at the Pearly Gates and God and Saint Peter are all there and it’s obvious how wrong you are?”  Allegedly without missing a step, Russell said he’d say to God, “Not enough evidence, God!  Not enough evidence!” 

Only thing is Russell would never be able to say that because standing before God he would have to admit that claiming a lack of evidence would be a lie.  And don't forget that Russell has indeed gone on and I can't imagine that this excuse worked.  It won't work for anyone.

Furthermore, if someone were to believe in God in this situation, it would be irrational and unjustified.  Ironically, she would happen to get it right.  That is, she’d have  a true belief.  But her evidence did not justify her conclusion.  Her belief would have all the virtue of thievery over honest toil, to quote Russell again.  She’d be like a psychic who accidentally predicted the winning lottery numbers.  Her getting the numbers right by accident doesn’t vindicate her method or improve the reliability of her method of derivation.  

One one hand this is something one would want to be right about and wouldn't care if they were right for the wrong reason.  God has not really left this option open for us because God has plainly revealed himself to us. We are not left without evidence or witnesses. Therefore if you are wrong about God's existence you have no excuse.

Furthermore, if agnosticism was unreasonable and unjustified in scenario A, it would be here too.  That is, the agnostic who suspends judgment in scenario B, where a-h are also true, would be unjustified.  

Agreed. 

The interesting question here concerns the reasonable limits to agnosticism.  Under what circumstances should one be an agnostic.  It seems to me that a-h, if they are true, are enough to warrant moving from agnostic to atheism.  Some other examples are suggestive:  Suppose we insert Bigfoot or Leprechauns into scenario A. 

Suppose there are no Leprechauns.  And suppose further that we have searched diligently, no compelling evidence in their favor has been found, Leprechauns are the sorts of things that would be revealed in some way to our cognitive faculties if we were to search and encounter them, and furthermore, we have other natural explanations of why people have believed in Leprechauns.  In that situation, you should not be agnostic.  Being agnostic would be irrational.  

If you search for God with your whole heart you will find God and God will not cast you out or ignore you. So being an atheist or agnostic is irrational. 

Many agnostics have the view that God is not like Leprechauns, so there is a disanalogy here.  God is unlike Leprechauns in ways that require us to be agnostic about him, but atheist about the Leprechauns.  I think there could be a plausible argument here, but I’m not sure.  The central issue for these agnostics, I think, would be to deny that condition g. has been met in the case of God.  There are good reasons to think that the presumption about God’s manifesting to our cognitive faculties in h. is defeated in the case of God but not in the case of Leprechauns.  

 God does condescend to us to have a relationship with God so the presumption is flawed.

The really interesting question to me right now is, what are those reasons that defeat the presumption?  Why should we think that God is not the sort of thing that would be manifest to our cognitive faculties in any of the relevant ways? 

 Because God does come to us. We can't go to him on our own. In short that is what the incarnation is all about and why all of history hinges on Jesus.

 Pretty clearly, on lots of theistic hypotheses, God is the sort of thing whose existence or non-existence makes some manifest difference in the world.  The world or the arguments, would look different if there were no God in some way that we could discern.  The existence of gods of that sort is undermined by this argument.  But if there were a supernatural being whose presence or absence would not be manifest to our cognitive faculties, then our not finding any manifestations would not be adequate grounds to conclude that no such being exists. 

I'd like to see some proof that God has not interacted with us in a way our cognitive faculties can recognize Him,  

This agnostic might argue for this thesis:  There may yet be some sort of supernatural being that we can have no cognitive access to and that we can form no positive thesis about.  We should be agnostic about that being because the absence of evidence for it isn’t indicative either way about its existence.  

Does not fly. God has not left that open to us. 

My question here is this:  What exactly are we being agnostic about in this case?  Which hypothesis am I suspending judgment about?  Is it this:  there may yet be some truths about which I can form no idea, I can have no comprehension, and that elude my cognitive faculties altogether.  

Agreed. But that does not describe the God of the Bible. 

It doesn’t seem to me that suspending judgment is the right way to describe the attitude we should take about those proposals.  We should suspend judgment, it seems to me, about whether there are extra terrestrial forms of life in our universe.  That is a clear proposal about which our evidence is split or about which we do not have enough evidence yet to draw a conclusion.  The mercurial transcendental entity that the agnostic proposes is utterly unlike alien life.  We have no access, and we can have no access, perhaps in principle, to such an entity.  It would seem that we cannot hope to form any sort of propositional attitude at all about it, not even enough to suspend judgment about it. Furthermore, it is relevant to point out that this agnostic is taking a conservative attitude about the possibility of something that is utterly unlike any of the divine beings that are typically proposed or believed in.  This agnostic seems to have tacitly agreed that in situation A or B, the only reasonable conclusion is to be atheist, not agnostic, about the overwhelming majority of the gods that humans have believed in.  This agnostic is a very wide atheist, but not quite as wide as the widest atheist.  It just not clear to me that suspending judgment in this case even makes sense or is the epistemically responsible position. 

Options A and B are flawed. But McCormick is correct that suspending judgement is not open to us either - not if you want to be both truthful and rational. So if hiddenness is off the table, how do we understand why some people seem to have no access to God? They don't hear Him and they experience Him? Why? Simple. The Bible gives us the answer.

¹⁹ This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. ²⁰ Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. ²¹ But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. - John 3:19-21

Debunking Christianity: Two Scenarios From Dr. Matt McCormick and His Conclusions