Book Plunge: Anarchy Evolution Chapter 5

What happens when suffering comes?

What role does tragedy play? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, Graffin introduces us to the role that tragedy plays in a life. I found myself moved by reading accounts of people he had lost in his life due to drugs and alcohol. I definitely resonated when he talked about how when you go through a divorce or lose a child to death, it is as if the laws of the universe have been broken. Divorce is easily the greatest tragedy I have gone through. Nothing comes close.

In contrasting to the theistic view, he writes that if there were no death, the world would not be able to contain the biological exuberance. This is certainly true. Yet he goes on from here to say that death requires and receives no justification. It’s simply a part of life.

If this is true, why do we all act like it is not that at all? Are we all just deluded? Why are we all sad? Why do we all try to make sense of death? Why is it that we are scared to see a corpse or to touch a corpse? We can say death is natural in a sense, but natural does not always equal good.

He also says it is hard to be a theist after looking at the fossil record and trying to explain all the death that came before us. No reason is given why this is so. Theism doesn’t require a perfect world at all. Why should it? From a metaphysical standpoint, I find that hard to conceive. Even with Heaven, it is a good world in every sense, but could we not add one more soul and say it is a better world? Only God is perfect in Christian theism.

He also says the central problem of theism is all the suffering in nature, but how can this be the central problem when it is a necessity of Christianity that that problem be there to be dealt with? Christianity has evil right at the center of the world in the cross. Also, if theism has to explain all the evil that comes about in a world made by a good God, can we not ask like Chesterton did that in a world of total chaos, why do we get so much good?

He says also that none of the explanations given for suffering is comforting or satisfactory. The problem is, he doesn’t interact with any of these theodicies. There are plenty of them. Is Graffin throwing all of them out? This is someone who has talked about being skeptical and about the joy of learning, but when it comes to his position, he is not skeptical of if naturalism can explain good and evil and he seems to show no interest in learning about theodicies from theism.

I do agree with him when he speaks out against at funerals saying that God thought it was that person’s time to go. We don’t know that. I always get cautious when I hear someone claim what God is or isn’t doing. How do they know? Do they have access to the divine throne room?

In the end, Graffin unfortunately does not really engage. I wish he had said more. We both agree that there is a lot of tragedy in this life, but Graffin doesn’t give me any hope or meaning to it. At least my worldview can do that.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth) Continue reading Book Plunge: Anarchy Evolution Chapter 5

Book Plunge: Anarchy Religion Chapter 4

Is atheism an idol? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Once again, this is a refreshing chapter title to read as Graffin writes about The False Idol of Atheism. Would that more atheists would write this way. I have said before that the best service someone like Dawkins could do is to write about just science and not touch at all on subjects he has not studied. When he does so, he loses in those areas, but those who are skeptical of the science and know the other areas well will not take him seriously in the science.

In this chapter, Graffin talks a lot about his love of music, but says something tragic. He says that in listening to his mother’s album of Jesus Christ Superstar, he learned a lot about music, but he also learned about the basic outline of the New Testament. He considered it a bonus that he didn’t have to read about the New Testament to learn about the life of Jesus. What would he say to someone who said “I watched a movie on the life of Darwin! What a bonus! I didn’t have to read books on Darwin to learn about him!”?

This is not to say one cannot learn from such sources, but it is to say the best sources are normally books and one who wants to be informed should be reading them. I have produced materials like podcasts and YouTube videos, but I encourage people to go to the books. Learn from the main sources.

He says later that many people who come to naturalism start from a religious worldview and just ask questions and do not get answers. Sadly, this is true. Even more sad, many churches treat the questions as if they are a problem instead of embracing them. There are pastors out there who will have the judgment of souls on their hands for not tending to their flocks properly, a statement that should frighten every pastor out there. It should. That is a serious responsibility and you’d better be able to base your position in the pulpit on something serious.

He also says some people want to hold on to religion and run from scientific claims. Sadly, this is also true. If you insulate your worldview from reality, what good is it? Christianity must be capable of explaining everything just as any other worldview.

He then says he doesn’t understand the idea of spiritual, but not religious, to which I also agree. We live in an age where there is a spiritual vacuum. Naturalism just doesn’t cover it.

I am also pleased to read how he says that he doesn’t talk about Darwin’s reasons for rejecting theism when he teaches undergrad. What is more important in Darwin is what he thought. Even if one does not believe in evolution, this should be accepted. We need to understand what Darwin thought first.

Graffin then goes on to quote some song lyrics he has to a song and then talks about them in a statement I found quite inspiring.

In my opinion, the worst line in this song is the one where I made a bold claim about religion (“religion’s just synthetic frippery”). The rest of the song conjures up images that apply to everyone, regardless of whether they believe in God. And the most compelling lines of the song, in my opinion, are the questions. This song has been a perennial favorite among Bad Religion fans—believers and nonbelievers alike—and part of the reason for the song’s success, I think, is that its questions are ones that listeners ask themselves.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 113). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

I appreciate someone who says they made a bold statement about religion and regrets it. He does acknowledge his band has Christian fans. Generally, it’s not a good idea to alienate your support base and I think a lot of atheists would revel in singing a song that blasted religion. Graffin is a step up from them.

He also talks about non-believers who seem to loathe God and form groups of their own which he says come off like the groups they tend to vilify. Indeed. In a way, internet atheism is a cult of its own. You have to buy into every argument and you can’t give an inch to your opponents on anything.

He says religious believers do not want to debate the big questions in life, but then says many atheists are the same way. I contend many religious people do not want to debate the big questions, but we should. We need to face the big questions head on because we believe Jesus answers the big questions. This is why I encourage atheists to read books that disagree with them, and sadly, they do not.

Yet after saying this, he ends the chapter saying it’s time to cast aside the endless debate on God’s existence. Not at all. If we want to talk about the ultimate questions, this is the biggest one. This is the one that shapes everything else. We must face it head-on.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Anarchy Religion Chapter 3

Is natural selection an idol? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

That question comes from the title of this chapter. Graffin has called it “The Idol of Natural Selection.” It’s quite refreshing to read an atheist writing these kinds of things.

At one point in this chapter, he says that Darwin and Wallace shattered the comfortable intellectual certainty that natural theology had. Unfortunately, it is not said how they did this. Since many natural theologians can comfortably fit evolution into their worldview, it’s hard to see how that is something that ultimately shatters it.

He also says after this it did damage to Darwn too as it left him thinking there was no design to nature. Now if he was going with Paley’s watchmaker, which is likely, that could be, but had he gone with an idea such as teleology, this would not have been a problem. This is not to demean Paley as Paley wrote much outside of the watchmaker argument that is excellent in Christian apologetics and it is a shame that what he seems to be most remembered for is an argument lambasted by many of his critics.

He then says that Darwin’s daughter Annie died at the age of ten which destroyed the last bit of religious belief Darwin had. It is important to note that many cases of atheism do seem to hinge on emotional despair and loss. It can often hide behind intellectualism, but scratch long enough and you uncover an emotional wound. Let’s make sure we’re not the same way. If we are Christians and say we go where the evidence leads, then that means that we can’t hold on to something for the sake of an emotion. We would not want Mormons to be doing that.

There are times Graffin says something that seems to indicate that he could be on the right track. Unfortunately, he immediately drops it and moves on. Consider this for example:

Natural selection even had a shadowy, theological appeal. It seemed to offer a direction or ultimate purpose to life. Over time, living things appeared to grow more complex. As new generations of organisms acquired new traits, they became progressively better adapted to their environments. What better evidence of a wisdom in nature preordained in the mind of God? Even for nontheists, the order created by natural selection might have seemed at least partially to compensate for the loss of God’s oversight.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (pp. 58-59). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Such is the point. If a system is set up to make objects better and better, that can be an indication of divine wisdom and if you believe in teleology, it fits in just fine with that. I am unsure what Graffin has in mind with the statement of the loss of God’s oversight. What was He supposed to do differently?

The next section is also worth quoting in length:

And since I believe that dogma must be challenged wherever it is found—whether in religion, science, or music—I have spent time exploring the ideas of the iconoclasts who have examined natural selection critically. The result is a picture of evolution quite different from the standard textbook account.8 But before I look more closely at natural selection, I have to issue a blanket disclaimer. Whenever an evolutionary biologist identifies a problem with standard accounts of evolutionary theory, creationists tend to wave the statement around as evidence that evolution is fatally flawed or “a theory in crisis.” That’s ridiculous. As I’ve already pointed out, the occurrence of evolution is indisputable. The idea that God could have planted the entire fossil record in the earth as a way of testing the faith of believers is preposterous. I am not at all interested in leaving the door open for discussions with advocates of the modern “intelligent design” movement.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 59). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

I am not speaking in favor of the ID community, but it seems odd to say that dogma must be challenged and then say you’re not interested in discussing with advocates of an opposite viewpoint. I will agree that we should not use gaps in evolution as an ultimate defeated. Christianity should not be built on finding gaps in science as it assumes then that science is the ultimate battleground that determines if God exists or not. I also agree that it is ridiculous to say God planted the fossil record with it being false to test our faith. Perhaps it might work for a Muslim approach where Allah is the greatest of deceivers, but it will not work for an approach where God is the God of all truth.

That being said, I have no problem with the questioning of dogma, and that includes my own. This is why I ask people in dialogue what the last book they read that disagreed with them was. I normally get crickets to that. Stay in an echochamber and do not be surprised if your mind never changes.

He also says creationists have a tendency to mischaracterize what evolutionary biologists say which shows their intellectual dishonesty. I would have liked to have seen the examples. I am not denying that they exist, but the examples need to be shown. That being said, I could easily say the same about atheists who trot out defeated arguments espousing positions like Jesus mythicism and other claims regularly.

He also says the ultimate motivation of ID is not scientific. Unfortunately, this relies on mind reading. Could it be many are more interested in theology? Sure. I could say the same about many atheists wanting atheism to be true and some have explicitly said they want atheism to be true, like Thomas Nagel. Such claims are irrelevant in the long run. What matters is the data and not why the data is brought forward.

He also says that the idea is to create a “wedge” to break science’s allegiance to “atheistic naturalism”, but we saw in the last chapter, he said that monism is the default worldview of natural science. Why does he put atheistic naturalism in quotes then? If someone says “You have to be an atheist to do science” you will stop many great minds from doing science. I have no problem with someone who is an atheist wanting to enter into studies of theology and Scripture. Have at it! Show us what we have got wrong.

He later says that many scientists do hold to a teleology still, which does show he has some idea what it is. Graffin says that we do not see everything optimized in nature, but who says teleology works in that way? Teleology simply has a link that is essential. An acorn all things being equal grows into an oak tree and not into a stalagmite. The sun’s rays melt ice and do not turn it into bubble gum. This is a slipping in an idea of theology that everything should be optimal that has not been backed.

In all of this, while there is interesting material about science and Graffin’s band, I do not find the claims convincing. Again, Graffin could win the battle on evolution and be no closer to winning the war.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Book Plunge: Anarchy Religion Chapter 2

Does life make sense? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re continuing our work through Greg Graffin’s book Anarchy Religion. Again as I go through this more and more, unlike other atheist books, it doesn’t come across as a mockery or an effort to destroy theism at all costs nor do I sense hostility. It’s as if Graffin is saying “This is my opinion and I think you should agree with it, but if you don’t, that’s cool too.”

As I said in the last post, the emphasis is on evolution. He does talk about how he talked to some experts in evolutionary thought and one such as Will Provine said evolution is not his friend. Graffin mentions this because he doesn’t want us talking too much about cultural changes as evolutionary changes.

He does say that before Darwin, nothing made sense in biology except in light of natural theology. The ironic thing is that many people who hold to natural theology like myself would not have a problem with evolution. It would just be that if this is how God did it, that’s fine. He’s God and He will do what He wants. It could be that many of these battles is not about theism, but more about a certain kind of view on how God should do things and how the Bible should be interpreted.

Of course, if evolution is wrong, that’s fine for me too. I don’t hang my hat on either side. I’m not a scientist so I don’t comment where I don’t know. I can comment on what it means if it’s true or false, but on the science itself, I say nothing.

However, Graffin does say that after Darwin, the role of God in nature was reduced to irrelevance. This is certainly a statement I disagree with. If anything, that there exists a means in the universe whereby simple beings become more complex I think points to teleology. If there is teleology, then vis a vis the fifth way of Aquinas, there is theism. Evolution can undo a certain idea of how God should operate, but God is the one keeping the whole chain going and holding all of existence together. That’s not a small part.

Graffin then talks about interviewing scientists to see how many hold to theistic views. It is not a shock that he gets a small number. Too many scientists often make poor philosophers. The question is not a scientific question but a philosophical one. You could poll all the philosophers out there and see how many of them held to evolution. Whatever the results, it would be irrelevant. The philosophers do not speak on this. The scientists do.

He later says that monism is the default view of science and skepticism is the view of science. Monism is the idea meaning that there is only one reality and that is the material one, but why should I think that? He does say in science claims have to be based on empirical knowledge, and I agree, but I as a Thomist think all knowledge is based on empirical claims and science is only a subset. It would be more accurate to say many scientists come from a monistic stance. It is not required.

Also, I hear scientists are skeptical a lot, but the problem is I think they are only selectively skeptical. When they read someone like Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, they think his arguments have dealt a death knell, but they do not go and read the other side to see about them. I have seen many scientists buy into some of the worst ways of thinking when it comes to religion. It is a natural tendency we all have to embrace what agrees with us already and be skeptical of what doesn’t without doing fact-checking. I daresay I am more skeptical than many of these scientists are.

He also says religion does not embrace the discovery of empirical new knowledge, which is why the Catholic Church in the medieval period had their own astronomy centers and why Christian scientists were doing science throughout the medieval period based on empirical thinking. Graffin says some fascinating things, but this is a downside in that he is not skeptical enough. I encourage him to go and read Tim O’Neill for an example. He is an atheist who runs history for atheists.

Then we get this:

After all, religion makes many claims about the natural world. The Bible states that a great flood destroyed everything on earth, that the sun stood still, that Jesus was born of a virgin mother, and that the dead came back to life. Though some of these statements can be understood metaphorically, at least some are clearly meant to be taken literally, since much Christian theology rests on their veracity. I was surprised by the answers I got. The majority of the evolutionary biologists (72 percent) said that religion is a social phenomenon that has developed with the biological evolution of our species. In other words, they see religion as a part of our culture. They do not necessarily see it conflicting with science. This seems like social courtesy to me, not intellectual honesty.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 45). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

This is quite problematic. I definitely do affirm the virgin birth and the resurrection, but there are all manner of interpretations on the other issues. I also find it disingenuous for him to assume the respondents to a survey he did on this where just being socially courteous. Why not just take them at their word?

But then, he refers to a biologist who rejected theism early on and it is one of the most ridiculous reasons I have ever read.

One of them, John Bonner of Prince ton University, told me, “The reason I decided one day that I didn’t really want any religion at all at that age—well, I was maybe fourteen by this time—was that birds, sparrows outside my window, seem to be having a perfectly fine existence and are managing tremendously well…. I thought, ‘They can do that without God,’ so that’s what made me decide that religion was not for me. [From] that moment on I really did not believe in God.”

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 47). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

I suspect John Bonner drives a car, writes on a computer, has a phone, goes grocery shopping, uses language, etc. Birds do not do this. They are still having a tremendously fine existence. Or is it that Bonner just goes with the birds when they do something he wants?

To end on a positive, Graffin does say when he teaches his students, he tries to let them take the science and go with their own conclusions. I hope this is so. One of the greatest problems we have is thinking people have to choose between religion and science. The more this dichotomy is pushed, the more both sides lose great minds.

We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Anarchy Evolution Chapter 1

What do I think of Greg Graffin’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This book says it’s by Graffin and Steve Olson, but Graffin seems to be the main writer as it is a lot about his story and his research.

So let’s start with some confessions. First off, Graffin is apparently the lead singer of a band called Bad Religion. I have heard of this band, but I do not know if I have ever heard any of their songs. I could not name one of them. I am impressed to hear that despite this, Graffin has a doctorate in a scientific field and teaches at a university. Most music stars wouldn’t do that.

I also want to say that this book has been surprising. I try to always read one book I disagree with and while I thoroughly disagree with Graffin, I do not find him demeaning or insulting. This is quite relieving to see in an atheist book. If anything, I find him quite enjoyable to read even while I disagree with him. I thnk he’s quite open and he seems to be the kind of guy I could hang out with at a restaurant and talk about our worldviews together.

This book largely focuses on science and readers know that I don’t touch science as science. I will talk about the history of it and the philosophy of it, but not the ins and outs of it. This book also largely focuses on evolution and readers of this blog know I don’t care one way or another about that topic. Graffin can win the battle with me and lose the war.

Looking at the first chapter, let’s look at one statement he makes about morality.

Either harming other people is wrong, in which case God is unnecessary, or harming other people is acceptable, in which case God’s admonitions are misguided.

Graffin, Greg; Olson, Steve. Anarchy Evolution: Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God (p. 4). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

But why is it wrong? This is just another version of the Euthyphro dilemma. It might seem obvious to you, but is it? If we are matter in motion, who cares what one bit of matter does to another bit of matter?

What I want to know is where does goodness come from? Is anything truly good or not? If so, how did it get that way? Goodness is not a material property. You can study the matter of something all day long and you will not find goodness there.

Now do you need to know God exists to know about goodness? No. Do you need to believe in God to know about good? No. Do you need God to form a basis for the existing of good? Yes. You can get to Washington D.C. from anywhere else in America without a map and even by chance if you don’t know that it exists, but you cannot get there without D.C. existing.

Graffin also says that it is a mistake to conclude from the anarchy of the material world that life has no meaning. Graffin says the opposite. The purposelessness emphasizes the tremendous meaning of human life. Okay? Why? What is that based on? Think about what Bertrand Russell said in A Free Man’s Worship.

Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins–all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.

Graffin also says evolution provides the context for how he lives. He admits that it has implications that can make us uneasy. He ends by saying on matters of important questions we must all accept the truth, no matter how difficult it might be. I completely agree with this last part! This is something that makes reading Graffin so refreshing.

He also says evolution is anarchic, but out of that has risen great beauty. I first want to know how that is possible in a purely material world. Material things are beautiful, but it is not because of the matter itself but because of the form of the matter. That’s Aristotelianism though which would also say evolution does have a purpose. It works towards the survival of the fittest. If evolution is true, it is inherently teleological.

He also says people need a cursory knowledge at least of evolution and even if they want to reject it, they need to understand the basics. I agree. I hope he would agree also that in a society such as ours, you need a basic understanding of the Bible, even if one wants to reject it. While there are plenty of Christians that critique evolution without understanding it, there are plenty of atheists who do the same with the Bible.

Other than that, we have a lot of Graffin’s own personal life and his personal ideas of how to live. It is entertaining, but not relevant for our purposes. Still, this is thus far one of the better atheistic books I have read.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Final Thoughts on the Paulogia article

So what is there left to say? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The problem many times with so many critiques of the resurrection is that they just say the same things. They treat the whole situation as if they just do some simple thinking, and boom, there’s the answer and no one noticed it for 2,000 years.

Worldviews are rarely like that.

I am in a debate group with Jehovah’s Witnesses and I find it so amazing when they post a verse like it stands alone and think they have disproven the Trinity. Yes. This is a verse that no one in Christian history ever noticed. Lo and behold, the Witnesses came along and showed us the truth that everyone before them overlooked.

Or let’s be fair and use a secular example as well.

Suppose a Christian is arguing with an atheist about evolution and says “Well if people came from apes, then why are there still apes?”

Yes. Absolutely no scientist ever thought about that question at all. With that question, the National Academy of Sciences can now abandon evolution and several dissertations will have to be shredded immediately.

I’m not saying that evolution is false and I’m not saying it’s true. If you read my blog, you know that I do not know and I do not care. I have some questions about it, but I am willing to accept just for the sake of argument. However, if you want to be a Christian and argue against it, God bless you, but know that it will require that you actually seriously study the science and build a strong scientific case.

One statement I often make with atheists is that too many of them live in constant fear of contrary thought. Yes, sadly so do so many Christians. I am always reading at least one book that I disagree with. When I argue with Jehovah’s Witnesses, I encourage them to read some of the commentaries out there on the verses they share. They never do.

I am not saying that atheists should not try to mount a case against the resurrection. If anyone thinks it is false, they should. I am saying that too many atheists I encounter seem to give just-so stories that they think are plausible, but really upon close examination do not hold up. Sometimes they explain one facet of the data and sometimes do that quite well, but they ignore the greater parts.

This is also a problem in our time. Look at our presidential debates. “The economy is in shambles. How do you plan to fix it? You have two minutes. Go.”

This question is hugely multi-faceted. It doesn’t matter which candidate you prefer, no one should be able to give a full answer in two minutes, but we have become that soundbite culture. Arguing against the resurrection will likely take a book-length work to give full credibility to it. I’m not saying blog posts can’t be made, but I would suggest if Paulogia wants to do this again, to try to make a blog post on each point entirely.

This is also why when I go through a book to respond to it, I do it over multiple parts. Arguments are serious and they require deep dives. It’s hard, but someone has to do it.

We’ll see what next week brings!

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Paulogia on the Resurrection Part 4

How did the resurrection claims end? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So now we come to Paulogia’s final points. After addressing these, for the final day of the week, I plan on writing about why I do not find these convincing overall. For now, let’s see what Paulogia has to say.

The first is that Greek-speaking Gentiles who never saw Jesus began writing down the stories centuries later. Of course, there is no real interaction with scholarship that places the Gospels early, not that the case Habermas and others build depends on them. You don’t see Jesus and the Eyewitnesses dealt with.

Paulogia does say the case against traditional authorship is ironclad and has a link to that. I understand he can’t argue for everything in a post. At this, I do just want to raise up some questions.

If these were Greek speakers writing about events long before them, why did they not put anything on the lips of Jesus that addressed their concerns. Why is there nothing on the nature of the Lord’s Supper and baptism? Why is there nothing on meat offered to idols? Why is there nothing on what Gentiles have to do to be saved or on circumcision? Why does the term Son of Man show up constantly when it doesn’t in the rest of the New Testament?

If we want to say that the Gospels were written as prophecy fulfilled after the fact, then why is this not done on the topic of the resurrection where one would think you would find the most Old Testament references? You don’t even find a doctrine of the atonement here. Why not?

Also, if we are talking about authorship, why would the church pick the names that they did? Matthew was a tax collector. Surely you could find a better representative among the apostles! Mark had a reputation of being a Momma’s Boy who ran away in the first missionary journey causing a split between the church’s two first great missionaries. Luke was a Gentile who is only briefly mentioned in the epistles. The only one that makes sense is John, and that is the one the church debated! Was it John the elder or John the apostle?

The 11th point is that some Christians were punished for behavior by the Roman government. The problem is we are not told what this was. How about the fact that Christians were also seen as intolerant because they refused to acknowledge other gods? How about Christians had a Messiah who was crucified which was shameful? How about Christianity was an automatic challenge to Caesar by calling Jesus the only Lord?

Paulogia says the church grew because they gave to the poor and were accepting of others. The fact that they refused to worship other gods actually had them be seen as unaccepting of others. As for the poor, that would explain the poor coming to them, but not anyone in elite circles. You could give to the poor if you wanted without having to follow a crucified Messiah.

And then finally, Christianity eventually gained tolerance and then became the official religion. Okay, but how did it get to that point? Paulogia says other points like an empty tomb are later embellishments. One thinks he doth claim victory too quickly. Also, Paulogia never explains why we have this story as I said at the start.

He finally says the ball is in Habermas’s court.

This is likely the closest Paulogia is going to get a return serve as I have no reason to think Habermas will take Paulogia seriously.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Paulogia on the Resurrection Part 3

Was Paul ridden with guilt? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re continuing our look at Paulogia that can be found here and today, points 7-9 will be covered.

Point 7 is that the story of Jesus spread orally with the emphasis being on recruiting new members to the movement instead of transmitting accurate history.

Paulogia appears to paint this as an either-or. It seems unheard of that you could recruit new members to the movement by transmitting accurate history. The implicit assumption is “If we tell the history accurately, we won’t get members” and “If we want to get members, we need to downplay the history.” Of course, there is no interaction with how oral societies communicate their stories.

There’s still nothing also on why this story. Why tell stories about a crucified Messiah? If you’re trying to embellish and rewrite the history, then surely one of the first statements you would want to eliminate is crucifixion. You could have resurrection without crucifixion. Jesus went into Pilate’s residence at the head of a mob and was killed in the attempt, but He was resurrected as a hero of the movement. Nope. Jesus suffers the capital penalty that was the worst in shame at the time.

Paulogia also says that the Gospels weren’t written until decades later. I suspect he is thinking of the communication being like a game of telephone with individuals talking to individuals, when it would be more stories being told in group settings. The groups would have certain members in them who would make sure the stories were told accurately. There is no interaction with people like Dunn or McIver or Bailey or others on oral communication as was said.

Now we get to Paul who had a non-veridical vision of the allegedly-resurrected Jesus. And what was the cause of that vision? Let’s say it all together boys and girls!

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE!

Yes, it’s that magic term atheists like to throw out when they don’t know anything else to say. Paulogia also compares this to PTSD. Over what? Who knows?

To get to Cognitive Dissonance again, there is no reading of someone like Festinger. There is an allegation that Paul is wrestling with guilt, but that is just Paulogia throwing his own culture onto the Biblical one. In the Biblical one, as in many honor-shame cultures, behavior was done to earn the approval of the group or some other external source, such as God, and was not based on internal feelings or conscience.

What does Paul have guilt over? Killing Christians? He would have seen that as a service to God. Paulogia also says he wanted a new purpose in life, because obviously rising up the ranks in Jewish society and being an up and coming star in that field was just not worth it. Obviously, he needed to attach himself to this shameful group that gave him persecutions instead.

As for Paul being prone to hallucinations, again, this is Paulogia’s stance. Evidence they were hallucinations? Well, that doesn’t happen. Why? Because there is no God that can provide visions? If so, that is part of the claim that needs to be demonstrated. Readers know I have plenty of times made my case for theism here.

Finally, Paul met the apostles, but they did not see eye to eye. Paulogia says this explains the lack of information about Jesus’s ministry in his epistles. Once again, Paulogia is pressing his own low-context culture on a high-context society. In a high-context society, background knowledge on the part of the reader is assumed. (It would be ironic if we found out that Paulogia also complains about alleged Christian bigotry after he has pushed his own ideas of how society works onto the Biblical culture.)

Paulogia also says that this is evidence Paul’s visit was not to talk about the life of Jesus. Yes. Because obviously, when he met with the apostles and conferred with them, they were just talking about the weather or all that time or perhaps how the Jumping Jehoshophats were going to do in taking down the Egyptian Eagles in that year’s chariot races.

So once again, we have nothing but weak cases from Paulogia that run on speculation upon speculation and ignore the culture of the time.

We’ll look at the rest of the work tomorrow.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Paulogia on the Resurrection Part 2

How well-known was Jesus after His death? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Continuing the look at Paulogia, the next point he wishes to make from here is that before the crucifixion Jesus had some followers, but most of them disappeared from reliable history aside from Peter, never to be heard from again.

So many vague terms here.

Paulogia refers to self-serving and fanciful church traditions here (Not sure what that means entirely.), Paulogia says that only Peter and John really get mentioned in the narrative. He does say that Sean McDowell says that Peter is the only member of the twelve whom we have a high degree of probability for with regard to martyrdom. It has been awhile since I read that book, but even granted that, what follows from that?

When it comes to what we have from the ancient world, what we have to have to get to us is that first, someone observed it, then someone wrote it, then it managed to be copied, then it somehow lasted to our times. Sometimes this is difficult and we know that there are many books that have been lost to history. The writings of Papias come to mind as an example.

Yet despite this, I wonder what Paulogia means by disappeared into history. Does it mean that they had no impact? Are the only lives worth recording those who were martyred? Paulogia leaves too much unclear on this point.

Paulogia’s fifth point is that after the death of Jesus, Peter was distraught and experienced a bereavement hallucination.

Okay. How do we know he was distraught?

Paulogia might say “Wouldn’t you be if the man you thought was the Messiah was gone?” Maybe, or maybe Peter was more “I can’t believe I spent around three years of my life following this fraud!” We don’t know his psychological state. There is a reason psychohistory has by and large been abandoned. I have been in therapy and still am and it’s hard enough to diagnose someone who you are talking to in person. Doing it with someone in history is more difficult.

Besides that, even if Peter was having a hallucination, the ancient world was familiar with bereavement hallucinations. It never led to them thinking that the person was alive again. One would also think that surely by the time Peter is being crucified he would be saying “You know, that probably was a hallucination.” Normally unless someone is in advanced stages of dementia or has a psychiatric disorder of some kind, they know when they have had a hallucination.

The next part is that James joined the movement after as well as John. But why James? Paulogia suggests social contagion, but why should anyone think this? What would it take to convince you that your brother was alive again and not only was alive, but was the Son of God?

He also suggests maybe James took over the family business. What business? James is never declared to be the Messiah even though he would have been an obvious pick. James is mentioned a number of times in Acts, but he is certainly not a highlighted figure in comparison to Peter and Paul.

Thus we conclude reasons 4-6 and what do we find but more of the same kind of material?

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Paulogia on the Resurrection Part 1

Why does this story exist? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Someone sent me this wanting a reply to it. I looked through and thought it was just something pretty basic. Then I take another look and realize it’s Paulogia. He is a somewhat well-known figure on the interwebz. In this, he is responding to Gary Habermas. Apparently, Habermas says at the end of his first volume on the resurrection that few scholars are really standing up to the data. I have a copy, but with schoolwork going on, I have not read it yet. It’s amusing though to think that if this is the case and scholars aren’t putting forward these theories, that Paulogia thinks he can.

At any rate, I do not know if Habermas has even heard of Paulogia. I am sure Habermas probably wouldn’t even really bother with a response. That being said, I do know Habermas and I am sure he would be fine with me giving an answer for him.

Paulogia also quotes Bart Ehrman saying that any scenario, no matter how unlikely, is to be preferred over the one where a miracle occurs. This has powerful rhetorical flair, but at the same time, it shows that really, Ehrman is not going to be responsive to the evidence. It is saying “I do not care how much evidence you pile up. Anything else is more likely than a miracle.”

Does Paulogia really want to go that route? I have written about that here.

Again, if this is the case, then if Paulogia agrees, then he is saying he does not really care about evidence. No matter how much you bring up, he will always go with the non-miraculous case. That being said, Paulogia will now be responding to the idea that you can explain the existence of the church without the resurrection.

At the start, something that needs to be said is that Paulogia explains the story that we have. Never explained is why do we have this story? Why was it told this way? After all, a far easier story would be “Yes. He was crucified, but we believe that God has exalted Him for His righteousness and He is now sitting at the right hand of God and is ruling as king.” No resurrection would be needed. No promise of a return or second coming (I differentiate between the two) would be needed. It would also be a story that no one could really refute. Seriously. How would you begin to refute something like that?

Yet the church did not go with that story. Odd. Yet that aspect is something Paulogia never explains. I also do not see any indication that Paulogia understands the concepts of honor and shame. As we will see going through this, Paulogia unsurprisingly comes to the culture of Scripture and superimposes his own culture onto it.

Also, this will be a multi-part series.

So at the start, Paulogia argues that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. From this, he will get no complaint from me. I have read and reviewed Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium on this blog. I have also reviewed his most recent work Armageddon with part one being here.

Paulogia goes to a few Scriptural passages here. The first worth mentioning is in the Olivet Discourse. While I went through Matthew, there is enough similarities in it to compare it to the Marcan version and you can find the start of that here. It’s worth pointing out that in the two Ehrman books, he nowhere mentions orthodox Preterism.

How about the transfiguration? There’s a claim about people seeing the Kingdom of God come with power before that. Is that referring to the transfiguration? Well, not exactly. Finally, what about what Jesus said when before the Sanhedrin about seeing the Son of Man coming on the clouds? This is a reference to Jesus’s second coming, not His return. He is talking about coming to the throne. Note, He is coming and sitting both. It’s not as if Caiaphas will one day look outside his window and see Jesus riding a nimbus cloud like he’s Kid Goku.

By the way, I suppose it is likely Paulogia has late dates for Gospels like Matthew and Luke. Some do date Mark to before 70. So if he dates these this way, why? Why would something be published after the fact saying Jesus will come before this generation passed away? There are a number of options.

  1. The Gospel writers were massive idiots who didn’t realize they had shown Jesus as a false prophet in their own writings.
  2. The Gospel writers wrote after the fact and knew that Jesus’s coming to His throne had already happened as He said. (See all my writings on the Olivet Discourse)
  3. The Gospel writers wrote before the events and trusted they would happen as Jesus prophesied, but if that’s the case then the Gospels are early and within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses.

The second part is that Jesus did something to get Himself arrested and He died by crucifixion. No complaint here.

So now we come to the third one where there will be serious pushback and after this we will wrap up for the night.

This is that the resting place of the body of Jesus was unknown to His followers. Paulogia says that the body would have been left on the cross as Romans did this. However, Craig Evans has a strong case in Jesus and the Remains of His Day that burial of crucified victims was allowed in Judea in peacetime. (We even have found one such victim.) This was done for the sake of Jewish sensitivities.

Jody Magness has also said that the Gospel accounts of the burial of Jesus are consistent with first century burial practices. When Ehrman wrote on this topic in How Jesus Became God, he did not cite any scholars on Jewish burial practices. That is quite a shame.

He says that Mary would not have the means to bury Jesus, which is likely so, but he says nothing about Joseph of Arimathea. Why should I not accept the account? It is consistent. As he says, the Sanhedrin would have responsibility for the body and Joseph would come forward to do what he can. I can understand Paulogia not believing that account. I cannot understand his ignoring it.

Paulogia then says Jesus would have been buried in a burial ground for condemned criminals. Okay. Even if we granted that, how does he get to that therefore it would be unknown to the followers of Jesus where He was buried? Absolutely no one would know? No one on the Sanhedrin would show them? One would think they would want to do this to gloat and shame. “See? He’s buried here right next to the criminals! Go and look for yourself!” Are we to think absolutely no one in Jerusalem, a city swarming with people for Passover, saw what happened? You have a guy who is probably the most well-known figure in the area being publicly crucified and then hours later, no one knows where his body is?

Color me unconvinced.

That’s it for today. We’ll look at parts 4-6 tomorrow.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)