A recent atheist caller to the radio show made this claim over and over in different ways during his discussion with Greg. The caller identified himself as a Hitchens convert from Christianity and believes there's no evidence at all for Christian claims.
Genetic fallacy or not; a Hitchens convert? 'nuff said.
Posted by: Chris | August 18, 2009 at 04:31 AM
With all due respect... This is my face arching sideways and sighing in dissappointment for the same reason you just pointed out, chris.
Posted by: Domane | August 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Being converted to atheism by Hitchens. Has he seen the WLC debate? I mean, if you're going to be converted to atheism, get converted in a less embarrassing way.
Posted by: Bryan | August 18, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Guys, in all fairness to the caller, he was perfectly respectful and had an interesting, non-angry, reasonable conversation with Greg. He doesn't sound at all like Hitchens, regardless if Hitchens played a part in his becoming an atheist, so I think it's a little unfair to him to focus on that.
Posted by: Amy | August 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Rebuke taken, Amy, and maybe I was being a bit unchairitable.
Posted by: Domane | August 18, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Hi, Amy. Great post!
I must admit, despite the reasonableness, I do sometimes wonder why people ring in, and cynical ol' me thinks some like the sound of their own voice or just want to take Greg on.
Maybe the best thing that can happen in these cases is that Greg treats them with the courtesy he does.
The other thing that could happen...is that they could read Tactics, then they'd know not to take on 'the man with the mike'! :)
Posted by: James Findlayson | August 18, 2009 at 02:40 PM
Maybe he was just curious what Greg would say.
I can kind of see how you could look at it both ways. One might make the following argument:
1. If Jesus was raised from the dead, then God exists.
2. God does not exist.
3. Therefore, Jesus was not raised from the dead.
...OR...
1. If Jesus was raised from the dead, then God exists.
2. Jesus was raised from the dead.
3. Therefore, God exists.
In both cases, you'd be acknowledging that God would have to exist before Jesus could be raised from the dead. But that doesn't entail that you must believe in God before affirming the resurrection since the resurrection itself could be evidence for God.
Of course if you say that it's not even possible that God could exist, then no argument can establish God's existence. If it's impossible for God to exist, then no amount of historical evidence can justify belief in the resurrection.
So in the case of any argument, the conclusion has to at least be possible before any of the premises are going to be taken seriously. If we begin, not with the presupposition that God exists, but with the presupposition that it's possible God might exist depending on the evidence, then I think the resurrection CAN be used as evidence for the existence of God.
The question, I guess, is which is stronger--the case against the existence of God, or the case for the resurrection of Jesus? If the case against the existence of God is stronger, then the first argument is sound. If the case for the resurrection of Jesus is stronger, then the second argument for God is sound. A person could weaken the case for the resurrection by making a strong case against the existence of God, and a person could weaken the case against the existence of God by making a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus.
Posted by: Sam | August 18, 2009 at 03:21 PM
Sam, Great points all around. Ive seen some pretty scary resurrection debates, and this may echo of my Christian bias (though I say as humbly as I can, I dont think it does), all other explanations are more extrodinary than the explanation, Jesus, actually rose from death. And I dont say that to say everyone who studies the evidence should be converted, not at all. Im sympathetic to reasonable skepticism. But I think when ever you have resistance to the evidence it usually points to someone being unconvinced in the existence of God, perhaps for understandable reasons (IE, evil). Though this is not always the case. After all, if infact there were truly no God, any other explanation would be infinitely more probable than the one given in the Gospels.
Posted by: The Living Tribunal | August 18, 2009 at 05:59 PM
For me, presupposing the existence of God only raises the resurrection to the status of possibility. It doesn't make particular claims of resurrections very likely, though. The fact that God CAN do something doesn't mean that he DOES. Even if we grant that every account of resurrections (or resuscitation) are historical, when you compare those events to the number of people who have died in the last 4000 or so years, resurrections are still extremely rare events. That's why, even though I believe in a God who has and does perform miracles, I still find myself being skeptical of particular claims of miracles. I'm more likely to doubt somebody who claims to have seen a miraculous healing than I am to doubt somebody who claims to have seen a car accident. It isn't until some extra factors come into play that the miraculous claim begins to seem as plausible as (or more so than) the non-miraculous claim. I don't think it's necessary for a person to know exactly what happened to cause the disciples to believe Jesus rose from the dead before they can be justified in doubting that he did. Apart from any strong case for the resurrection, it seems to me they could be justified in doubting the claim just on the basis that resurrections in general are such rare and unlikely events. You don't have to doubt the existence of God to make such an argument. I believe in the resurrection just because I think the historical case IS strong enough to overcome this primi facie bias against supernatural explanations.
Posted by: Sam | August 18, 2009 at 06:36 PM
Hi, Sam.
Thanks for a 'third option'.
I suppose I was curious as to why someone who claimed to be a recent 'New Atheist' should make the call.
I think what I'm getting at is that, if I do a thought experiment about being an atheist, I'd be like most people, and simply not bother with religion at all.
As a Christian, it would be convenient to assume that the reason they do it is that, in their heart-of-hearts, they're actually curious, and it's God's spirit working mysteriously, and maybe it is.
But it could be that, like many Christians I know, they're doing what I describe. They're simply egotistical or want a fight, a sort of 'reverse proselytism', like Richard Dawkins and his Atheist summer school, much along the lines of Christian conferences, this year.
That is, they're just really red herrings as they're not really interested in what Greg says as much as proving a point or being antagonistic.
Anyway, it's just a thought...
Posted by: James Findlayson | August 19, 2009 at 01:42 AM
I'm just wondering, as the Father must be, about all these convoluted questions [The Word calls them, "foolish questions"], arguments, discussions and conversations [The Word of God says there is "good conversation" and "filthy conversation"].
We're not supposed to be persuading people based on our own reasoning, rather on God's reasoning; and these kinds-a discussions consider things not Godly, rather wordly. The Word says that we are to keep our minds on what's above, not on the world, and our reasoning is of the world. The question: Who/what has custody of your mind [read: heart]? Remember: Outta the abundance of your heart, the mouth speaks. What is your heart's abundance? Jesus said that what defiles a man is not what goes into the mouth, rather what comes outta it. Lookit Proverbs 18:21.
Jesus did not converse with the Devil in the wilderness. That would-a been nasty, what the Word of God calls, "filthy conversation." To have such conversation would have been to consider what the Devil says, and to consider it is to allow that abundance, and that is what you will speak.
What the Devil brings is what the Word calls, an "evil report." Christ brings a "good report." We are to bring the "good report."
Jesus RESPONDED with the Word of God, not the word of His own mind. He responded with the Will of God, not His own Will, thus showing us how to let His sacrifice work.
Mind games may be fun, but they can jeopardize the minds we're supposed to have [Genesis 4:7 -- "sin lieth at the door"], and they don't persuade unbelievers anyways cuz unbelievers have persuaded themselves through their own, worldly mind games, and they think YOU should be persuaded by them, too.
The Christ came to separate the goats from the sheep. There are also goat thoughts and sheep thoughts, and we are to separate them according to the Word of God.
So, I'm careful about what I consider. I'm careful about what I let into my heart for fear that that the wrong abundance willfind its way out my mouth and create something ungodly.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | August 19, 2009 at 02:21 PM
Mr. Incredible,
It is beneficial to be watchful, but the Bible also says to test everything and hold fast what is good. The questions you mention are only foolish for those who are not adopted as sons of God. As redeemed we now have the freedom to be used however God will use our specific gifts for His purpose. For some that includes engaging questions, argumentation, and reasoning with the mind of Christ given to us ("God's reasoning" as you say).
Posted by: anair | August 20, 2009 at 03:44 PM
"We're not supposed to be persuading people based on our own reasoning, rather on God's reasoning."
Does that sentence express your reasoning, or God's reasoning? If it is God's reasoning, how do you know? How can you persuade anyone else to agree with your view that this is God's reasoning? Don't you present reasons and evidence (including quotes from the Bible) to build a case, just like Greg was doing in the clip? You are in fact doing the very thing you are criticizing, building a deductive argument for your case. We all do this. Jesus did this all the time with the Pharisees - He lectured them, and reasoned with them.
In Acts 17-18 Paul reasons with both Jews and Greeks (all of them non-Christians) to try to persuade them of the truth of the faith. So there is exceptional biblical precedent for us to do likewise.
That's my case.
Posted by: Sage S | August 20, 2009 at 09:59 PM
Sage S,
Not everyone is gifted in that gift. "The body does not consist of one member but of many." (but we should "earnestly desire the higher gifts.")
Posted by: anair | August 21, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Posted by: Sage S | August 20, 2009 at 09:59 PM
"We're not supposed to be persuading people based on our own reasoning, rather on God's reasoning."
Does that sentence express your reasoning, or God's reasoning?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
God's reasoning.
Posted by: Sage S | August 20, 2009 at 09:59 PM
If it is God's reasoning, how do you know?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
He tells us.
Posted by: Sage S | August 20, 2009 at 09:59 PM
How can you persuade anyone else to agree with your view that this is God's reasoning?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't reason anybody into what they have "reasoned" themselves out of. All I can do is tell them to read the Word of God, or teach them, and, if the Seed falls on good ground, great. It It doesn't, well, have no control over that. If they don't receive the Word of God, there is nothing I can do to persuade them.
Posted by: Sage S | August 20, 2009 at 09:59 PM
Don't you present reasons and evidence (including quotes from the Bible) to build a case, just like Greg was doing in the clip? You are in fact doing the very thing you are criticizing, building a deductive argument for your case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't criticize the act of reasoning.
Posted by: Sage S | August 20, 2009 at 09:59 PM
Jesus did this all the time with the Pharisees - He lectured them, and reasoned with them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
However, while He used reason, He based His reason on what the Father says and does, not on what the Pharisees, nor the Devil, nor the world, say and do. Not everything is acceptable, just cuz somebody calls it "reasoning." You can "reason" yourself into getting killed, too. You can "reason" yourself into problems with your wife. You can "reason" yourself into homosexuality. You can "reason" yourself into speeding.
Posted by: Sage S | August 20, 2009 at 09:59 PM
In Acts 17-18 Paul reasons with both Jews and Greeks (all of them non-Christians) to try to persuade them of the truth of the faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
However, he said, in other places, that we are to hold fast to the faith. So, when you say that he reasoned with them, does that mean he should've listened to their arguments, considered them, taken them to heart? Should Jesus've listen to the Devil's argument in the wilderness, listen to it and considered it as possible contributions to His thinking? Of course, biblically, that's ridiculous.
Posted by: Sage S | August 20, 2009 at 09:59 PM
there is exceptional biblical precedent for us to do likewise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Eve "reasoned" with the Devil in the Garden, and lookit where THAT got us.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | August 22, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Eve, drawn from the reasoning of God, "reasoned" with the Devil in the Garden. Is THAT the precedent you say God set for us?
Are you saying that we should engage in what the Word calls, "filthy conversation"?
Are you saying that there is precedent for opening the gate and considering what the Word calls, an "evil report"?
Are you saying that there is precedent for opening the gate and letting in doubt about God and His Word?
The human mind can conjure up any number of things that originate either in the Godly nature, or the sin nature. So, the call to "reason" should not, in the sensible person, be as a bell-trigger to Pavlov's dog.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | August 22, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Jesus said, "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."
The Godly-sensible person must ask himself, "What's the abundance of MY heart?"
In testing other spirits [1 John 4:1], we must ask, "What's the abundance of his/her/their heart(s)?"
What that abundance is depends on what the person lets through the gate. The abundance of Jesus' heart remained pure cuz He recognized -- as we should -- what is filthy, and He taught us how, with His Authority, to reject and resist what is filthy.
When the world says that we must "reason," it is saying that we must let in every thought possible. This is sneaky. This means that there will be goat thoughts, not only sheep thoughts. God separates the goats from the sheep. He teaches us how, and, like Eve, in the Garden, we can choose to ignore His advice and receive the curse.
Only Knowledge of the Truth sets you free. Only when you submit to God, through His Knowledge, can you resist the Devil who will then flee. Had Eve, in the Garden, submitted to God's Word, she would've been able to resist the Devil. Filthy conversation and receiving filthy suggestion caused her to "reason," but in the wrong direction. The call to "reason" can be very deceptive.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | August 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM
=="We Assume Christianity Is True?"==
Of course, the world assumes that we assume Christianity is true. That's cuz worldlings think that the Bible is nothing but a book of mere assertions. So, they go into it with limited information, and come out of it with a fractured conclusion. Doesn't sound like "reason" to me. Not very scientific. There's a certain logic to it, flawed and deceptive as it is.
If they were to do the experiment as great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great millions of multitudes have done and do, they would see that it is not an assumption at all. Of course, they are afraid to do the experiment for fear that they will find out just that.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | August 22, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Mr. Incredible, it's really difficult to follow your responses to people--the copying of the lines, names and dates is very confusing. Please try to use the formats the other commenters here are using. When quoting someone, use "" or >> or use < b l o c k q u o t e > < / b l o c k q u o t e> to indent or itallicize the quotes with < i >< / i>(except without the spaces--just wanted to show you the formatting). Thanks!
Posted by: Amy (Blog Moderator) | August 24, 2009 at 12:07 PM