Apple of Doubt

“Weak arguments are often thrust before my path; but although they are most unsubstantial, it is not easy to destroy them. There is not a more difficult feat known than to cut through a cushion with a sword.”

– Richard Whately

Lee Strobel, of “The Case for Christ” infamy, was asked a series of questions by Hemant Mehta and his friendly band. He answered them in much the same fashion as anyone familiar with christain apologetics would expect, but then he turned the tables and presented the Friendly Atheist with six questions from other christian thinkers for atheists. Ebonmuse, Greta Christina, and the good folks at Dangerous Intersection have already taken on these questions with their usual wit and charm but I thought I’d take a whack at them if for no better reason that practice. Each of these topics is deserving of a post in and of itself so please excuse me if my answers appear rushed and if I link heavily. Will these answers change the arguments made by the likes of Strobel? Or be more insightful and inspiring that those of Greta and Ebon? No, I don’t expect them to, thus the name of the post.

1. Argument from History (?)

Gary Habermas: “Utilizing each of the historical facts conceded by virtually all contemporary scholars, please produce a comprehensive natural explanation of Jesus’ resurrection that makes better sense than the event itself.”

These historical facts are: (1) Jesus was killed by crucifixion; (2) Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them; (3) The conversion of the church persecutor Saul, who became the Apostle Paul; (4) the conversion of the skeptic James, Jesus’ half-brother; (5) The empty tomb of Jesus. These “minimal facts” are strongly evidenced and are regarded as historical by the vast majority of scholars, including skeptics, who have written about the resurrection in French, German, and English since 1975. While the fifth fact doesn’t have quite the same virtual universal consensus, it nevertheless is conceded by 75 percent of the scholars and is well supported by the historical data if assessed without preconceptions.

Virtually all scholars? Biblical scholars or historians? Instead of pointing out that the very existence of a historical Jesus is still controversial [1][2][3][4][5], pointing to degreed historians that reject these facts[6][7][8][9], or even make the obvious point that our only source of information on the “witnesses” to the resurrection are unreliable third hand hearsay[10][11][12][13][14] let’s give Mr. Habermas the benefit of the doubt. Let’s assume for the sake of argument alone that there lived a man named Jesus in roughly the same historical period as the biblical Jesus and that this man was crucified under roman law. Let’s them assume, for the sake of argument only, that the twelve disciples, Saul, and James all claimed to have seen this man Jesus after his death. I concede nothing here but instead assume these facts purely for the sake of argument.

Alright. With those “facts” we can easily provide several naturalist explanations. Why did Saul, James, and the Disciples claim to see Jesus after his death? There are literally thousands of people today who claim to have been abducted by aliens, seen ghosts, and been healed by pieces of rock. If you carefully investigate these claims you find momentary hallucinations, unstable characters, self-deception, and mistakes. We are talking about superstitious people all following a fringe religion (save for Saul, but there is no reason to think he was any less superstitious), so when exposed to a phenomena they didn’t understand they would applied a religious significance to it. In laboratories today we can induce “religious experiences”[15] by stimulating certain parts of the brain. There is simply no reason for me to accept that eyewitness testimony of a stranger at face value, much less when they are making such outlandish claims with no corroborating evidence.

Other than simply being wrong, for a variety of reasons, there is the possibility of deception. Not only self-deception of a fringe religious group who just lost their leader but malicious deception. Saul went from a run of the mill member of the Pharisee to one of the leaders of the early christian movement. Our modern biblical canon’s New Testament is filled with writings attributed to and written by him. Some authors have even pointed out doctrinal differences in the approach and writings of other apostle and Saul [16]. Much like Constantine’s fortuitous conversion the timing and sincerity of Saul’s religious experiences strike me as suspect.

In the end the best answer to this question is the words of David Hume, “When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.”

2. The Argument from Design

Paul Copan: “Given the commonly recognized and scientifically supported belief that the universe (all matter, energy, space, time) began to exist a finite time ago and that the universe is remarkably finely tuned for life, does this not (strongly) suggest that the universe is ontologically haunted and that this fact should require further exploration, given the metaphysically staggering implications?

“And, second, granted that the major objection to belief in God is the problem of evil, does the concept of evil itself not suggest a standard of goodness or a design plan from which things deviate, so that if things ought to be a certain way (rather than just happening to be the way they are in nature), don’t such ‘injustices’ or ‘evils’ seem to suggest a moral/design plan independent of nature?”

Let’s ignore the argument from fine tuning, that’s puddle thinking and has been given a thorough going over by people with far better math skills than I [16][17][18][19]. Another question down below brings up this ontological haunting so I will wait and provide my answer there. So let’s look instead at this moral plan. The only way that injustices and evils would suggest a moral plan would be if they followed a specific repeatable pattern. In other words, if a boy steals a hundred dollars and a senator steal a hundred dollars then misfortune should befall them equally. Instead we see that there are those that can escape the consequences of their actions and obfuscate their wrongdoing. If there was a moral plan in place the innocent wouldn’t suffer needlessly and the evil couldn’t prosper from their misdeeds. However a natural world where misfortune is a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and that justice and injustice are solely the arena of human action we would expect to see this kind of imbalance. So it seems to me that the type and number of “evils” in the world point toward a universe with no supernatural or metaphysical arbiter of right and wrong. Of course that is the problem of evil, so one wonders why Copan would even bring it up as an objection. It’s like saying, “I know you believe that god has no hand in dishing out punishment and reward, but what if he does?”. It’s not an argument at all.

3. Argument from Incredulity

Frank Pastore: “Please explain how something can come from nothing, how life can come from non-life, how mind can come from brain, and how our moral senses developed from an amoral source.”

We don’t know what came before the big bang. We are finite creatures with finite technical ability. Maybe one day we will pierce the veil beyond the big bang and see what came before. Or maybe we will witness another big bang creating another universe. However there is no point in trying to answer that mystery with another mystery. There is no need to invent something to stick in the gaps of our knowledge. As for life? Well I’m surprised that someone who hosts a show dedicated to apologetics and ministry has never bothered to read about abiogenesis and the science of life. I’m sure the author of the question has specific problems with abiogenesis, but it makes you wonder why he doesn’t just argue those instead of asking something with such an obvious reply.

How can mind come from brain? Well I’m sure could spend quite a bit of time here arguing against dualism but instead I will just make two points. First, we know that overlapping operations in the brain produce complex behavior. If you accept this as true then why does it seem absurd to you that other complex behavior (religious belief, mathematics, creating art) cannot also be mapped to the brain? This is not meant as an argument for physicalism but as a possible “how”. Second, if not the brain then where does the mind come from? The author would probably say a soul. Show me evidence of the soul. Show me where the brain’s functions end and the soul’s begin. Until you can come up with a cogent alternative we work off of the best possible explanation we have.

Now, personally, I don’t believe we do possess any kind of moral sense. I also think that many atheists confuse evolutionarily produced emotions like empathy and sympathy with morality. A subject I hope to expound upon at a later date. However that is besides the point. If we take this “moral sense” to be sympathy and empathy then there is a whole host of research showing that these senses are a result of evolution and we can see these in the animal kingdom amongst higher mammals and a few others. However without knowing exactly what is meant here by “moral sense” I cannot really comment further.

4. Atheist Doubt

Mike Licona: “Irrespective of one’s worldview, many experience periods of doubt. Do you ever doubt your atheism and, if so, what is it about theism or Christianity that is most troubling to your atheism?”

I do doubt. I think doubt keeps me sharp(er). Doubt keeps me from dismissing good arguments for a deity out of hand. It keeps me searching and asking questions. I have doubt that maybe there is some deistic or pantheistic force that is the source of the universe. As I said above we don’t know how the big bang came about. So there will always be doubt where there are gaps but doubt and uncertainty doesn’t dissuade me from my belief that given all the information at my disposal it is rational to conclude that there probably isn’t a god.

5. The Teleological Argument

Greg Koukl: “Why is something here rather than nothing here? Clearly, the physical universe is not eternal (Second Law of Thermodynamics, Big Bang cosmology). Either everything came from something outside the material universe, or everything came from nothing (Law of Excluded Middle). Which of those two is the most reasonable alternative? As an atheist, you seem to have opted for the latter. Why?”

This ontological haunting that was brought up earlier. It is a classic argument, why is there something rather than nothing. This too is a perfect example of the god of the gaps fallacy that tries to answer with an even greater mystery. There’s scientific speculation that the universe may well be infinite (only one specific reading of the second law says otherwise), that because all elements move from a less stable to more stable states existence is more stable than non-existence, the possibility of the big crunch, multiverse theory, quantum level creations of matter, and so many others. However these are purely speculative. The limitations are well understood and the initial reasoning behind them is sound. Feel free to argue the god hypothesis but be prepared to argue it on the same grounds.

Since I don’t believe we can say whether or not the universe is infinite I don’t accept that the law of excluded middle applies. The most reasonable alternative of all these options however, is doubt. We have very little information to go on about the origins of existence, or whether existence requires an origin, so all we can do is begin weeding out theories that don’t work and look for more information. We don’t know and we may never know. Finding gaps in our knowledge and shoving god in them is not the answer however. I’ve said it before and it remains true, you cannot answer a mystery with a greater mystery.

6. The Argument from Reason

Alvin Plantiga/William Lane Craig: If our cognitive faculties were selected for survival, not for truth, then how can we have any confidence, for example, that our beliefs about the reality of physical objects are true or that naturalism itself is true? (By contrast, theism says God has designed our cognitive faculties in such a way that, when functioning properly in an appropriate environment, they deliver true beliefs about the world.)

This argument is actually Strobel summing up an argument from Alvin Plantinga using the wording of William Lane Craig so the exact attribution of this argument is murky. I’m far from innocent of this arguments error but something it causes a great deal of consternation when an argument simply ignores or misses an obvious response. This argument misses two obvious replies. One is that our senses compliance with the real world can be tested against the readings of machines. Unless you advocate solipsism there you must believe that the truth can be determined and if it can be then our senses can be compared to that truth. Not to mention the most obvious response, the truth is imminently useful for survival. If our senses were totally incapable of perceiving the truth then we wouldn’t be able to survive.

Aside from our senses we also possess reasoning. Our minds are not perfect diviners of truth but we have the ability to reason. Through reason and the empirical data of our senses we can reach a close approximation of the truth. Many volumes of work are written in rebuttal to solipsism and external world skepticism. So you’ll excuse me if I don’t take the time here to lay my case.

The author seems confused about the term theism. Theism is simply belief in a deity. It says absolutely nothing about our senses or ability to develop true beliefs. No doubt there are many philosophies that fall under theism which have such a   belief but theism by itself has nothing to say on the concept. It’s much like how the term atheism is linked to naturalism when the atheism is simply disbelief and does not necessarily imply any other philosophical stance.

Happy Hunting

As has been stated by others these questions are not the silver bullets that some seem to believe. They are not the best arguments against atheism or the questions most likely to plant the seeds of conversion in the godless. And what’s even more interesting is that these questions and many of my replies are boilerplate material. These are standard theist and christian points used universally from apologists on down to street preachers. No serious discussion took place here, just the retreading of old ground. My best advice for apologists facing a new era of religious skepticism and disbelief is to find those argument that cuts past the run of the mill and strike at the root of atheist argument. There are those that do this now which not only force us non-believers to think harder on our positions but move the debate away from the pablum. Away from the simplistic and absurd.