This ministry needs your financial support! Donate now!
Posted by Anthony on January 29, 2009
I recently had a conversation with some gents that I thought I would paraphrase for my blog. I think I’ve had the same kind of conversation a dozen times in the last three months. I have combined all the conversations into one paraphrase. The Internet is filled with conversations like this. If you have got one feel free to share. Enjoy.
Them: We believe science is the only way to learn about the world and religion is just faith-mongering superstition. There is no scientific basis for believing in the existence of God. Belief is just irrationalism. I know what you’re going to say. That there had to be something that has always existed. Why not the universe?
Me: Well, science says that the universe had a beginning. So I guess the universe can’t be the thing that has always existed. Surely that means we can explore other options.
Them: Did I say that I accepted that something has always existed?
Me: No. Do you?
Them: No.
Me: So something can come from nothing?
Them: No, that’s now what I’m saying.
Me: Well, if it isn’t the case that something has always existed then there is only one alternative, and that is that you posit that something can come from nothing.
Them: What I am saying is that we can’t know which is true, whether something has always existed or if something can come from nothing.
Me: Well, for which do you have evidence for?
Them: Evidence?
Me: Well, you’re claiming the high road of science so obviously you must be willing to accept, provisionally at least, where the evidence takes you.
Them: But we can’t know which. That’s my point.
Me: So you should be a principled agnostic, then.
Them: I’m not, I’m an atheist.
Me: But if you’re saying you can’t know then agnosticism is the proper answer.
Them: But I’m an atheist.
Me: lol, whatever. Moving on. The evidence would seem to suggest that the universe hasn’t always existed. It had a beginning. Regardless of the fact that you can imagine scenarios by which the universe could regress infinitely, it would seem that science tells us there is a hard limit on speculations about what was ‘before.’
Them: But if everything requires a cause then that would include God.
Me: Who said everything requires a cause? The whole point of our conversation to this point has been on the general agreement that something has always existed- without a cause. So you are misrespresenting the argument. The argument is really, best known through William L. Craig, is that everything with a beginning has a cause. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on September 26, 2008
The question ‘Who made God’ is one of the first questions a young child asks. It is an obvious question with a difficult to comprehend answer. The problem is when adults get stymied. Worse is when grown men who ought to know better and claim they do get it wrong. For example, this little bit from Christian turned atheist Dan Barker says:
The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: Who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe.
While rejecting the premise of his statement, it does help us bring it to the point. In the first place, Christians themselves create the initial problem. To their kids or in a carefree moment they’ll say “Everything is made by God.” The kid quickly sees that everything ought to include God, so now they want to know what made God. When the parent says “Everything except God” it seems ad hoc. The ‘everything’ needs to be qualified, and Christians worth their salt typically have. For example, William Lane Craig issues the Kalam Cosmological Argument with something more like “Everything with a beginning has a cause.”
One of the reasons I find Dan Barker to be *ahem* not very… *ahem* worthy of my time generally is because he is perfectly comfortable presenting the view that Christians argue ‘Everything has a cause.’ It is very disingenuous if he knows better… and if he doesn’t know better… well… at any rate you will see on the page I mentioned above down by ‘First Cause’ he does exactly this.
Still, it is not my point here to argue the Kalam or go after Dan Barker. I am directing my argument against those who feel that it is ad hoc to infer or deduce that something has always existed, uncreated. Many newly minted skeptics thump their chests smugly about the absurdity of believing in an uncaused cause and then uncritically go on to posit their own- only they call their choice the ‘universe’ whereas the theist calls theirs, ‘God.’
The value of the Barker quote above is to corroborate my assertion that it is not inherently inferior to say that there is a God, eternally existing, because no matter what, we posit something eternally existing, without a cause. We can turn Barker’s quote around: “Who made the universe? If a universe can be thought eternal, then so can God.” Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on September 9, 2008
It is not uncommon to hear skeptics dismissing Christian arguments on the assumption that Christians in fact operate on the same principles as skeptics, only they don’t apply that skepticism to their own beliefs. So, a skeptic might say that he disbelieves in God for the same reasons why Christians don’t believe in pixies, fairies, Zeus, Thor, etc. This is famously expressed in the statement, “We’re all atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do.” Here is an essay by Dan Barker making the argument. This reasoning surfaces on my forums pretty frequently, too.
It is, I am afraid, stupid. I might be willing to concede that there are some pretty uneducated Christians out there who haven’t thought much about the question. It doesn’t surprise me that atheists like Dawkins and Barker try to attack the weakest links. That is their only hope. This little blog entry hopes to kick some Christians in the pants to think a little better and also throw cold water onto some skeptical idiocy.
In the first place, it should be pointed out that the informed Christian response to such putative entities is agnostic: pending evidence. The only people assuming that there isn’t a God or supernatural entities before they lift a finger are the atheists. The reason why I have labeled the atheistic tactic on this point as ‘stupid’ and ‘idiocy’ is for a reason that I would have hoped would be obvious to the atheist if he knew a pinch of anything. Christians, of course, are already on record believing that ‘supernatural’ entities exist. The clearest example would be angels, and their fallen counterparts, demons. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on April 19, 2008
The schedule for the upcoming apologetics academy session has been more or less finalized. Here it is:
The Problem of Pain and Suffering – April 21st
Christ Promised in the Old Testament – April 23rd
Historicity of the Resurrection – April 25th
Elements of Basic Christianity – April 28th
Reliability of the New Testament Documents – April 28th
Formation of the New Testament Canon – April 28th
Basic New Testament Greek — April 28th
Studies in Atheism — April 30th
Study in Alleged Bible Contradictions — May 5th
History of the Creeds and Christian Conflict — May 5th
The Historical Jesus: A Survey — May 5th
Cults and World Religions — May 5th
For more information about the academy, please go here. You will need to sign up first, and then on the course page you will be able to register- and pay- for the course.
Some atheists have asked me about the academy. Look, I’ll be frank. It’s designed with Christians in mind. Honestly, some of you skeptics couldn’t go wrong being exposed to Christianity as taught and I think if you could stomach the fact that you were financially supporting this ministry you would be well served to have a guided tour of such influential Christian scholars such as FF Bruce, Bruce Metzger, Peter Kreeft, William Lane Craig, and Gary Habermas. It ain’t going to be “Sntjohnny Hour.” So, do what you will, but remember, the ACADEMY is NOT A DEBATE FORUM! Ask questions, sure. Our facilitators have better uses of their time then to get into extended arguments.
Other notes: The Problem of Pain and Suffering is canceled for lack of students. The other courses are currently set to go forward on schedule. Some adjustments may be necessary.
Academy Portal: http://www.athanatosministries.org/academy/
Course Page: http://www.athanatosministries.org/courses/
Sign Up Page: http://www.athanatosministries.org/courses/login/signup.php
And for goodness sake, please don’t sign up with a yahoo or AOL address. They’re killing me.
Look forward to having you, or those that I already have, seeing you!
Posted by Anthony on February 22, 2008
A Review of
John Dominic Crossan’s
The Historical Jesus
By Anthony Horvath
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PLAGIARISM. COPYRIGHT 2007 ANTHONY HORVATH.
Introduction
While in Strasbourg attending the Apologetics Academy under Dr. Montgomery we spent a fair bit of time talking about ‘the historical Jesus’ and scholarship on the subject both in the past and in recent times. I decided that further study in that area would be beneficial. For that reason, I chose to review John Dominic Crossan’s 507 page The Historical Jesus. This review will summarize Dr. Crossan’s methodology and his conclusions, present a handful of criticisms that have been made by other scholars, and then conclude with criticism by this writer.
Summary:
Summary Introduction:
Dr. Crossan makes specific emphasis in the beginning of his book about the need to start with an appropriate methodology. He intends, he explains, to tie his conclusions that methodology. For that reason, first his methodology will be summarized and then his conclusions.
Summary of Crossan’s Methodology:
Dr. Crossan begins his prologue into the question of ‘the Historical Jesus’ by saying, “Historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke” (Crossan xxvii). He reflects on a presidential address by Daniel J. Harrington, of the Catholic Biblical Association, which offers short descriptions on seven different ‘historical’ Jesuses. There is Jesus as a political revolutionary, as a magician, as a Galilean charismatic, as a Galilean rabbit, as a “Hillelite or proto-Pharisee,” as an Essene, and as an Eschatological prophet. Crossan admits, “It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do autobiography and call it biography” (Crossan xxviii).
It is in light of this situation that Crossan decides to adopt a methodology that he hopes will be free from such suspicion. He proposes a methodology that is as objective as can be. He refers to his methodology as a ‘triple triadic’ process. Read the rest of the entry… »
