On Logical Fallacies

Note to the atheists who read this: While I have referred to "atheists who hold" and the like, please do not consider this a statement that "all atheists hold to all these positions."  I am quite aware there are differences of what is held and how it is expressed.  However the positions I discuss have in fact been made by certain atheists in various places, and so it is valid to discuss what was said as examples.

While I planned to move on to the next topic of assumption made by some atheists, I think I will need to take a brief detour to talk about logic and logical fallacies here in general.

I think the Christian blogger needs to be aware of them for two reasons:

1. So as not to be fooled by an argument which may sound intimidating but is really nonsense
2. Not to make the same errors themselves.

Remember, logic is not our tool.  It is not the tool of those who opposes us.  Believers and unbelievers alike can be logical or illogical in how they present their argument.

What is a Logical Argument?

A logical argument requires a Major premise, a Minor premise and a conclusion.  For example, in math, if A=B and B=C, then it follows that therefore A=C.  However there are rules in logic, which one needs to follow if they want to prove their argument to be true.  The conclusion has to be supported by the premises (A=B, B=C, Therefore A=D is not supported by the premises)

What is a Logical Fallacy

A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning which invalidates the argument.  That does not mean the conclusion is automatically false of course (something can be true but the person explaining it botches the job for example), but it does mean the argument itself has not been proven true and cannot be validly used to support a position.

I would now like to look at some of the popular ones employed on the internet

The Straw man argument

The straw man argument is a distortion of the argument made by a person.  The tactic is to attack this distortion giving the illusion of defeating the argument.  The problem is that the straw man is not what the argument actually said, so demolishing it means exactly nothing.

If you find a person misrepresenting you and making comments on what he misrepresents you as saying, this is a straw man.  All you can do is to point out the error of understanding.  If it is an honest mistake, the individual will acknowledge it.  If not, you can expect them to harp on it over and over.

The Ad Hominem

This is Latin for "to the person."  This fallacy does not answer the argument made, but rather makes an attack on the person.  If you've ever been labeled "stupid" or "myopic" or the like, you have been the victim of an ad hominem.  Another version of this is when an atheist responds to an argument made by a Christian by pointing out the actions done by some Christians as evil.  This is also an ad hominem and does not answer the argument (just because some Christians do evil things does not mean Christianity is false)

This has nothing to do with the truth of the argument.  I usually feel least threatened by a person who uses the ad hominem however.  If this is the best they can do, it doesn't speak well for their case.  Generally they have nothing more to say and we are seeing a sort of "blaze of glory" they wish to go out on.  The important thing is not to get angry.  Keep your responses calm, and it will be the attacker who looks bad.

The Argument from Silence

This one runs along this kind of reasoning: A person says "There is no evidence for you (or against me) therefore I am right."  The problem is, this does not mean anything.  A lack of evidence does not mean the contrary is true.  Rather it means  simply that there is no evidence which speaks on the issue one way or the other.

One common Argument from Silence is to say "Science cannot prove God exists, therefore He does not."  The problem is, if science is unqualified to speak on the existence of God, the lack of scientific proof means nothing.  It merely means arguments for and against the existence of God cannot invoke science to prove them, but must use other methods.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

This one is often used by atheists.  Some of them will make an absolute statement, and then when asked to back it up respond by saying "You prove God exists."  This the avoidance of the argument.  Unfortunately some Christians use this one.  When one is challenged to prove God exists, responds with "prove he doesn't."

A sneakier version some atheists I have encountered will use a variant, saying: "The person making the greater claim is the one who needs to prove their point."  This is nonsense.  The person making the claim period is the one who needs to prove their point.  if an atheist says "There is no God," then the atheist is making the claim and the atheist has the burden of proof.  If the Christian says "God exists," then the Christian has the burden of proof.

With this in mind, remember that if you are the one to make an assertion, you will be the one required to back it up.

However, pointing out that an objection has nothing to do with what you said is not a shifting the burden of proof.  If you are arguing topic A, and your opponent introduces point X, and you point out this is irrelevant, you are not shifting the burden of proof if you say it is irrelevant and insist the opponent gets back on topic.

Appeal to Emotion

There are several subsets: pity, fear, etc. to make people accept a view which has no value.  For example one attacking religion makes an appeal to 9/11.  This is irrelevant, because it would only speak about a religion which sanctions it.  The fear of radical Muslims is used to attack all religions.  Never mind the fact that there is a vast difference between Osama Bin Laden and Mother Teresa.  The attack is to appeal to the fear of extremists, then labeling your own opponent as an extremist.

The problem is emotional appeals do not change the truth of the case.  It's like the story of the child who murders his parents and then asks for pity because he is an orphan.  The appeal to a woman infected with AIDS by her husband does not change the issue of whether or not it is licit to use contraceptives.

Tu Quoque

Latin for "And you too."  You'll see this one as a response to many things:

Father: You shouldn't smoke. 

Daughter: Why not?  You do.

The problem is pointing to a bad example of another does not prove something is acceptable.  A person can make a bad example from personal life without invalidating what he says.

Of course not all counter-examples are tu quoque.  One common exchange is an atheist pointing to the Crusades to express the violence of religion compared to the peacefulness of atheism.  The counter example that Nazis and Communists were responsible for more deaths is not being used to justify the bad behavior of Christians, but rather to show that the atheistic premise (religion is more violent than atheism) is not true.

No True Scotsman

This one is used a lot by atheists and unfortunately frequently by a lot of Christians as well.  An atheistic example would be:

Atheist: No scientist believes in God

Theist: What about X, Y and Z?

Atheist: They're not really scientists.  No true scientist believes in God.

A Christian example would be:

Christian: If you are saved, you will not sin

Skeptic: What about Pastor X who was arrested for Y?

Christian: Well, he wasn't really saved.

In both cases the person faced with a counter example tries to negate it by redefining what they hold to exclude things that refute it.

However, the No True Scotsman does not mean a clarification to avoid misunderstanding.  For example:

Christian: Christian faith supports love of fellow men.

Skeptic: What about the Inquisition?

Christian: The inquisition was unfortunate, where people acted in a way contrary to what the faith taught.  I don't condone it of course, but the point is the people who were Christians there did act in a way against the requirements of Christian teaching

This is not a Straw Man argument, but a clarification of what was intended against a misunderstanding.  Of course, we need to "do unto others" when an atheist clarifies too.

These are not the only logical fallacies out there, but they are the ones I have most frequently encountered.

Moving the Goalposts

When a person has refuted a position, sometimes the response is "that doesn't matter, what about X?"  In other words, it doesn't matter how many times you show a claim is false, the person who disagrees with you will reject your proof as "not enough" and insist you address another issue.

This differs from saying "I have several issues, which I would like to discuss," and then moving on from topic to topic in a reasonable manner.

Other Logical Errors

There are some other errors of presentation which need to be addressed as well:

The Universal Negative

Atheist: "God does not exist."

Yes, some atheists do state it this bluntly, so this is no straw man argument to deal with it.  A universal negative requires full knowledge about the objects discussed.

To say God does not exist requires knowledge of everything that exists.  Otherwise, we cannot be sure that God does not exist in a place outside of what we do know.

A classical Greek example was the statement: "No swans are black."  Now, no matter how many white swans one sees, this does not prove the claim.  However the first sighting of a black swan does disprove it.

Now unfortunately Christians do make this error too, so we do need to pick our words with care, because logical truths do not belong to one group alone.  A logical error made by a Christian can be shot down by logic just as much as one by an atheist can.

A variant of this is when your opponent makes a universal negative claim and then demands you to disprove him, on the grounds that "you can't be asked to prove a negative."

Well, yes you can.  If your opponent makes a mistake so foolish as to express his opinion in a universal negative, he has shown impossible grounds to defend.

Of course the Christian should not make a universal negative statement either.  Don't be drawn into a statement requiring you to prove something virtually impossible to prove.

Drawing a Universal Conclusion from a Limited Example

Atheist: 9/11 proves religion is violent

No, it doesn't.  What it proves is a certain subset of one religion is violent.  But when considering the actions of one subset of one religion, even if it establishes that one religion violent (say we hypothetically find 100% of Muslims think 9/11 was a great idea), this says nothing about what Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism says about it.

Basing a conclusion of the whole based on the behavior of a part goes by many names: Racism, Bigotry, etc.

The Double Standard

Some atheists, recognizing the danger of the universal negative, will seek to hedge their bets by saying that No, Science doesn't prove the existence of God, but God is unlikely.  They then go about and say "But Christianity doesn't prove God exists either."

The thing is, if they insist that atheism is reasonable based on probability and the like, the Christian has equal rights to explain their beliefs from the same reasoning.  These atheists are in effect arguing: "I don't have to prove factually what I believe, but you do."

If the case for the reasonableness for atheism involves a lack of proof against it, the atheist can say nothing against a Christian who invokes the same argument without being hypocritical.

This does NOT mean it is acceptable for Christians to use the same logical fallacies that are applied against them of course.  If we are walking in the Light, we are not to use the tools of darkness.

What it does mean is that the atheist either has to apply to himself the measure of proof he applies to other or he becomes hypocritical. 

Of course, Christians need to apply the same standards to atheism they apply to themselves too.  This does not mean we cannot show the error of the double standard the atheist uses by applying his own standards against him (just make sure you avoid the straw man fallacy in doing so).

Remember, They Executed Socrates…

One thing also to be aware of is that people don't like to admit they are wrong.  Logic can show the flaws in an argument, but it doesn't mean it will make you popular.  indeed, if you can show why an argument is false, but a person is unwilling to concede their position, usually hostility will be directed to you.  You'll be called "condescending" and "intolerant" and "narrow minded" when you show that their position is not as strong as they thought.

So don't be surprised by the acrimony you receive.

Also Remember the Command to Love

Certainly in the times of my debating and blogging, I have come across several whom I would be tempted to describe as something uncharitable.  We are human of course.  We do get annoyed and frustrated.  We cannot set aside our emotions, and so certain respondents may anger us.  However, "going off" on the opponent may feel good, but it does not establish the proof of what you say.  Rather it makes your argument seem irrational through association.

Christ tells us to love those who hate us, and so, while we may fall short at times, we are not to choose to behave in a hateful manner.

On Proving the Existence of JC

There is an individual claimed to have lived close to the first century, of whom books were written and monuments made.  We have accounts of the deeds he did and how they changed the course of history in Europe, and much of the known world.

Yet how do we know that this man existed in fact?  How do we know he was not invented by a group of men seeking to force a view on the world?  How do we know the words he said, the deeds he did were not taken out of context or even invented?  After all, we have no original copies of the works written about him… the only existing copies were written centuries later.  So how do we know the things attributed to him are true and were not added later?

Yes, how do we know Julius Caesar really existed?

On Knowledge of the Past

The case I presented above is of course ridiculous, yet it is an argument used by some atheists against a different JC, namely Jesus Christ.  Of course the atheist would object by saying: We have works speaking of him and monuments of him, and reports of his actions as a military and political leader.  Yet if we apply the burden of proof insisted on establishing the truth of Jesus Christ to Caesar, we cannot prove Julius Caesar even existed.

Yet we would consider it obstinate and willful ignorance to deny the existence of Caesar under these circumstances.  History attests to the accounts of people who existed in time and point to the time they existed.  Yet we have works attesting to Christ too.  Yet why do we behave so skeptically here?

The Circular Argument

One of the objections against the accounts of Christ is that the miracles either demonstrate the falsity of the accounts or else that the miracles were added later.  It is a circular argument here.  The texts are doubted because of the miracles, and miracles are doubted because one believes they cannot exist.  Because miracles cannot exist, texts which mention them must be doubted.

Thus we have a claim that assumes something not proven, and passes judgment on the texts as not being proven because they make assertions which go against the unproven premise.

Again, I would remind the reader, this is not an argument from silence or a God in the Gaps claim.  We are now merely looking at the idea of the claim against the historicity of the accounts of Christ.

On Legend and Myth

When the accounts of Christ are considered, sometimes myth and legend are terms used.  The analogy made is that Accounts of Zeus are myths, the Gospels are accounts of God.  Therefore accounts of the Gospels are myths.

This is a false comparison.  Accounts of Zeus tell us of things long ago with no historical dating.  We have no accounts of when Heracles lived historically, no link to real historical figures if when Mithras was supposedly on the Earth.  In contrast, Luke tells us, of who was the governor of certain provinces when Christ was born, with names of places and events which can be verified outside the gospel accounts.

So unlike myth, which cannot be tied to history, the accounts of the Christians about Christ are specifically tied to a place and time.

The idea of legends is also raised as an objection.  We hear of the example of the unicorn mentioned in medieval times and legends of the first century saints in places like England etc.  Is this not the same thing?

The answer is no.  In investigating a legend, the thing to be done is to trace back how far the reports go.  In regards to the story of, for example St. Martha in France, we do not have accounts from those times of these people going there (or rather the accounts of the times do not mention them). but only accounts written centuries later.  So to argue X was a myth so the accounts of Christ too were a myth does not follow.

On Doctored Texts

The next question is how we can discern altered texts.  If we were to find an account of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars claiming he was walking on water, how would we tell if this were true or false?  By looking at other copies from varied areas and seeing if the accounts remained consistent, or if glosses were added.  If we found one account of Caesar performing a miracle and ten not even mentioning such events, it would be reasonable to assume an addition from a later time.

However the accounts of Christ remain consistent.  Copies found in the West as well as in the East attest to the same facts and the same words of Christ.

In the time of Xeroxing and Cut-and-Paste this does not seem so amazing, but prior to the printing press, all writing was manually done, and every copy was done by hand.  The fact that accounts in Greek and Hebrew, and translations in Latin and Syrian all make the same statements of Christ and attest to the same miracles.  We have no accounts of this time which removes these miracles.

Yes, we occasionally find glosses in single instances of manuscripts, but we do not believe these glosses are part of the authentic text.

So whether or not one believes these texts to be factual, there is no evidence of "miracles added later."

On Non-Christian Accounts

Josephus, a Jew who lived in the time of Christ gives an account of Jesus in two places.  The first, found in Antiquities 18, Chapter 3 mentions a description of Jesus.  Admittedly certain words are debated as to whether they are authentic, but even the removal of those words and we have an account of Jesus (The debated phrases are put in brackets and in red):

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed it is lawful to call him a man], for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ, and] when Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; [for he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as the prophets of God had foretold these and ten thousand other wonders about him]. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.

Even if we accept the text in red as added in later, what is agreed upon as authentic speak of many of the tenets of the Christian faith: That he existed, that he performed wondrous deeds, was crucified by Pilate and his followers continued to follow him after his death.

Josephus mentions Jesus again later on in Antiquities [Book 20: Chapter 9], in a passage experts do not dispute the authenticity of, saying:

Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.

Notice in this account, we have some secular confirmation of what the Christians were saying of Christ, identifying James as the brother of Jesus, that Jesus was called the Christ (Messiah) by them and that he was executed during the time after the governor Festus died and before the successor Albinus had arrived (about AD 62), and some Jews were appalled by the action of Ananus.

Other pagan accounts exist (Pliny, for example) which, while denying the divinity of Christ, attest to his existence.  We have other accounts (such as Celsus in the early third century for example) of people trying to write defamatory things about Christ seeking to explain away what was attested to about him.  The thing is, an attempt to debunk [Celsus' claims were not even factually correct] acknowledges what was said and believed.

Will Men Die for a Lie?

[Consider this a placeholder here.  The discussion of the reliability of witnesses deserves fuller treatment.  I merely put this here to acknowledge objections based on whether the witnesses were credible]

The accusation of doctored texts and the like also need to consider this: Of the apostles, eleven of them were martyred for their beliefs, which they refused to recant from.  If they spoke falsely, why were so many of them willing to die rather to deny what they claimed?

When witnesses are found for a topic, of course they must be investigated as to what they claim.  Even setting aside whether or not what they claimed was actually true, we can see that they believed it to be true, as whatever they experienced, motivated them to carry out tasks of great hardship.

The Circular Argument redux

The objection rises again that the apostles and others must have been deceived, but on what is this objection based?  On what evidence can this be claimed?  There is none.  But we are back to the circular argument of the texts being doubted because of the accounts of miracles.

The argument is that Miracles cannot exist, therefore the actions of these disciples must have a natural explanation.  But the problem here is that this is not based on seeking to discover what happened, but rather on the assumption that there cannot be a God, so accounts about this God must be false or have a natural cause.  The atheist then seeks to find some natural phenomena which could theoretically be mistaken for a miracle.

Looking with Reason at the Objections of Natural Phenomena

The problem with these natural phenomena is that the people of the time were aware of them too, and yet did not consider them to be these phenomena.  Manna in the desert, as described, for example did not look like the sugary substance of beetle excretions sometimes offered as an alternate explanation.  Fishermen in the Sea of Galilee would not find a person walking on a sandbar to be miraculous.  Boats were expensive after all, and a sailor would not want to risk wrecking it.  So attempts at explaining away accounts of miracles with natural phenomena needs to account for the knowledge of the ancients.

Indeed, these sort of actions are actually a form of "chronological snobbery," thinking that the ancient knew less than we do because of the progression of Science.  We assume the man of the twenty first century knows more than the man of the First Century.  However, this overlooks practical knowledge.  A farmer of the first century knew more than a "desk jockey" of the 21st century about how the weather and climate will affect his crops.  A first century fisherman would know more about how to sail a boat in a storm or to find fish than a 21st century anthropologist.

Oh yes, they might not have had the same knowledge as we do as to why the weather behaves as it does for example and of course this knowledge would have benefitted them, but they knew more as to how to interact with the weather than the city dweller of today.

Unfortunately today, we look to the past with a view of "ignorant savages," failing to remember that what we do know of science depended of the practical knowledge of the past.  Also we need to remember that in the Roman Empire, skeptics and atheists existed then too.  The "ignorant savage" argument assumes a belief that all ancients were superstitious and had no knowledge whatsoever about nature.

Not an Argument from Silence

Again this does not prove the existence of God in a scientific way.  However, we have again shown problems with modernistic thinking, which assumes claims which need to be proven.  So while this article does not prove the existence of God, we have removed an objection used to claim the belief in God is unreasonable, by looking at the underlying assumptions the atheist accepts without scrutinizing them.

In this case, there is no evidence to justify their objections which cannot also be used against the secular figures of antiquity.  We have sources of writings which attest to the claims made of Christ, and have looked at some of the objections to them.  These objections are not founded in the texts or the times, but on an application of 21st century assumptions of what can and cannot be possible.  Yet these assumptions need to be proven and not accepted as a given before they can be considered a refutation of the authenticity of the texts.

So we do have a problem of credibility with the claims of the atheist who states that it is "proven" the texts were altered.

So What We Have So Far

However, what we have now are reasonable grounds to reject two assumptions made by certain atheists:

1. Science "proves" God does not exist
2. Accounts of Christ are "myths"

In both cases the atheist's claims are based on a priori assumptions which need to be investigated in itself.  Since the assumptions have not been established, the argument made by them have not been proven true.

From this, it cannot be said these claims "prove" religion is irrational

On Proving the Existence of JC

There is an individual claimed to have lived close to the first century, of whom books were written and monuments made.  We have accounts of the deeds he did and how they changed the course of history in Europe, and much of the known world.

Yet how do we know that this man existed in fact?  How do we know he was not invented by a group of men seeking to force a view on the world?  How do we know the words he said, the deeds he did were not taken out of context or even invented?  After all, we have no original copies of the works written about him… the only existing copies were written centuries later.  So how do we know the things attributed to him are true and were not added later?

Yes, how do we know Julius Caesar really existed?

On Knowledge of the Past

The case I presented above is of course ridiculous, yet it is an argument used by some atheists against a different JC, namely Jesus Christ.  Of course the atheist would object by saying: We have works speaking of him and monuments of him, and reports of his actions as a military and political leader.  Yet if we apply the burden of proof insisted on establishing the truth of Jesus Christ to Caesar, we cannot prove Julius Caesar even existed.

Yet we would consider it obstinate and willful ignorance to deny the existence of Caesar under these circumstances.  History attests to the accounts of people who existed in time and point to the time they existed.  Yet we have works attesting to Christ too.  Yet why do we behave so skeptically here?

The Circular Argument

One of the objections against the accounts of Christ is that the miracles either demonstrate the falsity of the accounts or else that the miracles were added later.  It is a circular argument here.  The texts are doubted because of the miracles, and miracles are doubted because one believes they cannot exist.  Because miracles cannot exist, texts which mention them must be doubted.

Thus we have a claim that assumes something not proven, and passes judgment on the texts as not being proven because they make assertions which go against the unproven premise.

Again, I would remind the reader, this is not an argument from silence or a God in the Gaps claim.  We are now merely looking at the idea of the claim against the historicity of the accounts of Christ.

On Legend and Myth

When the accounts of Christ are considered, sometimes myth and legend are terms used.  The analogy made is that Accounts of Zeus are myths, the Gospels are accounts of God.  Therefore accounts of the Gospels are myths.

This is a false comparison.  Accounts of Zeus tell us of things long ago with no historical dating.  We have no accounts of when Heracles lived historically, no link to real historical figures if when Mithras was supposedly on the Earth.  In contrast, Luke tells us, of who was the governor of certain provinces when Christ was born, with names of places and events which can be verified outside the gospel accounts.

So unlike myth, which cannot be tied to history, the accounts of the Christians about Christ are specifically tied to a place and time.

The idea of legends is also raised as an objection.  We hear of the example of the unicorn mentioned in medieval times and legends of the first century saints in places like England etc.  Is this not the same thing?

The answer is no.  In investigating a legend, the thing to be done is to trace back how far the reports go.  In regards to the story of, for example St. Martha in France, we do not have accounts from those times of these people going there (or rather the accounts of the times do not mention them). but only accounts written centuries later.  So to argue X was a myth so the accounts of Christ too were a myth does not follow.

On Doctored Texts

The next question is how we can discern altered texts.  If we were to find an account of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars claiming he was walking on water, how would we tell if this were true or false?  By looking at other copies from varied areas and seeing if the accounts remained consistent, or if glosses were added.  If we found one account of Caesar performing a miracle and ten not even mentioning such events, it would be reasonable to assume an addition from a later time.

However the accounts of Christ remain consistent.  Copies found in the West as well as in the East attest to the same facts and the same words of Christ.

In the time of Xeroxing and Cut-and-Paste this does not seem so amazing, but prior to the printing press, all writing was manually done, and every copy was done by hand.  The fact that accounts in Greek and Hebrew, and translations in Latin and Syrian all make the same statements of Christ and attest to the same miracles.  We have no accounts of this time which removes these miracles.

Yes, we occasionally find glosses in single instances of manuscripts, but we do not believe these glosses are part of the authentic text.

So whether or not one believes these texts to be factual, there is no evidence of "miracles added later."

On Non-Christian Accounts

Josephus, a Jew who lived in the time of Christ gives an account of Jesus in two places.  The first, found in Antiquities 18, Chapter 3 mentions a description of Jesus.  Admittedly certain words are debated as to whether they are authentic, but even the removal of those words and we have an account of Jesus (The debated phrases are put in brackets and in red):

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed it is lawful to call him a man], for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ, and] when Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; [for he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as the prophets of God had foretold these and ten thousand other wonders about him]. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.

Even if we accept the text in red as added in later, what is agreed upon as authentic speak of many of the tenets of the Christian faith: That he existed, that he performed wondrous deeds, was crucified by Pilate and his followers continued to follow him after his death.

Josephus mentions Jesus again later on in Antiquities [Book 20: Chapter 9], in a passage experts do not dispute the authenticity of, saying:

Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.

Notice in this account, we have some secular confirmation of what the Christians were saying of Christ, identifying James as the brother of Jesus, that Jesus was called the Christ (Messiah) by them and that he was executed during the time after the governor Festus died and before the successor Albinus had arrived (about AD 62), and some Jews were appalled by the action of Ananus.

Other pagan accounts exist (Pliny, for example) which, while denying the divinity of Christ, attest to his existence.  We have other accounts (such as Celsus in the early third century for example) of people trying to write defamatory things about Christ seeking to explain away what was attested to about him.  The thing is, an attempt to debunk [Celsus' claims were not even factually correct] acknowledges what was said and believed.

Will Men Die for a Lie?

[Consider this a placeholder here.  The discussion of the reliability of witnesses deserves fuller treatment.  I merely put this here to acknowledge objections based on whether the witnesses were credible]

The accusation of doctored texts and the like also need to consider this: Of the apostles, eleven of them were martyred for their beliefs, which they refused to recant from.  If they spoke falsely, why were so many of them willing to die rather to deny what they claimed?

When witnesses are found for a topic, of course they must be investigated as to what they claim.  Even setting aside whether or not what they claimed was actually true, we can see that they believed it to be true, as whatever they experienced, motivated them to carry out tasks of great hardship.

The Circular Argument redux

The objection rises again that the apostles and others must have been deceived, but on what is this objection based?  On what evidence can this be claimed?  There is none.  But we are back to the circular argument of the texts being doubted because of the accounts of miracles.

The argument is that Miracles cannot exist, therefore the actions of these disciples must have a natural explanation.  But the problem here is that this is not based on seeking to discover what happened, but rather on the assumption that there cannot be a God, so accounts about this God must be false or have a natural cause.  The atheist then seeks to find some natural phenomena which could theoretically be mistaken for a miracle.

Looking with Reason at the Objections of Natural Phenomena

The problem with these natural phenomena is that the people of the time were aware of them too, and yet did not consider them to be these phenomena.  Manna in the desert, as described, for example did not look like the sugary substance of beetle excretions sometimes offered as an alternate explanation.  Fishermen in the Sea of Galilee would not find a person walking on a sandbar to be miraculous.  Boats were expensive after all, and a sailor would not want to risk wrecking it.  So attempts at explaining away accounts of miracles with natural phenomena needs to account for the knowledge of the ancients.

Indeed, these sort of actions are actually a form of "chronological snobbery," thinking that the ancient knew less than we do because of the progression of Science.  We assume the man of the twenty first century knows more than the man of the First Century.  However, this overlooks practical knowledge.  A farmer of the first century knew more than a "desk jockey" of the 21st century about how the weather and climate will affect his crops.  A first century fisherman would know more about how to sail a boat in a storm or to find fish than a 21st century anthropologist.

Oh yes, they might not have had the same knowledge as we do as to why the weather behaves as it does for example and of course this knowledge would have benefitted them, but they knew more as to how to interact with the weather than the city dweller of today.

Unfortunately today, we look to the past with a view of "ignorant savages," failing to remember that what we do know of science depended of the practical knowledge of the past.  Also we need to remember that in the Roman Empire, skeptics and atheists existed then too.  The "ignorant savage" argument assumes a belief that all ancients were superstitious and had no knowledge whatsoever about nature.

Not an Argument from Silence

Again this does not prove the existence of God in a scientific way.  However, we have again shown problems with modernistic thinking, which assumes claims which need to be proven.  So while this article does not prove the existence of God, we have removed an objection used to claim the belief in God is unreasonable, by looking at the underlying assumptions the atheist accepts without scrutinizing them.

In this case, there is no evidence to justify their objections which cannot also be used against the secular figures of antiquity.  We have sources of writings which attest to the claims made of Christ, and have looked at some of the objections to them.  These objections are not founded in the texts or the times, but on an application of 21st century assumptions of what can and cannot be possible.  Yet these assumptions need to be proven and not accepted as a given before they can be considered a refutation of the authenticity of the texts.

So we do have a problem of credibility with the claims of the atheist who states that it is "proven" the texts were altered.

So What We Have So Far

However, what we have now are reasonable grounds to reject two assumptions made by certain atheists:

1. Science "proves" God does not exist
2. Accounts of Christ are "myths"

In both cases the atheist's claims are based on a priori assumptions which need to be investigated in itself.  Since the assumptions have not been established, the argument made by them have not been proven true.

From this, it cannot be said these claims "prove" religion is irrational

Reflections on Existence, Truth and Science

When the Christian and the Atheist debate on the existence of God, there needs to be some sort of common ground of course.  Otherwise we end up talking past each other.

I think from this assumption we need to look at what Existence and truth are.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines exist as: have objective reality or being.

It defines true as: in accordance with fact or reality.

It is with these definitions, I wish to bring to attention some considerations.

Existence and Truth In Relation to God

The atheist generally argues that God does not exist, while the Theist argues there God does exist.  Unfortunately, what is often forgotten is the fact that this debate ignores a prior consideration.  When the atheist and the Theist dies, one of them will be wrong.  If the theist is wrong, there will be no God on the other side.  However, if the atheist is wrong, there will indeed be some sort of God on the other side.

In other words, there is an objective answer which is in accordance with fact or reality regarding the existence or non-existence of God.

With this in mind, all of the arguments on one side are futile.  They may be arguments which make sense to the one who holds them, but ultimately all persons should be seeking what is true, and the greater the truth claimed, the more important it is to seek to understand it.

One commenter on a blog of mine wrote (in reference to an example of Oxygen not being discovered until the 18th century):

You've pointed out a valid gap in knowledge, but what you've filled it with is arbitrary. Oxygen existed before the 18th century, but without evidence to show that it did, it would have been foolish to believe that it did.

I think the problem with this view is that the previous view of oxidation involved a belief of a substance called "phlogiston."  We know this view is false, and contributed nothing to the truth of understanding oxygen or rust.  Moreover, science had to unlearn this in order to progress.

So despite what science of the time believed was the best theory, it was false and objectively it was an error to hold to it.

This isn't to say "Science is bunk," but rather I wish to point out that what scientists may think on a subject may be entirely wrong if they approach it from the wrong perspective.

What Science Does

The Concise OED defines Science as:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

I have no objections to this definition.  Now, I believe it is crucial to note what Science does study: the physical and natural world.  It stands to reason that whatever is not a part of the physical and natural world cannot be measured by science.

Because of this, science in seeking to study the existence of things can only do so in the physical and natural realm.

The Definition of God

I don't like the definition in the Concise OED as it is too vague (a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity).  The problem is it so broad it could encompass a pagan Greek concept of anthropomorphic physical beings as well as the Christian concept of God which is Spirit. 

However, we can say this, a definition of God which makes a deity a physical being could (theoretically) make that concept of a god observable by Science.  A concept of a god which is not physical cannot be measured by science.

What Science can do In Relation to the Concept of God

Science can only deal with the physical and natural realm, so it can speak of a god only to the extent that a god is physical and natural.  However, if a god exists which is not physical or natural, we need to recognize that whether or not this god does exist, science is inadequate to establish or deny this existence.

Not "God in the Gaps"

It should be understood here that this is not an argument from silence fallacy, nor a "God in the gaps" argument.  I am not saying that because science cannot speak at all on the existence of God in the Christian concept, it proves the Christian God exists.

Right now I am merely speaking on the limits of physical (scientific) knowledge.  if something cannot be observed by science, this does not mean by itself that the thing cannot exist.

Things which we can establish exist that Science cannot explain

Consider the works of Mozart.  Science can explain music as the striking of certain tones of soundwaves in a certain rhythm, but it cannot explain why the music of Mozart is considered beautiful to people of quite different cultures and geographical regions.

Science can explain the idea of brainwaves and chemical interactions involved in emotions, but it cannot explain the idea of consciousness or cogito ergo sum.

I would advise the reader here that this does not prove science is useless.  I think science is in fact a very important thing for the physical well being of humanity.  What it does do though is to establish that "one size does not fit all."

The Right Tool for the Right Job vs. Scientism

I don't use a telescope to observe microbes and I don't use a microscope to practice astronomy.  I use a telescope to study the stars and a microscope to study microbes.  The failure of the microscope to show me the stars does not mean a microscope is useless.  Nor does it mean the stars do not exist.  It means that it is the wrong tool for the job.

Likewise, science which deals with the natural and physical world cannot answer the questions which go beyond the physical world.

Scientism is defined as "the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences."

The problem with Scientism is that it insists on reducing everything to the natural and physical.  Something has to be testable to be true.  Yet if something is not natural and physical, science will not be able to have authority over it.

Of course the problem, as I pointed out earlier, one cannot determine the Scientific Method through science alone.  It is a theory which self-destructs when applied to itself.  Empirical testing cannot prove the scientific method true, so under the theory of scientism, the scientific method must be rejected.

What We Need to Remember

Again, what I have laid forth here is not an argument for the existence of God.  Rather it is a statement reminding people of what Science is and what it is intended to do, as well as remind people what truth is.  The attitude of scientism bases existence on the ability to be detected and tested scientifically.  Yet this is what needs to be proven before science can be accepted as the arbiter of all things.

This is the First Lesson

Some atheists may be wondering where are the proofs for God.  They exist, but they are not yet presented here. Before we can move on to them, we need to unlearn scientism.  Otherwise a person who applies scientism to the proofs for God will argue that these do not "prove" anything.

Once one accepts that science cannot be the judge of all things, we can go on to discussing how we can know non-physical and supernatural things.

Reflections on Existence, Truth and Science

When the Christian and the Atheist debate on the existence of God, there needs to be some sort of common ground of course.  Otherwise we end up talking past each other.

I think from this assumption we need to look at what Existence and truth are.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines exist as: have objective reality or being.

It defines true as: in accordance with fact or reality.

It is with these definitions, I wish to bring to attention some considerations.

Existence and Truth In Relation to God

The atheist generally argues that God does not exist, while the Theist argues there God does exist.  Unfortunately, what is often forgotten is the fact that this debate ignores a prior consideration.  When the atheist and the Theist dies, one of them will be wrong.  If the theist is wrong, there will be no God on the other side.  However, if the atheist is wrong, there will indeed be some sort of God on the other side.

In other words, there is an objective answer which is in accordance with fact or reality regarding the existence or non-existence of God.

With this in mind, all of the arguments on one side are futile.  They may be arguments which make sense to the one who holds them, but ultimately all persons should be seeking what is true, and the greater the truth claimed, the more important it is to seek to understand it.

One commenter on a blog of mine wrote (in reference to an example of Oxygen not being discovered until the 18th century):

You've pointed out a valid gap in knowledge, but what you've filled it with is arbitrary. Oxygen existed before the 18th century, but without evidence to show that it did, it would have been foolish to believe that it did.

I think the problem with this view is that the previous view of oxidation involved a belief of a substance called "phlogiston."  We know this view is false, and contributed nothing to the truth of understanding oxygen or rust.  Moreover, science had to unlearn this in order to progress.

So despite what science of the time believed was the best theory, it was false and objectively it was an error to hold to it.

This isn't to say "Science is bunk," but rather I wish to point out that what scientists may think on a subject may be entirely wrong if they approach it from the wrong perspective.

What Science Does

The Concise OED defines Science as:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

I have no objections to this definition.  Now, I believe it is crucial to note what Science does study: the physical and natural world.  It stands to reason that whatever is not a part of the physical and natural world cannot be measured by science.

Because of this, science in seeking to study the existence of things can only do so in the physical and natural realm.

The Definition of God

I don't like the definition in the Concise OED as it is too vague (a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity).  The problem is it so broad it could encompass a pagan Greek concept of anthropomorphic physical beings as well as the Christian concept of God which is Spirit. 

However, we can say this, a definition of God which makes a deity a physical being could (theoretically) make that concept of a god observable by Science.  A concept of a god which is not physical cannot be measured by science.

What Science can do In Relation to the Concept of God

Science can only deal with the physical and natural realm, so it can speak of a god only to the extent that a god is physical and natural.  However, if a god exists which is not physical or natural, we need to recognize that whether or not this god does exist, science is inadequate to establish or deny this existence.

Not "God in the Gaps"

It should be understood here that this is not an argument from silence fallacy, nor a "God in the gaps" argument.  I am not saying that because science cannot speak at all on the existence of God in the Christian concept, it proves the Christian God exists.

Right now I am merely speaking on the limits of physical (scientific) knowledge.  if something cannot be observed by science, this does not mean by itself that the thing cannot exist.

Things which we can establish exist that Science cannot explain

Consider the works of Mozart.  Science can explain music as the striking of certain tones of soundwaves in a certain rhythm, but it cannot explain why the music of Mozart is considered beautiful to people of quite different cultures and geographical regions.

Science can explain the idea of brainwaves and chemical interactions involved in emotions, but it cannot explain the idea of consciousness or cogito ergo sum.

I would advise the reader here that this does not prove science is useless.  I think science is in fact a very important thing for the physical well being of humanity.  What it does do though is to establish that "one size does not fit all."

The Right Tool for the Right Job vs. Scientism

I don't use a telescope to observe microbes and I don't use a microscope to practice astronomy.  I use a telescope to study the stars and a microscope to study microbes.  The failure of the microscope to show me the stars does not mean a microscope is useless.  Nor does it mean the stars do not exist.  It means that it is the wrong tool for the job.

Likewise, science which deals with the natural and physical world cannot answer the questions which go beyond the physical world.

Scientism is defined as "the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences."

The problem with Scientism is that it insists on reducing everything to the natural and physical.  Something has to be testable to be true.  Yet if something is not natural and physical, science will not be able to have authority over it.

Of course the problem, as I pointed out earlier, one cannot determine the Scientific Method through science alone.  It is a theory which self-destructs when applied to itself.  Empirical testing cannot prove the scientific method true, so under the theory of scientism, the scientific method must be rejected.

What We Need to Remember

Again, what I have laid forth here is not an argument for the existence of God.  Rather it is a statement reminding people of what Science is and what it is intended to do, as well as remind people what truth is.  The attitude of scientism bases existence on the ability to be detected and tested scientifically.  Yet this is what needs to be proven before science can be accepted as the arbiter of all things.

This is the First Lesson

Some atheists may be wondering where are the proofs for God.  They exist, but they are not yet presented here. Before we can move on to them, we need to unlearn scientism.  Otherwise a person who applies scientism to the proofs for God will argue that these do not "prove" anything.

Once one accepts that science cannot be the judge of all things, we can go on to discussing how we can know non-physical and supernatural things.

Reflections on a Flawed Assumption in Atheism

Recently I've had an atheist take me to task over a post I wrote regarding Creationism and Evolution being the wrong issue to debate.  It's interesting to see the common errors held which are blind spots, and may sound reasonable on the outside but are not.

The issue I wish to reflect on is an argument made from probability.  In this case, it is argued as:

Science doesn't prove things in the sense that it provides absolute knowledge. Science is a process of observation and experimentation that provides a best guess about how things work. By the same token, we except the scientific method because through the process of observing and experimenting with different methods, it seems to be the one which works best. Science is only a best guess, but it is the best guess.

From this it is commonly argued by atheists that the knowledge of science disproves religion by providing a more "likely" explanation than the existence of God.

The problem is this argument presupposes that Theist = creationist.  This of course would be a surprise to many religious scientists who accept the idea of evolution yet retain their religious beliefs.  We see here a condescending and patronizing view from one atheist: Christians are ignorant of science or they would be atheists.

Problems with this Reasoning

I would of course object to his reasoning.  A scientific guess is no better than a guess that it was "done by elves" if the guess is wrong.  A scientific "guess" would be good or bad to the extent it was "true."  So a belief in ether, a belief in phlogiston, a belief in a geocentric universe, a belief in the transmutation of lead to gold were all errors which were scientifically the "best guess" of the times… yet they were errors which were a false turn which required undoing, and did not lead to the advancement of science, but the hindrance of the proper understanding.

The point is, science can sometimes err, and scientists can sometimes err.

The Ramifications of Erring Scientific Theories

If they can err, this does not of course mean "all science is bunk."  However, it does mean we do need to be wary about the social and moral conclusions drawn from science.  Evidence and experiments do need to be reviewed to see whether they prove what is alleged.

The argument which claims that there is no proof from science for religion, therefore it is probable there is no God is in fact against the requirements of science.  Since Science is done with things observable and experimental, the question is, what sort of experiments can be done to test the supernatural, from a strictly natural standpoint when by definition the supernatural is above the natural order?

This is the error the atheist makes about science, thinking that science can say anything (positive or negative) about the existence of God.  It is like using a telescope to try to see microbes… using a tool that is not designed to carry out the task.

Proof and Lack Thereof… and what it means

Atheism, or the quasi-atheistic agnosticism of today assumes that an absence of physical proof of something is de facto positive proof there is no God.  The charge is that science alone can explain what happens in nature, therefore a god is unnecessary.  The problem is that whether or not the best guess of science can find out the physical causes of certain events, it cannot find out the supernatural causes of events.

To argue that the non existence of God can be deduced through probability through what we now know of science is illogical.

To "prove" their point, the atheist has often sought to provide a false analogy making use of some mythical creature, saying "we can't disprove the existence of a flying spaghetti monster either, but we can be fairly sure it does not."

The reason this does not work is that the invention of a story about one fictional construct does not mean all things which cannot be observed physically do not exist.  To say it is probable the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not God exists.

The atheist who argues that because science does not directly show a god in the physical observations of the material realm it does not exist fails because of this: That we do not have knowledge of something does not the lack of existence of something. 

Atheism, to avoid abusing science, has to demonstrate that what we do know and what we will know in the future will in fact be everything which exists.  A thing exists or does not exist regardless of whether it is known.  If nobody had discovered Mt. Everest, it would have remained the tallest mountain in the world in actuality, even if we misidentified another mountain as "the tallest."

What Do We Know, What Can We Know and What Bearing Does it Have On Actual Existence

So for atheists to claim that God cannot exist, even when hedging bets by using the word "probability," requires a knowledge that everything that exists (B) falls into the category of things that are or will be known in the future (A). In other words, A=B.

Since we do not even know everything which will be known, we cannot reasonably say we know what will fall into group A. Since we do not know this, we cannot know whether A=B.  We could discover in the future that all our research into AIDS or Cancer was a waste.  Alternately we may discover things we thought impossible were true.  The point is we neither know all there is to know or that whether all that exists ever will be known

Therefore we cannot say God does not exist based on what we know by science.  We can only say Science cannot speak to whether or not God exists.

God in the Gaps?  Or Science in the Gaps?

It is about here the atheist trots out the "God of the gaps" argument.  This claim is a straw man argument which holds that Christians explain away what they can't explain by saying "God did it."  This is false however.  It is not incompatible with Christianity to believe that the actions of science are set into motion by God.

We believe God can act directly or He can set natural things into motion.  If God can set natural things in motion, one can believe in God without believing in "gaps."

Unfortunately, atheists who use science do fall into the idea of "Science in the gaps" where anything pertaining to a miracle or the like will eventually be explained away by science.  What is the basis of this?  Nothing more than a belief that there is no God and no miracles so there must be a physical and natural cause.

This is of course begging the question.  The unspoken assumption needs to be proven, but the problem is we do not know what science will discover in the future.  I have no doubt science will discover many things of course.  But some of our areas of investigation may come up blank.  The claim that someday science will find answers to these things is based on the assumption there is a natural cause and that it will be knowable.

The Error of The Enlightenment

For an atheist who mocks the faith of Christians, this is irony indeed.  They profess faith in Science, and do not base their claims scientifically.  Indeed, if one were to apply the same standards the atheists apply to Christianity to the beliefs of atheists, we would soon see that their claims have no scientific basis, and would have to be considered in terms of philosophy, truth, data, methods of knowledge and so on.

The problem with the atheistic use (or more accurately abuse) of science is that it is artificially limited to the actions of the Enlightenment, which in effect decreed (irrationally) that only that which could be observed physically could be known.  In other words, All Knowledge is Scientifically verifiable.

To test this, try to prove the beauty of Mozart's works through Science.

We can indeed have experience and knowledge which cannot be verified by science, but exists.  For example: Take your height.  Are you aware of the fact of your height?  OK, now, are you aware of the awareness of your height?

Good, now prove that awareness exists, scientifically.

Not the Argument from Silence

The atheist may object here that this is an argument from silence.  That we are saying "You can't disprove the existence of God, therefore He exists."  We are not.  We are at this stage merely pointing out that to claim that only scientific knowledge is knowledge is false.  For the Christian to point out the limitations of science is not the proof of God.  We are not even at that stage yet.  We are on chapter 1 and that is around chapter 20.

In pointing out the limitations of science, the Christian apologist does not seek to deny science or the value of science.  Rather he or she wishes to point out that it is irrational to insist on scientific proof for something science cannot measure.

Once we grasp that, we can move on to what we can know.

What This Indicates

What this indicates is that the atheist who seeks to browbeat the believer "In The Name of Science" has no basis for his claims.  Quite frankly the Emperor has no clothes here.  The atheist's point is not proven to be true in terms of logic, and if it is not proven, it is not irrational to hold a belief in God.

Of course, as I said above, this does not mean the work of the Christian is done.  We have yet to show the truth of the faith.  We have only pointed out why atheism is not a reasonable belief, and we do have to show why the faith is rational.

However, before this can be demonstrated to the atheist, the atheist needs to recognize the errors of his personal interpretation of science to make it say what it cannot say.

Reflections on a Flawed Assumption in Atheism

Recently I've had an atheist take me to task over a post I wrote regarding Creationism and Evolution being the wrong issue to debate.  It's interesting to see the common errors held which are blind spots, and may sound reasonable on the outside but are not.

The issue I wish to reflect on is an argument made from probability.  In this case, it is argued as:

Science doesn't prove things in the sense that it provides absolute knowledge. Science is a process of observation and experimentation that provides a best guess about how things work. By the same token, we except the scientific method because through the process of observing and experimenting with different methods, it seems to be the one which works best. Science is only a best guess, but it is the best guess.

From this it is commonly argued by atheists that the knowledge of science disproves religion by providing a more "likely" explanation than the existence of God.

The problem is this argument presupposes that Theist = creationist.  This of course would be a surprise to many religious scientists who accept the idea of evolution yet retain their religious beliefs.  We see here a condescending and patronizing view from one atheist: Christians are ignorant of science or they would be atheists.

Problems with this Reasoning

I would of course object to his reasoning.  A scientific guess is no better than a guess that it was "done by elves" if the guess is wrong.  A scientific "guess" would be good or bad to the extent it was "true."  So a belief in ether, a belief in phlogiston, a belief in a geocentric universe, a belief in the transmutation of lead to gold were all errors which were scientifically the "best guess" of the times… yet they were errors which were a false turn which required undoing, and did not lead to the advancement of science, but the hindrance of the proper understanding.

The point is, science can sometimes err, and scientists can sometimes err.

The Ramifications of Erring Scientific Theories

If they can err, this does not of course mean "all science is bunk."  However, it does mean we do need to be wary about the social and moral conclusions drawn from science.  Evidence and experiments do need to be reviewed to see whether they prove what is alleged.

The argument which claims that there is no proof from science for religion, therefore it is probable there is no God is in fact against the requirements of science.  Since Science is done with things observable and experimental, the question is, what sort of experiments can be done to test the supernatural, from a strictly natural standpoint when by definition the supernatural is above the natural order?

This is the error the atheist makes about science, thinking that science can say anything (positive or negative) about the existence of God.  It is like using a telescope to try to see microbes… using a tool that is not designed to carry out the task.

Proof and Lack Thereof… and what it means

Atheism, or the quasi-atheistic agnosticism of today assumes that an absence of physical proof of something is de facto positive proof there is no God.  The charge is that science alone can explain what happens in nature, therefore a god is unnecessary.  The problem is that whether or not the best guess of science can find out the physical causes of certain events, it cannot find out the supernatural causes of events.

To argue that the non existence of God can be deduced through probability through what we now know of science is illogical.

To "prove" their point, the atheist has often sought to provide a false analogy making use of some mythical creature, saying "we can't disprove the existence of a flying spaghetti monster either, but we can be fairly sure it does not."

The reason this does not work is that the invention of a story about one fictional construct does not mean all things which cannot be observed physically do not exist.  To say it is probable the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not God exists.

The atheist who argues that because science does not directly show a god in the physical observations of the material realm it does not exist fails because of this: That we do not have knowledge of something does not the lack of existence of something. 

Atheism, to avoid abusing science, has to demonstrate that what we do know and what we will know in the future will in fact be everything which exists.  A thing exists or does not exist regardless of whether it is known.  If nobody had discovered Mt. Everest, it would have remained the tallest mountain in the world in actuality, even if we misidentified another mountain as "the tallest."

What Do We Know, What Can We Know and What Bearing Does it Have On Actual Existence

So for atheists to claim that God cannot exist, even when hedging bets by using the word "probability," requires a knowledge that everything that exists (B) falls into the category of things that are or will be known in the future (A). In other words, A=B.

Since we do not even know everything which will be known, we cannot reasonably say we know what will fall into group A. Since we do not know this, we cannot know whether A=B.  We could discover in the future that all our research into AIDS or Cancer was a waste.  Alternately we may discover things we thought impossible were true.  The point is we neither know all there is to know or that whether all that exists ever will be known

Therefore we cannot say God does not exist based on what we know by science.  We can only say Science cannot speak to whether or not God exists.

God in the Gaps?  Or Science in the Gaps?

It is about here the atheist trots out the "God of the gaps" argument.  This claim is a straw man argument which holds that Christians explain away what they can't explain by saying "God did it."  This is false however.  It is not incompatible with Christianity to believe that the actions of science are set into motion by God.

We believe God can act directly or He can set natural things into motion.  If God can set natural things in motion, one can believe in God without believing in "gaps."

Unfortunately, atheists who use science do fall into the idea of "Science in the gaps" where anything pertaining to a miracle or the like will eventually be explained away by science.  What is the basis of this?  Nothing more than a belief that there is no God and no miracles so there must be a physical and natural cause.

This is of course begging the question.  The unspoken assumption needs to be proven, but the problem is we do not know what science will discover in the future.  I have no doubt science will discover many things of course.  But some of our areas of investigation may come up blank.  The claim that someday science will find answers to these things is based on the assumption there is a natural cause and that it will be knowable.

The Error of The Enlightenment

For an atheist who mocks the faith of Christians, this is irony indeed.  They profess faith in Science, and do not base their claims scientifically.  Indeed, if one were to apply the same standards the atheists apply to Christianity to the beliefs of atheists, we would soon see that their claims have no scientific basis, and would have to be considered in terms of philosophy, truth, data, methods of knowledge and so on.

The problem with the atheistic use (or more accurately abuse) of science is that it is artificially limited to the actions of the Enlightenment, which in effect decreed (irrationally) that only that which could be observed physically could be known.  In other words, All Knowledge is Scientifically verifiable.

To test this, try to prove the beauty of Mozart's works through Science.

We can indeed have experience and knowledge which cannot be verified by science, but exists.  For example: Take your height.  Are you aware of the fact of your height?  OK, now, are you aware of the awareness of your height?

Good, now prove that awareness exists, scientifically.

Not the Argument from Silence

The atheist may object here that this is an argument from silence.  That we are saying "You can't disprove the existence of God, therefore He exists."  We are not.  We are at this stage merely pointing out that to claim that only scientific knowledge is knowledge is false.  For the Christian to point out the limitations of science is not the proof of God.  We are not even at that stage yet.  We are on chapter 1 and that is around chapter 20.

In pointing out the limitations of science, the Christian apologist does not seek to deny science or the value of science.  Rather he or she wishes to point out that it is irrational to insist on scientific proof for something science cannot measure.

Once we grasp that, we can move on to what we can know.

What This Indicates

What this indicates is that the atheist who seeks to browbeat the believer "In The Name of Science" has no basis for his claims.  Quite frankly the Emperor has no clothes here.  The atheist's point is not proven to be true in terms of logic, and if it is not proven, it is not irrational to hold a belief in God.

Of course, as I said above, this does not mean the work of the Christian is done.  We have yet to show the truth of the faith.  We have only pointed out why atheism is not a reasonable belief, and we do have to show why the faith is rational.

However, before this can be demonstrated to the atheist, the atheist needs to recognize the errors of his personal interpretation of science to make it say what it cannot say.

Thoughts on Jefferson and the so-called Wall of Separation

I notice articles by atheists tend to run in themes: "Islam is bad, so religion is bad," "Science disproves religion" and so on.  One of the recent themes is on Thomas Jefferson and his calling for a "Wall of Separation," citing the Danbury Letter.

The key point of this letter is:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

The argument tends to be "Jefferson said we need to keep a wall between Church and State.  Religions are trying to change laws.  Therefore religion needs to be controlled."

The problem is twofold.  First, the Danbury Letter is not  legally binding document or the like.  Second, the modern interpretation is one of bifurcation: "Either we control religion or religion controls us," which simply is not the case.

The letter Jefferson was responding to (from the Danbury Baptists) expressed a concern that certain sectarian groups might seek to attack members of the government being "irreligious,"  based on their own views.  Now this is a legitimate concern.  Certainly Catholics in Maryland in the 17th and 18th century before the founding of America knew of groups which, once in power, sought to strip them of their rights to religious freedom which they granted to others.  However, we remain with the problem of a wall of separation properly understood.

Now the first amendment to the Constitution does tell us:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This means of course that the state may not impose any specific religion on the people true, but it also forbids the prohibiting of the free exercise of religion.  It seems the dangerous part of Jefferson's letter is when he says:

I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties

The dangerous part of this sentiment is this potentially opens the door to the negation of the First Amendment if misapplied.  It's not completely wrong of course: The Church holds that freedom is not license to do what we wish, but rather the freedom to do what we ought before God, for example.  The problem is when the state decides a certain group acts contrary to undefined "social duties" not because of actual acts which are unlawful but because they practice a religion which is not well received.

As the old saying goes, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  If the state defines what is intrusion on the Establishment of Religion, what prevents it from defining social duties in such a way to harass a religion or the like?

This is the problem of the modern understanding of the separation of Church and State.  The claim is that something benefits religion in general is a violation of the separation of church and state.  The problem is such a view de facto defines religion as being in opposition to social duties when it speaks out against the state.

We do need to remember that the view of atheism also falls under this criteria.  The atheist who seeks to remove public expression of prayer or the like is in fact violating this so-called wall of separation in a way which denies the rights of the first amendment.

The atheist who wishes to cite the Danbury Letter as excluding religion from political life needs to remember that the first amendment also grants to citizens the rights of the freedom of press, speech,  to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

This of course means that a Church has a right to speak out in word and in print about the ways the nation is bringing harm to members or harm to itself.  Yet churches do not have this right.  If a church wishes to say "What this government official is doing is wrong," they cannot without legal repercussions.

It is a paradox of course set about by a phrase with no legal bearing.  Separation of Church and State means a state cannot dictate how an individual may practice religion or to infringe of the practices of a religion, and certainly this is what popes like Leo XIII praised about the American way.  However, on the other hand, going from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to "Religion shall have no say in government" is certainly a contradiction, because it denies or limits members of religion their right to free speech, press, assembly and redress.

Things like the Danbury Letter or claims like saying "The Founding Fathers were not Christians" is in fact a Red Herring.  Certainly the Declaration of Independence shows that the understanding of America had some understanding of God, who had an authority above the state:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In other words, these are not rights the state can arbitrarily give and take away.  Rather they are things people possess which are beyond the ability of the state to regulate.   We now come to a problem with the claims of the atheist over America.  If we do not hold that our rights come from a creator, from what do they come from?  What makes them binding so that tomorrow Obama cannot say "I'm taking away your right to the free press"?

The choices for where our rights come from are: God, or Nothing. If they come from God, then no person can take them away from us… certainly a government can compel us so we cannot exercise our rights, but in doing so, they act in an unjust manner.

However, if they come ex nihilo (out of nothing), they are not rights, but tolerances from the government, as what one man can say is good for him, another might disagree with.  One government administration might decree we have the right to property, another which follows the first might claim we exploit people by the existence of private property and it may not be allowed.

Some atheists and agnostics do not like where this leads.  They recognize that some actions are wrong, but reject the idea as the source of what is good, so they seek to find a source which is not absolute to give us these rights, such as instinct or some undefined sense of justice.

The problem is our rights are only as absolute as the source which grants them. What binds a nebulous force like "justice" or "instinct" to do something we must obey?  What part of it prevents a Hitler or a Stalin from saying "I reject these values and replace them with another which I find superior for me."

Either we recognize that our rights as human persons come from a binding force outside of us (which, if one does not call it God, must define what it is) or we are forced to concede that we have no rights at all, but merely the tolerance of a government.

This latter view of course would be against the Constitution, and this is the paradox of Jefferson's Danbury Letter

Thoughts on Jefferson and the so-called Wall of Separation

I notice articles by atheists tend to run in themes: "Islam is bad, so religion is bad," "Science disproves religion" and so on.  One of the recent themes is on Thomas Jefferson and his calling for a "Wall of Separation," citing the Danbury Letter.

The key point of this letter is:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

The argument tends to be "Jefferson said we need to keep a wall between Church and State.  Religions are trying to change laws.  Therefore religion needs to be controlled."

The problem is twofold.  First, the Danbury Letter is not  legally binding document or the like.  Second, the modern interpretation is one of bifurcation: "Either we control religion or religion controls us," which simply is not the case.

The letter Jefferson was responding to (from the Danbury Baptists) expressed a concern that certain sectarian groups might seek to attack members of the government being "irreligious,"  based on their own views.  Now this is a legitimate concern.  Certainly Catholics in Maryland in the 17th and 18th century before the founding of America knew of groups which, once in power, sought to strip them of their rights to religious freedom which they granted to others.  However, we remain with the problem of a wall of separation properly understood.

Now the first amendment to the Constitution does tell us:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This means of course that the state may not impose any specific religion on the people true, but it also forbids the prohibiting of the free exercise of religion.  It seems the dangerous part of Jefferson's letter is when he says:

I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties

The dangerous part of this sentiment is this potentially opens the door to the negation of the First Amendment if misapplied.  It's not completely wrong of course: The Church holds that freedom is not license to do what we wish, but rather the freedom to do what we ought before God, for example.  The problem is when the state decides a certain group acts contrary to undefined "social duties" not because of actual acts which are unlawful but because they practice a religion which is not well received.

As the old saying goes, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  If the state defines what is intrusion on the Establishment of Religion, what prevents it from defining social duties in such a way to harass a religion or the like?

This is the problem of the modern understanding of the separation of Church and State.  The claim is that something benefits religion in general is a violation of the separation of church and state.  The problem is such a view de facto defines religion as being in opposition to social duties when it speaks out against the state.

We do need to remember that the view of atheism also falls under this criteria.  The atheist who seeks to remove public expression of prayer or the like is in fact violating this so-called wall of separation in a way which denies the rights of the first amendment.

The atheist who wishes to cite the Danbury Letter as excluding religion from political life needs to remember that the first amendment also grants to citizens the rights of the freedom of press, speech,  to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

This of course means that a Church has a right to speak out in word and in print about the ways the nation is bringing harm to members or harm to itself.  Yet churches do not have this right.  If a church wishes to say "What this government official is doing is wrong," they cannot without legal repercussions.

It is a paradox of course set about by a phrase with no legal bearing.  Separation of Church and State means a state cannot dictate how an individual may practice religion or to infringe of the practices of a religion, and certainly this is what popes like Leo XIII praised about the American way.  However, on the other hand, going from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to "Religion shall have no say in government" is certainly a contradiction, because it denies or limits members of religion their right to free speech, press, assembly and redress.

Things like the Danbury Letter or claims like saying "The Founding Fathers were not Christians" is in fact a Red Herring.  Certainly the Declaration of Independence shows that the understanding of America had some understanding of God, who had an authority above the state:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In other words, these are not rights the state can arbitrarily give and take away.  Rather they are things people possess which are beyond the ability of the state to regulate.   We now come to a problem with the claims of the atheist over America.  If we do not hold that our rights come from a creator, from what do they come from?  What makes them binding so that tomorrow Obama cannot say "I'm taking away your right to the free press"?

The choices for where our rights come from are: God, or Nothing. If they come from God, then no person can take them away from us… certainly a government can compel us so we cannot exercise our rights, but in doing so, they act in an unjust manner.

However, if they come ex nihilo (out of nothing), they are not rights, but tolerances from the government, as what one man can say is good for him, another might disagree with.  One government administration might decree we have the right to property, another which follows the first might claim we exploit people by the existence of private property and it may not be allowed.

Some atheists and agnostics do not like where this leads.  They recognize that some actions are wrong, but reject the idea as the source of what is good, so they seek to find a source which is not absolute to give us these rights, such as instinct or some undefined sense of justice.

The problem is our rights are only as absolute as the source which grants them. What binds a nebulous force like "justice" or "instinct" to do something we must obey?  What part of it prevents a Hitler or a Stalin from saying "I reject these values and replace them with another which I find superior for me."

Either we recognize that our rights as human persons come from a binding force outside of us (which, if one does not call it God, must define what it is) or we are forced to concede that we have no rights at all, but merely the tolerance of a government.

This latter view of course would be against the Constitution, and this is the paradox of Jefferson's Danbury Letter

Evolution vs. Creation: The Wrong Battle Waged

Someone notified me recently I was being cited as a source against the claims of an atheistic individual who holds to Evolution and rejects Creationism.  While I am flattered that someone considers me authoritative, I think it is important to spell out what I do hold, lest someone think I am championing a cause I do not.

As I have stated in the title, I do believe the laying out of battle grounds between evolution and creation is the wrong battle for Christians to fight, putting some allies on the "enemy" side of the fence.  The issue is not whether to take the account of creation in Genesis literally or figuratively.  The issue is whether the creation of the universe is on account of an uncontrolled undirected cause or on account of God.

Unfortunately I think some Christians choose to fight the wrong battle on account of believing that science (as opposed to some erring scientists) must teach in opposition to the Christian faith.  The problem is the confusing a belief that God could work through evolution as His means of creation with the atheistic belief that claims of science means God does not exist.  The Christian who fights the "evolution vs. creation" battle when they think they are fighting the "God vs. atheism" battle do not assist in the battle against atheism.

The result of this wrong battle being fought is we see certain groups of Christians accusing other Christians who accept the possibility of evolution as the means God used to create as being heretical or being secret atheists or being deceived by atheists.

This is the fallacy of bifurcation.  Arguing that unless a man believes in creationism, the man is not a believer ignores the possibility of a faithful Christian who does not hold a fundamentalist view of Scripture.  The argument in this case is missing the point.

The point is whether or not God created the universe or whether the universe came together by chance.  If it was created by God, there is indeed purpose in the universe, and life has meaning.  If it was created by chance, there is no meaning to the universe and it is a matter of indifference whether we live in a manner called evil or a manner called good.

The issue of evolution is misused by the atheist to argue that because evolution happened, God is not necessary and therefore does not exist.

The problem is, the evidence pointed at to claim evolution is true does not prove the non-existence of God.  The other side of this coin is to show that the cell or the embryo is complex beyond imagining does not mean it could be done by God only through directly acting.

Now the problem with relying on the physical explanation of evolution alone and denying the existence of a creator is it cannot provide proof to explain certain steps (which is Begging the Question):

• From no life to life
• From single cell creatures to multi cell creatures
• from creatures without organs to creatures with organs they did not need before but now cannot exist without
• From non-sentience to sentience

The law of casualty holds that we cannot get a result which is greater than the sum of causes.  For example, we do not simply go from Acorn –> Tree.  We have acorn + water + soil + nutrients + sunlight –> Tree.  The believer tells us God –> Universe (with the "—>" being whatever means of creation used).  The atheist needs to explain: no life –> Life, Single Cell –> multi cell and so on, and why the law of casualty does not apply (or how it does apply).

Thus going from the so-called "primordial soup" to a single cell animal cannot be explained.  (The amino acid experiment was based on a false idea on what the primordial atmosphere was based on).  The evolution theory can say it did happen, but the atheistic view does not say how it happened.

Really this is the issue here.  If the atheist wishes to assert evolution sans God is true, the question is how do we know it is true, given the practical impossibility of proving a universal negative and the lack of scientific evidence showing these transitions taking place?

The syllogism of the atheist is:

1. God does not exist
2. The Universe exists
3. Therefore the Universe was not created by God.

This is where I come in to the dispute.  Science is claimed to be logical and reasonable.  Religion is accused of being irrational and illogical.  Yet the claims of scientists who argue science proves there is no God cannot put together a logical and rational argument to establish their claim.

The argument that since God cannot be studied scientifically means there is no God is in fact a bad logical argument.  It is based on the unproven assumption that only that which is observable exists.  (All A is B).  The problem of course is that no matter how much we know about A (things that are observable), it does not prove there is not B (something that exists) which is not in B.

As a syllogism:

1. All things which are observable exists (all A is B)
2. God is not observable (Not A)
3. Therefore God does not exist (Therefore not B)

We can show the error of this argument by replacing what A and B stand for:

1. All people in Los Angeles are in California (All A is B)
2. Bill is not in Los Angeles (Not A)
3. Therefore Bill is not in California (therefore not B)

(If Bill lives in San Francisco, the argument is false)

In this case "All A is B" does not mean "All B is A." (All people in Los Angeles are in California does not mean all people in California are in Los Angeles).  In fact (going back to the syllogism of existence and observation), since we do not know what we will be able to observe in the future, we cannot even say we know everything currently in A (things observable) is all that will ever be in A

To challenge this is the "Emperor has no clothes" comment we should be presenting to the world against atheism.  In contrast, to argue the "Creationism vs. Evolution" is a distraction from the truth to be evaluated at this time.  Whether one believes in Creationism or Evolution as a Christian, the individual is still saying "God did this."  (Not as a way to avoid complex explanations as Dawkins so ludicrously put it, but because if the existence of God is true, we will eventually wind up with the "Uncaused cause" of Thomas Aquinas). In contrast atheism says "All this was set into motion by purely physical causes," with no basis but a faith that someday science will find the answer.

Science can validly look at evolution from a purely physical point, without being wrong per se, when it asks "how it works."  However when it looks at the purely physical and says "this is all there is," it goes beyond what Science can say and the proponents of such a view are in fact leaving reason and logic behind.