Category Archives: Apologetics

An observation on “A Neuroscientist Prepares for Death”

10 Monday Jan 2022

Posted by in Apologetics, Psychology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

In a recent article in The Atlantic, A Neuroscientist Prepares for Death, a poor man who has learned he will soon die from cancer of the heart provides his philosophical reflection concerning the possibility of an afterlife. Using his expertise as a scientist, he makes a series of three unwarranted jumps to deny an afterlife.

Lut us begin with the scientific proposition, “Now we know that rather than merely reacting to the external world, the brain spends much of its time and energy actively making predictions about the future.” This statement is metaphysically loaded, because it attributes all thought to a physical process, “the brain.”

His conclusion about the “brain” as opposed to a mind goes well beyond anything in observational science. The fact that certain brain functions are associated with a particular mental state does not mean the brain processes are that mental state. The mental state is itself unobservable, it can only be subjectively experienced. The relationship between a brain state and a mental state is a matter of tremendous dispute, but it is simply lazy to collapse thought into synaptic firing.

The second error in his argument comes when concludes that since we anticipate the near future, we cannot anticipate not anticipating the future. “And because our brains are organized to predict the near future, it presupposes that there will, in fact, be a near future. ” But this conclusion actually goes beyond the observation that the brain works to predict the future. There is no reason that the brain could not predict its demise. Our inability to imagine the future cannot be explained simply on the basis that the “brain” makes predictions about the near future.

From the observation that we do not imagine our non-existence, a state he refers to as a “widespread glitch”, he makes a theological/philosophical observation. The widespread religious belief in an afterlife is simply the result of a cognitive glitch which itself results from the mental action of anticipating the future.

But this last step is as lacking in necessary inference as the previous steps. A. The argument also entails a number of other unstated propositions. For instance, the argument assumes that there is no such a thing as an afterlife, and thus the belief must be explained by some material process.

B. The fact there are physical processes consistent with a particular belief does not make the belief untrue. Why would a religious belief have to be inconsistent with physical function to be true? There is no necessity that a religious belief be inconsistent to physical function.

C. Our inability to imagine our nonexistence does not make belief in an afterlife false. The argument that “belief in an afterlife cannot be true because it is comforting” is simply false. When I am ill, I believe that I will recover. On all prior occasions in which I have been ill, I have believed that I will recover–which is a comforting thought. And it was a true comforting belief: I have always recovered.

He ends with the observation that he is not adverse to the existence of an afterlife with those whom he loves.

What then is the purpose of an essay like this? We must remember it cannot be for career advancement, he will die soon. I can’t imagine that the prestige of writing for The Atlantic is sufficient as an explanation.

I think it is to deal with the fear of death. But in what way? His argument is that because I’m a scientist I know there is no afterlife. Why would he need to convince himself (an essay like this is an argument to convince you so that I feel more comfort in my belief) there is no afterlife?

As a Christian, I take it as a given that human beings fear the judgment which lies beyond death. If there is no continuation of life, there is judgment day coming after death. And so he strings out this rather insufficient argument to prove to himself there will be no future.

Hebrews 2:14–15 (ESV)

14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.

Philip Rieff, The Triumph of the Therapeutic 4.4 (with some notes on current Church)

29 Friday Jan 2021

Posted by in Apologetics, Psychology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

The pervious post in this series concerning Rieff may be found here: https://memoirandremains.com/2020/08/28/philip-rieff-the-triumph-of-the-therapeutic-4-3/

In the remainder of the book, Rieff is going to examine what various disciples of Freud did with Freud’s original work. Thus, we will examine Jung, Wilhelm Reich, and D.H. Lawrence. But before he turns to these men who developed the ideas of Freud in strikingly different directions, Rieff considers those who make up the mass of psychoanalysts. In the main, Rieff has little good say about such practioners.

The fault, as I read Rieff, is that the analysts follow Freud so well. The practice of psychoanalysis is not to construct some new culture but rather to free one from the symbolic world which they have internalized. As such, it is a sort of indefinite project, but the world which followed Freud domesticated it, Freud “could cope with his enemies; his friends defeated him.” (85) 

Those who take up the practice have attended “trade schools” (89) who wish to take up a quiet, stable, “suburb[an]” life.

The need for conflict with opposing structures is necessary to keep the disciple alive, “As an ultimate rule of organization, honesty is death to organization itself. Reticence, forbearance, tolerance – these civilities and hypocrisies are necessary to organized life.” (91)

To that extent his epilogue is of little interest except as an observation. What I do find interesting is an observation he makes early in this section. He notes that orthodoxy is sharpened in conflict: which is a point Harold O.J. Brown made in his work Heresies.

It is at this point he makes a point which may be of some encouragement to Christianity at this point in the West, “Nowadays, the world is full of tame Christians; in consequence, the churches are empty of life, if not of people.” (84) The Church seems to suffer worse from excess of ease than even trial (which seems to be true for us personally as well).  Thus, our current conflict may be of use by putting the church into a position where it may critique the culture rather than be overly at home. 

While there are various positions which have been offered by many, such as Niebuhr’s Christ & Culture, (Christ Against Culture, Christ of Culture, Christ Above Culture, Christ and Culture in Paradox, Christ the Transformer of Culture), Luther’s Two Kingdoms, and so on. All of these positions have shown themselves to be useful at some times and places, and disastrous at others. 

When the Netherlands can elect a Kuyper as Prime Minister, Christianity is a position to influence culture in a way that the Baptist in the Gulag of A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich could never dream. When being an influence entails comprising, then the church must take a prophetic stance. There are issues on which the church has no dogmatic position (should the capital gains tax be 15% or 20% on securities held over five years but less than ten?). But there are issues where the Church – if it has a public voice, cannot remain silent.

There are issues of wisdom: At what point does one confront the state; at which point should the church retreat? The church in the West (this is not to prioritize the Western church, nor to ignore the very real troubles faced throughout the world; it is simply I know far more about where I live and what I experience than things which I learn secondhand. I simply wish to avoid speaking where beyond what I could reasonably know) is coming to face increasing troubles from a direction it did not expect. 

In the early 20th century, the church on one-side retreated from intellectual engagement with a hostile culture. Another element of the visible compromised. The space of engagement deepened theological positions in many areas and gave us an apologetic and social voice. 

Now we are facing an entirely new challenge for which the church broadly is not ready. Even the previous secular adversaries of the church have little idea on how to respond. But as Rieff noted in connection with Freud’s tame disciples, conflict can deepen and sharpen our thinking. Let’s pray that God gives us the wisdom for our age.

Submission to Unjust (or perhaps Foolish) Authority and the Lockdown Order

16 Saturday May 2020

Posted by in 1 Peter, Apologetics, Culture, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

How seriously should I take the lockdown orders from my county? How seriously should I consider the consequence of disregarding the orders? Is it a trivial matter? It is there any real sin at stake?

[First caveat: I am considering a mere disregard for the law — not appropriate challenges to the law. There are a number of appropriate challenges to a law.  For instance, a lawsuit against the local authority on the grounds that the law in question is unconstitutional on equal protection for first amendment grounds would not be disregard of the law. Petitioning the local authority to revise the law would not be disregard. 

[Second Caveat: There is a moral case to be made against the law on the economic cost. There could even be a case to be made that in some circumstances, disregard of the law is necessary to preserve life. The moral case would require a different analysis and presents different consideration.]

The easiest way out would be merely to say this is no big deal. And perhaps as an ultimate matter, the stakes are inconsequential and no one will be immediately hurt by disobedience. But that decision was not given to me to make. First, I am not tasked with the civil authority to make such a decision. Second, there is plain direction from Scripture on my duty to obey the law. So, I cannot merely say this is at most a “little sin” (I will come back to this point, below.)

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the lockdown orders are unfair, poorly conceived and poorly executed. What is my responsibility as a Christian?

As an American, ignoring leaders and laws I dislike seems like a fundamental right. “Don’t Tread on Me” is in the history of the country. To be submissive to authority sounds like weakness or foolishness.

There is also the innate human desire for autonomy. When we first come into this world, we come as tyrants demanding submission from all whom come near.

And so adhering to rules which I think are foolish or wrong makes me feel like a sucker. Why would I willingly surrender any authority to the petty tyrants who see fit to control my life?

And so, the wisest response seems to be to just disregard the rule when it seems overwhelming ridiculous.

In addition, when the rule sees ridiculous or unwarranted, the easiest understanding of the rule is that is simply too silly to be obeyed.

In the instance of the lockdown, the stakes are ostensibly life-and-death. Whether the rules instituted actually will help in that regard; and whether the threat is actually life and death (or at least sufficiently dangerous that extraordinary measures are needed). Thus, the concern is extreme; even if the means to protect against that concern are absurd.

Perhaps it will be learned that the lockdown regime was as effective as smoke was in protecting against the Black Plague.

So for argument’s sake let us stipulate that the rules are somewhere between non-effective to excessively restrictive. Perhaps the rules are brilliant, but the argument will be clearer if the rules are simply wrong.

And so, may I disregard laws which I think are foolish, ineffective, or annoying? My political instincts and education and the default positions of Americans (as is readily apparent from both sides of the aisle, depending upon the ruler and the law) is that I may and perhaps should disregard the dumb laws – or at least laws I dislike.

That is one side of the argument, but I don’t believe it can be supported from the Scripture.

In First Peter, the apostle begins a long discussion of submission in verse 13 of chapter two. The general rule is given in verse 13,

1 Peter 2:13–14 (ESV)

13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.

The command is exceedingly clear: submit, put yourself in subjection to the authorities.

As Paul writes in Romans 13, all governmental authority has been instituted by God. Rom. 13:1. It is sufficient to observe that Peter and Paul both set down this rule with respect to a government which condemned both Peter and Paul to death:

Nero was emperor when St. Peter wrote. Christians were to obey even him, wicked tyrant as he was; for his power was given him from above, as the Lord himself had said of Pilate

H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed., 1 Peter, The Pulpit Commentary (London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909), 73. Unless some other rule specifically makes for an exception, this rule stands absolute.

And yes there is an exception to the law: the government has no right to make us sin. The example of Daniel continuing to pray even when the law forbade his prayers is the right example. Daniel prayed despite the law; and Daniel accepted the consequence of his disobedience.

The command is quite clear, and so is the rationale, “For the Lord’s sake.” There are two aspects of this rationale. First, our obedience to a governmental authority “for the Lord’s sake” is ultimately obedience to the Lord. This aspect is made plain in verse 16:

1 Peter 2:16 (ESV)

Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.

Our obedience to the authority is not because we consider our primary allegiance to that authority: we are free people. But our freedom also makes us servants of God. Or as the NASB has it “bondslaves of God.” The Christian is absolutely bound to the direction of Christ. And thus, if the Lord has given a command, we have no discretion in the matter. [An issue in the lockdown order is whether the stay home orders conflict with a duty to corporate worship.]

This leads to the rationale for obedience found in Paul. As he explains in Roman, obedience to the authority is grounded on the proposition that God has instituted the authority.

Peter, however, adds an additional rationale: as a witness to the authorities and to the world.

In verse 15, Peter writes:

1 Peter 2:15 (ESV)

For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

Peter’s concern is for the public witness of the Christian. This is a thought that goes back to verse 12:

1 Peter 2:12 (ESV)

Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.

The “Lord’s sake” of verse 13 is the public demonstration that we willing lay down even our freedom for the sake of something more important, our testimony that our concern is God’s glory “on the day of visitation.”

The concept here is that by our obedience to human authority, we remove any ground that anyone could speak ill of our behavior.

Peter’s point is that Christians are called upon to be as obedient to the government as possible so as to remove any argument against Christ:

By submitting to government, Christians demonstrate that they are good citizens, not anarchists. Hence, they extinguish the criticisms of those who are ignorant and revile them. Such ignorance is not innocent but culpable, rooted in the foolishness of unbelievers.

Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 130. As Christians we are called upon to willingly set aside ground for disobedience to governing authorities because have a duty to remove any possible ground for anyone to speak ill of us.

Do I really want to violate an inconvenient law if the effect would be give anyone a reason to slander Christ?

If we Christians are hated, then we must not be hated because we have disobeyed the authorities. If we suffer, then let us suffer as a Christian for being a Christian:

1 Peter 4:14–15 (ESV)

14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler.

To underscore and explain his point concerning obedience to authorities Peter sets out a series of examples. First, he speaks of slaves who are mistreated, even physically beaten for unjust cause:

1 Peter 2:18–20 (ESV)

18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.

Notice how Peter describes the master: “unjust” (NASB, “unreasonable”). The suffering is “unjust”. The result is a “beating.” The cause of the beating is having done “good.” The slave did what was “good” and was beaten by an unjust master.

The slave is called upon to endure the beating in patience, “because this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.”

The second example given is Christ suffering unjustly. Christ did not revile when he was reviled (1 Peter 2:23). Rather, Christ turned the response over to God:

1 Peter 2:23 (ESV)

When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.

In verse 21, Peter specifically says that Christ has given us an “example” which we are required to follow.

Peter then gives a third example, a wife being “submissive” to an unbelieving husband. The position of a woman in the ancient world was very difficult. Peter specifically mentions that she is to be submissive to her husband (the same command given to all and to slaves with their own masters) and do so without fear of “anything that is frightening.” (1 Peter 2:6). These are very hard words.

Why is the wife called upon to engage in such extraordinary conduct? To “win” her husband:

1 Peter 3:1 (ESV)

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives,

The demand being made upon Christians is extraordinary. It by nature unreasonable and at times even dangerous. Why would Christians lay aside their defense? For the Lord’s sake. We are called upon to suffer injustice so that none may have a cause to speak against our Lord.

Before going further, someone could say that bearing up under unjust or difficult orders is one thing, but dealing with silly or foolish orders is quite another. There are three responses to this. First, if we must maintain our submission even when being beaten for doing good. If we must do the greater thing, then we must do the lesser.

Second, this makes the bad testimony even worse: you are willing to disobey on the slightest cause. You have must have a very low regard for those in authority.

Thomas Brooks in his Precious Remedies for Satan’s Devices list as device number three of Satan, “extenuating and lessening the sin.” To bring us to sin, the Devil tells us the sin is a very small thing. He makes a number of points about small sins, such as the fruit in the garden may seem a very small sin; small sins lead to greater sins; a small hole can sink a great ship; many saints have suffered death rather than commit the smallest sin, such as just offering up a pinch of incense upon a pagan altar.

Speaking of refusing to follow because the law is so silly, “That it is sad to stand with God for a trifle.” If this thing is so small and insignificant, then it is especially foolish to refuse to obey. For instance, the lockdown does not require heroic acts; it is merely very inconvenient. And yes there are very serious economic issues for many people, but that is a different argument than the law is silly.

Two more that bear consideration: Your soul cannot stand the weight of guilt which is inherent in even the smallest sin. Nothing less the death of Christ was necessary to preserve you from the guilt of this “small sin”. If God were to set the full weight of this guilt upon your soul and you were to understand it aright, it would put you into a horror of madness.

Also, “there is more evil in the least sin than in the greatest affliction.” If it is a sin, then it is inherently worse than death itself.

And lest you think that perhaps I am seeing something new, the Venerable Bede in 7th Century England wrote:

This there is the praise which good men receive, when they act properly and obey the king’s servants, even when it means putting up with ignorance of unwise governors.

As he notes, there is no, but my governor is a fool exception to the rule.

In the Second Century, Justin writing to the Roman Emperor sought clemency for Christians. In his argument, Justin explained – based upon these propositions in Peter and Paul – that Christians were the best of citizens:

And more than all other men are we your helpers and allies in promoting peace, seeing that we hold this view, that it is alike impossible for the wicked, the covetous, the conspirator, and for the virtuous, to escape the notice of God, and that each man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions. For if all men knew this, no one would choose wickedness even for a little, knowing that he goes to the everlasting punishment of fire; but would by all means restrain himself, and adorn himself with virtue, that he might obtain the good gifts of God, and escape the punishments. For those who, on account of the laws and punishments you impose, endeavour to escape detection when they offend (and they offend, too, under the impression that it is quite possible to escape your detection, since you are but men), those persons, if they learned and were convinced that nothing, whether actually done or only intended, can escape the knowledge of God, would by all means live decently on account of the penalties threatened, as even you yourselves will admit. But you seem to fear lest all men become righteous, and you no longer have any to punish. Such would be the concern of public executioners, but not of good princes.

Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 166.

We Christians obey the laws because we are concerned the judgment of God – not the judgment of the king. You have nothing to fear from Christians, we are your best of servants.

The importance of obedience to the civil authorities – even bad civil authorities – as a means of testimony, and the willingness to accept the consequences for disobedience when to obey would be sin, was eloquently stated by Pastor Wang Yi of the Early Rain Church in China in a statement released after his imprisonment:

As a pastor, my firm belief in the gospel, my teaching, and my rebuking of all evil proceeds from Christ’s command in the gospel and from the unfathomable love of that glorious King. Every man’s life is extremely short, and God fervently commands the church to lead and call any man to repentance who is willing to repent. Christ is eager and willing to forgive all who turn from their sins. This is the goal of all the efforts of the church in China—to testify to the world about our Christ, to testify to the Middle Kingdom about the Kingdom of Heaven, to testify to earthly, momentary lives about heavenly, eternal life. This is also the pastoral calling that I have received.

For this reason, I accept and respect the fact that this Communist regime has been allowed by God to rule temporarily. As the Lord’s servant John Calvin said, wicked rulers are the judgment of God on a wicked people, the goal being to urge God’s people to repent and turn again toward Him. For this reason, I am joyfully willing to submit myself to their enforcement of the law as though submitting to the discipline and training of the Lord.

At the same time, I believe that this Communist regime’s persecution against the church is a greatly wicked, unlawful action. As a pastor of a Christian church, I must denounce this wickedness openly and severely. The calling that I have received requires me to use non-violent methods to disobey those human laws that disobey the Bible and God. My Savior Christ also requires me to joyfully bear all costs for disobeying wicked laws.

But this does not mean that my personal disobedience and the disobedience of the church is in any sense “fighting for rights” or political activism in the form of civil disobedience, because I do not have the intention of changing any institutions or laws of China. As a pastor, the only thing I care about is the disruption of man’s sinful nature by this faithful disobedience and the testimony it bears for the cross of Christ.

As a pastor, my disobedience is one part of the gospel commission. Christ’s great commission requires of us great disobedience. The goal of disobedience is not to change the world but to testify about another world.

When placed in the matrix of life of the apostles and martyrs, when measured against the life of men like Wang Yi, our rebellion against inconvenient orders seems terribly misplaced.

Rieff, The Triumph of the Therapeutic, Chapter 2.1 (Discipleship and Therapy)

21 Tuesday Apr 2020

Posted by in Apologetics, Biblical Counseling, Freud, Theology of Biblical Counseling, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Chapter Two

The Impoverishment of Western Culture

There is an implicit claim here that symbols function as a mechanism by which a culture gains ascent over the various individuals in the culture: the means by which the superego functions. A curious question which is left unanswered is “Why symbols?”

We could argue that symbols point to the transcendent, but a proposition of Freud must be that there is no real transcendent. Why then any sort of desire or inclination in that direction? That is left unanswered. We simply learn that Freud provides us a mechanism to strip out the symbols.

We then learn that essentially Western Culture developed by means of suppressing sexual desire. (40) The control over sexual desire was the high water mark of character.

Since there is no objective morality, only pragmatics, there is no particular need for such suppression except in and so far as it is functional for the culture.

On an aside, I have noticed that the treatment for “sexual addiction” is distinction amoral in this regard. The problem is not whatever inclination, but rather whether there are negative consequences for following such an inclination.

There is an unstated morality which is present in this: Desires are inherently good. That is a moral equation in the guise of amorality. But if it were truly amoral there would be nothing better about indulging or refraining. Moreover, personal happiness could not be relevant, because anyone else’s concern for your well-being is also irrelevant.  In short, the moral question is really not as absent as some pretend. It is always there; the difference is where does not draw a line?

But back to Freud: The “analytic attitude”, the aim of “therapy” is always at the distinct individual. There is no reason to “cure” any sort of desire; because what makes Mr. X happy is necessarily good.  “Well-being is a delicate personal achievement”. (41)

This is taken as an ethical demand upon “therapy”. We start with the idiosyncratic evaluation of the patient and seek to assist in achieving that end.

That is fundamentally antithetical to the Christian demand. In Matthew 28, Christ places a solitary command upon the Church: “make disciples”. The process of disciple making is “teach the to observe all that I have commanded.”

Now one can reject the proposition that Christ spoke or that Christ spoke these words. That is an honest position, and the position of Freud, for instance. But for one to claim to be a “Christian” and also take a position that Freud has a contribution on this issue is perplexing.

The position of the Scripture is not terribly confusing. Yes, there can be knotty issues, but those are not the main. The center of the road is abundantly clear.

What is confusing is when someone proposes that there is any sort of integration possible at this key point. No one is contesting the ability of anyone to make observations about the relative frequency of X behavior. But when it comes to this question of the fundamental presuppositions, What is a human being, What is the purpose of a human being, What is necessary for human beings to change: those issues are beyond compromise or “integration”. When we get to presuppositions, those are questions of grammar.

In the English and German language, the sound “gift” has a fundamentally different meaning. In English you get one at Christmas. In German, it is “poison”.

Discipleship and therapy are similar in that both involve words and directions and people who know something is wrong. “Gift” sounds the same in English and German. But O the difference!

As a final note, if you are at all curious about the matter of the importance of “presupposition”, I must direct you to my brothers at:

Domain for Truth: https://veritasdomain.wordpress.com

 

The Conclusion of the Apology of Theophilus of Antioch

18 Saturday May 2019

Posted by in Ante-Nicene, Apologetics, Church History, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The previous post in this series may be found here. 

Theophilus concludes his defense and advocacy of Christianity by an appeal to (1) its historical veracity; and (2) its antiquity.

He begins this section of the argument as follows:

But I wish now to give you a more accurate demonstration, God helping me, of the historical periods, that you may see that our doctrine is not modern nor fabulous, but more ancient and true than all poets and authors who have written in uncertainty. For some, maintaining that the world was uncreated, went into infinity;1 and others, asserting that it was created, said that already 153, 075 years had passed.

1 i.e., tracing back its history through an infinate duration.

 Theophilus of Antioch, “Theophilus to Autolycus,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 116.

Theophilus then works through the then-current theories on the age of the earth, and various events (he spends much time comparing various understandings of the time of the Flood and also the Israelites in Egypt).  In each case, he contends that the Biblical understanding of the time period and events is correct.

First, he goes the basis for the biblical positions:

It behoved, therefore, that he should the rather become a scholar of God in this matter of legislation, as he himself confessed that in no other way could he gain accurate information than by God’s teaching him through the law. And did not the poets Homer and Hesiod and Orpheus profess that they themselves had been instructed by Divine Providence? Moreover, it is said that among your writers there were prophets and prognosticators, and that those wrote accurately: who were informed by them. How much more, then, shall we know the truth who are instructed by the holy prophets, who were possessed by the Holy Spirit of God! On this account all the prophets spoke harmoniously and in agreement with one another, and foretold the things that would come to pass in all the world.

Theophilus of Antioch,  116. That is, since they demonstrated the divine nature of their speech by means of predictive prophecy and coherence in doctrine, they should be trusted when they speak of other things which are far more debated (the ancient history of the world).

He compares the biblical accounts with the accounts of poets and philosophers; for instance:

From what has already been said, it is evident that they who wrote such things and philosophized to so little purpose are miserable, and very profane and senseless persons. But Moses, our prophet and the servant of God, in giving an account of the genesis of the world, related in what manner the flood came upon the earth, telling us, besides, how the details of the flood came about, and relating no fable of Pyrrha nor of Deucalion or Clymenus; nor, forsooth, that only the plains were submerged, and that those only who escaped to the mountains were saved.

Theophilus of Antioch,  116. He then compares the ages of the events set forth in the Bible with the dates for various Greek law givers and poets; and notes that the Biblical account begins before Greek history. This is a relative sort of argument. He does not try to argue that the Biblical accounts go earlier than every other potential account — just earlier than the Greek accounts:

These periods, then, and all the above-mentioned facts, being viewed collectively, one can see the antiquity of the prophetical writings and the divinity of our doctrine, that the doctrine is not recent, nor our tenets mythical and false, as some think, but very ancient and true.

 Theophilus of Antioch,  120. He concludes thus

But the Greeks make no mention of the histories which give the truth: first, because they themselves only recently became partakers of the knowledge of letters; and they themselves own it, alleging that letters were invented, some say among the Chaldæans, and others with the Egyptians, and others again say that they are derived from the Phœnicians. And secondly, because they sinned, and still sin, in not making mention of God, but of vain and useless matters. For thus they most heartily celebrate Homer and Hesiod, and the rest of the poets, but the glory of the incorruptible and only God they not only omit to mention, but blaspheme; yes, and they persecuted, and do daily persecute, those who worship Him. And not only so, but they even bestow prizes and honours on those who in harmonious language insult God; but of those who are zealous in the pursuit of virtue and practise a holy life, some they stoned, some they put to death, and up to the present time they subject them to savage tortures. Wherefore such men have necessarily lost the wisdom of God, and have not found the truth.

Theophilus of Antioch, 121. The relative argument is appropriate here, because he is merely contending against a particular man in a particular place. He is not attempting to respond to every possible argument, but he is responding to a particular argument. Why would anyone abandon Helenic Religion and Philosophy for Christianity:

Since, then, my friend, you have assailed me with empty words, boasting of your gods of wood and stone, hammered and cast, carved and graven, which neither see nor hear, for they are idols, and the works of men’s hands; and since, besides, you call me a Christian, as if this were a damning name to bear, I, for my part, avow that I am a Christian,1 and bear this name beloved of God, hoping to be serviceable2 to God. For it is not the case, as you suppose, that the name of God is hard to bear; but possibly you entertain this opinion of God, because you are yourself yet unserviceable to Him.

Theophilus of Antioch, 89. His argument has been to clarify what Christians do believe; and to demonstrate the immorality and absurdity of Greek thought; the elevation of Biblical thought; its morality and antiquity. This argument was antiquity was important in apologetics for the early church. For instance, Clement of Alexandria makes a detailed argument based upon the antiquity of Christianity:

On the plagiarizing of the dogmas of the philosophers from the Hebrews, we shall treat a little afterwards. But first, as due order demands, we must now speak of the epoch of Moses, by which the philosophy of the Hebrews will be demonstrated beyond all contradiction to be the most ancient of all wisdom.

 Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 324.   The idea that the Bible explains the antiquity of original revelation — and a corruption of that revelation as it spreads throughout human history is not merely an argument of the early church, but is a matter of current concern:

In arguing for a revelatory ‘single-source’ theory as to both the theological and historical origin of religion and the religions, does the Urgeschichte provide us with any more detail or explanatory ‘mechanism’ as to the pattern of religion that begins with an original divine disclosure but that, due to human sin, and without divine preservation, ends in a derivative religious degeneration and decay as God ‘gives people over’ to idolatry?

Strange, Daniel. Their Rock Is Not Like Our Rock: A Theology of Religions (pp. 121-122). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. Tracing out that argument is well beyond this post. For now, we only note that the argument from antiquity — with an implicit element of corruption/derivation (Clement’s “plagiarizing”) is still a current concern.

A good example of a bad argument (the Judge and the Resurrection)

21 Friday Sep 2018

Posted by in Apologetics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

I saw this on social media today.  This is good example of misleading argument:

My favorite part of the Kavanaugh controversy is how people who are absolutely convinced they know exactly what happened in Judea 2,000 years ago have gaslit many Americans into believing it is literally impossible to know what happened at an event in 1983.

Here, our correspondent has misstated both the Christian position on the resurrection and the argument respecting an alleged event involving Judge Kavanaugh.

Strawmen.

It is inaccurate to say that anyone is certain of everything which happened in Judea during the life of Jesus. No one claims to have comprehensive knowledge of the time and place. In terms of total facts, far more is unknown than known. The Christian position is that the facts which are known are sufficient to draw certain factual conclusions (such as the Resurrection).

The circumstance involving Judge Kavanaugh differs on the facts available at this time. If the only two facts are one person asserting X and another asserting not-X and there are no other facts, then drawing a conclusion is impossible on that basis alone. The difficulty with Kavanaugh’s case is a lack of a sufficiently detailed allegation (the X, and not-X are not even sufficiently defined) and a lack of evidence beyond the ultimate conclusion.

There are a number of facts which could easily lead to a definite conclusion. For instance, there were a definite statement of date, time and place, one could conclude that the event was more or less probable.

Thus, if the alleged event (again, I have no idea as to the truth, because I do not have a sufficient number of facts from which to draw a conclusion. Anyone who has had access to the publicly available statements “knows” anything is simply wrong.) took place on Date 1 and Kavanaugh was in another Michigan on that date, it is not likely that he took a jet home for this bad act and then returned without notice.

We can look to other corroborating facts: It is reported (goodness knows what has actually been said, this whole story is awash in false statements and nonsense). Are there witnesses? What do they say? Have the witnesses or alleged actors given consistent or inconsistent statements? Etc.

The Resurrection is quite different: it is a conclusion based upon a very definite statement and supported by substantial supporting evidence.

Indeed, the fundamental reason to question the Resurrection is not the evidence but the strangeness of the event. If the Resurrection were a normal historical event, it would be unquestioned.

But what about the passage of years?

As we move further from an event, the number of facts recoverable will lessen. If there are witnesses, the memory of witnesses will fade [I will make a note on eyewitness testimony below.] Witnesses will also become unavailable over the course of time (either through death or becoming lost to interview by moving or whatnot).

Physical facts will also diminish over time (duration will depend upon the nature of the artifact).

How does this not adversely affect the Christian claim?

Christians are not trying to recover facts from 2,000 years. The facts were established and recorded at that time. We are not trying to establish that information today for the first time. The 2,000 years misstates the salient fact of time.

Let’s consider an example: Imagine we have access to a trial transcript from 1940. The events underlying the trial took place one year earlier. If we were to speak of what happened in 1939, the time period between fact and conclusion is 1 year – not 78 years.

In Kavanaugh’s case we are trying to recover facts for the first time 35 years after the event (the 2012 notes are problematic at best. Even the accuser says the notes are wrong).

What about eyewitness testimony? Isn’t it unreliable?

Yes, and no. Eyewitness testimony about stressful events which took place at one time and over a short period of time are very often wrong – often wildly wrong. Crime victims routinely give flawed testimony about the criminal event: they are stressed, confused; their attention is misdirected; they try to reconstruct the event and make numerous errors in the recreation.

The Kavanaugh event concerns eyewitness testimony about an extremely stressful event. An important fact, which may weigh in favor of the accuser is whether she knew Kavanaugh prior to the event. If this was their first (alleged) interaction, she would more easily misidentify him. If they had been friends for years, she does not need to describe his appearance for the first time.

Compare that to testimony about normal events. You know would likely give excellent testimony about the color of your car, the number windows in your bedroom, the number of drawers in your dresser, how often you get paid for work, et cetera. Routine, repeated, normal events are fundamentally different than trying to remember what it was like to be robbed.

On this point, we should note that information obtained in therapy of a long unexpressed painful event which (supposedly) is causing significant bad effects in the present has a reputation for uncovering things which never occurred. Moreover, patients routinely lie to therapists and clients lie to lawyers (I’m not saying always; but it happens enough that it is not a strange thing).

Christianity is based upon claims from multiple witnesses about an event with corroborating physical evidence. For instance, if anyone had been able to produce Jesus’ body in Jerusalem, it would have stopped Christianity at its birth (Crossan’s claim that it was eaten by dogs is silly. Someone could have just said, we say dogs eat it. No one made that claim until Crossan – which a claim which suffers from the 2,000 year distance).

What about prejudice?

The Kavanaugh accusation is a great example of the policy behind Evidence Code section 352. The code essentially forbids the introduction of evidence which would prejudice a juror more than it would inform a juror. For example, let us say the defendant is a gang member charged with a particular crime. In most instances, the jury would never hear about the gang membership. If they heard he was a gang member, they would be more likely to find him guilty because he was in a gang than because he engaged in this particular bad act.

The people who speak confidently about what happened in the Kavanaugh case typically betray a personal prejudice (I was assaulted, therefore, she was telling the truth; I was falsely accused, therefore, she is lying; I hate/adhere to Kavanaugh’s judicial philosophy, therefore, ….).

Most of the people providing their opinion of the event have voiced personal prejudice: their opinion is worthless as to the truth of the accusation.

Well, weren’t the Apostles prejudiced in favor of Jesus? That misstates the issue. They were seriously prejudiced against the possibility of Jesus being resurrected from the dead in the manner in which he did (N.T. Wright’s Resurrection covers the evidence here exhaustively). Their prejudice makes it unlikely they would mistakenly believe Jesus had been resurrected.

What about reputation and motivation?

This does have some bearing. One who has a history of lying, might lie more easily than others. But no amount of lying before proves one is lying as to the instant assertion. No amount of prior conduct proves anything about conduct on one particular instance.

With Kavanaugh, the parties both have strong reasons to tell the truth; and they both have significant motive to lie. In fact, the pressure of examination is likely to cause each party to dig in their heels to insist upon their position (recanting has become more costly than the alternative – especially since the possibility of suffering penalty is minimal in this event). (There are event plausible scenarios under both believe that they are each telling the truth.)

This is a point which weighs very heavily in favor of the apostolic witness. They all suffered greatly (most often to death) for their testimony.

But don’t people die for false believes all the time?Yes, but that isn’t the case here.

Consider three scenarios:

1) Alleged Historical Event Z – never happened.

2) P1 who relates Z to P2.

3) P1 has lied to P2.

4) P2 believes P1

5) P2 dies based upon the false belief related by P1.

 

1) Historical Event Z.

2) Witnessed by P1.

3) P1 knows, based upon personal experience that Z took place.

4) P1 dies for Z.

 

1) Alleged Historical Event Z.

2) P1 knows it never happened.

3) P1 claims that Z happened.

4) P1 is challenged with death over Z.

5) P1 personally knows that Z is false.

6) P1 recants to stay alive.

People will recant things they believe to be true to save their life. It would be a remarkable day indeed for someone to go to death for a fact which they personally knew was false.

Conclusion

In conclusion, an analogy between Judge Kavanaugh’s circumstance and the Resurrection is poorly drawn.

As for the Judge and his accuser. I honestly have no definite idea what happened. I am not even certain what facts and accusation have been established. I have read any number of assertions made confidentially by people who are in no position to know any more than I do. I have seen a great deal of gossip, slander and vicious stupidity. (Apparently, there have been significant death threats made against almost everyone involved.)

I have seen that bias and prejudice have more importance than any consideration of evidence (not to say burden of proof — which is critical in this instance).

This political tempest is very sad; it has often been wicked; and I fear no matter how it ends, the result will be a further deterioration of our social fabric.

How to Create a Memory

20 Thursday Sep 2018

Posted by in Apologetics, John, Psychology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals; what is more, many of these subjects are certain that the memories are real. In one well-known study, Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events, three of which they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place when he or she was between four and six years old. A relative provided realistic details for the false story, such as a description of the mall at which the subject’s parents shopped. After reading each story, subjects were asked to write down what else they remembered about the incident or to indicate that they did not remember it at all. Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or fully remembering the false event. In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent still claimed that they remembered the untrue story, a figure consistent with the findings of similar studies.

Read the rest

The trouble with eye witness testimony

What then can help guarantee a good memory? Notice that events which are traumatic are questionable. Notice that distant, vague events are questionable. Compare that to events which take place over a period of time, events which are witnessed by multiple persons, events subject to objective independent corroboration. And with the case of the Scripture, Jesus speaks of receiving supernatural assistance of the Spirit. John 14:26

Higher Criticism Explained

31 Friday Aug 2018

Posted by in Apologetics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Higher Criticism in an intellectual exercise which makes scholars feel themselves above the text. It is made up of assumptions and inferences and deductions from inferences of others and is ultimately a speculative game. When it is applied to some other text, we can see just how silly this process is:

Composite authorship is clearly indicated by a number of linguistic peculiarities and literary unevennesses.[2] We observe the oscillation between various names for Pooh, an unerring pointer to diversity of authorship. He is called within the space of half a page (W 3.31)[3]:

Pooh
Pooh
Winnie-the-Pooh
Winnie-the-Pooh
Winnie-the-Pooh
Bear

This is brilliant — read it all

Selling a Child: Exodus 21:7

30 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by in Apologetics, Exodus, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

This is a verse in the Bible which is used routinely to taunt believers: the Bible says you can sell you child as a slave:

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

Exodus 21:7(AV).  Newer translations have the word “slave” in place of maidservant.  For instance, the television show the West Wing, the President character says: “I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21 : 7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?”

Admittedly, selling a child sounds horrible to an affluent, well fed family. So let’s think about this for a moment: if we assume that Israelites loved their children as much as we do, we must assume that sending a child out of the home would be only undertaken in the most extraordinary circumstances.

Remember that there was no welfare state at that time. Most people lived in subsistence agriculture. The threat of starvation was real and likely constant.

But someone will say, that is just unrealistic; that does not happen. But today I read this:

Julian Pitt-Rivers, a British anthropologist who published a classic study of a traditional Andalusian community in the early 1950s, wrote that it was common in the rural south for children from impoverished families to be sent to the mountains to look after sheep and goats in exchange for money.

Let us consider again the passage in Exodus 21:7. First, we must remember that the covenant promised material wealth — if the people of Israel fulfilled their requirements under the covenant. Thus, poverty was the result of sin. We must also realize that there was a framework of kinship and other mechanisms built into the law to prevent poverty. Thus, for any family to become so destitute that Exodus 21:7 was a reality spoke to a serious degradation of society overall.

The law was not given to save anyone-Israel was never a kingdom of saints. The Bible makes it plain the people were repeatedly in vicious, sinful rebellion.

Next consider that the purpose of the passage is not approve or condone selling one’s children as slaves/servants (in a subsistence economy even the well-off live miserable lives). The purpose of the law was alleviate the damage which could come even in this wretched state. This passage is a matter of protection, a command to stop the sin and brutality. It was a limitation not a grant of authority.