Craig on Calvinism

 Dr. William Lane Craig is a fine gentleman, scholar and man of God. Seldom few match his output. Given his breadth of learning and areas of expertise, it is not surprising that, in some areas, he will fall short. One such case is the short video I ran across where Craig discusses the common objection to Calvinism that it makes God "the author of sin/evil." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roiMiDKcvKI&list=PL30q-jGfBnRknUkaB1jh7TYunUKRQ_Mta

OBJ 1: "God Determines evil acts...so God is the author of evil on this view [Calvinism]."

1) But here, Dr. Craig leaves out much of Reformed thought on God's will, the problem of evil, and how these two intersect. 

a) God determines all things. But on Calvinism, these events are not determined for the heck of it. God 'determines' evil insofar as it brings about a greater good. 

b) Craig needs to give us an argument as to why it is a sin to ordain a sin.

c) Reformed theology (though certainly not Reformed thought exclusively) places a strong emphasis on primary and secondary causality. The Westminster Confession (III.1) thus states: "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." Calvinist philosopher Greg Welty in his book, Why is there Evil in the World?, (p. 107) explains this distinction well, giving us examples from Scripture: "The distinction between primary and secondary causality can be illustrated by the aforementioned biblical examples. In each case we had one set of events, but two sets of intentions with respect to those events (human intentions and divine intentions). Thus, in each case, we had simple persons on the scene, committing the sins, and therefore perpetrating the moral evil for which they were accountable: [Pilate, Joseph’s brothers, Judas, etc]. Their causality is to be recognized and not explained away, but God is not to be listed as one of the sinners at the scene of the crime, acting with evil intentions. In the case of moral evil, at least, there is always a human agent (or angel) who is the secondary, proximate, near cause of the sin in space and time."

And:

"God uses means to bring about his chosen ends. The various evils occur in the world because of creaturely decisions, but the ultimate reason these evils occur is not because of creaturely decisions, but because of divine decisions." (ibid, pp. 107-108)

d) I assume that Dr. Craig, like myself, holds to some sort of privation view of evil, i.e., evil is a lack, a lack of good(ness). The reader can correct me if I am mistaken about Craig's belief here. However, if I am wrong, Craig's objection is still relevant to my position.

With that said, on a privation theory of evil, Paul Helm explains: "God upholds the agent in his action, and the action itself, and permits but does not bring about the evil intent, because he cannot, being good, do so.” (The Providence of God, p. 170). He goes on to write, "What determines it are the normal causes of action, human intentions and the like, which God ordains and upholds as he ordains and upholds everything. But what determines the action in so far as it is an evil action is a divine withholding. God withholds his goodness or grace, and forthwith the agent forms a morally deficient motive or reason and acts accordingly. So while God ordains and sustains and foreknows the evil action he does not positively will it, as he positively wills good and gracious actions. Here is an important asymmetry in God's relation to what is morally good and morally evil." (ibid). 

Thus, we see intent is what makes all the difference. There is a divine intent and a human intent with to any action A. We can observe this throughout the course of scripture as well: Joseph is sold off by his brothers, they genuinely meant harm ("...you meant evil against me..." Gen 50:20), but God uses this harm to bring about a greater good, as Joseph goes on to say in the same aforementioned verse ("...but God meant it for good.") Joseph's brothers are blameworthy because they wanted Joseph's suffering to be the end in and of itself, but God did not. As Welty writes (ibid, p. 60): "God meant the evil done by the perpetrators (that it would in fact take place), but he meant it for good."

2) Dr. Craig's Molinism fares no better. Greg Welty, in Calvinism and the Problem of Evil, puts forward the following syllogism: 

1. If divine causation in Molinist providence is sufficiently analogous to sufficient causation, then Molinism inherits all of the Calvinist liabilities anyway, with respect to divine authorship of sin, responsibility, and blame

2. Molinist providence is sufficiently analogous to sufficient causation

3. Molinism does inherit any Calvinist liabilities with respect to divine authorship of sin, responsibility, and blame (p. 60, italics original)

For more, the reader should consult the rest of the chapter; this is merely a secondary point here, thus a full defense of the argument shall be saved for a future date.

OBJ 2: "I would much rather someone appeal to mystery than affirm Calvinism"

By way of reply:

1) I am fine with mystery to some extent. It just depends on the circumstances. This is, of course, also consistent with reformed thinking. For instance, take Calvin's commentary on Romans 11:33: "...for after having spoken from the word and by the Spirit of the Lord, being at length overcome by the sublimity of so great a mystery, he could not do otherwise than wonder and exclaim, that, the riches of God’s wisdom are deeper than our reason can penetrate to." 

2) However, for Calvin, the punt to mystery isn't all-encompassing; we can know a good amount about God, we just can't understand God and his nature fully. As Paul Helm writes in Calvin: A Guide for the Perplexed, p. 37: "For Calvin, to say that God is incomprehensible is not to say that all our talk about him is gibberish or incoherent. He means, more exactly, that our minds, creaturely minds, cannot encompass the divine nature. Nevertheless, we can know something of God; we can apprehend him; otherwise divine revelation to us would be impossible."

This, by the way, is why Calvin believes that the passages of scripture that speak of God having certain emotions are a form of divine accommodation. He writes, "what, therefore, does the word “repentance“ mean? Surely its meaning is like that of all other modes of speaking that describe God for us in human terms. For because our weakness does not attain to his exalted state, the description of him that is given to us must be accommodated to our capacity so that we may understand it. Now the mode of accommodation is for him to represent himself to us not as he is in himself, but as he seems to us.” Inst. 1.17.13.

3) Now, what view would we argue makes better sense of the data -- both from scripture and our understanding of the world? I'd argue that the answer is the view of foreknowledge and sovereignty proposed by Calvinism. Craig objects to this because of what he perceives as metaphysical baggage, but that is addressed above. Whether my responses are good or not is up to you, the reader.

Thus, I do not think these brief objections by Dr. Craig hold much water -- especially, as I hope I have demonstrated, Calvinism fares well in responding to these difficulties. Though the main point of this post was a reply to Craig, I would also hope that the reader is able to better understand a Reformed approach to the problem of evil. 

"And We Know His Testimony Is True": John 21:24, Authorial Plurals, and Traditional Authorship

 

“And We Know His Testimony Is True”: John 21:24, Authorial Plurals and Traditional Authorship

Introduction

In this blog post we will discuss John 21:24, authorial plurals and its implications for traditional authorship of the Gospel of John.

Different grammatical usages of “We”

Critics often argue that the “we” in John 21:24 differentiates the author of the gospel and the alleged eyewitness source material. Bart Ehrman remarks,

[a]t the end of the Gospel [of John] the author says of the “Beloved Disciple”…[John 21:24]…Note how the author differentiates between his source of information, “the disciple who testifies,” and himself: “we know that his testimony is true.” He/we: this author is not the disciple. He claims to have gotten some of his information from the disciple.[1]

However, this is an oversimplification of John 21:24 and first-person plurals. The NRSV renders this passage as

[t]his is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know [οἴδαμεν] that his testimony is true.

“This…disciple” is the “disciple whom Jesus loved” in 21:20. “These things” [ταῦτα] likely refers to the entire Gospel in light of 21:25.

There are several possible grammatical uses of οἴδαμεν and notice how none of these options exclude the author as an eyewitness:

1.)   Associativeà “we” as in the author includes him/herself with his/her audience [“we” = “I and you”]

2.)   Dissociativeà “we” as in the author distinguishes between a group they belong to and the readers [“we” = “I and my colleagues”]

3.)   Authoritative testimonyà “we as in a substitute for “I” to bring added authority to self-reference[2]

If the verb is used in the associative sense, it could be referring to the authors and his readers, or an appeal to common knowledge. If the dissociative, it could be referring to the author and his colleagues, in this case, the Beloved Disciple and Jesus’ other disciples. Obviously, with the last option it is self-referential.

Whiles I think both the associative and dissociative usage makes a lot of sense, Richard Bauckham—drawing upon an earlier study—argues rather compellingly that the “we” is interpreted best as the last option by scavenging through various Johannine texts’ usage of “we.”[3]

 Objections

Alan Culpepper objects to an authorial plural understanding of the “we” by highlighting the grammatical difficulty of the changing role of the author. In his view, 21:24 reveals several redactors within the Johannine community. He writes, “[i]t is unlikely that readers would understand that ‘this disciple,’ ‘we,’ and ‘I’ in the scope of these two verses all refer to the author.”[4]

In reply, Charles E. Hill points out,

The shifts, from third person singular to first person singular in the final verse, are issues for any view to explain. There are, however, two Johannine passages in particular that offer important comparisons, where not only are there shifts in a speaker’s pronouns but where we arguably have real examples of Johannine, authorial plurals.[5]

Essentially, quick shifts between persons are common in Johannine literature:

John 3:11-15à Jesus to Nicodemus: “I tell you…we know and testify to what we have seen…the Son of Man be lifted up…” Jesus switches from first person singular to first person plural to third person singular in the span of four verses.

3 John 9-10, 12à I have written…[Diotrephes] does not acknowledge our authority…so if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing in spreading false charges against us.” Similarly, the elder in 3 John switches from first person singular to first person plural back to first person singular and ends in first person plural.[6]

It is highly implausible that in these two passages, the speaker does not include himself within any of the first person plurals, thus providing evidence against the conventional model.[7]

In conclusion, the “we” used in 21:24 does not disqualify the Beloved Disciple as the main author of the Gospel of John.

---

[1] Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible. HarperOne, 2010., 104.

[2] Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. 2nd ed., William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company., 2017., 371-72.; Harnack, Adolf von. “Das ‘Wir’ in den Johanneischen Schriften.” SPAW, Philosophischhistorischen Klasse, 1923., 96-113.

 [3] Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 372-83.; Chapman, John. “We Know That His Testimony Is True.” Journal of Theological Studies, vol 31, no. 4, pp. 379-387. Jackson and Bauckham do disagree, with the former agreeing with mostly with the dissociative sense.

 [4] Culpepper, R. Alan. “John 21:24-25: The Johannine Sphragis.” in Anderson, Paul N., and Felix Just eds. John, Jesus, and History, Volume 2: Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel., Society of Biblical Literature, 2009., 360.

 [5] Hill, Charles E. “The Authentication of John: Self-Disclosure, Testimony, and Verification in John 21:24.” in Evans, Craig A., and Andrew W. Pitts eds. The Language and Literature of the New Testament Essays in Honor of Stanley E. Porter’s 60th Birthday., Brill, 2017., 419.

 [6] Ibid., 420-24.

[7] The conventional model holds that the Gospel of John is a product of several redactors within the Johannine community. See Brown, Raymond. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. Paulist Press,1979 for an articulate, yet admittedly speculative, defense of this model. 

Recent Conversion

 A few months ago, a bright young philosopher, Matthew Adelstein, became a theist. I do not agree with all of the arguments, considerations, etc. that helped him cross the Rubicon; but, nevertheless, Matthew is worth listening to. I particularly recommend his appearances on Christian Idealism's (Kyle Alander) channel, but there are other good ones. Here is a search result for you to scroll at your leisure: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=matthew+adelstein

The Shroud of Turin: Untangling the Web

 Friend of the blog, Daniel Lowry, recently appeared on another friend of the blog's, Kyle Alander's Youtube channel to discuss the shroud. The video isn't meant to argue for or against the shroud's authenticity. Rather, Daniel is trying to help the viewers learn about the debate itself and how to navigate it. 

I highly recommend all those interested in the shroud check it out: https://www.youtube.com/live/75uPGIEsn8E?si=BpD4rCS4CmL10MXg

You in this for the long-haul, detective?

 Earlier today, Donald Trump posted the following on his Truth Social app: 

"My Administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights https://x.com/DailyCaller/status/1827020030942326936

To begin, yes, this post is unmistakably dumb. Trump has been doing well with the evangelical vote--and this will likely hurt that to some degree. I, too, completely disagree with his framing of the subject, but that is a topic for a later date. 

This post, and the reactions to it, however, warrant comment. No, not as a defense of Trump; rather, a commentary and critique of the pro-life movement. 

First, we have Neil Shenvi: 

https://x.com/NeilShenvi/status/1827032113503404339

I can't claim to know much about Mr. Shenvi, but from what I have seen, he seems like a well enough chap and respected apologist. This post of his, however, demonstrates a visceral reaction to a (dumb) post. And when we examine more closely, his reaction is very simpleminded.

1) I am not sure what he means by "the long term costs of a Trump presidency." Is it the "Trumpification of the GOP" argument? If so, you can cry and moan about it all you want, but the pre-Trump GOP and, of course, the democratic party, are the cause of Trump. A history of idiotic trade deals (NAFTA, TPP), foreign adventurism (Iraq, Libya, Syria) and the off-shoring of our manufacturing is what made people desperate enough to vote for a former game show host who spoke to these concerns; cf. Salena Zito, The Great Revolt (Cymbolix) and Lainey Newman Rust Belt Union Blues (Columbia University Press). Of course, it is hotly debated whether or not Trump actually succeeded in remedying these issues. But that is not the point of the post.

2) Say what you want about Trump and his conservative bona fides (which, to me, are indeed lacking), but at the end of the day, we were able to secure three decent SCOTUS judges, a la Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. Those picks were instrumental in overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022. If sitting out the 2016 election lead to Hillary Clinton, what would have happened to Roe? Well, we all know the answer to this.

3) A broader point: what has the pro-life lobby done? In its existence, we have only seen the perception of abortion become less and less hostile. According to Pew Research:

Currently, 63% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 36% say it should be illegal in all or most cases. (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/)

And Gallup reports to us:

Gallup's 2024 abortion update finds more Americans continuing to self-identify as "pro-choice" (54%) rather than "pro-life" (41%) on abortion. From 2007 to 2021, no more than 50% of Americans identified as pro-choice. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx)

What have these so called "principled conservative" never-Trumpers done to prevent this? I'll wait...because I certainly can't think of anything.

4) Apropos the statistics in 3), if we truly care about the life of the unborn, we must adjust accordingly. This hurts in the depths of my soul to say, but we have to play the long game. In the current climate, you cannot run on something like a federal abortion ban. Republicans will likely lose midterm after midterm for years to come. After stacking up those consecutive losses, what do you think could be done then? How many more babies will now end up dying?

This is why the Overton window must shift back to a more pro-life view before we get the ideal abortion legislation to be voted on. In the meantime: stack up small wins as well and shift the culture rightward slowly.

5) Of course, not to defend the idiocy of the Trump post, but it gets at something: shift the Overton window.

Next, a brief post from the otherwise fantastic Dr. Jordan Cooper:

https://x.com/DrJordanBCooper/status/1827041825732841710

 1) In my experience, the never-Trumpers were always going to feel "vindicated." They opposed Trump from the get-go. They didn't like his policy proposal on trade--clearly favoring a free trade approach as opposed to protectionism; they disagreed with his foreign policy--favoring less restraint, being more hawkish. It is not as if they had suddenly became pro-Trump during his time in office and now, months before the election, abandoned ship.

2) To reiterate, Trump was never elected because of his conservative bona fides. His personal life is well known. He was elected because he spoke to (whether you think it was sincere or not does NOT matter here) previously disenfranchised men and women in the Rust Belt. Indeed, in picking up the white working class vote, Trump took away a previous democrat stronghold. 

3) Again, Trump is fundamentally a response to 30 some years of failed governance from both the old guard GOP and democratic party. Hate Trump? The old guard should look inward. 

Before concluding, I would like to state emphatically that this is neither a pro or anti-Trump post. Trump's post - and the man more broadly - make a good launching pad to discuss the shortcomings of the GOP and the so called pro life movement. 

The Counter-Offensive Begins!

 An open letter was recently brought to my attention. The title of the letter reads thus: A Declaration of War on Young Apologists. Provocative! Given that, I figured I’d venture to give a few comments. I’ll note out at the outset, I think it is a mixed-bag. I agree with some and disagree with some too. Here are some of my thoughts. 

https://thechurchsplit.com/index.php/2024/01/03/a-declaration-of-war-on-young-apologists/

“However, there are many of us whose young age and quick study has led to losing sight of the goal of apologetics.”

Absolutely true in my estimation. I can say this because I have been one of these folks. There have been various points in my life where Christianity and its defense was merely an intellectual exercise. I had lost sight of what the true end goal of apologetics should be: help the doubter, correct the unbeliever, and prepare the church for their own encounters with the previously mentioned types. 

Continuing: “Tearing down pop apologists (Frank Turek is the preferred punching bag these days) is spare-time enjoyment. Now, Turek isn’t my favorite, but he’s a darn good apologist who has had the career and impact that his detractors will never have.”

Some true, some not. 

1) Though I do not think I have done so on this blog, I have been highly critical of Turek in private correspondence and comment threads.

2) I do agree that the tearing down of “pop-apologists” is becoming vastly overdone. Indeed, in most cases I’ve seen (looking at you, Randal Rauser) it is incredibly pretentious. Often times, in circles deeply entrenched in academic philosophy, New Testament scholarship and philosophical theology, it becomes very easy to forget the vast swaths of laity that are not deeply entrenched in the academic world.

3) Now, with respect to the first two points: Turek is often picked on, sure; but it is important to note that Turek has thrown himself into the ring with heavy-weights, e.g., his debate with Jeff Lowder. Furthermore, he also appeared on Capturing Christianity with the title "Prove Frank Turek Wrong: God exists." Anyone that has watched Capturing Christianity knows that Cameron frequently brings on heavy hitters, such as Graham Oppy, Dan Linford, Joe Schmid (an agnostic, but can argue for both atheism and theism with vigor), and Alex Malpass. 

4) Lastly, on this point: I do think that Frank Turek means well. He runs a successful ministry and seems like a nice enough fellow. If I recall correctly, Turek has also served our country in the air force--a good mark of moral character and backbone. So, my concluding remarks on Turek: I just think he can often go over his own head (cf. his debate with Lowder). 

Next: "They spend a lot of time criticizing the work of well-known figures. What they want to do is point out flaws in popular arguments (like the moral argument, or minimal facts argument for the resurrection) in order to address them and make the argument stronger and present a stronger Christianity."

 1) I do not think that there is a problem with pointing out problems with popular arguments per se. In my opinion, it is balancing act. On top of critiquing the pop arguments, are you also addressing the arguments against Christianity at least (it should be more time) as much? 

So, when they go on to say: "some of them do this far too often," I agree. 

2) The minimal facts argument makes a good foil for my next point. How exactly would Stockman and Hess differentiate between tearing down the popular figures and critiquing an argument they genuinely do not believe works. 

Here, I can only speak for myself. I do not think the minimal facts case works. I am a maximalist, in the same vein as  Drs. Tim and Lydia McGrew. So, if I were leading an (say) apologetics course, I would give the students (a) my reasons for thinking the minimal facts approach doesn't work; and (b) how to argue a maximalist case. 

I would like to see a response to this qualm of mine in particular (genuinely, this is not meant in a sarcastic manner, lest anyone be confused.) 

 Continuing: "Of course, if an apologist like Frank Turek or Michael Licona is incorrect on something, it should be (graciously) pointed out. But, by who? Twenty-something’s with YouTube channels that nobody watches?"

1) Why? Of course, the freshly acquainted 20-something year old should not. 

But what disqualifies, say, me? I am a 20 something, but I have spent the last 8 years of my life researching. Indeed, with regards to the resurrection in particular, I helped put this document together while I was in high school. I do not claim that this is due to some genius on my part, or some special endowment from God; rather, I was blessed to find my niche very early on. Like all of us, I still have much to learn. But, at the same time, I have put in what I deem to be considerable leg work. Or, to take an even better example, my friend and co-blogger Bram Rawlings. A true theological prodigy if there ever was one. Should anyone doubt his intellect and learnedness, please read his posts here, and the various appearances he has made on Youtube. 

2) Furthermore, how can iron sharpen iron (Proverbs 27:17) if young folks are not allowed to put their thoughts and queries out there? 

2a) I will grant an olive branch here, however: I do not think a 20-something should be critiquing the experts from any position of authority, e.g., "I've read X amount of books, therefore I am basically an expert." That can breed overconfidence and arrogance. I can say this because I was once like this!

Next: "Below are a couple examples of the sorts of things these individuals actually say in italics. These people are actually serious; they’re not joking. 

'But there are countless examples who are less popular than Frank Turek, but are better at defending the Christian faith. Joshua Rasmussen, Rob Koons, Eleonore Stump, Alexander Pruss, Joshua Sijuwade, Andrew Loke, Timothy McGrew, and Richard Swinburne are all great places to start.'

The claim is that you should start with these. Not gradually work your way up to, but start with. All of these names are indeed great thinkers. Worth reading. These are arguably the cream of the crop when it comes to intelligent Christians. But they are (with the possible exception of Rasmussen) horrible places to start."

By way of reply: 

You can actually start with more than Rasmussen. Why couldn't a newbie pick up Lydia McGrew's book on undesigned coincidences? Andrew Loke is a very accessible scholar, who posts laymen's versions of his work on Youtube. Richard Swinburne also has a book for the general laity called "Is There a God?" This was actually the first philosophy of religion book I read. Did I understand all of it at the time? No, but I have zero regrets about starting there and learned so much. 

Next:  In fact, I would recommend a presuppositionalist as a starting place before I would recommend that someone start with Andrew Loke or Richard Swinburne. (Bear in mind that I believe Presuppositionalism is utterly worthless in advancing Christianity.) 

Presumably because Stockman and Hess get their ideas of presupp from the likes of Bruggencate. In that case, I agree. Totally useless and misguided. But what about the likes of James N. Anderson, Greg Welty, Paul Manata, and the late Steve Hays? 

"When has Frank Turek been billed as an expert on Phil. Religion? Who, of his audience, has even heard the term “philosophy of religion”? Why anyone is looking to Frank Turek as a philosopher of religion is a mystery to me."

See my points above on Turek's presentation. 

"For example, it’s great that you can point out the flaws in JL Schellenberg’s Hiddenness Argument. When’s the last time you met someone who uses that? I would be very surprised if it’s ever happened. So what do you have for college students facing unbiblical views on sexuality, or religious pluralism?"

A common objection from people in younger generations is the hiddenness argument (although not in a sophisticated manner). If you have some objections to Schellenberg's articulation, then you have overlapping replies to the two respective "arguments." 

I do agree that more apologists who consider themselves more academic should better equip themselves for the common objections one often encounters on a college campus. Everyone needs to climb down from the ivory tower once in awhile. 

(Arguments is in air quotes for the young people's question, not Dr. Schellenberg, who is a very sharp and probing philosopher.)

"Don’t you know what it’s like to be in conversation with a skeptic and they bring up Sobel’s Bayesian argument against the resurrection, or quote Graham Oppy’s Arguing About Gods to you?…you don’t? Yeah, me neither."

1) Everyone's social context is different. What if a kid is in a philosophy class with others who take philosophy seriously? 

2) As mentioned above with regard to Schellenberg's argument, learning and understanding the counter arguments to more academic work can - and often does - have a downstream effect on addressing some of the popular stuff. 

A Response to Paulogia's Response to Exploring Reality's Resurrection Debate

A big thank you to Than Christopolous and Caleb Jore for helping me with different aspects of this post. 

A few months ago, my good friend Than of the channel of Exploring Reality debated the well known atheist Matt Dillahunty on the resurrection of Jesus. Despite the fact that I find Dillahunty less than impressive, I still think it was a great dialogue and recommend everyone to check out. A month after the debate, well known atheist youtuber Paulogia (henceforth Paul) did a review. Given the popularity of Paul’s channel, I think it is worth reviewing the review. To make the flow of this post more smooth, I will be giving summaries of Paul's arguments; lest anyone accuse me of straw-manning, the link to Paul's video is above and the comment section here is open. I also won't cover every point due to post length. Indeed, this is meant to point out some of my own thoughts on different issues raised by Paul. Furthermore, at the time of writing this, Than, Inspiring Philosophy, and Tim Howard of Doxastic Mastery (formally Invoking Theism), did a full length review of the video I am writing about. Please, go check it out as well. 

 

(Paul's responses are in red for the sake of clarity)

Right out of the gate, Paul mentions that Than is "enamored" with Bayes Theorem. I do not know if this was meant as a pot shot or not, but it is worth noting that one's epistemology is fundamental to discussions surrounding beliefs. In the case of Bayes, it is directly relevant to the debate about God (does God probably exist?) and, despite unfortunately controversial, the resurrection of Jesus (is it probable that Jesus rose from the dead?) 

Paul goes on to say that we should spend "less time talking about the odds, and more time talking about the evidence."

By way of reply:

Paul seems to be unaware that these are inextricably linked. When assessing evidence, you are assessing odds! That is precisely what Bayes theorem is getting at--and exactly what Than is getting at in the very clip Paul is showing. 

To illustrate Than's point (and Bayes, really) is that given a certain hypothesis, event, etc., we would expect certain things if the proposed hypothesis were true. If there were, for example, a burning building near you, what would you expect to observe if it were the case that there was a nearby building on fire? The smell of fire itself, the sound of firetruck sirens in the distance, on and on. Now, take the proposed hypothesis that there is NOT a nearby burning building: can the aforementioned expectations still happen? Yes--but which hypothesis do we better expect this evidence under? The former.

Fellow writer and friend Caleb Jore adds the following: "We can assign a rough probability of the evidence occurring both if the hypothesis is true and if it is false. The ratio of these two probabilities is called the 'odds factor', and the size of this odds factor determines the weight of the evidence."

Paul bifurcates between the approach of Richard Swinburne and "resurrection scholar" (whatever that means) Mike Licona. 

There is much to say here

1) Given the fact that the resurrection is, really, a multi-disciplinary subject, it is not surprising that two different scholars from two different fields, have different approaches.

2) With reference to 1), I have no problem with the explicit use of Bayes in the practice of history. Indeed, I think all historians - whether in NT, Classics, American, European, etc. - should (and I think many of them do implicitly, but that is a subject for another time), at the very least, use bayesian reasoning. After all, history is the study of the past--what probably happened. Given Licona's lack of training in philosophy, though, I fail to see why it is significant that he doesn't use Bayes. 

3) New Testament scholar Christopher Heiling employs the theorem in his 2017 book, Hidden Criticism?: The Methodology and Plausibility of the Search for a Counter-Imperial Subtext in Paul. A very brief overview of his use of the theorem can be found here. 

Paul goes on to note how Licona neglects to argue for God raising Jesus from the dead. 

But refer to my point above. The existence of God (philosophy of religion) and the subject of history are different fields. Of course, they can be intertwined at many different junctures, but, again, Licona is not a philosopher; he is a NT scholar by training, so he sticks to his guns there. This is why I and many others think the resurrection is best approached from an inter-disciplinary perspective.

The rest of the section that covers Bayesian reasoning is quite frankly intellectually immature and sophomoric; so I will skip that part and move on to more of the direct historical evidence. 

Paul goes on to say that God should be able to provide him with the evidence necessary for him to believe

1) Given that Paul does this full time, I assume that gives him a significant amount of time to study these subjects. He should know full well that watching Youtube videos is hardly "research" at all. 

2) Perhaps Paul expects God to serve him evidence and a state of belief on a silver platter. You have to put in some leg work and not rely on whatever Kamil Gregor tells you. A list of some of my recommended resurrection works can be found here. Why doesn't Paul cite any of the scholarly literature in his review? Funny, that!

I agree with Paul that it is too long to get into another discussion of who wrote the Gospels.

Given that, I will just point the reader to various posts on this blog. Of course, there is more to come, and so much more out there from other writers: 

https://thinkchristiantheism.blogspot.com/2020/11/ferguson-fumbles.html

https://thinkchristiantheism.blogspot.com/2020/11/mcgrew-wipes-floor-with-ehrman-some.html

https://thinkchristiantheism.blogspot.com/2020/12/martin-hengel-gospel-titles.html

https://thinkchristiantheism.blogspot.com/2022/01/justin-martyrs-knowledge-of-gospel-of.html

https://thinkchristiantheism.blogspot.com/2022/05/why-i-think-papias-attributed-fourth.html

Paul talks about how comparing Luke to other ancient historians isn't that useful, given the fact that other ancient historians talk about the miraculous

1) It is not as if this puts the Christian on the backfoot. We can observe, in the scriptures itself, the use of the supernatural by those not of the faith, such as Pharaoh's magicians (Exodus 7-8) and a demonically possessed girl has the spirit of divination in Acts 16.

2) The more evidence of the supernatural, the less likely naturalism (so long as we define it as physicalism and causal closure) becomes.