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.

Recent Trends in Scholarship Favorable to Christianity

In April of 2022, I posted an article entitled "Recent Trends in Scholarship Favorable to Christianity." In this post, I would like to add some updates. A few formatting issues before I do so:

1) I am copy and pasting the original post here, but adding more to that post;

2) I am making a new post, as opposed to updating the old one, so that the reader can more easily find this newer version;

3) As previously mentioned: this sort of post will be updated as time moves on. Now that is out of the way, onward: 

• Recent commentaries on Isaiah 53 agree that the servant in question is a single person. Of course, not all commentators will agree that it is Jesus, but how many candidates fulfill the passage in such a way as Jesus does? 

• The argument that Paul didn't know of or believe in an empty tomb is now untenable thanks to the work of James P. Ware and John Granger Cook. See also my quote and additional commentary from Dale Allison's recent book on the resurrection. 

• The burial of Jesus has been convincingly argued for by scholars such as Byron McCane, Craig Evans, Jodi Magness and John Granger Cook. 

• The debate about Christology, of course, rages on, but here are some papers that are rarely discussed, at least in online circles. Jason Combs on Mark 6:49-50, Brian McPhee's paper on Jesus walking on the water, and Thomas Keiser's paper on the divine plural in the Old Testament. Jason Staples has argued that Jesus is presented as YHWH in Matthew and Luke. McDonough has written a book discussing the doctrine of Christ being the creator. Lee wrote a book about the preexistence of Christ. Obviously helpful in numerous Christological contexts.
• In 2023, Luke Van De Weghe wrote a book covering Luke's reliance on eyewitness sources. He also came out with a more popular version. This line of argumentation is developed from a 2022 paper of his that argues along the same lines. To close out with Luke, he also has a paper that develops the argument from name statistics first put forward by Richard Bauckham. Along a similar lines, John J. Peters has a paper from 2020 discussing Luke's use of sources and source claims. Simon Gathercole has a great paper covering the Gospel titles in our earliest New Testament manuscripts. He also has a paper discussing the anonymity of the Gospels. I disagree with some of the arguments therein, but still recommend it. The credibility of Irenaeus is often attacked by critics due to the fact that he says Christ was crucified at age 50. In 2020, scholar Devin L. White convincingly argued that it was based on Irenaeus's misreading of John 8:57. The credibility of Papias is often attacked based on his colorful description of the death of Judas Iscariot. Both Candida Moss and Christopher B. Zeichmann have papers discussing this passage. In 2021, Lydia McGrew published a paper covering Gospel genre and the implications. 

Why Your Theology MUST be Primary

  Well, hello, everyone! It sure has been awhile. I will do a separate post on the reason for my enduring absence. Rest assured all is now fine; so, no need for any sympathies—I just feel a sense of obligation to the readers of this blog, to whom I greatly appreciate. I hope this blog has served you well.

Anyway, now that is out of the way, I'd like to write about a more meta-issue. That issue being why one's theology should come before their apologetic method and arguments. What, exactly, do I mean by this? By putting theology first, you are giving yourself a lamp post by which you can see your path forward. 

Take, for instance, (a type of) the problem of evil. A Calvinist - who rejects libertarian freedom (and no, despite my respect for Oliver Crisp, Calvinists have never, nor can they, hold to libertarian freedom) - can not use Plantinga's free will defense (FWD) against the logical problem of evil, given the fact that they are divine determinists! I am sure that the reader can come up with many more examples, but the one I just provided seems to be the most clear test case to me. 

Now, of course there are nuances involved here. A previous non-believer who has come to the faith by means of apologetics may read this and be puzzled as to what to do now. My answer to the qualm will depend on the individual. Before coming to the faith, had they read the arguments and counter arguments to come to accept the basics of Christianity? If so, I would recommend jumping into theology [1]. Or, perhaps, during the course of their discovery, they have began to develop their own views. Refer to the example in the previous paragraph: a new-comer may have come to the conclusion that libertarian freedom is not true, therefore the FWD can not work. He may well be on his way to divine determinism; or, perhaps, is on his way to find a different answer that doesn't lead to Calvinism.  

In my personal experience, the latter case is quite rare. But, I do not want to discount the fact that it can, and does, happen. 

Lastly, given the fact that I have not blogged in a long time, I may not be writing as clearly as I once did. If the reader would like further elucidation, they are more than welcome to leave a comment.

 Footnotes:

[1] To put my biases out there: yes, you should be a Calvinist 😀