Cold Case Christianity - Atheist trying to convert

Btw I have read Cold Case Christianity but it's been a while.

One thing I wish would have happened in Chapter 1 was at least one example of a place where the scientific explanation wasn't satisfactory, where a supernatural explanation should be considered

Kvothe said:

HI all,
Years ago I became a born again believer and was a fervent Christian for many years. A couple years ago, after reading 1 Peter 3:15, I decided to really look into the evidence behind the claims of Christianity. I wanted to be able to talk to non-believers about the faith and share with them the good news in a powerful way. Unfortunately I ended up becoming an atheist as the more I looked into the evidence the less compelling it seemed. This was extremely problematic since I married to a wonderful and passionately Christian woman (who though she was marrying a good Christian husband), have a Christian extended family and my kids all attend private Christian school because I want to respect my wife's beliefs. All that to say that I very much want to be convinced of the truth of Christianity again. Unfortunately my heart can't rejoice in what my head believes to be false. To this end I am embarking on a series of reading some of the best Christian apologetics books, based on recommendations to me from many wonderful and caring Christians. I will be reading along and positing my thoughts as I go...what I see as the strengths and weaknesses of the case presented. I invite you all, Christian or not to join in reading along with me or simply throwing in your two cents worth on a particular topic as it surfaces in the readings.

I haven't actually decided on my first book yet but I will soon, hopefully with help from you all. I have collected a few books to start with and will be posting a poll to this thread which will run for a week or so and we will see what turns up as the most recommend from the list.

Looking forward to beginning this journey and hoping for some good company along the way

Peace

Click to expand...

Hey Kvothe! Are we still doing this?

Peace
2PhiloVoid

Kvothe said:

Absolutely I am working my way through chapter 2 very slowly and I am thinking I might just try to respond to one section of it at a time rather than the whole thing. Also I am in the middle of reporting period prior to the end of term 1 so most of my eventing hours are accounted for! I also plan to do a bit of reading before responding to your questions about Hume (of course such a plan of action is based on my past experiences that reading and thinking helped come to conclusions... Who knows it may all be different tomorrow
I will be posting soon on the start of chapter 2.
Peace

Click to expand...

Totally understandable, Kvothe! Thank you for letting me know that you're still in the loop! I'll just hang tight and take things at a more comfortable pace, then, and we'll get to the 'nitty-gritty' when we get to it.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

Hi Kvothe,

I think chapter 2 has its interesting points, but Wallace continues to play his Evidentalist hand, suggesting that rather than sifting evidence through a framework of Positivism, we should rely more on an abductionist approach (one which originally came from the mind of a Pragmatist philosopher, specifically, Charles Sanders Peirce).

So I am just going to jot down some thoughts on chapter 2 and come back for a more detailed look (probably as result of 2PV's insightful questions).
Section one establishes the inference to the best explanation. In general I am OK with this as an approach. This might get tricky when we have to distinguish between sufficient and necessary because by definition God is a sufficient explanation for any possible phenomenon but perhaps not necessary.

Click to expand...

To some general extent, I too think Abductionism is usable, as long as we don’t get lulled into the idea that it can establish much Christian truth all by its little lonesome. In fact, I don’t think any singular epistemological method is going to get any of one of us to ‘faith’ all by itself, and I say this for epistemic reasons which I find evident in the Bible, and not from mere exterior considerations. And as far our consideration about the cogency of the ‘argument to the best explanation,’ I think Baggini and Fosl (2010) have a few valid cautionary points:


So, with the above in mind, I for one do not expect a book like Wallace’s to be able to motive us, or catapult us, to the precipice of doubt, from which we can fling ourselves wholeheartedly into the yawning chasm of Christian faith. It’s just not going to happen; or our attempt at faith will be fairly short lived, if we attempt to rely on any singular human method of evaluating the world (including the bible). Theologically and epistemologically, there’s more to it than that, and I don’t think we can’t just say, as Wallace does, “This rational approach [using probability] to determining the truth will help us come to the most reasonable conclusion in light of the evidence” (p.35). I doubt it, but I still give Wallace kudos for giving it the ol’ college try—and I think his detective approach can be is helpful in giving someone new to these issues a pattern by which to organize various, discordant thoughts.

I also liked his section on possible vs probable. I find this frustrating when trying to come to faith and someone tells me (to pick a random example) well it is possible that God did flood the entire earth and then changed all the physical evidence and the laws of physics to make it impossible to prove (usually followed by some odd appeal to the importance of free will). Sure it is possible if a God possessing all possible power exists but is that a probable explanation?

Click to expand...

I agree, Kvoth, although I feel it is also a fallacy for someone to posit that something is either “possible” or “probable” when the hypothesis and analysis in question involve experiential elements or factors no one can confirm, or as far as we know, has actually experienced. Reasoning about probabilities in lieu of entertaining possibilities is, as you seem to aver, preferable and more useful on a local scale, such as it may be in the line of detective work, but in dealing with ancient history that is mixed up with a strong dash of metaphysics, I don’t think either “possibility” or “probability” will carry the day “unto faith.”

The truth must be feasible : that seems to make sense. Even when we don't know what the truth is, when we find it it will turn out to have been feasible by definition.

Click to expand...

I don’t know about that, Kvothe, not if we take Kantian considerations into the picture. It seems to me that the feasibility of some entity under consideration will depend on our having “enough of,” and the “right kind of,” data, along with the “right access” to the data in order to bring all of our analyses, information, and intuitions, together for the purpose of targeting the truth. Furthermore, Wallace thinks that comparing “alibis” is a useful cognitive tool in finding what is feasible; well, in local detective work they may be, but I think we tangle our webs of meaning(s) if we try to imply that modern alibis and ancient testimonies are overtly similar.

Truth is usually straightforward : Occam's razor, I like that he included usually as a modifier because sometimes complicated things are true as well.

Click to expand...

Yep; and as I’ve told others in other conversations here at CF, I think Occam’s Razor is overrated. And in the case of Christian faith, Wallace’s use of “straightforward” seems to imply that all the data is there if we just look for it. But, what and where are we looking? Is that enough?

Truth should be exhaustive: This one I am a little torn on. Generally I agree that if we arrive at the truth we will find it accounts for all the details. That said we can have theories or models that explain a certain set of phenomenon but not others without saying that that first theory is untrue. Grand unified theory eludes us but that does not mean that Newton's laws are false, some that they don't apply in all cases. I guess I worry about this because a well crafted story would certainly account for all the evidence especially if it includes an all knowing all powerful supernatural being. To me this doesn't seem analogous to a detective finding a suspect that accounts for most of the evidence. In some cases a human person could not account for a specific observed datum and so would be eliminated as an explanation but God can be a sufficient cause for any conceivable datum and so can never be eliminated in the same way. Am I making any sense here?

Click to expand...

Yes, Kvoth, you make sense, although I don’t know that I agree with God being a sufficient cause “for any conceivable datum”; there has to be a line somewhere where we can discern the difference between the nature of Metaphysical Mystery and … just making stuff up (like our own private religion).

Truth will be logical : hmmm..not sure about this either. If he means that it will obey the logical absolutes I agree (non contradiction, excluded middle etc.) but if he means simply that the truth will make sense or seem reasonable then I disagree. Many findings in science are counterintuitive but true nonetheless.

Click to expand...

Good comment, and I have nothing to add other than a question or two: how might the discordance between the respective nature of truth and logic play into one’s ability to have faith? Could this recognition allow you a little more latitude in what you expect from God? If not, why not? (I’m asking these questions more rhetorically, so there’s no need to answer unless you want to. They’re just something to think about in your leisure.)

Truth will be superior: again this one raises some questions. In a homicide case this makes sense but how do we determine that a supernatural explanation has more explanatory power. In so many cases I see supernatural explanations as solving one mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery. Invoking God doesn't seem to me to add anything to an explanation. For example how does consciousness arise in humans... God did it... Ok but why did God do that... It's his desire that we be conscious... But why is that his desire.... So that we can love and glorify him... Why does a God need us to glorify him... It's his nature...
You can all see where this leads. Essentially saying God did it doesn't add anything meaningful to an explanation. Of course maybe I am wrong on that so I'd welcome your thoughts.

Click to expand...

Here too, I agree with your estimation of the extent to which truth might or might not evince a superior position among competing explanations. But, we don’t have to be simple about what invoking God as an explanation can mean. We may want to discern a little more about what diverse people mean when they say “God did it.” Do each of them really mean the same thing? For instance, does saying “God did it” mean the same thing if spoken by someone like Francis Collins versus being spoken by someone like Martin Luther?

OK I am going to pause here so that I can devote the study time required to the next few sections about the resurrection.
I will post again in the next couple of days though.

Click to expand...

Sounds good. I’ll check back in a few days.

Peace

2PhiloVoid


Baggini, J., & Fosl, P. S. (2010). The philosopher's toolkit: a compendium of philosophical concepts and methods. John Wiley & Sons.

Hey all just an apology. My kids have been taking turns being sick. I have read through chapter 2 once but I keep coming back to those 4 minimal facts that Wallace presents.

1) Died and buried. This seems the most robust of the facts although obviously Richard Carrier would disagree (if anyone is aware of a good rebuttal to the case he presents in "the historicity of Jesus why we might have reason to doubt", please let me know.

Click to expand...

Although I haven’t read Carrier’s current book, I did find some book reviews on it, both pro and con, which summarize his general points of contention with the existence of the ‘Historical Jesus.’ In reading these reviews, alongside other considerations from other pertinent sources, I think the weakness of Carrier’s book shows up in his reliance on (and in his insistence in resorting to applications of) Bayesian Theorem. In brief, here’s why I say this:





So, in essence, Carrier can be critiqued in a similar way to that of Wallace, even though both are coming from the opposite side of the issue, with the main difference being that Carrier adds Bayesian Theorem to his abductions, giving them a probability 'number' rather than just leaving them as inferential conclusions.

Additionally, I'd like to note that if we wanted to go all the way in refuting the validity of Christian evidences, like Carrier does, it would likely be easier to just invoke “Lessing’s Ditch” and just say all evidences from the past are basically irrelevant.

2) Empty tomb and no body. This one I am less sure about. As far as I know we don't know where the tomb was (or even if he was placed in one) so I am not sure about the empty tomb but I would agree that there was no body produced as far as we know.

Click to expand...

Well, Kvothe, I’d have to say that even if we knew where the supposed tomb was, that wouldn’t lend much to our conclusions about the validity of Jesus' resurrection. All we can say is that the literary remnants we have (in the Scripture), as well as the presence of an argument from silence from just about any source outside the bible, seem to indicate either that there is a conspiracy involved as to the details of Jesus' death and burial, ... OR He didn't stay dead.

3) Disciples believe they have appearances. This one is tough too since we do the have the actual accounts of those Disciples just someone writing down that they had these experiences.

Click to expand...

Yes, or at least some approximation of them.

4) Disciples transformed... Not really sure how we are determining this. Changed in what way and how is it related to the death of Jesus?

Click to expand...

Granted, it probably should be categorized as a "minor" argument for the Christian faith, since other religions can sometimes boast similar changes in their respective converts.

I think this argument can be made more persuasive if we take out the insistence that the only change in behavior the earliest disciples' demonstrated was their willingness to die for their faith. Maybe we just want to say that from what little evidence we have from the first and second centuries, the implication remains that early Christians were willing to accept some social hardships for identifying as Christians, and some may have died. Of course, from our point of view 2,000 years later, this may or may not seem very relevant to someone who is attempting to evaluate the significance of the 1st century Christian faith.

Obviously there is a lot to discuss here and I am new to this exploration of historicity so I would appreciate all your thoughts on those 4 facts that forms the basis for the rest of the chapter.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Kvothe for the discussion on Wallace’s book. I hope we can keep it going—maybe Wallace will say something that will impress us both (or disappoint us both), but either way, I’m interesting in moving through the book.

Let me know what other aspects of Chapter 2 you want to address. And if you have questions (or critiques) of something I’ve said, feel free to send them my way.

Peace

2PhiloVoid

I've read most of the posts here and wanted to say a few words.

First of all Kvothe, I love your username. I love those books.

Don't take anything I am saying here as offensive. I don't mean it that way at all.

First a verse that you will find familiar:

Romans 10:17 NIV
Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

You already know this or have heard it before, but Faith isn't in our brains. (I used to think that as a Christian when I was younger. I didn't read the Bible very much and just didn't understand the Faith that I had). So you can read a stack of books 10 feet high and still not believe. (But keep reading. I read those books as well because I enjoy them.)

Matthew 13:13-15 ESV
This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “‘You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’

The point is that your heart is where you lost your way and where you would find your way back again. I pray that your heart will be open to believing again.

I have an older brother who was raised in the church just like me. We both read the Bible and books on apologetics. As a matter of fact, I'd say he read more of the Bible than I did. I was a lazy Christian growing up. I believed but didn't follow God very closely. I didn't enjoy church and I really didn't enjoy reading the Bible. My brother seemed a bit different than me. We grew up and in our 30s we both had similar experiences. He started on an intellectual path. He started reading philosophy and great books from classic authors. He befriended an atheist (a great guy) who is known to be an IQ genius. Somewhere along the way my dear brother lost his Faith and is now an agnostic. I think he is really an atheist, but only says he is an agnostic because he doesn't want people to try to convert him. This way he can say "You might be right. I don't know." Then he is free to walk out of any conversation.

When I was in my 30s I left the church and started drinking heavily. Rather than to elaborate I also befriended people who weren't following God. I came to a crisis of Faith where I felt I had to make a choice. To continue believing or not. I realized at that moment that the only Peace and Joy I ever felt in my life came from Christianity. I decided to continue believing. After that moment my life changed dramatically for the better. This isn't about me, so I'm going to stop there.

From our hearts comes the choice to believe. God knows your heart and will reward you with Faith if your heart is right. I sincerely hope and will pray that it is.

This isn't coming from the spirit of condemnation, but obviously I believe in Hell. (I know you and others do not). One thing that everyone in that place will have in common is Pride. (I realize this is debatable). Everyone there will be there because they would not choose the only God. My humble opinion is that most atheists choose their own intellect as their God and cannot let go of it. I'm personally grateful that there are famous atheists in history whose hearts were available to convert. For others, however, they will never do that.

What I would humbly suggest is that you continually pray for Faith. Pray that God would change your heart and open your eyes. I'm not discouraging you from reading apologetics, however. Those books alone will never bring you to Faith, but they can certainly help and strengthen the Faith of those who have it.

Just so that this post isn't completely off topic: I like "Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. He begins by exploring how an ex-evangelist lost his faith to become an Atheist. Case for Creator is also good. I'm in the middle of that one. Proving that God exists really goes back to Science and I feel like this book is a great summary of the Science behind intelligent design.

Kvothe said:

HI all,...

Click to expand...

Kvothe, you must really be busy with your Christmas shopping! I hope it all goes well for you.

2PhiloVoid

Kvothe said:

Hey all just an apology. My kids have been taking turns being sick. I have read through chapter 2 once but I keep coming back to those 4 minimal facts that Wallace presents.
1) Died and buried. This seems the most robust of the facts although obviously Richard Carrier would disagree (if anyone is aware of a good rebuttal to the case he presents in "the historicity of Jesus why we might have reason to doubt", please let me know.
2) Empty tomb and no body. This one I am less sure about. As far as I know we don't know where the tomb was (or even if he was placed in one) so I am not sure about the empty tomb but I would agree that there was no body produced as far as we know.
3) Disciples believe they have appearances. This one is tough too since we do the have the actual accounts of those Disciples just someone writing down that they had these experiences.
4) Disciples transformed... Not really sure how we are determining this. Changed in what way and how is it related to the death of Jesus?

Obviously there is a lot to discuss here and I am new to this exploration of historicity so I would appreciate all your thoughts on those 4 facts that forms the basis for the rest of the chapter.

Peace

Click to expand...

So, where are we at with all of this, Kvothe? (Or, have you given up the ghost on the study you asked for?)

Kvothe said:

No not given up... I have read through the rest of the book casually but haven't had the time during Christmas prep to go checking sources and researching the statements made etc.

I will get back to it soon for sure. That said if there were another book you won rather go through I would be happy to look into that. Wallace seems to be making the general apologist case but forcing it kicking and screaming into his detective epistemology

Click to expand...

Hey Kvothe,

Good to hear from you! I hope you and your family are having a great Holiday time together.

Wow! You've already read the rest of the book? I stopped at chapter 3, which is about where we left off in our conversation.

If you're still up for discussion, but want to switch books, we can do so. I don't have anything against that, especially because I get the sense that from what you've read from the remainder of Wallace's book, you're not feeling overly "persuaded." If this is the case, do you think the rest of Wallace's book is worth the discussion? (Since I haven't yet read it, I can't say. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.)

If you feel you'd rather get into some other book that provides a different angle, I'd be more than happy to make suggestions. I'd also be just as willing to go through an atheist book and discuss it, critique it, and learn from it, as well. I'm flexible.

What I don't want to happen is for me to choose something and then have you end up feeling like you're being pulled into reading and discussing something which doesn't resonate with you. The way I like to approach this kind of thing is to set smaller goals in discussion, like choose one or two chapters of a book, or a solid academic journal article, for discussion. That way, we can still get into some deeper discussion, but everyone can clearly see the light at the end of the tunnel.

These are just my thoughts on the matter. Let me know how you want to proceed. If you want to continue with Wallace's book, I'm fine with that. Or not, I'm fine with that too.

Blessings,
2PhiloVoid