Power Commenters On DD’s (So-Called) Evidence Against Christianity

Posted in Blogosphere, eBates, Religion, Thinking Critically on  | 22 minutes | 9 Comments →

Here are a few previews from the initial dialog between myself, Lifeguard, MS Quixote and Dominic Saltarelli, continued from here. Brad is currently absent:

…I was thinking more along the lines of there being certain elements in the GH that are decidedly non-Biblical, rather than simply a reduced set of Biblical attributes.(Dominic Saltarelli)

I think that DD could have made that distinction a little clearer…

…it appears DD desired to set a baseline hypothesis without reference to Christianity in order to construct an analytic framework from which to ultimately analyze the claims of Christianity… the GH, as proposed, does not represent a baseline common to all Christian faiths as is necessary to critique Christianity as a whole. (MS Quixote)

Although by no means do I imply my Power Commenters agree with me in full (actually, Quixote does), we can still clearly see that it's not exactly the same story as over at DD's, right? 

Dominic Saltarelli said…

I'd like to see you make a stronger case that DD has denied the GH is Christianity in such a black and white manner. I've only seen one actual quote so far that includes an admission that the GH and the Bible are in fact related. A full half of your argument rests upon this assumption, and you need to provide a more substantial case than the one instance where he said:

Some of the commenters seem to have slightly misunderstood the Gospel Hypothesis. I am not claiming that the Gospel Hypothesis is Christianity (we’ll get to the relationship between Christianity and the Gospel Hypothesis later on). (DD)

I've put a response of my own to his latest post at Evangelical Realism referring to his GH as a sort of "proto-God", made of Christian elements, but isn't necessarily Christian. Sort of like how a dish made from sugar, flour, eggs, milk, and baking soda isn't necessarily cake. The argument I've seen yourself and others make is that the cake isn't a chocolate one.

When I raised the objection that his response to got under your skin, I was thinking more along the lines of there being certain elements in the GH that are decidedly non-Biblical, rather than simply a reduced set of Biblical attributes. Specifically the reference to God being "all-loving" and wanting a personal relationship with each and every one of us, as I'm not aware of any Biblical teaching that actually says this. The rest of my post seems to have been lost in the storm in the subsequent controversy over the earlier accusations that the GH is a strawman because the Bible doesn't say God is obligated to show up here and now.

To continue with the baking analogy, I think you've been arguing the recipe isn't for chocolate cake, and his response has been that he's only arguing cake in general terms, where I was trying to say it seemed like one of the ingredients listed was ketchup.

MS Quixote said…

Now, folks – as if it wasn't bad enough already, as if it could get any worse, (cl)

You’ve devoted an extended, introductory portion of your post to exposing foul play and to arguing that the Gospel Hypothesis is a thinly veiled, or an explicit characterization of Christianity. This section is well documented and multiply attested. Coupled with my lurking survey of the events at Evangelical Realism, I’d concur that your case is solid, and I understand your offense. Frankly, the entire situation is peculiar: entertaining, to be sure – as long as one is not the target – but just flat out weird.

Leaving those issues behind, I’d like to give DD as fair a reading as possible, given my status as the lone Christian theist [Power Commenter]. Here goes:

How does DD's claim that his GH isn't Christianity parse against the following strings he also typed?

It doesn’t. Again your case is clearly demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt; however, it appears DD desired to set a baseline hypothesis without reference to Christianity in order to construct an analytic framework from which to ultimately analyze the claims of Christianity. Since he evidently wished to construct the framework without working through constant rejoinders regarding specifics of the faith, he attempted, in my estimation, to create the GH and work through the implications before applying it to Christianity. He may correct me if I’ve misrepresented his actions.

The problem is, as you mentioned repeatedly, the GH, as proposed, does not represent a baseline common to all Christian faiths as is necessary to critique Christianity as a whole. The GH might adequately encapsulate baseline features of some Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian / Arminian conceptions of Christianity. As far as that stretches, the GH may indeed be useful in evaluating those doctrinal formulations.

Nevertheless, even within these systems, the GH is not universally applicable. Take William Lane Craig’s Molinism, for instance. Molinism is founded on a full and free libertarian view of the will; however, under Molinism, God is not thought to appear to all in the real world in the same manner, nor is He obliged to do so. The GH is simply inadequate as a hypothesis with regard to Molinism.

Moreover, I, as a Calvinist, disregard the GH outright. Reformed Theology is antithetical to the GH: God does not act as the GH hypothesizes. RF is no backwater theology open to “no true Scotsman” charges. It includes as adherents some of the theological giants of the faith: Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and arguably the apostle Paul and Christ himself.

I’d also argue that — and this appears appropriate based on constant reference — the Bible itself argues against the GH, but we’ll leave that for another time…

Therefore, if DD intended to construct a comprehensive baseline hypothesis to apply to the whole of Christianity, he’s failed. Nonetheless, if he wishes to apply it to Arminianism or Catholicism, I’d say he is well within his logical rights to do so. And when it comes to the sub-Christian views of Faith Theology, I’ll probably commandeer a revised version of the GH and use it myself, if it’s amenable to DD!

If DD's GH is not Christianity, doesn't it follow that his MH cannot possibly constitute evidence against the Christian God?

I don’t think this follows, logically. The MH can constitute evidence against the Christian God on its own merits; it’s just not able to do it in logical opposition to the GH, except in the limited scenarios described above.

If DD’s GH is not Christianity, don’t you think he’s misnamed at least that particular hypothesis and potentially his entire series?

I believe it is and was always meant to be Christianity. It’s just that DD wished to work out the kinks before unveiling it. Problem was, DD didn’t have a suitable cloaking device.

Really? What's more baffling is that at least four highly-intelligent commenters who claim to have been following the discussion all put their 2¢ in after this exchange, and not one of them spotted the elephant in the room.

What bothers me more is when the elephant is pointed out clearly, and is still ignored. But, being the theist, I recognize that I could be biased, though I believe I’ve given DD a fair shake, agreeing with some points where it seemed correct, if not all. I’ll be keenly interested to see how my commentary aligns with your skeptic commentators. That’s a particularly interesting feature of your exercise here, cl.

Of course, that doesn't mean I'm right, but is there anyone who would say I've not sufficiently argued my case?

To summarize, your case is well documented and attested through multiple sources, both logically and with the personal references in view. In my judgment, you’re presently on firm ground, with due consideration given to my objections to you noted above.

For DD: In my estimation, there exists a large set of Christians who profess the Christian Gospel as formulated in the GH. He could argue fairly with such folk as the GH currently stands.

Lifeguard said…

It was bad enough when DD denied that his GH was Christianity, yet absolutely refuses to this date to explain why it consists of distinctly Christian pre-conceptions about God. (cl)

Oddly enough, methinks you've hit upon the real heart of the matter here by using the words "Christianity" and "Christian." I can’t speak for DD, but, based on what I’ve read, I believe he would concede that the GH consists of distinctly Christian pre-conceptions about god. The fact, however, that a hypothesis is distinctly Christian does not make the hypothesis "Christianity." A crucifix is a Christian symbol, but that doesn’t make it Christianity. Transubstantiation is "christian" insofar as it is a feature of a Christian denomination, but that does not make it "Christianity." DD, as I read his posts, is simply stating that the GH does not represent Christianity in it’s totality, but, at the same time, it is a common theory that runs through all manifestations of Christianity. He thinks that, while it does not encompass everything that Christianity represents, it is such an essential feature the Christianity lives or dies based on the truth of that hypothesis. That’s why he has written, in various places on his blog, that the GH is Christianity and is not Christianity. In other words, the fact that something is "distinctly Christian" does not make it "Christianity." I think that DD could have made that distinction a little clearer, but I do think the distinction is there if you read what he has written. Indeed, I think his posts make a lot more sense when read in this light.

It was bad enough when DD crafted an entire sub-series titled The Loser's Compromise in direct response to his perceptions of my arguments, then denied that the posts were aimed at me. (cl)

Once again, I can’t speak for DD, but, after reading through the statements he made in the original posts and various threads, it appears to me that when DD denies the posts were aimed at YOU, he was making a distinction between aiming at you personally (as in an ad hominem attack) and aiming at his understanding (or misunderstanding as I believe you have pointed out) of your position.

You quote DD,

I have documented the real-world facts that any reasonable person can verify for themselves and that demonstrate that reality is more consistent with the Myth Hypothesis than with the Gospel Hypothesis. This constitutes a reasonable basis for rejecting the truth claims of Christianity. (DD)

And then you go on to state:

What’s more baffling is that at least four highly-intelligent commenters who claim to have been following the discussion all put their 2 cents in after this exchange, and not one of them spotted the elephant in the room. (cl)

By "elephant in the room," I assume you mean that if DD claims that disproving the GH effectively vanquishes Christianity, then how can the GH not BE Christianity? I hope by now it’s clear why this is not the case. A human heart is not a human being, but if you shoot a human in the heart, that human will die. But a human heart is still "human." It’s the same thing here. The GH is clearly and undeniably a Christian hypothesis without necessarily encompassing every aspect of Christianity as it is practiced in various incarnations throughout the world. It is, however, the heart of Christianity. It is, in fact, such an essential part of Christianity, that Christianity falls if the GH is disproved.

cl said… 

Thanks guys. Bear with me while we smooth out the kinks in Power Commenting.

Dominic,

I'd like to see you make a stronger case that DD has denied the GH is Christianity in such a black and white manner. I've only seen one actual quote so far that includes an admission that the GH and the Bible are in fact related. A full half of your argument rests upon this assumption, and you need to provide a more substantial case than the one instance… (Dominic)

Did you see his direct concessions since? Realize we share a common frustration. With transactions like the following, I have no idea what DD's trying to say anymore:

Some of the commenters seem to have slightly misunderstood the Gospel Hypothesis. I am not claiming that the Gospel Hypothesis is Christianity (we’ll get to the relationship between Christianity and the Gospel Hypothesis later on). (DD, bold mine) Notice that nowhere did I ever say that the Gospel Hypothesis is not Christianity. (DD, bold mine)

Can you offer a reasonable explanation for how DD can both "not claim the GH is Christianity" and "not claim the GH is not Christianity" at the same time? Such seems to clearly violate clear Boolean logic, no? DD's admitted that he's unwilling to give a clear answer, so until that changes, it seems we're currently at an impasse as far as determining whether DD proffers his GH as Christianity or not, don't you think? We should ask DD that question.

Specifically the reference to God being "all-loving" and wanting a personal relationship with each and every one of us, as I'm not aware of any Biblical teaching that actually says this. (Dominic)

Such is not a concern we share. I think that part of the GH is logically permissible from scripture, for example 2 Timothy 1-7 which describes God as desiring "..all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." 2 Peter 3:9 says that, "God is not willing that any should perish, but all should come to repentance." Although I can certainly raise quibbles as to "all-loving," for the sake of our discussion I also grant DD correctness in that regard on behalf of verses like John 3:16 and 1 John 4:7-8 which claims we should "..love one another, for love comes from God," and that "God is love." What do you think? Would you say those are sufficient to justify DD's claim? Or should I dig deeper?

To continue your baking analogy, I'm also claiming one or more ingredients offered is ketchup, and I submit that DD presents his dish made from sugar, flour, eggs, milk as if it is pure vanilla when it is in fact ketchup-y chocolate. How can criticism over flavor be logically sustained when DD refuses to say what flavor the cake is supposed to be? Again, is it vanilla? Or chocolate? Is it that DD's given a straight answer and that I've just missed or misunderstood it?

Lifeguard,

The fact, however, that a hypothesis is distinctly Christian does not make the hypothesis "Christianity." (Lifeguard)

Correct. Let's take a look at DD's analogy addressing this point:

The Jewish Migration Hypothesis [JMH] doesn’t need to be Mormonism in order to evaluate the truthfulness of Mormon Scriptures. (DD)

In our discussion, this translates to, "The GH doesn't need to be Christianity in order to evaluate the truthfulness of the Bible," and I anticipate surprise and more accusations of contradiction when I say I agree. I believe I understand DD's reasoning – refuting even one of Christianity's claims brings the whole thing down in light of theopneustos, and the GH doesn't have to "be Christianity" in order to do this – it just has to accurately identify a single Christian claim and falsify it.

In the vein of your apt analogy, stopping the heart kills all humans. While I'm convinced I understand the distinction DD made – I'm not convinced DD understands why I say the distinction he made fails: the catch is that the claim we purport to have falsified must have been accurately identified as one of Christianity's claims, and the necessary all-or-nothing approach cuts both ways. The GH cannot evaluate the truthfulness of the Bible if even one of the Bible's fundamental premises are distorted or diminished in the GH. The GH's claim that God should be right here, right now, in person, on the evening news and on magazine covers cannot be accurately identified as one of Christianity's claims; it is a distorted claim.

Still, DD continues:

The JMH does not need to be Mormonism, or to be the Book of Mormon [BoM], in order to demonstrate the fraudulent nature of the Mormon Scriptures. (DD)

Correct, as we just covered. Problem is, the BoM must logically permit each and every one of the JMH's predictions, else we've only proven that something other than the BoM is fraudulent. If his analogy were truly parallel, DD's JMH would feature additional predictions that the BoM doesn't logically permit, and it would ignore predictions the BoM logically requires. Right?

DD, as I read his posts, is simply stating that the GH does not represent Christianity in it’s totality, but, at the same time, it is a common theory that runs through all manifestations of Christianity. (Lifeguard)

I agree, and when DD's GH does represent Christianity in its totality, or at least consists of accurately identified foundational Christian claims, then we might be able to get somewhere. Jayman, Facilis, myself and MS Quixote have all raised objections that the GH is not enough of a baseline hypothesis. Those objections have not been addressed, except to label me a troll, heckler, and all sorts of other things.

I think that DD could have made that distinction a little clearer, but I do think the distinction is there if you read what he has written. (Lifeguard)

Thank you. I agree, and have already offered that DD's distinction doesn't solve the problem. Do you agree with that? Or do I need to explain more?

Once again, I can’t speak for DD, but, after reading through the statements he made in the original posts and various threads, it appears to me that when DD denies the posts were aimed at YOU, he was making a distinction between aiming at you personally (as in an ad hominem attack) and aiming at his understanding (or misunderstanding as I believe you have pointed out) of your position. (Lifeguard)

Then by all means, read this. Would you say The Heckler's Defense is aimed at the issues, or DD's perceptions of my personality? I say the latter. Remember, DD types stuff about me like "infiltrator", "troll", "heckler", "loser", etc. Those are all consistent with ad hominem strategies, wouldn't you say? If so, would you be willing to take a stand for me over there? If not, I understand.

The GH is clearly and undeniably a Christian hypothesis without necessarily encompassing every aspect of Christianity as it is practiced in various incarnations throughout the world. (Lifeguard)

Correct, and those parts the GH fails to encompass directly challenge one or more of its predicted consequences. Why he fancies it complete is beyond me, especially when other also disagree. So, is it that Jayman, Facilis, Quixote and myself are all just wrong? That's what DD would have his guests believe, and it's worked rather effectively.

[the GH] is, however, the heart of Christianity. It is, in fact, such an essential part of Christianity, that Christianity falls if the GH is disproved. (Lifeguard)

I strongly disagree. For example, DD's GH doesn't even mention things like sin or Satan. DD claims that God should be right here, right now, in person, on the evening news and on magazine covers – but among other problems with such a claim – how can such be possible when scripture says no human may see God's face in person and live?

MS Quixote,

…it appears DD desired to set a baseline hypothesis without reference to Christianity in order to construct an analytic framework from which to ultimately analyze the claims of Christianity. Since he evidently wished to construct the framework without working through constant rejoinders regarding specifics of the faith, he attempted, in my estimation, to create the GH and work through the implications before applying it to Christianity. (MS Quixote)

We are most certainly in agreement there.

..the GH, as proposed, does not represent a baseline common to all Christian faiths as is necessary to critique Christianity as a whole. The GH might adequately encapsulate baseline features of some Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian / Arminian conceptions of Christianity. As far as that stretches, the GH may indeed be useful in evaluating those doctrinal formulations. (MS Quixote)

While I agree, I anticipate Courtier's Reply responses, and that's why I say DD had the right idea by attempting to begin with as baseline a positive hypothesis as possible. If we go the denominational route, our opponents can simply accuse us of saying, "Oh, well you can't disprove my beliefs," and they'd be correct. You've heard it before: "What, do we have to disprove every single interpretation of Christianity?" Of course, you and I know perfectly well that's not what theists ask. The error is in attaching a negative stigma to strawman claims, and Courtier's Reply -type responses are the perfect rhetorical devices for dismissing them.

..under Molinism, God is not thought to appear to all in the real world in the same manner, nor is He obliged to do so. The GH is simply inadequate as a hypothesis with regard to Molinism. (MS Quixote)

I agree, but you see what I mean about Courtier's? 

Here are some other angles regarding DD's claim God should be right here, right now, in person, on the evening news and on magazine covers: DD never even sets definitions for the terminology in his argument. By "God" does he refer to God the Father as expressed in the OT? Jesus the Messiah as expressed in the NT? The Paraclete? The Bible states that mortals cannot see God the Father's face in person and live, so the idea that God the Father should show up right here, right now and in person is not logically permissible. The Bible also states that the Paraclete is right here, right now. What does DD mean by Gospel?

I’d also argue that — and this appears appropriate based on constant reference — the Bible itself argues against the GH, but we’ll leave that for another time… Therefore, if DD intended to construct a comprehensive baseline hypothesis to apply to the whole of Christianity, he’s failed. (MS Quixote)

I agree, and that's what I was getting at in the short paragraph just previously.

…I’ll probably commandeer a revised version of the GH and use it myself, if it’s amenable to DD! (MS Quixote)

That's what I'm doing with the MGH, only I welcome your criticisms.

Regarding the "elephant in the room" part of my comment, which Lifeguard also commented on, I think DD is within reason to note that the GH doesn't need to be 100% Christianity in order to evaluate the truthfulness of the Bible, and I believe I understand DD's reasoning – refuting even one of Christianity's claims brings the whole thing down in light of theopneustos, and the GH doesn't have to "be 100% Christianity" in order to do this – it just has to accurately identify a single Christian claim and falsify it. As stopping the heart kills all humans, falsifying a single Christian claim kills theopneustos.

However, while I'm convinced I understand the distinction DD made – I'm not convinced DD understands why I say the distinction he made fails: the catch is that the claim we purport to have falsified must have been accurately identified as one of Christianity's baseline claims, and the necessary all-or-nothing approach cuts both ways. The GH cannot evaluate the truthfulness of the Bible if even one of the Bible's fundamental premises are distorted or diminished in the GH. The GH's claim that God should be right here, right now, in person, on the evening news and on magazine covers cannot be accurately identified as one of Christianity's claims; it is a distorted claim. To address DD's analogy,

The JMH [Jewish Migration Hypothesis] does not need to be Mormonism, or to be the Book of Mormon, in order to demonstrate the fraudulent nature of the Mormon Scriptures. (DD)

Certainly, but the problem is, the BoM must logically permit each and every one of the JMH's predictions, else we've only proven that something other than the BoM is fraudulent. If DD's analogy were truly parallel, his JMH would feature additional predictions that the BoM doesn't logically permit, and it would ignore predictions the BoM logically requires.

Although DD banished that comment to the Troll Watch Forum, I explain this and other things quite thoroughly here.


9 comments

  1. MS Quixote

     says...

    I agree, but you see what I mean about Courtier’s?

    I see it clearly, cl, but in my repsonse to you I included intentional references to Christian theological giants to preclude Courtier’s and the like. If someone calls Courtier’s anyway, then IMO there’s a clearly displayed lack of interest in considering hearing opposing views fairly. (please note that I’m not suggesting anyone in particular is).
    I could just as easily develop a baseline of atheism which only made reference to nihilists. If I did so, I’d readily acknowledge that it was not representative of all atheism, and that I’d be utlizing it against certain strands of atheism. Moreover, the perceptive reader will notice that I amicably acknowledged that the GH could be argued against some Christian and sub-Christian theologies as it stands currently.
    The lynchpin of the GH seems to be that God is thought or hypothesized to appear to everyone. This is just simply not true of a baseline for large, current, and historically influential swaths of Christianity, nor is it even generally thought within Christianity–even by those who belive it–to be an essential of the faith in the same manner that, say, the bodily resurrection is. No amount of wishing it to be so will change this undeniable fact.
    With that said, I’ve gathered quite a bit of respect for the Lifeguard after reading his frequent comments here, and apparently he disagrees, claiming:

    It is, however, the heart of Christianity. It is, in fact, such an essential part of Christianity, that Christianity falls if the GH is disproved.

    I can’t see this, but I have an open mind, and would be interested in knowing why I’m wrong here…

  2. cl

     says...

    MS Quixote,

    If someone calls Courtier’s anyway, then IMO there’s a clearly displayed lack of interest in considering hearing opposing views fairly.

    I agree 100%. Though, many who call “troll” also call “Courtier’s,” so don’t be surprised. I think the MGH needs to remove that possibility as much as possible, and I’ll try to get the basics of it up tonight. This is a big reason I seek to pre-agree with atheists on the baseline tenets of my MGH as opposed to DD’s “here’s my hypothesis, love it or leave it” approach. From what I’ve seen, he absolutely refuses to even consider the possibility of weakness in his GH, wouldn’t you say?
    The funny thing is, now that I’ve been denounced as “[ER’s] first real troll,” none of it seems to matter. They all complained for weeks that I had nothing to say but they say nothing to all that I say. I believe we need to hold DD accountable for his argument. DD’s said quite a few nasty things about me over there, but I know that eventually the burden to uphold an argument that needs emendations will prove to much too bear.

    I could just as easily develop a baseline of atheism which only made reference to nihilists.

    I think that’s a rather apt analogy you’ve made.

    The lynchpin of the GH seems to be that God is thought or hypothesized to appear to everyone. This is just simply not true of a baseline for large, current, and historically influential swaths of Christianity, nor is it even generally thought within Christianity–even by those who belive it–to be an essential of the faith in the same manner that, say, the bodily resurrection is. No amount of wishing it to be so will change this undeniable fact.

    I agree wholeheartedly to all of that.

    ..I’ve gathered quite a bit of respect for the Lifeguard after reading his frequent comments here, and apparently he disagrees, claiming:
    “It is, however, the heart of Christianity. It is, in fact, such an essential part of Christianity, that Christianity falls if the GH is disproved.” (Lifeguard)
    I can’t see this, but I have an open mind, and would be interested in knowing why I’m wrong here…

    I also look forward to Lifeguard’s response, and I’ve gathered quite a bit of respect for the man, too. In all honesty, were it not for Lifeguard’s willingness to buck party lines and be real, I probably would have stopped blogging about a year ago.
    If time permits, would you be willing to read this and lend your angle? I notice DD and his readers are staying far away, but I just want to make sure I’m not completely crazy here. After a while, when people repeat the same things about you over and over, you really do begin to wonder.

  3. cl

     says...

    MS Quixote,

    If someone calls Courtier’s anyway, then IMO there’s a clearly displayed lack of interest in considering hearing opposing views fairly.

    I agree 100%. Though, many who call “troll” also call “Courtier’s,” so don’t be surprised. I think the MGH needs to remove that possibility as much as possible, and I’ll try to get the basics of it up tonight. This is a big reason I seek to pre-agree with atheists on the baseline tenets of my MGH as opposed to DD’s “here’s my hypothesis, love it or leave it” approach. From what I’ve seen, he absolutely refuses to even consider the possibility of weakness in his GH, wouldn’t you say?
    The funny thing is, now that I’ve been denounced as “[ER’s] first real troll,” none of it seems to matter. They all complained for weeks that I had nothing to say but they say nothing to all that I say. I believe we need to hold DD accountable for his argument. DD’s said quite a few nasty things about me over there, but I know that eventually the burden to uphold an argument that needs emendations will prove to much too bear.

    I could just as easily develop a baseline of atheism which only made reference to nihilists.

    I think that’s a rather apt analogy you’ve made.

    The lynchpin of the GH seems to be that God is thought or hypothesized to appear to everyone. This is just simply not true of a baseline for large, current, and historically influential swaths of Christianity, nor is it even generally thought within Christianity–even by those who belive it–to be an essential of the faith in the same manner that, say, the bodily resurrection is. No amount of wishing it to be so will change this undeniable fact.

    I agree wholeheartedly to all of that.

    ..I’ve gathered quite a bit of respect for the Lifeguard after reading his frequent comments here, and apparently he disagrees, claiming:
    “It is, however, the heart of Christianity. It is, in fact, such an essential part of Christianity, that Christianity falls if the GH is disproved.” (Lifeguard)
    I can’t see this, but I have an open mind, and would be interested in knowing why I’m wrong here…

    I also look forward to Lifeguard’s response, and I’ve gathered quite a bit of respect for the man, too. In all honesty, were it not for Lifeguard’s willingness to buck party lines and be real, I probably would have stopped blogging about a year ago.
    If time permits, would you be willing to read this and lend your angle? I notice DD and his readers are staying far away, but I just want to make sure I’m not completely crazy here. After a while, when people repeat the same things about you over and over, you really do begin to wonder.

  4. Dominic Saltarelli

     says...

    “Can you offer a reasonable explanation for how DD can both “not claim the GH is Christianity” and “not claim the GH is not Christianity” at the same time? Such seems to clearly violate clear Boolean logic, no?”
    This issue has already been settled. The GH represent’s DD’s understanding of the necessary prerequisites of the Christian concept of God. Further comments along this line would simply involve repeating what has already been said.

  5. cl

     says...

    Dominic,

    Further comments along this line would simply involve repeating what has already been said.

    Well, I wrote my response to you before factoring DD’s distinction into the discussion, so that explains why you feel I’m repeating myself. I was sort of assuming you’d reading my response to Lifeguard (hell, maybe you did). I understand the distinction DD sought to make: The GH doesn’t need to be Christianity in order to evaluate the truthfulness of the Bible. I believe I understand DD’s reasoning – refuting even one of Christianity’s claims brings the whole thing down in light of theopneustos (divine inspiration), and the GH doesn’t have to “be Christianity” in order to do this – it just has to accurately identify a single Christian claim and falsify it. In the vein of Lifeguard’s apt analogy, stopping the heart kills all humans. Do we agree so far?
    Then, while I’m convinced I understand the distinction DD made – I’m not convinced DD understands why I say the distinction he made fails: the catch is that the claim we purport to have falsified must have been accurately identified as one of Christianity’s claims, and the necessary all-or-nothing approach cuts both ways. If even one of the Bible’s fundamental premises are distorted or diminished in the GH, the GH evaluates the truthfulness of the Bible + (something). Can we agree to that?
    Incidentally, what did you think of my response to your concerns about the “all-loving and wanting a personal relationship with each and every one of us,” part of DD’s GH? Sufficient? Wanting?

  6. Cl:
    1) You wrote: “The GH’s claim that God should be right here, right now, in person, on the evening news and on magazine covers cannot be accurately identified as one of Christianity’s claims; it is a distorted claim.”
    Let me first make the disclaimer that I arrived late in this debate over at Evangelical Realism, and I have not read everything you and DD have written on the subject of this particular aspect of the GH, although I am aware that DD claims to have set out sufficient argument to establish how this claims is logically warranted by other Biblical claims. That being said, it certainly sounds to me like a distorted claim.
    2) You wrote: “I agree, and when DD’s GH does represent Christianity in its totality, or at least consists of accurately identified foundational Christian claims, then we might be able to get somewhere. Jayman, Facilis, myself and MS Quixote have all raised objections that the GH is not enough of a baseline hypothesis.”
    Methinks if DD dropped what I’ll call the “magazine cover” requirement (MCR), or softened the language of that requirement to something along the lines of “God can and often does actively intervene in our lives in observably discernable ways,” that would be a fair GH. Absent that, and without having read his justification for the MCR, I can’t really say much more.
    3) You wrote: “Would you say The Heckler’s Defense is aimed at the issues, or DD’s perceptions of my personality? I say the latter. Remember, DD types stuff about me like “infiltrator”, “troll”, “heckler”, “loser”, etc. Those are all consistent with ad hominem strategies, wouldn’t you say?”
    In all sincerity, methinks this is a close call. While I’m relatively certain he used words like “heckler” and “loser” in those respective posts for their inflamatory nature, methinks he used them for the following reasons: (1) to get under your skin, and (2) to describe his perception of your style of argument as alternatively heckling or copping out.
    While there is a moral judgement implicit in those terms, that’s not quite the same as an ad hominem. If he said “Cl is a philandering drunkard, so why should we listen to him,” THAT would be an ad hominem. He’s not even addressing your arguments there and is collaterally attacking your character to discredit you. That’s not quite the same as accusing you of using poor tactics or poor taste in how you address the issues at his blog. I’m not saying I agree with him, but I’m not sure that it’s so clear that those posts amount to ad hominems.
    Words like “troll” and “infiltrator” are kind of like tools of the trade in the blogosphere, but I think they’re used against you at Evangelical Realism more out of a sense of frustration than anything else. My own take on the situation is that they don’t feel like they’re getting anywhere with you, you’re not getting anywhere with them, so I don’t blame you or them for simply parting ways. I honestly wonder from whence comes the proverbial blogger’s thirst for frustration at the hands of those he or she disagrees with.
    As for defending you, I find the kinds of posts you’re referring to and the ensuing threads entirely too exasperating to get involved with.
    4) You wrote: “I strongly disagree. For example, DD’s GH doesn’t even mention things like sin or Satan.”
    Absent the Magazine Cover Requirement, I think the GH fairly represents the necessary, if not sufficient, claims that MUST be true as far as Christianity is concerned. If Satan exists but Jesus never existed, then Christianity is not true. Take the GH minus the MCR (GH-MCR)– can anyone here explain to me how, if any of the remaining claims are proven untrue, that Christianity can remain standing? THAT’s what I mean when I say it’s the heart of Christianity. Without any one of those remaining claims, Christianity is bunk.
    MS Quixote and Cl:
    Whatever respect you’ve expressed for me in this thread is completely mutual. It’s always a respectful and challenging argument with you guys.

  7. Dominic Saltarelli

     says...

    “Incidentally, what did you think of my response to your concerns about the “all-loving and wanting a personal relationship with each and every one of us,” part of DD’s GH? Sufficient? Wanting?”
    I’d have to say wanting. The bible’s references to God’s love are vague and extremely broad. I’ve yet to see any biblical support that the “all-loving” nature of God includes wanting a “genuine, personal, eternal relationship with each and every one of us”. If all you have are biblical teachings that God loves the whole world or all of mankind collectively and wants everyone to turn out right (again, collectively), then the case simply hasn’t been made that God wants an actual relationship with individuals.
    Which is where I think DD’s GH parts ways with the actual Gospel and is representative of what many contemporary Christians simply want to believe.

  8. cl

     says...

    Dominic,

    I’d have to say wanting.

    Noted. I will ponder…
    Lifeguard,

    That being said, it certainly sounds to me like a distorted claim.
    Methinks if DD dropped what I’ll call the “magazine cover” requirement (MCR), or softened the language of that requirement to something along the lines of “God can and often does actively intervene in our lives in observably discernable ways,” that would be a fair GH.
    …can anyone here explain to me how, if any of the remaining claims are proven untrue, that Christianity can remain standing? THAT’s what I mean when I say it’s the heart of Christianity. Without any one of those remaining claims, Christianity is bunk.

    Agreement noted, and I need to get your agreement to extend further, so in the interest of skimming the fat, I will drop all use of “on the evening news and on magazine covers” from further arguments. I think that’s a good idea, as it cuts an obviously absurd part of DD’s GH out of the way. Still, I’m going to argue that the “in person” part is incompatible with any real “Gospel Hypothesis,” and I’ll get into the reasons.

    I am aware that DD claims to have set out sufficient argument to establish how this claims is logically warranted by other Biblical claims.

    While speaking for others is usually risky, I believe DD feels the warrant lies in the “0^3” part of his GH – DD argues that “since God can do anything,” God could easily be right here, right now, in person. I argue that this ignores other attributes of God’s character as expressed in the Gospel. God is also “all-just” and sin must be dealt with. The Bible says that the wages of sin are death and that we all live once and face judgment, for examples. That’s perhaps a more basic element of scripture than most of what DD’s GH consists of. With no sin, there’s no need for Jesus’ saving grace, right? So clearly, sin seems as integral a part of any real GH as DD’s other elements, no? Anyways, let me know what you’d like me to elaborate on along these lines so I don’t keep going off.

    While I’m relatively certain he used words like “heckler” and “loser” in those respective posts for their inflamatory nature, methinks he used them for the following reasons: (1) to get under your skin, and (2) to describe his perception of your style of argument as alternatively heckling or copping out.

    I certainly agree, and I submit that such is what they’d in the streets refer to as a “bitch-move” because the conversation has clearly not been resolved. Hmph.

    While there is a moral judgement implicit in those terms, that’s not quite the same as an ad hominem…

    Correct.

    ..I’m not sure that it’s so clear that those posts amount to ad hominems..

    Let’s take a deeper look at the following paragraph from Straw and Chaff in full: “Cl, sadly, has proven himself to be the sort of guest who comes into your living room and sneaks behind your couch to take a crap on the floor, just so he can tell all your neighbors how bad your house smells and what an unsanitary housekeeper you are. I have indulged his rudeness and guile long enough. He has yet to make an honest, good faith contribution to the discussion, other than to provide us with an interesting case study in the negative effects a Christian worldview has on a reasonably intellectual mind. That’s not enough to entitle him to retain a place in an honest discussion. He can still comment, but I’m going to take a zero-tolerance approach to his unique brand of Christian crap, and I’d encourage my other readers not to give him the encouragement of rising to take his bait. It’s time for the rest of us to move on.
    At the end of a lengthy paragraph attacking my personality vs. the issues, does not the subtext of the bolded words irrefutably suggest that on account of the purported personality flaws that DD’s readers shouldn’t address me anymore?

    Words like “troll” and “infiltrator” are kind of like tools of the trade in the blogosphere, but I think they’re used against you at Evangelical Realism more out of a sense of frustration than anything else. My own take on the situation is that they don’t feel like they’re getting anywhere with you, you’re not getting anywhere with them, so I don’t blame you or them for simply parting ways. I honestly wonder from whence comes the proverbial blogger’s thirst for frustration at the hands of those he or she disagrees with.

    I agree, and thirst not for frustration but clarity. For one, I need to be damn sure I’m actually not believing in a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. For two, I think many atheists drastically overstate their case and need to be humbled. As far as parting ways goes, that’s one surefire way to preclude resolution, and that’s why I’m so annoyingly persistent. What’s the use in starting things we can’t or won’t commit to finishing? I’m not in this to appear correct or simply speak my mind on atheist blogs – I approach blogging like cockfighting – put two ideas against each other and let them fight until one dies.

    As for defending you, I find the kinds of posts you’re referring to and the ensuing threads entirely too exasperating to get involved with.

    I agree. They’re too exasperating for me, too. The only reason I voiced such opposition to them at DD’s is that I honestly thought I could persuade him to take a stronger stance against the name-callers at his blog. Initially, DD respected me. Anyways, I’ll try me best to keep the Lifeguard out me squabbles, it’s just every now and again I need an honest voice of reason like yours and Brad’s (where the hell are you brad!) to balance out the vitriol.

  9. Lifeguard

     says...

    Cl:
    1) You wrote: “Still, I’m going to argue that the “in person” part is incompatible with any real “Gospel Hypothesis,” and I’ll get into the reasons.”
    Incompatible? I don’t know about incompatible, but I do think it could probably be dropped in any event. The real thing the GH should aim at, as I see it, is a bare bones overlapping consensus of what Christians of at least the major denominations would agree to. “Mere Christianity” as C.S. Lewis would put it.
    2) You wrote: “With no sin, there’s no need for Jesus’ saving grace, right? So clearly, sin seems as integral a part of any real GH as DD’s other elements, no?”
    This is, frankly, where I see DD having a legitimate concern over whether or not you’re trying to burden the GH with additional baggage that will make it progressively harder to disprove. We’re talking about Christianity here. As any Rabbi will tell you, there can be sin without Jesus. Disproving that Jesus existed or demonstrating that it is logically impossible for God to have become a human being kill Christianity even if God and sin exist. Remember, the whole point of the GH is to find the minimal number of beliefs that need to be true for Christianity to hold, not EVERYTHING that needs to be true.
    3) You wrote: “What’s the use in starting things we can’t or won’t commit to finishing? I’m not in this to appear correct or simply speak my mind on atheist blogs – I approach blogging like cockfighting – put two ideas against each other and let them fight until one dies.”
    The real question is when is the thing we started actually “finished,” and my observation is that a great many people stick around smashing their heads against walls long after it’s apparent that the discussion is over. As for intellectual cockfighting, at least as the blogosphere goes, it’s more often than not personalities that are fighting, not ideas, and that usually happens long after the fruitful discussion has died (if indeed it ever had a life in the first place).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *