L 3.5

Loftus discusses how Christianity is a leap of faith beyond the evidence on page 55.

The first point that needs to be established is something that has already been mentioned in this forum (L 3.1); that when non-theists ask for evidence, they are typically asking for scientific evidence for a metaphysical issue. Obviously, the most pertinent question is what they would consider to be proof of God’s existence. The customary answers to this question show that they either have a great sense of humor or that they should consider a career in fiction. In a debate with William Lane Craig, Ken Parsons had repeatedly told Craig that the resurrection appearances of Jesus were nothing but hallucinations. When Craig asked the all important question of what it would take for him to believe, Parsons described an Olympian-style tale of a Zeus-like figure descending from the clouds with a voice that boomed calling out Parsons’ name, etc., to which Craig responded that Parsons was merely having a hallucination! This drew uproarious laughter and applause. Many responses will be similar to Parsons in regards to what would constitute as proof of God’s existence to them. Examples are a restored limb, God’s name etched on every subatomic particle, stars arranged to form God’s name, just to list a few. However, no one is able to justify why these would serve as proof. Every possible scenario dreamed up could be the result of vastly advanced aliens, some as-yet-undiscovered law of physics, a biological oddity, etc. The point is that there is no way to establish a scientific, empirical maxim that would serve as proof of something metaphysical. Additionally, non-theists have a terribly hard time admitting that they work from a sliding scale. If those proofs were provided, it still wouldn’t be good enough. This can be demonstrably proven with examples like extra-biblical attestation of Pontius Pilate, the Hittites, Belshazzar, etc. For many decades, Christian critics used those people to claim that the Bible was not historically accurate because there was no evidence for these people outside of the Bible. Therefore, nothing in the Bible was historically reliable. When extra-biblical evidence for these people was found, the goal-shifting started. Now the criterion for truth was much stricter. Attestation of these people was too mundane. Instead of extra-biblical evidence for mere people or places, impartial confirmation of biblical miracles was needed. When the creation story in Genesis was held to be contrary to the steady state model of the universe, along comes the Big Bang confirmation which is in accord with the Bible narrative. Now, focus has narrowed down from overall cosmology to biological diversity through universal common descent. There are other examples that will show up in later posts.

To recap this point, critics of Christianity say there isn't evidence. When asked what would constitute as evidence for them to believe, they dream up ridiculous scenarios that they can't guarantee would be convincing to any more people than the number that already believe. When there does appear to be evidence for Christianity, skeptics will then manufacture newer, stricter standards to keep the information from qualifying as evidence. In the end, it's a moving target and then never intend to allow anything to satisfy it.

The second point in response to Loftus’ assertion is that there actually is evidence for Christian spirituality and that it isn't a leap of faith in the sense that he states; the evidence just happens to be in the discipline of metaphysics. There are multiple rational, logically sound, philosophical explanations for God’s existence. When Loftus parrots the obligatory leap-of-faith-without-evidence routine, he makes it seem like a rock solid criticism when in fact, it’s downy soft. Most of the time, these explanations for God's existence are dismissed because the person advocating them is just a Christian apologist. Nontheists feel that arguments from Christians should never be trusted because Christians have a bias towards their belief which occludes their rationality. This tactic by non-Christians is called the genetic fallacy. The nontheist says that explanations for God's existence should only be trusted if they are advocated by impartial, non-Christians. Obviously, the person making the explanation isn't the issue. The information is what actually should be considered regardless of the source. Even when nontheists don't commit the genetic fallacy, they fall back to the "lack of evidence" position. What they typically won't acknowledge is that there are and have been plenty of people who are hostile to Christianity who become Christian because they "followed the evidence". In the end, the issue isn't about the evidence. The issue is about why someone would cling to the belief that there isn't a God when no person can know such information. If anything, atheism is a greater leap of faith than Christianity.

L 3.4

In a standard attempt to undermine Christian claims, Loftus notes that "Muslims claim that we will go to hell if we don't convert to Islam too.” There is a problem with Loftus' methodology in comparing worldviews. Putting all beliefs on the table at once is not an appropriate starting point for the discussion. The issue of theism vs non-theism should be decided first. There definitely is a logical order to making any progress in this kind of discussion despite the fact that non-theists will try to obfuscate this process as Loftus does here. Once non-theism has been shown to be inadequate and, in some ways, evidentially false, then there can be a discussion about the merits of various religions.

The apparent force to Loftus’ equivocation is that there are allegedly one billion Muslims. How can that many people be wrong? Since there are so many of them, there must be some truth to their claims and since many of their claims are mutually exclusive to Christian claims, the non-theist is then justified in rejecting all religions. Citing the force of Islam for the purposes of achieving his ultimate goal commits the fallacy of appeal to numbers. The majority, or the largest group, can be wrong and indeed has been several times in history. In addition to this problem, the statement that "If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would be a Sunni Muslim right now" (P. 68) underscores a further problem. It has been stated by several experts on the topic that most Muslims are not Muslim by free choice. In most Muslim countries, the scriptures of other religions, most notably the Bible, are not allowed. Worship of anything but Allah is not allowed. People are not allowed to explore other faiths freely, much less encouraged to do so. These facts totally undermine any citation of Islamic doctrines and praxes as exemplary of theist trends or religious verisimilitude. On these grounds, it is not justifiable to use Islam as a measuring stick for the truth of Christianity or any other religion for that matter. The non-theist certainly can object that the core beliefs of Islam are open for use in debate but, this still misses the point. There is no way to know what would happen to Islam if all Muslims were suddenly free from theocratic coercion. The problem for Islam would become magnified if it were to remain open for centuries.

L 3.3

Loftus notes that "Mackie proposes that 'there might be a god who looked with more favor on honest doubters or atheists who proportioned their belief to the evidence, than on mercenary manipulators of their own understandings". (p. 54)

This speculation presumes that God doesn't know the difference between genuine faith and people seeking fire insurance. God definitely can tell the difference between the two and will honor each accordingly.

Furthermore, God does honor skepticism and many followers of Christ question their faith as the Bible instructs them to do in 1 Thessalonians 5:21. The question is why atheists draw the unnecessary conclusion that God doesn’t exist whereas Christians believe God does exist.

An interesting dynamic on this subject is that many atheists claim that they engaged in genuine intellectual investigation to determine the truth of religion in general or Christianity specifically and concluded that atheism was the better intellectual and empirical option. In other words, the smarter they became, the more they moved away from Christianity. Matthew 11:25-26 records that God has a stronger affinity with infants than with the intellectually lofty. What is the application of this verse? In How Should We Then Live?, Francis Schaeffer chronicles main trends in the history of philosophy, science and the arts to point out that some of the highest philosophical platitudes usually wind up with disastrous consequences. It seems that sometimes we can become too smart for our own good. The Bible isn’t making the case that intelligence is a stumbling block, in and of itself. The issue is the application of the intelligence. When a person does not approach life with a spirit of humility, willingness to learn and deference to God’s sovereignty, more knowledge merely serves to occlude moral sense. In reading Loftus’ personal testimony, Isaiah 29:8-14 comes to mind.

L 3.2

Loftus quotes W. K. Clifford regarding belief: "No religious belief system is capable of meeting the high standards that believing in anything requires, so no reasonable person should accept any religious belief system". (p. 48)

Loftus needs to be careful in citing this quote because naturalism itself is a belief. Non-theists frequently misunderstand their own belief system. They often think that their position represents non-belief or a-belief which is absolutely not the case. Observations don’t exist in a vacuum. The reason why someone objects to a certain belief is because they believe something else. Otherwise, there would be nothing from which to launch the objection in the first place. Non-theism, sans agnosticism, is the assertion that naturalism is all there is – there is nothing supernatural. A non-theist might still object to this characterization by repeating their system cannot be categorized as a belief but, that in itself is a belief. It is a belief in non-religious belief. Non-theism, including atheism, is a belief system and an inadequate one at that. No person can guarantee that there is no God, nothing supernatural or that naturalism is all there is. Atheists say God doesn’t exist or that there is nothing supernatural. God is supernatural. In order to substantiate the claim that God doesn’t exist, you would have to go to the supernatural realm and check everywhere. No one has ever done that. It’s unlikely anyone ever will. The claim requires knowledge that no person is capable of attaining. On the other hand, we can say that there is a God because there is evidence that God has revealed Himself to people.

Agnosticism is the belief that we either can’t know if God exists or we don’t have enough information to make a determination. Strong agnosticism, that we can’t know, isn’t accurate. We can potentially know that God exists via revelation. Other agnostics maintain that there isn’t enough evidence to say one way or the other. Fundamentally, this belief isn’t different than the atheist claim that there isn’t enough evidence to say God exists. Both the weak agnostic and the atheist are open to God’s existence provided there is enough proof. In that sense, the two claims can be treated the same and the atheist claim has been, and continues to be, dealt with.

L 3.1

In describing hard rationalism, Loftus cites Norman Hanson who asserts that “if looking and not finding does not constitute grounds for denying the existence of God, then looking and not finding does not constitute grounds for denying the existence of goblins…unicorns, mermaids, Loch Ness monsters, Hobbits”. (p. 48)

This is a standard attempt by non-theists to equivocate the existence of God with the existence of any mysterious thing. The argument is usually formalized via the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). Probably the most notable version of this argument is The Dragon in My Garage as explained by Carl Sagan. The non-theist believes that Christians commit a double standard when they invent God in their heads yet, don’t believe in any other mythical beings. If Christians reject fairies and Santa Claus, they should reject God as well because there is no more proof of God’s existence than these other beings.

The most practical response to this analogy is the evidential observation that millions of millions of people for centuries have believed that they commune with God. The same is not the case with the IPU, the FSM or dragons in garages (at least not from people who aren’t mocking Christianity). While this doesn’t serve as any sort of proof of God’s existence, it does show that Hanson’s statement does not reflect the reality of our spiritual experience. Hence, his equating God with any other mythical beast is invalid. Many, many people evidentially know God but the same can’t be said of the IPU.

Aside from the evidential response, another obvious difference is that theists believe God’s existence is logically necessary whereas secular myths are contingent. This aspect opens up a whole discussion on the ontological explanation for God’s existence whereas such an explanation wouldn’t even be applicable to the IPU or the Lost Island of Gaunilo of Marmoutiers.

An aspect of great difference between belief in God and belief in myths is that while Christians do believe in God who, on the surface, seems ethereal, that belief is grounded in the reality of Jesus Christ’s ministry. The apostles could produce Jesus on demand. Sagan cannot produce his dragon on demand. No one can produce the IPU on demand. Of course, the Christian skeptic is going to object to the historical veracity of the Bible but, the existence of the historical Jesus of Nazareth is all but universally accepted among historical experts which preempts the objection that the biblical account is false. Even the scholars of the renewed Second Quest for the historical Jesus acknowledge the existence of Jesus and those scholars are about as critical of Christianity as academia gets. Whether or not the historical Jesus was divine (the Christ) is the same issue as the existence of God especially since Jesus claimed to be the very same God in this discussion.

One interesting perspective on this discussion comes from atheist-turned-deist Anthony Flew (who reiterated his sanity several times). He formerly outlined a parable now titled “death by a thousand qualifications”. Basically, it’s similar to Sagan’s dragon scenario where Christians make excuses for why there isn’t more empirical proof of God’s existence. There are several problems with his analogy the first of which is that not all explanations for God’s existence operate on the methodology in his tale. Some work inductively, some work deductively, some work evidentially. Second, what’s wrong with qualification? Is there some limit to the number of times something can be qualified? What about the quality of the qualification? It is true that there is an element of this type of methodology that resembles an endless rhetoric like Zeno’s Achilles and the tortoise paradox but, this process of qualification underscores a problem committed by many non-theists such as Loftus. The qualifications theists usually provide are actually responses to non-theist requests for scientific, empirical proof of something that is neither scientific nor natural. In Sagan’s story, the dragon owner is providing a wonderful illustration of the difficulty in testing something supernatural with the tools of naturalism. Flew’s narrative shows how God’s existence resembles gravity. We don’t see it but, we see it’s effects. We know it’s there even if it seems illusory. Non-theists will point out that Christians make the case that God does intervene via miracles in the natural domain but, there is no known mechanism for testing the miraculous. While they are in the natural domain, they are basically a supernatural intrusion on that domain which leads the investigation back to the aforementioned effect.

In the end, we intuitively know there is something wrong with the analogies of the IPU or FSM to God. Myths like the ones listed by Loftus via Hanson were pretty obviously invented. Even if they had a kernel of truth to them, they usually held some very particular meaning to a particular group of people. On the other hand, people from all over the world have seen various evidences for God. It is possible that influential people have invented the idea or guided people to the idea but, that still doesn’t explain the divine metaphysical reality that people experience on a daily basis. Naturally, the non-theist will say that God is nothing more than a spiritual placebo and that is what constitutes the divine experience just mentioned. There may be some truth to that but, it can’t possibly canvas the evidential interactions, the historical Jesus and the logical/intellectual cases that can also be made.

L 2.10

Loftus says that the Christian moralist and the atheist moralist are on equal grounds, especially in the context of the theistic conception of natural law since it is accessible to everyone. In that sense, the atheist has just as good of a moral insight as the Christian. In Philosophy: Christian Perspectives for the New Millennium, J. Budziszewski cites Judge Richard Posner in asserting that the relativist (in this case, the atheist) believes that morality is local rather than universal. Indeed, Loftus confirms this on p. 41 when he says that morality is relative but differs in that morality can be known by everyone. In response to Posner, Budziszewski accurately points out that "something which is not right for all cannot be known to all". In other words, Posner is not in agreement with Loftus. Ironically, both are acceptable from a non-theistic standpoint. This is a great example of how non-theistic morality is the equivalent of building castles in the air.

L 2.9

Loftus quotes Louis P. Pojman in saying that "To have the benefits of the moral life-friendship, mutual love, inner peace, moral pride or satisfaction...Character counts". (p. 43)

First, there is no reason why those alleged benefits are inextricably tied to conducting a moral life. Sometimes, acting in a moral manner could result in the exact opposite of those outcomes, even to the detriment of the self. Second, the so called benefits listed are merely coincidental outcomes. The main reason for acting in a moral manner is not to receive those benefits but, because acting morally is right in and of itself regardless of any consequent gains. Otherwise, it’s not even morality. It’s a behavior based on reciprocation. It could even be a sort of ultimatum which would not fall under the definition of morality.

This kind of thinking underscores the problems of attempting to invent an ethic without a true foundation. Whose character counts? People face adversity in differing ways. People will invariably have different opinions on the degree to which character counts when faced with conflicting perspectives. If morality is benefit based, who gets to decide which benefits take precedent? These are the kinds of moral questions facing a non-theist.

These problems aren’t even the worst of the situation for the non-theist. Ravi Zacharias notes that "Indeed, when atheism has worked its way into violence and sensuality, it was the logical outworking of many tenets of the atheistic worldview, which offer no foundation for human dignity or human rights." (p. 24) So, not only is non-theist ethic unable to guarantee consistent morally good results, it can even be used to sanction human rights violations. The despot’s violence against the few is justified for what he sees as the greater good that so many secularists clamor for.