Reviewing Jared Berry's Apologetic Article For Proving Christianity Via Proving The Resurrection
My initial thoughts about everything said in that article (<--- link),
in the order these issues appear:
1. "Dear atheists" is a Red Flag.
It indicates to me that the speaker is immersed in a Culture War Polemicist, Religious Fundamentalist environment; most probably Protestant.
It tells me they're either from the USA or study with a church that spread from the USA.
It tells me they vote politically Conservative.
It tells me they aren't really prioritizing the "saving" of as many souls as possible, but are instead scoring cathartic points for their team.
Otherwise, they'd be directing their efforts to a broader audience, and not making these issues into an "us vs (specific)them" issue.
This impression is further given by the rest of that sentence "(atheists) never read to the bottom of this article".
The speaker could not possibly account for every atheist who has ever started reading his article.
But he thinks, with confidence, that he can.
I really think that just speaks to the writer's personal bias and frustration with a (perceived) cultural enemy.
-------------
"The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is single most critical part of the Christian faith"
--
I'm sure a lot of Christians would say this.
And yet, I'm sure a lot of Christians would place their primary focus elsewhere.
For example, I've known some left-learning modern-hippie type Christians who say "love" is the most important part.
I've known Christians who say the chance to get into Heaven is the most important part of Christianity.
I've known Christians who say the chance to avoid being tortured forever in the most important.
Others have told me that the most important part of Christianity is that they can have a father who gives them personal value and a meaningful sense of identity.
Granted, all of that ties into the claimed resurrection of Jesus.
But my point is that many Christians see the resurrection as merely a means to an end for something that matters more and thus which does more to define Christianity.
In any case, I'm not sure what it really means
to say the resurrection is most critical part of Christianity.
I would need the writer to explain what that means to them.
---------------
"and also the single most important argument for it. "
--
This statement seems very damning of Christianity.
If the evidences (whatever those may be) for the resurrection is the best line of argumentation available to apologists, to support Christianity as true, then:
That's a very precarious and fragile situation to be in.
To suppose that an All-Powerful, All-Wise, All-Knowing, Super-Invested Super-Being
left his "one true religion" depending on forensic investigations and apologetic argumentation, ...
to prove Christianity's exclusive and supreme legitimacy
to all outsiders?
That leaves this reader wondering why the alleged Super-Being didn't bother to give them something more impressive to show off with.
It would seem their "God" doesn't want his One True Religion On Earth to be too persuasive for too many people.
Perhaps "He" is trying to avoid having too many human souls ending up in Heaven?
It does make me wonder what the excuse could be.
However,
I'm not going to ask any Christians for that excuse. I'd really only be asking them to guess. And I could just do that myself.
------------------------------------
"I may not have an answer for every single question regarding philosophy, various religions, ethics, creation, and evolution (and neither does the other side). "
--
Granted, there are some questions nobody should expect a "one true religion" to have a certain or complete answer for.
So we can just leave those issues out of this.
However, there are some questions that we all should definitely expect them to have a certain and complete answer for.
And that really does matter for this subject, because:
Christians do not have an answer (except guesses) for some issues that they absolutely need.
Without those answers, their theological structure is not complete enough to stand.
For example,
if Christians don't know what happens to the souls of dead babies (Heaven? Hell? Reborn to new parents? Wiped from existence?), then they can't finish making their case that we should all be impressed with their God's moral character.
I'm not saying that's the only thing they'd need to know (but yet don't know).
It's just one example of something they don't really have the luxury of saying "we'll find out later".
We need to know this right now.
Because you're the volunteering attorney for a client called "God".
He is being tried "in absentia", because he's not here to speak for himself.
He doesn't respect the needs of this court to interview him directly;
even though he admits (through Christian rumors) to needing this court to form an opinion.
So we're just seeing what we can do
with the arguments and evidence you're prepared to present.
Meanwhile,
this court really does need to know what your allegedly-existing client has been doing with all the dead babies that you (on his behalf) admit that he scoops up;
especially since you claim he has the power to resuscitate them all (and just might have).
Only a monster would harm those babies.
According to your defense-team, he already harmed them once; by causing them to die (either directly or simply by assuring it).
Will he harm them yet again after they die?
Your defense team repeatedly admits that you aren't sure if he harms those babies (after death) or not.
Instead, your defense team has argued that "even if he does harm those babies, so what?".
Who are WE(?)
to evaluate and assess
the logical and ethical merits
of the PICTURE of GOD
that your religion CLAIMS is true
and ASKS US to evaluate,
...
even though you ALSO insist we are unqualified to make those assessments?
I don't know.
Who are we(?)
to be so BRAZEN
as to do have such AUDACITY
to notice when your team is playing stupid head-games?
You tell me.
But we can come back to this later.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"I don’t have to know it all"
--
Of course not.
This isn't even an issue.
------------------------------------------------------
"this much is true (and is all we need to know):
If Jesus Christ really literally rose from the dead then the Bible is true."
--
The conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.
If a character in some fantastic stories really did Fantastic-Thing-X, it does not logically follow that everything else said in those stories must also be true.
Nor would it logically follow that some other religions' *stories must also be totally true.
[*stories which your religion's predecessors borrowed and altered pieces of, to make parts of your own religion's stories]
in the order these issues appear:
1. "Dear atheists" is a Red Flag.
It indicates to me that the speaker is immersed in a Culture War Polemicist, Religious Fundamentalist environment; most probably Protestant.
It tells me they're either from the USA or study with a church that spread from the USA.
It tells me they vote politically Conservative.
It tells me they aren't really prioritizing the "saving" of as many souls as possible, but are instead scoring cathartic points for their team.
Otherwise, they'd be directing their efforts to a broader audience, and not making these issues into an "us vs (specific)them" issue.
This impression is further given by the rest of that sentence "(atheists) never read to the bottom of this article".
The speaker could not possibly account for every atheist who has ever started reading his article.
But he thinks, with confidence, that he can.
I really think that just speaks to the writer's personal bias and frustration with a (perceived) cultural enemy.
-------------
"The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is single most critical part of the Christian faith"
--
I'm sure a lot of Christians would say this.
And yet, I'm sure a lot of Christians would place their primary focus elsewhere.
For example, I've known some left-learning modern-hippie type Christians who say "love" is the most important part.
I've known Christians who say the chance to get into Heaven is the most important part of Christianity.
I've known Christians who say the chance to avoid being tortured forever in the most important.
Others have told me that the most important part of Christianity is that they can have a father who gives them personal value and a meaningful sense of identity.
Granted, all of that ties into the claimed resurrection of Jesus.
But my point is that many Christians see the resurrection as merely a means to an end for something that matters more and thus which does more to define Christianity.
In any case, I'm not sure what it really means
to say the resurrection is most critical part of Christianity.
I would need the writer to explain what that means to them.
---------------
"and also the single most important argument for it. "
--
This statement seems very damning of Christianity.
If the evidences (whatever those may be) for the resurrection is the best line of argumentation available to apologists, to support Christianity as true, then:
That's a very precarious and fragile situation to be in.
To suppose that an All-Powerful, All-Wise, All-Knowing, Super-Invested Super-Being
left his "one true religion" depending on forensic investigations and apologetic argumentation, ...
to prove Christianity's exclusive and supreme legitimacy
to all outsiders?
That leaves this reader wondering why the alleged Super-Being didn't bother to give them something more impressive to show off with.
It would seem their "God" doesn't want his One True Religion On Earth to be too persuasive for too many people.
Perhaps "He" is trying to avoid having too many human souls ending up in Heaven?
It does make me wonder what the excuse could be.
However,
I'm not going to ask any Christians for that excuse. I'd really only be asking them to guess. And I could just do that myself.
------------------------------------
"I may not have an answer for every single question regarding philosophy, various religions, ethics, creation, and evolution (and neither does the other side). "
--
Granted, there are some questions nobody should expect a "one true religion" to have a certain or complete answer for.
So we can just leave those issues out of this.
However, there are some questions that we all should definitely expect them to have a certain and complete answer for.
And that really does matter for this subject, because:
Christians do not have an answer (except guesses) for some issues that they absolutely need.
Without those answers, their theological structure is not complete enough to stand.
For example,
if Christians don't know what happens to the souls of dead babies (Heaven? Hell? Reborn to new parents? Wiped from existence?), then they can't finish making their case that we should all be impressed with their God's moral character.
I'm not saying that's the only thing they'd need to know (but yet don't know).
It's just one example of something they don't really have the luxury of saying "we'll find out later".
We need to know this right now.
Because you're the volunteering attorney for a client called "God".
He is being tried "in absentia", because he's not here to speak for himself.
He doesn't respect the needs of this court to interview him directly;
even though he admits (through Christian rumors) to needing this court to form an opinion.
So we're just seeing what we can do
with the arguments and evidence you're prepared to present.
Meanwhile,
this court really does need to know what your allegedly-existing client has been doing with all the dead babies that you (on his behalf) admit that he scoops up;
especially since you claim he has the power to resuscitate them all (and just might have).
Only a monster would harm those babies.
According to your defense-team, he already harmed them once; by causing them to die (either directly or simply by assuring it).
Will he harm them yet again after they die?
Your defense team repeatedly admits that you aren't sure if he harms those babies (after death) or not.
Instead, your defense team has argued that "even if he does harm those babies, so what?".
Who are WE(?)
to evaluate and assess
the logical and ethical merits
of the PICTURE of GOD
that your religion CLAIMS is true
and ASKS US to evaluate,
...
even though you ALSO insist we are unqualified to make those assessments?
I don't know.
Who are we(?)
to be so BRAZEN
as to do have such AUDACITY
to notice when your team is playing stupid head-games?
You tell me.
But we can come back to this later.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"I don’t have to know it all"
--
Of course not.
This isn't even an issue.
------------------------------------------------------
"this much is true (and is all we need to know):
If Jesus Christ really literally rose from the dead then the Bible is true."
--
The conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.
If a character in some fantastic stories really did Fantastic-Thing-X, it does not logically follow that everything else said in those stories must also be true.
Nor would it logically follow that some other religions' *stories must also be totally true.
[*stories which your religion's predecessors borrowed and altered pieces of, to make parts of your own religion's stories]
If Jesus = true
and resurrection = true.
that does not mean that virgin-birth= true,
or that Yahweh=true,
or that Yahweh=perfect,
or that Global Flood = true.
---------------------------------------------------
"If the Bible is truly the Word of God then that kind of settles the issue of whether God exists and who He is, regardless of any other unanswered questions."
--
1. "The Bible" doesn't even exist.
There are many bible versions which compete for the title of being "The Bible". But none have ever won out over the others.
2. Even if you could truly substantiate the resurrection of Jesus (without any need for faith; given the sheer weight of verified forensic evidence and objectively irrefutable argumentation), ...
That would not be enough to validate literally everything else ever said in those stories;
nor in other stories.
3. Proving Jesus rose from being dead
really isn't something you can do.
But to humor the notion,
it still wouldn't prove anything about your preferred conceptualization of "God".
For example,
Loki might have raised him.
You know what a mischievous god he is.
The chance to cause more chaos and controversies in our world would be delicious to him.
Or perhaps 1 out of every 1 million recently-dead people DO spontaneously re-alive, for entirely natural reasons; given some unknown set of variables.
Or perhaps some Super-Aliens raised him from the dead.
Or maybe he didn't die that day. Maybe someone mistakenly thought he was already dead when they took him down from that pole.
Or maybe he DID die
but didn't raise up.
It would only take ONE friend to have a post-bereavement hallucination (<--- link)
for the rumor to catch-on, spread, and later evolve into legends.
Throughout history, religious cultures have woven fantastic religious narratives around unexplained events, so that they could at least have some sense of explanation;
and to seize on the opportunity to cast their own religion as special.
Consider also:
The Hebrew's religious expectations for the messiah did NOT include the idea of him dying for their sins, nor for him to be resurrected.
The premise of Christianity rests on the notion that the Hebrews were simply mistaken about what the messiah was supposed to do.
So then we can't really cite Hebrew religious texts to say "it would be too big of a coincidence" for Jesus to die and raise ...
when that's not actually what they expected a messiah to do.
Granted, some very creative apologists have tried to argue that the Hebrews DID expect a messiah to be-and-do exactly what Christianity alleges Jesus was-and-did.
But that claim is pretty easy to disprove.
-------
I'll come back to this later.
I have things I need get done in real life.
But if you're still wondering why many skeptics don't bother reading to the end of your article,
these are the reasons.
They would expect the rest of the article to be as unreasonable as the introduction.
So then out of respect for the value of their own time, they'd probably stop reading; right about here.
nor in other stories.
3. Proving Jesus rose from being dead
really isn't something you can do.
But to humor the notion,
it still wouldn't prove anything about your preferred conceptualization of "God".
For example,
Loki might have raised him.
You know what a mischievous god he is.
The chance to cause more chaos and controversies in our world would be delicious to him.
Or perhaps 1 out of every 1 million recently-dead people DO spontaneously re-alive, for entirely natural reasons; given some unknown set of variables.
Or perhaps some Super-Aliens raised him from the dead.
Or maybe he didn't die that day. Maybe someone mistakenly thought he was already dead when they took him down from that pole.
Or maybe he DID die
but didn't raise up.
It would only take ONE friend to have a post-bereavement hallucination (<--- link)
for the rumor to catch-on, spread, and later evolve into legends.
Throughout history, religious cultures have woven fantastic religious narratives around unexplained events, so that they could at least have some sense of explanation;
and to seize on the opportunity to cast their own religion as special.
Consider also:
The Hebrew's religious expectations for the messiah did NOT include the idea of him dying for their sins, nor for him to be resurrected.
The premise of Christianity rests on the notion that the Hebrews were simply mistaken about what the messiah was supposed to do.
So then we can't really cite Hebrew religious texts to say "it would be too big of a coincidence" for Jesus to die and raise ...
when that's not actually what they expected a messiah to do.
Granted, some very creative apologists have tried to argue that the Hebrews DID expect a messiah to be-and-do exactly what Christianity alleges Jesus was-and-did.
But that claim is pretty easy to disprove.
-------
I'll come back to this later.
I have things I need get done in real life.
But if you're still wondering why many skeptics don't bother reading to the end of your article,
these are the reasons.
They would expect the rest of the article to be as unreasonable as the introduction.
So then out of respect for the value of their own time, they'd probably stop reading; right about here.
Comments
Post a Comment