Tag: Sense and Goodness Without God

Sense and Goodness Without God Part 7

How is it that we got here? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

We’re continuing our look again into Carrier’s book (Henceforth abbreviated SGWG), but I’m almost done with another book I’m reading so expect that there could be a review of that next week and then surely some sort of post on Christmas Eve. This review will overall be completed. There are a lot of arguments I want to get to.

Now this chapter we’re going to be talking largely about evolution. I’ll be upfront and state my opinion on evolution.

I don’t care.

Really. That’s it. I’m not a scientist so the question doesn’t make much difference to me. It doesn’t affect my interpretation of Genesis since I go with a John Walton view. I know there are arguments that are put forward by scientists and they are highly persuasive. On the other hand, I know there are still hard questions for the theory in particular circumstances.

That last part does not mean the theory is false. Every view that is true has hard questions with it. That does not surprise me. What I wish to stress however is that I am not a scientist so I cannot answer the question either way. If I said “The evidence supports evolution”, I could not name you that evidence. I could not defend it either. If I said “The evidence does not support evolution”, I could not name you that evidence and I could not defend it. I’m fine with that.

If I woke up tomorrow and saw the headlines “Even the SBC now has admitted that Macroevolution is a fact” I would simply go about my day. It really wouldn’t matter. On the other hand, if I saw “Scientists admit macroevolutionary theory false”, I would have the same reaction.

So when we get to the science as science, I will not be saying anything. I have long said that people like Richard Dawkins and others who do not understand biblical studies should not be commenting on them as if they are authorities. I plan to follow my own advice.

So right at the start, Carrier tells us that “The universe is so vast, it was inevitable that something like us would be one of its byproducts somewhere.”

Really?

Why should I think this? Really?

On the one hand, Carrier has argued about what a waste this universe is and all the empty space and even how dangerous it is, and then on this side, he’s telling us that surely we would show up somewhere. If this universe is the way he says it is elsewhere, I would think we wouldn’t show up somewhere. We’d have no chance. Is the universe friendly to life or is it not? I can’t tell you which it is, but I can tell you it’s not both.

Besides, this kind of approach would mean you could justify anything ultimately. “Well guys, I know I got a perfect hand in that game of Bridge, but you know, in a universe so vast, it was inevitable. Guess I just got to be the lucky one.”

In fact, Carrier tells us that if conscious beings can exist once in a million galaxies, there would be thousands of such civilizations in the universe.

Now there could be life out there of course, but we have no evidence of it. It’s hard to start talking about probabilities in that case. Saying if they could doesn’t even mean that they do and again, what kind of universe do we live in?

So as we go on, we find in the final paragraph on page 165, the reasoning found here. I will be paraphrasing.

Simple life stands a good a chance of being all over a galaxy like ours.
Galaxies have billions of stars.
This means millions of star systems.
Even life arising in one in one million such systems means thousands of planets in our galaxy alone have life.
Sentient life is rare and improbable, but the universe is that amazingly old and big.
Amazingly improbable things are sure to happen all the time.
Therefore, we are a natural product.

The end conclusion does not follow. Neither does the next one.

A divine engineer would have no reason to make a trillion useless galaxies just for us.

Let’s look at the first case. It’s simply speculation built on speculation. Thousands of planets in our galaxy have life? We don’t know of a single one that does other than our own. Why should we build a foundation on a speculation that we have no evidence for and plenty of evidence against?

Furthermore, if amazingly improbable things are sure to happen all the time, then it would seem we also have a case for a miracle. Why not believe someone was suddenly healed of a disease like cancer or blindness or even raised from the dead? Amazingly improbable things happen ALL THE TIME!

How also does it follow we are a natural product? I can’t help but notice how Lewis said the atheist stacks the deck with cosmological questions like this. If there is life everywhere in the universe, well see, life isn’t so special. You don’t need a creator for that. If there is life only one place in the universe, well see, the creator would not make a waste like that!

So if life is everywhere, there is no God.
If life is only in one place, there is no God.

Heads they win. Tails we lose.

The problem is this is built on knowledge we do not have access to. Carrier tells us a divine engineer would have no reason. Really? How does he know this? Can he demonstrate. The most he can say is “I can think of no such reason.” Well perhaps you can’t. Perhaps I can’t. So what? That means there is no such reason?

As we move on, Carrier tells us that we should suspect metaphysical naturalism. Why? First off, natural explanations have turned out to be true for everything so far without exception.

Except for those questions that have not been answered and those questions that don’t fit into the worldview. So and so was suddenly healed of blindness? Well there has to be a natural explanation because we know miracles can’t happen. Therefore, the natural explanation is true. Jesus rose from the dead? There can’t be a miraculous explanation, therefore there has to be a natural one. The existence of existence? Existence must somehow be a natural phenomenon.

It doesn’t surprise me that there are many so-called natural explanations for what we see out there. Nor should it surprise any Christian. Yet if you say “Natural explanations are the only explanations that count”, don’t be surprised if everything becomes explained with such explanations and everything that doesn’t fit is “explained away.” I only would like to see the natural explanations for events like the life and resurrection of Jesus and the existence of existence itself.

Carrier on page 167 starts a paragraph talking about chemicals coming together to form proteins and it is more than reasonable to conclude that these all came together on a spot like Earth and certainly at least one will produce a protein that can reproduce itself. Most important is how he begins this paragraph. “Consequently, though we lack access to the facts we need in order to know just what happened on Earth four billion years ago….”

Let us not let a little thing like not knowing the facts keep us from making claims on a grand scale.

I only look at the paragraph and think “Why is this reasonable? Because this fits in with naturalism and naturalism alone is reasonable?” I am given no reason to think such and I certainly do not think it reasonable to make a conclusion when we do not have access to the facts.

But friends, the best is yet to come.

Years ago, I heard Richard Dawkins speak at Queens university in Charlotte and he was asked what the worst theistic argument he had ever come across was. He replied that it was the banana argument of Ray Comfort.

I have to agree.

And as I shared this upcoming argument with a friend of mine, he told me “We have found the banana argument of atheism.”

Yes. This is Carrier’s argument starting on page 171. I am quoting it in full so that you can look it up and see that, yes, he does make this argument.

“For example, nipples on men serve no function whatever, but are the inevitable byproduct of a procedure for developing men differently from women that is imperfectly carried out. Evolution explains why, in contrast, female breasts do not need to be large, or prominent at all—as instruments for nursing, small breasts are just as effective, while large breasts create increased strain on a woman’s back and increased risk of injury and lethal malfunctions like cancer.

The only physiological reason for large breasts is the same as for other insufficient methods of sexual competition, from the peacock’s feathers to the baboon’s inflamed butt: their size serves to compete with other women in attracting men. Otherwise, they are a liability, and a needless waste of energy–although, in the rude way nature works, that is their point; to advertise to men “Hey, this woman is so healthy she can waste energy on these risky things, aren’t they pretty?” What possible use such an insufficient tactic would have in the hands of an intelligent engineer is hard to fathom–especially an engineer whose only purported purpose for sex was procreation, not lust or entertainment. Wouldn’t making men attracted to, say, intelligence, or beautiful eyes, have been enough—even better—without all the danger and headache?” (p. 171-172 Italics his.)

Yes people. It really is in there. If you don’t think so, go and look yourself.

Let’s start with something in there. The only purported purpose of sex is procreation?

There’s this book in my Bible called Song of Songs. I don’t see them talking about making babies in that one. I see them talking about raw passion for one another. Christians do see making babies as A purpose of sex, but not the only purpose. Even the staunchest Catholic who is the most opposed to any contraception would not say making babies is the only purpose of sex.

Now of course, we do say there are misuses of sex, but one great purpose is to unite the husband and wife in a bond of love. It’s not an accident that lovemaking carries with it great emotional passion and great expressions of love come out at that time. Sex as intended drives a husband and wife together. It drives the man to love the wife as Christ loved the church and it drives the woman to learn to open herself up to the man and to trust him.

I wonder where on Earth the idea came to Carrier that God intended it only for procreation. I don’t see that at all in Scripture. (Of course, some church fathers held to such a view, but you will not find it today. Perhaps Carrier should read some books on sexuality written by Christian counselors.)

But now, let’s look at the claim itself.

First, I would really like to see Carrier walk into a place like a bar and start sharing this kind of view.

“Well gentlemen, I want to talk to you about why you should be atheists and think that there is no God. For instance, look at that woman over there with really big breasts. Do you think a loving God would allow her to waste her energy on those? No. He would make them only fit the job they’re meant to do and make you more attracted to other aspects of her.”

I strongly suspect most men in the audience are looking at the woman and thinking instead they see a darn good reason to believe God does exist.

It is incredible to fathom that someone could write those pages in a book and think that that is making an argument in favor of atheism.

Of course, there is no doubt many men find such attractive. Yet how is this supposed to show a problem with the way God made women? Could not God have made women that way to attract a mate? Contrary also to Carrier, men are attracted to other aspects as well such as eyes and intelligence.

I strongly suspect we’re seeing more a kind of fundamentalism Carrier encountered that he has imbibed himself rather than any real biblical position he’s interacting with.

And the scary thing is this isn’t even the worst argument in the book. That’s to come later.

When we return to this book again, we’ll be discussing the nature of reason.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Sense and Goodness Without God Part 6

Is there anything to reports of NDEs? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I’m not going to get too much into the mind-body subject of this chapter, but I wish to comment on one aspect of it that I think is highly lacking and that is Carrier’s treatment of NDE’s, otherwise known as Near-Death Experiences.

Near-Death Experiences are experiences where the person is on the verge of death (Or in some cases now is actually dead) and they have some sort of experience where they have a separation from their body and give an account of what happened to them when they were dead. Naturally, they do return to their body or else we’d never hear about it.

Now there are some NDEs that we cannot really do anything with in the area of verification. If you die and claim you went to Heaven and met your grandmother there or talked to God or saw an angel, I cannot verify that. It could have happened, but we cannot verify that it happened.

But let’s suppose you die and while apart from your body, you see events that take place. You see meals that your family is making in your absence. You see car accidents that take place. You hear comments that are made in the waiting room.

Also important with such events is that the person is spoken to as soon as possible about what happened. This is one reason among several others that I’m skeptical about the account in “Heaven is for Real”. The account of what happened came much later and very little of it has any verification and as a Christian, I think much of it contradicts Scripture.

In this chapter, Carrier will speak of both NDE’s and OBE’s, but for our purposes, what unites them is the same. A person sees something when we have no reason to think that they would be capable of seeing anything else. (If you’re under anesthesia in the hospital, it’s quite certain you’re not seeing anything for instance.)

On page 155 he writes “Many fanciful legends have grown up boasting of amazing proofs that a particular OBE was genuine, but they have always dissolved under scrutiny; investigations turn up no corroboration for any of the story’s details, or often uncover evidence that flatly contradicts it.”

Little problem here. Not one such case is mentioned. When looking at recommended reading, I see nothing that in fact records accounts that are favorable towards NDEs. You won’t find, for instance, Michael Sabom’s work on this topic. You also won’t find Habermas and Moreland on this topic, and surely Carrier knows of this since he interacts with Moreland some in this book.

What accounts do we have? Those interested in more are free to read Sabom’s book as well as Habermas and Moreland’s. You can also find interviews of Habermas. One of him on the Sci Phi show in two parts. Here is part 1 and part 2. Also in parts one and two are him at the Veritas forum. You can listen again to part 1 and part 2.

Those interested in a debate can hear the debate he had with Keith Augustine in three parts. part 1, part 2, and part 3.

One caseI think worth mentioning right off is the story of Pam Reynolds, who gave an account of what she saw while she was dead in a sort of standstill operation. She gave a highly detailed account of various things she saw when she definitely had no way of seeing them.

My biggest problem with what I saw here was that once again, there was the sound of one-hand clapping. We are told to value evidence, but only one side of the story was given in the case of NDEs. Evidential NDEs were not presented. Again, the recommended works are highly lacking. No doubt there are several fake accounts out there, but it takes more to say all of them are fake.

Next time we will look at the question of how we got here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Sense and Goodness Without God Part 5

What do I will to say about the topic of freedom in Carrier’s book? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I’ll go ahead and say that this is one debate I tend to not take a side in. I believe in the freedom of the will and that’s about it. How far does that go? I’m not going to say. If there’s one debate I can’t stand in Christian circles, it’s the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. It’s particularly bad when I have seen some people say “Calvinism is the gospel.” Thankfully, I do have some Calvinist friends who do not go to that extreme and we never discuss it.

So when I look through this section, I am not going to be critiquing on the points. Carrier is taking on J.P. Moreland in this part of the book and I am not going to be Moreland’s defender either. He can fight his own battles, though it’s a wonder why anyone would think he should take a challenge such as Carrier’s seriously. Still, what did I find in this section that concerned me?

For one thing, Carrier says Moreland’s meaning of freedom doesn’t correspond to actual human practice. We are told on page 105 that if you ask people on the street whether freedom is “getting to do whatever you want” and they will wholeheartedly agree.

The first problem is, when using philosophical terminology, it is not best to get the terminology from the man on the street, but from those who have most often done the serious thinking on the issues. This would include a good philosophical dictionary or encyclopedia.

Second, no one has this kind of freedom also. I can’t do whatever I want. If I want to murder my neighbor and then follow through on that, the police will have something to say about my use of freedom. If I want to jump off the roof of my house and fly, gravity will have something to say about what I want.

It’s noteworthy that later on this page, Carrier says Moreland gets a definition from the antiquated medieval philosopher, Thomas Aquinas. (Yet we saw in the last post that perhaps Carrier should have listened to this antiquated medieval philosopher) We are told Aquinas uses a definition of source that is not employed in normal conversation.

I wasn’t aware Moreland in giving a philosophical defense was engaging in “normal conversation.” In saying all of this, there is not a reply to Aquinas. (In fact, I find most people who want to reply to Aquinas redefine what he said, such as a modern notion of motion from Newton rather than the one Aquinas was working with.)

Carrier does the same thing on page 111 when he says “In the real world, hardly anyone brings up the acausal metaphysics of the soul, much less do they actually try to determine where and when such a strange substance was or was not involved in any given case. So the libertarian defense of free will is irrelevant to human and social reality, while the compatibilist definition fits it like a glove.”

Which pretty much says our words define our time fairly well so anything that disagrees with our understanding is wrong. In fact, I could even give another reply.

“”In the real world, hardly anyone would spend a whole chapter in a book talking about the meaning of words. So Carrier’s emphasis on the importance of words is irrelevant to human and social reality while modern ignorance of it fits it like a glove.”

The last point to bring out is that Carrier then goes to court cases to see how they understand the definition of freedom. Again, why not go to philosophical dictionaries and encyclopedias? Why should I think the modern courts definition of a philosophical topic is correct?

There’s not much in chapter 5 to really comment on so I plan on skipping that. I will next time then cover a short portion in chapter 6 on the nature of the mind.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Sense and Goodness Without God Part 4

Does metaphysical naturalism account for the existing of the universe? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

We’re continuing our review of Sense and Goodness Without God (SGWG) by Richard Carrier and we’re on the chapter about the nature and origin of the universe. I wish to give a caveat right at the start of this chapter.

I have made it a point to not talk about science as science. Why? Simple reason. I am not a scientist. I do not like Richard Dawkins and others speaking on theology, philosophy, history, Biblical interpretation, etc. without showing they’ve done any serious study on the matter. I, in like suit, will not comment on science as science.

Does that mean I don’t have opinions? Of course I do, but my opinions are not authoritative in any way on that issue. For instance, I do hold that the Earth goes around the sun, but I could not begin to tell you a reason why other than that seems to be the accepted position. Now I do enjoy commenting on the history of science, but for the science itself, no. I leave that to scientists.

Therefore, when it comes to the scientific theories discussed in this chapter, insofar as they are scientific, I will not be saying anything. Now when these questions do get to something I have studied, I will comment. At the outset, I can say that if Carrier wants a multiverse or an eternal universe or some combination thereof, I would be willing to grant any of those. They don’t damage my theism or the case for the resurrection.

Also, I can say that I am somewhat skeptical of the ID movement. I have a problem with scientific arguments for theism in general in that they tend to be more inductive than anything else and frankly, most of us don’t know the language. It also has us often implicitly buying into the idea that science is the highest field of knowledge. It is a great one. It is an important one. It is not the only one.

And as for evolution, which will be discussed later, I have no opinion either. I will even grant macroevolution just for the sake of argument because I could not make any argument pro or con in regards to that. I do not doubt it’s an important question, but one cannot have the time to study all important questions. I have chosen my field and I will stick with it.

Anyway, on page 71, Carrier makes a statement about what would be the case of the most plausible theory.

“So after meeting the criteria of plausibility, the most plausible explanation will be the one that has the greatest explanatory scope and power. A hypothesis with ‘explanatory scope’ explains many facts, not just one or two, and thus would explain a great about why this universe exists rather than some other, why the universe has the properties it does rather than others.”

I find no problem with this. In fact, I agree. We do want to find the best explanation. We are also seeking to study this universe. We can postulate other universes, but as far as I know, we have no hard evidence of other universes, just a theory. The only universe we can treat as a certainty is this one.

Carrier on the next page starts calling into question the God hypothesis. I wish to state at the start that I have a problem with just saying “God did it.” I have no problems with seeking out means considered “natural” for lack of a better term. None of these would dispense with God. Still, I find some of Carrier’s criticisms lacking.

For instance, Carrier says on this page that

“Worse, the idea that there was a god around before there was a universe–in other words the idea that something existed when there was no place for it to exist, that something acted when there was no time in which it could act–done not make much sense.”

To say something is difficult to comprehend is different from saying it does not make much sense. The problem I see here is that it assumes God is a material entity. I’m sure Carrier knows that in Christian theology, God is not material, but why bring up the idea that God is to exist in a place, as if any place could contain God? Why think He exists in any time, as if any time could contain God? The Christian doctrine is that God is omnipresent and eternal. He exists in place but is not bound by it, but rather sustains it. The same with time. God eternally exists and is not bound by a timeline any more than He is bound by the physical universe.

For the sake of argument, this could be false. It could be this is what Christian theology teaches, and it does, and still be wrong, but let us make sure that we are representing Christian theology accurately. I do not see any reason why anyone who has studied Christian theology or philosophy would be troubled at all by the sort of argument Carrier makes.

Next we have the question of why didn’t God just create Heaven at the start? This assumes a more modern view of Heaven that it’s that nice place in the sky that you go to when you die. Heaven is in fact the place where the presence of God is made manifest to the delight of His servants. I contend that Heaven actually comes to Earth. (Strangely enough, so does the Bible. See the Lord’s Prayer and Revelation 21) I also contend the same with Hell and that Hell is where God’s presence is made manifest to the agony of His enemies.

So why not make Heaven right at the start? Because Heaven is a choice. The love of God is chosen and if one is created in the manifest loving presence of God, there is no choice, and God values choice enough that He lets us have it.

Next comes the problem of the infinite regress, or rather the so-called problem. As Carrier says on page 73 “If everything must have an explanation, then you do not really get anywhere by explaining the universe by proposing a god.”

In some ways, this is the “Who made God?” objection. The problem with the infinite regress is that people confuse infinite regresses. There are two kinds. They are the regress per se and the regress per accidens.

The latter is a temporal chain. Let us suppose that a tragedy happens and my parents and my wife’s parents both die suddenly. Right now, Allie and I are childless. Does that mean that we will be unable to have children now since our parents are gone? No. Not at all. Our being able to continue the chain of humanity through us does not depend in any way on the existence of our parents. This is the kind of regress that Aquinas and Aristotle are both open to. (In fact, in the Prima Pars of the Summa Theologica, Question 46, article 2, Aquinas says that by reason alone, you cannot know the universe had a beginning. Christians only know it by revelation. He would disagree then with the Kalam as used today.)

So what is going on in the first way? In the first way of Aquinas, we have a regress per se. This is a regress of instrumental causes. The classic example is of a hand moving a stick. The stick moves the rock. The rock moves the leaf. Remove any part of the chain before the leaf, and the leaf does not move. There is an ontological dependence. This kind of regress is the one that is impossible, because instrumental causes are only secondary causes. They are the means through which an efficient cause acts. There must be some force that acts that is itself not acted upon and that force, everyone knows to be God. (In Thomistic language) For God, the basis for His existence lies in Himself, for He is being by nature with no add-ons. Everything else has the reason for its existing outside of itself. It has a nature that is given existence. God has no nature given existence but His nature is found in what it means to be. (I highly recommend Edward Feser’s “Aquinas” at this point.) In fact, Carrier says on page 81 that an ultimate being has only two properties we can be sure of. It’s nature is to exist and it has a reasonable chance of producing the universe exactly as we see it.

Carrier says there can be no ultimate explanation because there must be something that either just “is” or there is a brute fact. I do not see this argued but rather assumed. Yet my answer is there is something that just is and it is because it is in its very nature to be and that is God. Yet Carrier has a statement that is so brief coming up that many will overlook it, but really think about it. On page 73 he says

“Why should such an infinite series of explanations exist for something as relatively simple as a single universe?”

Does anyone really want to say that they think our universe is simple?

Our universe is in fact one of the most complex things we know of and yet we’re told why should a series of explanations exist for it? The universe has thus become a brute fact and well we grant it and then go on. I would need to show the universe has the principle of its own existing in itself. (Note I said existing and not just existence. What keeps the universe going right now?) This is an argument that will not be scientific. It is metaphysical seeing as it deals with the nature of existence. Carrier asks why not just stop with what we know, the natural world?

And here I thought theism was supposed to be the view that stopped us from asking questions….

On page 74, we get to questions about the Big Bang asking what God needs a Big Bang for. It’s a complicated method to use.

Indeed it is. So what? To say that God did not create by the method I would use does not mean He did not create, and last I checked, Carrier has no qualifications on how to make a universe. Perhaps if he thinks the way was done improperly, he should create his own real universe and show us how it would be done. He can create all the laws and such that hold it in place and present it for comparison.

This will not be done and frankly cannot be done.

God is not limited in his resources nor is He limited by His time nor is He obligated to create everything optimal, especially since in my view He did not create the universe to be the way it is right now eternally. To argue against this methodology one needs more than “I would not do it this way and here’s why.” One needs to show there is no God who did do it this way.

On page 78 Carrier says that “We barely struggle along on this tiny little planet, in brutal competition for scarce resources, on a microscopic island that will be melted by the sun in a relatively short time.”

Oh, and by the way, have a nice day.

It’s amazing that the Big Bang is a slow and long process, but the time it takes for the sun to swallow us up will be a relatively short time. I also wonder what world Carrier is living in. I suspect Carrier lives where he does near grocery stores where he can get food and has refrigeration where he can store it and does not have to go out and hunt the beast. I suspect he’s also never had to go out and struggle in battle just to get a meal. No doubt, this does go on in some places, but we’ve managed to do a good job here on this Earth. Reading Carrier, you’d get the impression we’re caught in the Hunger Games.

On page 82, we are told that the multiverse is a far better explanation. Carrier says something must exist without explanation and if God can do it, so can the multiverse.

Why yes. This makes sense. This would be consistent. If one thing thought of can exist without explanation, why not just tack that ability onto something different? Maybe I could even argue eventually that I exist without any explanation.

Or could it be that God is different from the multiverse in some respects?

To show this, let’s start with looking at what Carrier says on the same page. He says that the multiverse is a much simpler entity than a god.

Unfortunately, He does not show this and I would contend exactly the opposite. I contend that God is the most simple being that there is.

“But God is so hard to understand! He’s omni-everything and invisible!”

Yes, and He’s simple. Simple does not mean in relation to our understanding but rather in relation to His make-up. Simpliciity has long been held in the doctrine of God. Indeed, in the Summa, right after God’s existence, Simplicity is the next topic discussed. An excellent look at it from the church fathers can be found here.

With a multi-verse, one can imagine someone taking it apart somehow and putting it back together again. It is made of several material aspects, and these material aspects within themselves are all composed and come together. The multiverse contains planets, galaxies, solar systems, etc. Add in also that this matter contains no basis for its own existing in itself. It carries no essences in it.

Now let’s look at God. What does He have?

Being.

You cannot take something away from Him. You cannot add to Him. He is not composed of being plus essence. He is not being plus material. He is not being plus essence plus material. He is just what it means to be. Carrier says on page 83 that none of God’s attributes are supported by any science, but he is wrong. A science classically understood is a body of knowledge, and there is a body of knowledge that supports this. That is metaphysics. Does it do so through the scientific method? No. But that is because it is not that kind of science. It does so by reasoning from the evidence that we have.

Carrier does say again in the chapter that God is complex, but until He demonstrates that, I see no reason to take it seriously.

On page 85 Carrier says

“When we cast aside our prejudices, it remains perfectly sensible, and indeed most plausible, that the multiverse just is, and always has been. Everything else follows inevitably from that. There can be no objection to this, for the exact same objections would eliminate god as an explanation too. Think about it. Just as one might ask, for example, ‘why does the multiverse exist?’ one can also ask ‘why does God exist?’ Ultimately, proposing a god gets you no further than proposing a multiverse.”

It takes some great confidence to say there can be no objection to this, but alas for Carrier, there can be. God is altogether simple and is what it means to be. The multiverse is not. This is not some random idea in Christian thinking. This is an idea that has been held for well over 1,000 years and nearly 2,000 years. I would think that for all the time Carrier talks about reading and studying, he would have come across that and given a response.

On page 87, Carrier asks how a complex order could arise and tells us Isaac Newton found the answer. Gravity. Throw planets and stars together and add in gravity and you get something like what we have right now.

Well I have to be straw manning there.

No. Not at all. As Carrier says

“For all you had to do was throw planets and stars together, complete with their gravity, and ‘Presto!’ a solar system pretty much like ours would result.”

Apparently, “God did it!” has been replaced by “Gravity did it!”

Amusingly, Newton would not see this as an argument against God. In fact, He would see it as an argument for God. For the medievals and later scientists, the more they learned about how the universe worked and filled in the so-called gaps, the more they were amazed and in awe of the creator.

On page 88, Carrier says “At the very least, there is nothing incredible about proposing that all order has such an explanation. After all, theologians have been wrong every time so far, so why keep betting on them?”

Unfortunately, I saw no theologians cited. Beware the sound of one hand clapping. Furthermore, there are a great number of theologians who are advancing many of these scientific theories. It was a Catholic who came up with the Big Bang Theory and told the Pope to not use it as an argument for God’s existence.

On page 93 Carrier says complex things only arise from simpler ones. We’ve never seen anything to the contrary. I can take this as further support of my position. My beginning ontological point is ultimately simple. It is God. Carrier has given me no argument against simplicity. Carrier prefers to say that it is a fundamental chaos that is the simplest thing we can speak of.

So chaos is simple?

I don’t see an argument for that. I do see an argument for God being simple. It has been presented by theologians from early times.

Once again, I have not said anything about the science behind the theories. I fully support the scientists doing the work here and let each theory be tested. I also add this important distinction. Scientific work should be critiqued scientifically. No one’s worldview should have an authority. The science works the same for an atheist or a Christian, just as in biblical interpretation, the rules of interpretation work the same for an atheist or a Christian and in history, the historical method works the same for both. I encourage that atheists should have their sciences critiqued by Christian scientists and Christian scientists have theirs critiqued by atheist scientists. Of course, atheist scientists can also review the work of atheists and Christians that of Christians, but this methodology would help us keep our biases in check as we all have them.

I object to Christians wanting to use the Bible (Which I do not think is meant to be read in a scientific manner, including Genesis 1) to critique science. If something is true, it is true and if science shows something is true, well we’d best accept it. If we believe the resurrection is true and the existence of God is true, we have no need to fear anything science shows as anything science shows cannot contradict that.

I know today’s entry has been long. I do not suspect the next one will be as lengthy as it involves free-will and the debates around that I have tended to not even want to touch with a ten-foot pole.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Sense and Goodness Without God Part 3

What’s my opinion on Carrier’s take on method? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Our continuing review of SGWG involves looking at the chapter on methodology next. To be fair, I do indeed think it’s important to show one’s methodology. Usually in a debate on the NT, I will ask someone what their methodology is for determining authorship or the historicity of a text. Usually, they have none.

Carrier says at the start that the end result of any method can never be absolute certainty, but why should anyone think this? It could depend on the claim. Some fields use a more inductive reasoning. Others use a more deductive reasoning.

For instance, consider the following syllogism.

All cats are felines.
Shiro is a cat.
Shiro is a feline.

If the premises are true, the conclusion follows with absolute certainty. I have absolute certainty that tautologies are true and contradictions are false. With other fields, like science and history, one has a more inductive approach. These fields rely more on probability. (It is strange to see the emphasis on science which is inductive and the disregard then of other fields that use more deductive approach, as certain philosophical arguments do.)

Carrier even says a god cannot have absolute certainty. He could be the victim of a greater Cartesian demon. As a Thomist, this argument doesn’t apply to me because whatever is at the end of the chain is ultimate and in fact, it is necessarily good. I will not full flesh out that argument here, though I have written more about it in my review of the Summa Theologica portion on God and on the five ways.

Carrier in seeking a good method starts out with predictive success, but is this not begging the question? Axioms of logic don’t involve predictions. They start with a certainty that a contradiction cannot be true. Logic in fact is not a method of finding truth but rather of finding error. Some methods work less by predictive power and more by explanatory scope.

It’s not a shock that in fact Carrier comes down on the side of the scientific method as the best method we have. As I said last time with pointing to Feser, the method works great with science, but it does not work great with other fields of knowledge. The scientific method has often been made too all-encompassing. As said before, this is not to denigrate science and it is a shame to think that such a claim is a denigration of science. It is to recognize its limitations. Use the scientific method for science. Use a literary method for literature, historical method for history, etc.

The problem that often comes is one has a claim that falls outside of the realm of science, such as miracles or the existence of God and immediately hears “Well do you have any scientific evidence?” You might as well ask if you have any mathematical evidence that Shakespeare wrote his plays. Of course, science can help inform us on these areas, such as showing us the way nature works when there is no interference (Although to be fair, I question the existence of laws of nature seeing as I hold to essences more) or perhaps Intelligent Design arguments. (Which I’m also skeptical of seeing as it treats the universe more like a machine)

Eventually, we get to the historical method. We are told on page 58 about how experts in the field should meet qualifications of reliability. These include genuine qualifications suited to the issue at hand, corroboration by others, and that the bias be controlled. I have no problem with these by and large and of course, the list is not limited to these.

I do think it’s important that we seek experts who have credentials in the field and I would add that we seek them from all sides. Too many atheists are ready to discount a claim in NT history because it comes from a Christian scholar, just as too many Christians could deny a claim in scientific theory because it comes from an atheist. Both are wrong. Look at the evidence. Don’t look at the position.

I also agree that one should seek corroboration from other experts. This is why I find it important to look for works that are by writers who have undergone peer-review. In history, we recently had the case of Joseph Atwill and “Caesar’s Messiah.” Atwill did not put his opinion to scholarship first to have it tested. Nope. He went straight to the media. This is sensationalism.

It’s also important with books to see who published the book. Most academic publishing houses want to protect their reputation and not publish material that will be embarrassing to them. This doesn’t mean everything by a non-academic publisher is false as its harder and harder to get published today, but in today’s age, self-publication is easier and easier, meaning one must be quite careful.

Also, biases need to be controlled. We all have them. That’s also the purpose of peer-review. You submit your work to those who are of a different mindset and see if you can defend your view. It doesn’t mean you will prove your view, but it means you do defend your view.

All of this is well and good but I found myself wondering, “Does Carrier’s Christ myth idea pass this criteria?” The answer is no. This is one of many reasons I can’t take such an idea seriously.

The next section we will go through in our review will be discussing the origins of the universe. We’ll cover that next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Sense and Goodness Without God Part 2

Are there any words to be said about words? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Our review of Sense and Goodness Without God (SGWG from now on) continues with a look at the importance of philosophy and of words. Having been a Master’s student before I left the Seminary I was at studying in philosophy, I do agree it is important. It’s also why on my own podcast I’m working to bring in more philosophers to talk on important topics in philosophy.

But I do not think Carrier is the one to be telling us about philosophy. As I’ve said, those wanting a more thorough philosophical analysis of the material of Carrier are invited to see the work of David Wood, who is in fact a credentialed PH.D. philosopher. I invite others skeptical of my stance on Carrier here to by all means go check with those who are more authoritative in whatever field and see what they say as well.

So getting to what we have, Carrier has a revealing line saying “This is a little known secret of thinking like a genius; it doesn’t matter where your ideas come from, or how many turn out to be harebrained, so long as you only trust the ones that are soundly proved.”

My first thought in reading this is what kind of way must a person think about themselves to think that they can tell us the secret of thinking like a genius. For saying that there is not much in the Bible, it would have been well to have gone to Proverbs 27:2 and read about how you should let another man praise you and not your own lips.

My second thought is how far does this go? I should only trust that which is soundly proven. Okay.

Is that proven?

I figure I could keep going on and on. Part of the problem is that if we just go by what is proven, we have to at some point reach some claims that are unproven, but that we think would be absolute nonsense to deny. “The universe did not pop into existence five minutes ago with false memories in our minds and false foods in our stomachs.” No way you could prove this, but only a fool would think the universe if five minutes old.

There are also statements that you do not prove or disprove because they are tautologies and contradictions.

“At this time, my wife either exists or she does not.”

This statement has zero predictive power and in fact it would be bizarre to think about proving it. It is entirely true regardless of which one it is! (She just went up to my mother’s to wrap Christmas gifts, but I am certainly hoping the former is the case and no mysterious sink hole has swallowed her or something of the link.)

Now here’s another statement.

“Right now, my wife is married and not married.”

This statement could not be proven at all as it is nonsense. Someone cannot be both at the same time. Of course, you could say that she is married to me and not married to any other man out there, but that requires adding information to the claim.

And finally, we can ask how a statement is proven. Too often in the book, Carrier holds to a mild form of scientism that places science on the highest level. Science is great for scientific predictions. It’s not for everything else.

For instance, if I am studying Shakespeare and I am being told that when saying X, Shakespeare is really making a comment about Y in his day, how should I verify this? Do I do so scientifically? No. I go and use literary methodologies including asking literary experts who know the field far better than I do.

There is a great danger we have in our day and age of thinking science works so well where we apply it that it just has to work everywhere else and if we do that, we will end up missing out on other truths that could, for the sake of argument, be out there. Let’s consider it with the metal detector analogy of Edward Feser. In this short section of that post, Feser presents the common view and then responds with the analogy.

1. The predictive power and technological applications of [post-Galilean, post-Cartesian, mechanistic] science are unparalleled by those of any other purported source of knowledge.

2. Therefore we have good reason to think that [post-Galilean, post-Cartesian, mechanistic] science can explain everything that there is to explain.

And that sort of argument is no better than this one:

1. Metal detectors have had far greater success in finding coins and other metallic objects in more places than any other method has.

2. Therefore we have good reason to think that metal detectors can reveal to us everything that there is to be revealed.

For those interested, Feser also deals with an objection to that here.

Thus, I wish to warn my readers about a mild scientism coming up in the future in the book. The sad reality is too many readers will think I am anti-science. Not a bit. I am for using a proper methodology in its right field. A table knife is a just right tool to spread peanut butter on a sandwich for lunch. A chainsaw doesn’t work as well, but that says nothing about one’s overall view of table knives or chainsaws.

On page 26 Carrier says “Above all, I have a clear sense of always improving myself and my worldview, a sign that I am indeed approaching the truth, and am with every step closer to it.”

It is a wonder to read this and see how this could be known. An obvious problem that should leap out to anyone is there are numerous Christian philosophers who would say the same thing. There are Christians in history who would all say the same thing. We all think we’re approaching the truth and we all think we’re improving ourselves and our worldview. Does that mean we’re all closer to the truth? Carrier is getting deeper and deeper in his atheism. Okay. Mike Licona is getting deeper and deeper in his Christianity. Are both of them approaching the truth? How could they both be when both of them are diametrically opposed?

There are other steps one would take. One would want to read that with which one disagrees. One would interact with disagreement. One would seek to get the best scholarship in any field. There would definitely be any testing and living out of one’s ideas to see how they apply in the schoolhouse of life.

After all, everyone thinks they’re approaching the truth. I can say I have refined my view drastically in all my years of study. I would certainly say I am closer to the truth, but I am constantly reading to see where I am at and interacting with others who disagree. Does that mean I’m necessarily approaching the truth. I would hope I am, but it could be tomorrow I will make a discovery that leads in the opposite direction. What then? Will I then turn and say the same thing after a few years?

As we move on to the chapter on words, there’s really not much to critique here. I will instead pull out a few points to consider.

On page 29, Carrier writes that

“Naturally, applying this first principle to itself, it follows that if we can find any proposition that has meaning but does not make any predictions, or that makes predictions that does not have any meaning, or that can be confirmed as true or false without any reference to what it predicts, then this principle would have to be revised, and my entire philosophy reconstructed from the ground up (unless the revision has no other consequence than to expand or qualify what was already established). So it is important to see if I’ve got it right here, and equally important that I help you grasp what I am talking about. In the process, you will get a taste of different aspects of my whole philosophy, on which I expand in later chapters.”

But as David Wood has said, these statements do exist. Tautologies and contradictions. See the examples above.

I suppose it’s time for a total overhaul.

Carrier also goes against Plantinga’s idea of Warranted Christian belief. I’d leave it to Plantinga to defend it, though I doubt he’d even bother. My own position is more of a common sense realism. Yes. The world outside of my mind exists. How do you know?

You tell me why I shouldn’t.

As soon as I accept the claim that I need to demonstrate this, I am no longer a realist. I see no reason to deny the reality of the material world any more than I see a reason to think the universe popped into existence five minutes ago with false memories in my mind and false food in my stomach. Carrier could say could exist anyone why they believe in the material world and they’d point to evidence. I wouldn’t. Every bit of evidence could be assumed under an idealist system. Kicking a rock done not refute Berkeley. (Berkeley was a bishop who was an empiricist and held to the non-existence of matter. While I disagree, it would be difficult for many of us to refute the arguments he puts forward in his dialogues.)

Eventually, the idealist path gets us to where Carrier arrives, and I’m not surprised, and that is the place of the Cartesian demon. Maybe it’s really an evil power outside of me that’s causing everything and just leading me to think my beliefs are true.

And again, I do not take such an idea seriously since I do not hold to any idealism. Could it be that such a power exists and is tricking me? Perhaps, but it would be up to my opponent to demonstrate that. Note also in my Thomistic arguments for God, His goodness is entailed as well in the arguments, hence many atheistic arguments against God really don’t even touch the arguments that I prefer to use. To critics out there, I also do not prefer to use most arguments used by Christian apologists today, such as the Kalam argument or the design argument. Part of that is also realizing my limitations. I have no study in science and therefore would not comment on the scientific aspects of such arguments.

In our next review, we will spend time looking at Carrier and method. There will not be much, but I hope it will provide some fun and informative interaction. For those wanting to get to the heart of the issues, be patient and wait. We will. (Though I will be regularly interspersing with posts about the podcast and some Christmas post as the holidays draw near.)

Book Plunge: Sense And Goodness Without God Part 1

Does Carrier really provide a good defense of metaphysical naturalism? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Carrier’s book is Sense and Goodness Without God, but it looks like it doesn’t deliver on either account. Going through this book will in fact be extremely laborious for anyone else who tries to do so. (I think of Allie’s repeated question of “You’re not finished with that yet?!” No love, I’m not.) The writing is entirely dry. There is apologies for that saying it will apply at the start, but it never picks up.

Of course, the real meat of a book is found in the arguments that it gives, and in this case, they’re not good at all. We get the sound of one-hand clapping largely, meaning there is often total neglect of arguments for the other side. For instance, in the long chapter on why there is no God, I was hoping I’d see the Thomistic arguments, my favorite ones, interacted with since so many people leave those out. Indeed, they weren’t. In fact, no theistic arguments were interacted with.

Another problem is that Carrier is too much of a polymath. He wants to write a little bit on everything, some of which the reader wonders what it has to do with metaphysical naturalism. Do I really need to know what Carrier’s views are on politics in order to defend metaphysical naturalism? Does it really matter what he thinks about abstract art?

If I’m to take what’s in this book seriously, I am to believe that Carrier is an authority on linguistics, philosophy, morality, free-will debates, cosmology, evolution, theistic arguments, history, economics, art, interpretation of court cases, etc.

We could grant for the sake of argument that Carrier should be seen as an authority on one or two of the issues perhaps, but on all of them? Not a chance. Now there could be some basic study in other issues, but not enough to really be taken as an authority.

No problem! That’s what footnotes are for!

Except there aren’t any.

In fact, he explicitly says there aren’t any! On page 5 he says “I use no footnotes or endnotes.”

Hardly ever will you find a book and page number as a claim for where an argument came from. Instead, at the end of a section Carrier will list books you can read on the topic with the idea that if you read these books, somewhere in there you will find what backs what is being argued. Excuse me if I don’t want to order a dozen books and read through them to verify one claim that will be found somewhere in all of that.

When he does also mention someone he is arguing against, it is a wonder why he thinks that person should take him seriously. Why should Moreland or Plantinga really be interacting with what Carrier says? Does anyone think these credentialed philosophers are going to be listening to the words of someone like Carrier at this point? Now he’s free to make critiques of them, but if anyone will get the benefit of the doubt in this case, it will certainly be these credentialed philosophers. Of course they could be wrong, but I highly doubt that Carrier has shown the case from what I’ve read. For those wanting to see more on the philosophical issues, I recommend reading David Wood’s review.

Because there is so much problematic with this book then, I am not going to have a full review in one post. I am going to handle this as a multi-part process.

Carrier starts with the praise of philosophy. No problem with that! Yet too often in this book one will often find philosophy somehow morphs into science. That is something indeed problematic, but we will cross that bridge when we get to it.

Of course, I wonder if he has a right understanding of philosophy. Philosophy is not just thinking about stuff. It’s a rigorous process which is why one needs to be interacting with those who have best shown themselves to be authorities and to interact with those who have studied it on an academic level. Hence, while I am a Thomist, I will give a basic defense of my position, but then point to others who know far better than I do, like Edward Feser.

Carrier describes his religion as philosophy and says the following:

“Every hour that devout believers spend praying, reading Scripture, attending sermons and masses, I spend reading, thinking, honing my skill at getting at the truth and rooting out error. I imagine by most standards I have been far more devout than your average churchgoer. For I have spent over an hour every day of my life, since I began my teenage years, on this serious task of inquiry and reflection.” (page 4)

It’s nice to begin a book with a bit of hubris. Readers of Carrier’s book will not learn much about metaphysical naturalism, but they will learn much about Carrier.

On page 5, we find that he says “For all readers, I ask that my work be approached with the same intellectual charity you would expect from anyone else.”

I want readers to keep this in the back of their minds for now. If this is so, then when we get to Scriptural interpretation, we should see this intellectual charity. We won’t. He goes on along these lines on the same page and the following page to say:

“If what I say anywhere in this book appears to contradict, directly or indirectly, something else I say here, the principle of interpretive charity should be applied: assume you are misreading the meaning of what I said in each or either case. Whatever interpretation would eliminate the contradiction and produce agreement is probably correct. So you are encouraged in every problem that may trouble you to find that interpretation.”

I have no problem with this kind of idea. I have a problem with it not being consistent. Again, when we come to Scripture, will we find the same thing? Will we find a desire to try to work out supposed contradictions between events, or will we find there is not even an attempt. You don’t need a crystal ball (Which Carrier doesn’t believe in any way) to know the answer to that.

So since that was short and all of that in the first chapter, I’ll move on to the second for today as well.

This one deals with how Carrier got where he was. Carrier grew up in a background that had this idea that the text should clearly say something. Granted his church was not conservative. Still, there is this hang-up in most American churches today that the Bible should be clear to modern-day Americans. I always wonder why clear to us? Why not clear to 16th century Japanese or 19th century Germans or 13th century Chinese or 11th century Frenchmen or 9th century Italians or 1st century Jews?

You get the picture.

What hubris our culture has!

Carrier also asks why the Bible wasn’t saying much that seemed to be about what was on his mind. Why does it not talk about science or about Democracy? It never seems to register that these were not issues the biblical writers were wanting to talk about. That does not mean they’re unimportant to them. You won’t read hardly anything on my blog about nutrition or medical care, but that does not mean I find them more important. It simply means the focus is elsewhere.

On the other hand, gender equality was there as well to which I can’t help but wonder why Carrier wasn’t paying attention to the first chapter of Genesis? Man and woman are both created in the image of God.

On page 15, we read Carrier say that “In general, no divinely inspired text would be so long and rambling and hard to understand.” He goes on to say:

“The Bible is full of the superfluous–extensive genealogies of no relevance to the meaning of life or the nature of the universe, long digressions on barbaric rituals of bloodletting and taboo that have nothing to do with being a good person or advancing society toward greater happiness, lengthy diatribes against long-dead nations and constant harping on a coming doom and gloom, I asked myself: Would any wise compassionate being even allow this book to be attributed to him, much less be its author? Certainly not. How could Lao Tzu, a mere moral, who never claimed any superior powers or status, write better, more thoroughly, more concisely, about so much more than the Inspired Prophets of God.”

This boils down to an argument one sees repeated often in the book.

I would not do X if I was God.
God does X.
Therefore, this claim cannot be a claim of God.

Never does it occur to Carrier that the Bible is the story of the people of Israel and all of this information is indeed relevant to Israel. The genealogies matter greatly as for the ancient mindset, who you came from spoke volumes about who you were and your history. The judgments against nations that were long-dead would remind the Israelites of God’s faithfulness in doing what He said He would do, which would mean He could also be trusted in to do what He promised He would do through them. Finally, if the Christian claim is true, it means God has interacted to deal ultimately with the problem of evil in Christ. How can that not be towards the advancing of society?

Of course, I would not deny that one should read the great philosophers. I certainly think so. They comment on many issues the biblical writers did not comment on. I happen to enjoy going through the Golden Sayings of Epictetus for instance. Yet why should I think the Bible is written largely with the idea of telling me how to be a good person? That is in there, but that is not the main point of Christianity. The main point is how God is dealing with the problem of evil in Christ. Being a good person is part of that, but not the whole of the situation.

It’s not a shock also to find on page 16 the complaints about the God of the Bible. The picking up of sticks in Numbers 15, the idea of judgment through war on those who were opposed to Israel, genocide and fascism, slavery, etc. All of these have been seen numerous times before, but it’s nice to see that intellectual charity disappeared so quickly. No. You won’t find Carrier responding to responses to these. They’re just asserted.

Be wary always of the sound of one-hand clapping.

Carrier in fact on page 16 says “It does not good to try in desperation to make excuses for it. A good and wise man’s message would not need such excuses. It follows that the Bible was written neither by the wise nor the good.”

So let’s see what we have here.

A good and wise man’s message does not need excuses. (I’m sure Socrates would have liked to have known this when he was on trial. However, we see no defense of Carrier’s claim whatsoever.)
The message of the Bible needs defending. (No problem here.)
It follows then that the Bible is not from a good and wise man and certainly not God.

But it doesn’t! The first claim is not backed at all! How many good and wise men in history have had to give account for their actions? How many have written defenses of their own message? If Carrier ever has to defend himself from his critics, does that mean that he is not good and wise since if he had a good and wise message, it would not need defense?

It’s furthermore just a way of saying to avoid looking at the evidence on the other side. Why should someone not want to do that? Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do, especially if we are to follow the path of intellectual charity?

On page 17, Carrier says when he finished reading the Bible, that he declared that he was an atheist.

Really? The most you could declare is you think the Bible’s message is false. You certainly can’t get to atheism! There are so many more arguments for theism than just the Bible. Did Carrier not interact with them?

On page 18, Carrier talks about what the experience was of declaring himself an atheist in the society around him.

“For the first time, rather than being merely consistently pestered, I was being called names, and having hellfire wished upon me. It was a rude awakening.”

I am sure right now Christians in Sudan faced with death constantly are thankful they do not have it so rough. There’s real persecution. Carrier was called names and had hellfire wished on him.

This is amusing considering how just before he talked about the awful history of Christianity. He talks about the terrible things they’ve done and are still doing such as “trying to pass blasphemy laws to murdering doctors, from throwing eggs at atheists to killing their cats, from trying to dumb-down science education to acting holier-than-thou in pushing their skewed moral agenda upon government and industry alike.”

For murdering doctors, I suppose he’s talking about abortion doctors. If so, the huge huge huge majority of Christians stand outside abortion clinics and protest and offer help to those considering an abortion. This is entirely within their legal rights to do. For those who are bombing clinics and murdering doctors, we certainly condemn those, but this is the rare rare rare exception to the rule.

Of course, there’s always the great danger of having eggs thrown at someone and having their cats killed. I know I regularly go out and meet with my evangelical brethren. We get together at the grocery store and buy a mass of egg cartons and look for atheist houses and let loose! When we find their cats, we kill them and bring the corpse to church giving thanks that we tormented the atheist.

Of course, there are some legitimate problems in all of this. I have no desire to dumb down science education for instance and think Christians make a mistake when they treat the Bible as if teaching about science. At the same time, if someone wants to present evidence for a view like ID, for instance, a view I’m somewhat skeptical of as a Thomist, then let them do so. I’m open to it. As for holier-than-thou types, I have zero patience whatsoever with them. If Carrier thinks he finds Christians annoying, he’s not the only one.

Well Carrier certainly does show how he views the opposition. As he says on page 19 when writing about the Christianity he faces, “So great is the threat of this superstition against individuals, against society, against knowledge, against general human happiness, that it would be immoral to not fight it.” He later describes it as a crusade. (So apparently Carrier doesn’t condemn all Crusades.)

Sometimes people wonder why I speak in the language of battle. This is why. I believe the stakes are high and ironically, I see holding to an atheist system as a threat to society. Of course, to be sure, my idea of combat is only intellectual though I do use physical metaphors to explain the picture. I don’t doubt that Carrier has no desire to use physical violence either in this kind of debate, but I wonder if atheists in history have thought the same way.

We’ve only gone about 20 pages through and already there’s a lot to deal with. We’ll deal with even more next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters