blog comment re: new testament vs gnostics

On another blog Mr. P commented (in red):There are many more than four Gospels, all legitimate. The four that are included in the Bible were chosen for "political" reasons. For example, the Gospel of Thomas, well known when the Bible was assembled, was excluded because it contained information that the church leaders, of the time, did not want to be made known.

I responded:

I’ disagree. Only a minority of very liberal scholars (such as Helmut Koester and James Robinson and members of the Jesus Seminar) date Gospel of Thomas earlier than the gospel of John. But the scholarly consensus is that Thomas should be dated no earlier than around 150 CE. In fact, most see Thomas relying heavily on the canonical gospels.

For example, take Saying 65 in Thomas which gives a variation on the parable of the tenants found in Mark 12:1-8. Saying 66 then follows with Jesus teaching about the “cornerstone” or “keystone”(the parallel is found in Mark 12: 10-11).

Now, in Mark 12, verse 9 connects the parable with the “cornerstone” utterance. But in Thomas, there is nothing connecting Saying 65 with 66. The most likely reason that Saying 66 follows 65 is that this is simply the sequence found in Mark 12. So, it's much more likely that Thomas copied Mark than the canonical gospels copied Thomas. There are a number of times that this happens where Thomas follows the sequence of the canonical gospels. This points to Thomas being written after the canonical gospels, and again most scholars think it's approx. 150 CE.

The reasons the canonical gospels were accepted is simple: they were written early and contained the remembrances of eyewitnesses to Jesus life. Nothing political about it.

blog comment re: deconversions

(On a radio-show about deconversions, I left this comment)

I sympathize with people deconverting from theism if they were never given any intellectual basis for believing in god. It is no wonder then, that for many people, mainly emotional and psychological factors influence their decision. But for those who claim to have seriously thought about the rational ramifications of god’s existence or non-existence, I would expect more careful deliberations and more modest conclusions.

Take for example the statements from T. and D. Rather than atheism, the reasons they give should lead them at the very least to agnosticism.

They make the following points (in red):

1) All religions couldn’t be right, so they’re all wrong

- Actually, you could end up with two possible conclusions: a)All religions are wrong, or b) at least one religion is right and the others are wrong. It does not necessarily follow that ALL religions are wrong.

2) There is no empirical evidence for god; and

3) There has to be a beginning but what came before that?

- If god is a spirit being, why would one expect to find direct empirical evidence? This commits a category mistake (like asking what the colour blue taste like – although a synesthete could probably tell us). But, a more modest approach looks like this – the empirical evidence shows that there are some features of the universe that make it suggestive of something beyond the universe, features like the intricate design and fine-tuning of the constants of physics. And in particular the initial conditions of the big bang were themselves fine-tuned, so nothing in the universe itself could have done the fine-tuning.

- And the beginning of the universe points to a beginner. Anything that begins to exist requires a cause. This doesn’t lead us to atheism. It leads us to ask: Where did the universe come from and who or what brought it into being? An all-powerful and all-knowing god is certainly a good candidate.

4) The fact that anything exists doesn’t make any sense whatsoever

- In other words: Why is there something rather than nothing? Indeed, why? And why would atheism be considered a better answer than some form of theism? If atheism is true, then it makes it more likely that there is no explanation for our existence or the existence of the universe. But effects require causes. Again, god seems like a good candidate.

5) You can’t prove a negative

- This is actually a problem for the atheist. The atheist says that god does not exist. This is a negative universal existence claim, the most difficult kind of claim to demonstrate. The atheist would be on safer ground if he took the more modest position of agnosticism.

Theists have arguments for god’s existence. One can disagree with them but they are there. If one objects that god cannot be argued for rationally, I ask, why not? Simply saying so doesn’t make it so. And so that no one accuses me of simply saying that “god exists” is so because I say it’s so, here’s a few arguments for god:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm

blog response re: God

On another blog Mr. F commented (in red) [partially edited]:

I, too, might believe in a creator if someone could tell me where the creator came from, not to mention the creator's creator, and ....
I'm amused by people who claim things are the way they are because some god "fine-tuned" everything to make it work, not because that's just how things worked out after the big bang.
How come you people aren't out there rejoicing in the fact that their all-controlling god has given us earthquakes, drought, cancer and all the rest of life's goodies?

I responded (in blue)

“…where the creator came from, not to mention the creator’s creator…”
Who created the creator? First, Christian theology has always taught that God is uncreated. This is the definition all (both theists and atheists) accept (even if it turns out that no God exists). There seems to be no point in objecting to a being that no traditional Christian actually believes in.

And asking the question is a category mistake, like asking what the note C# tastes like (with apologies to synesthetes). You’re asking for the cause of an uncaused being. The appropriate response to the christian claim that an uncaused creator exists is not to ask, "Who created god?", but rather to present a counter-argument that states, "Such a god does not exist because of the following reasons...".


Second, as philosophers point out, to recognize that an explanation is the best one, you don’t need to know the explanation of that explanation. If we discovered a complex piece of machinery on one of Jupiter's moons, we would immediately infer that some intelligent being created it, even if we had no clue who these beings were and where they came from.

Requiring an explanation for the explanation would lead us into an infinite regress, and nothing would be explained at all. This type of thinking would end up destroying science.



The late philosopher of science, Peter Lipton wrote:
“The why-regress is a feature of the logic of explanation that many of us discovered as children, to our parents' cost. I vividly recall the moment it dawned on me that, whatever my mother's answer to my latest why-question, I could simply retort by asking 'Why?' of the answer itself, until my mother ran out of answers or patience...

[But] explanations need not themselves be understood. A drought may explain a poor crop, even if we don't understand why there was a drought; I understand why you didn't come to the party if you explain you had a bad headache, even if I have no idea why you had a headache; the big bang explains the background radiation, even if the big bang is itself inexplicable, and so on...
...the [why-regress] argument brings out the important facts that explanations can be chained, and that what explains need not itself be understood...”




Third, there are only 2 explanations for the existence of any being: a) it's explanation is internal to itself (i.e. it is necessary – its nonexistence is impossible) or b) it depends on something(s) outside of itself (i.e. it is contingent – it didn’t have to exist). If one accepts that the universe is the sum total of contingent beings, and since it began to exist, its cause must be a necessary, uncaused being.



“…because that’s just how things worked out after the big bang.”
The fine tuning includes the precise balance of initial conditions given in the big bang itself. The fine tuning did not just work itself out after the beginning of the universe and it is highly improbable naturalistically.



“earthquakes, etc.”
Moral order requires natural order. A world characterized by orderly physical laws is necessary for responsible human action. We need nature to behave in regular ways to know the effects of our actions. If we jump off a cliff we know what will happen based on the law of gravity, for example. These laws are capable of producing both beneficial and harmful effects. The water needed to live can also drown you. Natural disasters and diseases follow these same physical laws.

Hollywood's Hero Deficit

Maybe Hollywood needs to start its own version of the tea party.

See here