A Review of Atheism: The Case Against Christianity

[Apologiaphoenix]

What are my thoughts on chapter one?

The link can be found here.

------

What do I think of Matthew McCormick's book? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was asked by someone to read this book and see what I thought about it. I was expecting to see a really strong case. McCormick is a Ph.D. in philosophy. While it's not history, philosophers usually tend to be really good thinkers and I was really thinking I'd see more of the same.

In fact, the book started out with a lot of promise on why we should believe something and that the benefits we get from believing something don't entail the truth of that something. All of this had a lot of promise to it. Unfortunately, that promise died quickly. It died so quickly that I soon realized that to review this book, I would need to do a lot more than just one blog post. McCormick's book is full of errors and bad analogies and show really the same typical approaches from atheistic writers.

It's also worth noting that I don't get much hope still when I see the acknowledgments include thanks to John Loftus and Richard Carrier. I saw both names and thought "Well maybe he'll make a better case anyway." I was disappointed.

At the start, McCormick is partially right when he says at location 71 that "A God who performs miracles to accomplish his ends, prove his divinity, and foster belief is the foundation of the Christian religion---as well as many other religions." I would not say the resurrection is there to prove that YHWH is divine for instance. It would not even be to prove that Jesus was divine per se. Many of us have this idea that the Gospels were written to show Jesus is fully God and fully man. While they do that, that is not their purpose.

I also think McCormick is wrong about miracles. For instance, classical Islam only claims one miracle, the Koran itself. Buddhism would not have miracles and they do not fit well in Hinduism either. You could look at a more modern religion like Mormonism, but as we'll see later on, that builds on a Christian foundation already.

Still, McCormick is right that a God who performs miracles is essential for the Christian religion. You can take the miracles out of Christianity and you might have a nice ethical system, but you do not have a religion. Jesus is just another great teacher and frankly, we've had a hard time listening to great teachers already anyway.

I also wonder what McCormick means when he says "We must reject attempts to redefine God in some nonliteral fashion." (Loc. 94) Why must we do this? Should I believe God literally in His nature has a body and that passages speaking about the hand of the Lord are literal? Would it surprise McCormick to know that a lot of passages that we might think are "literal" today were not seen that way by the early church because that would not be seen as fitting for the glory of God?

Now to say something I definitely agree with, I agree at loc. 102 when McCormick says "If the typical claims about Jesus are true---he is the son of God, he died for our sins, his forgiveness promises eternal salvation, he was resurrected from the dead, and so on---then he is the most important person in human history." One would think with such a recognition that McCormick would take the case more seriously. As we will see, he does not.

McCormick also at 149 has the usual atheistic view of faith. "Faith is how we describe believing when the evidence by itself, as we see it, does not provide adequate justification, but we are motivated to believe anyway by hope." Of course, I have my own view on faith. While McCormick's view might be what Joe Christian means today, it is not what the Biblical writers meant and if we are approaching the Biblical text to see what it says, we need to see what the authors meant.

I do agree also at Loc. 173 that if the historical facts do not matter, then all religions are on the same footing, insofar as they claim to be true. Christianity is a historical religion. That needs to be acknowledged. This isn't about events that happened long long ago in a galaxy far far away. These are events that happened at a real place and a real time.

Around 211, McCormick points out that Carrier says Herodotus mentions several bizarre events that took place at a battle. Many of these are fascinating, but unfortunately, McCormick is not a researcher. In fact, there isn't even a primary source cited but rather just a reference to Carrier himself. A researcher when seeing these claims would want to know "Where does Herodotus say them and what is the explanation?" "What is the distance between the events and the time of writing?" "What do leading historical scholars, especially those specializing in Herodotus, say about these events?" Unfortunately, these are not asked. As we will see later, the evidence for Jesus is far better.

There's also of course something on science and Christianity. After making a case for evolution, McCormick says at 266 that "These discoveries are at odds with Christian views of sin, vice, weakness of will, or the magical transmission of moral guilt across centuries from Adam and Eve on to their remote descendants." One wonders what would happen if McCormick came across Christians that have no problem with the idea of evolution. Perhaps it is not Christians that have the problem with literalism but rather atheists?

I also agree at loc. 334 that a miracle is not just a fortuitous event, though I think describing it as a violation of the laws of nature is problematic, and I will have more on that when we discuss miracles later on. I do think sometimes it can be a fortuitous event. Let's suppose the Red Sea parting happened and it was due to a wind and that this does happen from time to time as is claimed. The miracle then is not that it happened, but that it happened when it happened.

Of course, McCormick is right throughout that we must take the evidence seriously and that we shouldn't believe just because we like the outcomes of Christian belief or it makes us good people. The question will be, does McCormick have a case? As we will see, he does not.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

[I am Ivo, hear me roar]

McCormick is a Ph.D. in philosophy. While it's not history, philosophers usually tend to be really good thinkers and I was really thinking I'd see more of the same.

I think what prevents McCormick from being a good thinker is his ideological extremism, which lends itself to simplistic, black-and-white (and dare I say "fundamentalist") thinking.

I say McCormick's an extremist because of postings such as this one in which he argues that parents who raise their children to believe in a religion are "not fit" as parents. He even hints it might be appropriate for the State to intervene in such cases, just as it intervenes "[i]f there is outright physical, sexual, or emotional abuse."

In another posting, McCormick gives this advice:

Given what we know about mental illness and about the best arguments that advocates have been able to muster for God, our first thought when we encounter someone with intense religious convictions should not be to take his/her arguments or reasonings too seriously but to ask, "What are the symptoms of mental illness that she is exhibiting?"

Yes, when confronted with someone whose worldview is contrary to your own, don't seriously consider his/her arguments. Instead, you should just attempt amateur psychoanalysis on the person.

This from a guy who teaches courses on logic and critical thinking?

I also love how in his posting, McCormick seems to think that having access to the Wikipedia qualifies him to make psychological/psychiatric diagnoses.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Of course dude. Wikipedia makes you an expert on everything.

[JimL]

What are my thoughts on chapter one?

The link can be found here.

------

What do I think of Matthew McCormick's book? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was asked by someone to read this book and see what I thought about it. I was expecting to see a really strong case. McCormick is a Ph.D. in philosophy. While it's not history, philosophers usually tend to be really good thinkers and I was really thinking I'd see more of the same.

In fact, the book started out with a lot of promise on why we should believe something and that the benefits we get from believing something don't entail the truth of that something. All of this had a lot of promise to it. Unfortunately, that promise died quickly. It died so quickly that I soon realized that to review this book, I would need to do a lot more than just one blog post. McCormick's book is full of errors and bad analogies and show really the same typical approaches from atheistic writers.

It's also worth noting that I don't get much hope still when I see the acknowledgments include thanks to John Loftus and Richard Carrier. I saw both names and thought "Well maybe he'll make a better case anyway." I was disappointed.

At the start, McCormick is partially right when he says at location 71 that "A God who performs miracles to accomplish his ends, prove his divinity, and foster belief is the foundation of the Christian religion---as well as many other religions." I would not say the resurrection is there to prove that YHWH is divine for instance. It would not even be to prove that Jesus was divine per se. Many of us have this idea that the Gospels were written to show Jesus is fully God and fully man. While they do that, that is not their purpose.

I also think McCormick is wrong about miracles. For instance, classical Islam only claims one miracle, the Koran itself. Buddhism would not have miracles and they do not fit well in Hinduism either. You could look at a more modern religion like Mormonism, but as we'll see later on, that builds on a Christian foundation already.

Still, McCormick is right that a God who performs miracles is essential for the Christian religion. You can take the miracles out of Christianity and you might have a nice ethical system, but you do not have a religion. Jesus is just another great teacher and frankly, we've had a hard time listening to great teachers already anyway.

I also wonder what McCormick means when he says "We must reject attempts to redefine God in some nonliteral fashion." (Loc. 94) Why must we do this? Should I believe God literally in His nature has a body and that passages speaking about the hand of the Lord are literal? Would it surprise McCormick to know that a lot of passages that we might think are "literal" today were not seen that way by the early church because that would not be seen as fitting for the glory of God?

Now to say something I definitely agree with, I agree at loc. 102 when McCormick says "If the typical claims about Jesus are true---he is the son of God, he died for our sins, his forgiveness promises eternal salvation, he was resurrected from the dead, and so on---then he is the most important person in human history." One would think with such a recognition that McCormick would take the case more seriously. As we will see, he does not.

McCormick also at 149 has the usual atheistic view of faith. "Faith is how we describe believing when the evidence by itself, as we see it, does not provide adequate justification, but we are motivated to believe anyway by hope." Of course, I have my own view on faith. While McCormick's view might be what Joe Christian means today, it is not what the Biblical writers meant and if we are approaching the Biblical text to see what it says, we need to see what the authors meant.

I do agree also at Loc. 173 that if the historical facts do not matter, then all religions are on the same footing, insofar as they claim to be true. Christianity is a historical religion. That needs to be acknowledged. This isn't about events that happened long long ago in a galaxy far far away. These are events that happened at a real place and a real time.

Around 211, McCormick points out that Carrier says Herodotus mentions several bizarre events that took place at a battle. Many of these are fascinating, but unfortunately, McCormick is not a researcher. In fact, there isn't even a primary source cited but rather just a reference to Carrier himself. A researcher when seeing these claims would want to know "Where does Herodotus say them and what is the explanation?" "What is the distance between the events and the time of writing?" "What do leading historical scholars, especially those specializing in Herodotus, say about these events?" Unfortunately, these are not asked. As we will see later, the evidence for Jesus is far better.

There's also of course something on science and Christianity. After making a case for evolution, McCormick says at 266 that "These discoveries are at odds with Christian views of sin, vice, weakness of will, or the magical transmission of moral guilt across centuries from Adam and Eve on to their remote descendants." One wonders what would happen if McCormick came across Christians that have no problem with the idea of evolution. Perhaps it is not Christians that have the problem with literalism but rather atheists?

I also agree at loc. 334 that a miracle is not just a fortuitous event, though I think describing it as a violation of the laws of nature is problematic, and I will have more on that when we discuss miracles later on. I do think sometimes it can be a fortuitous event. Let's suppose the Red Sea parting happened and it was due to a wind and that this does happen from time to time as is claimed. The miracle then is not that it happened, but that it happened when it happened.

Of course, McCormick is right throughout that we must take the evidence seriously and that we shouldn't believe just because we like the outcomes of Christian belief or it makes us good people. The question will be, does McCormick have a case? As we will see, he does not.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

So far, sounds like he's got a good case to me, but do go on.

[Abigail]

I think what prevents McCormick from being a good thinker is his ideological extremism, which lends itself to simplistic, black-and-white (and dare I say "fundamentalist") thinking.

I say McCormick's an extremist because of postings such as this one in which he argues that parents who raise their children to believe in a religion are "not fit" as parents. He even hints it might be appropriate for the State to intervene in such cases, just as it intervenes "[i]f there is outright physical, sexual, or emotional abuse."

In another posting, McCormick gives this advice:



Yes, when confronted with someone whose worldview is contrary to your own, don't seriously consider his/her arguments. Instead, you should just attempt amateur psychoanalysis on the person.

This from a guy who teaches courses on logic and critical thinking?

I also love how in his posting, McCormick seems to think that having access to the Wikipedia qualifies him to make psychological/psychiatric diagnoses.

This is exactly like the extreme left in UK. They are not interested in other peoples' point of view only their own and the more they take power (ironically because of the Christian freedoms they have enjoyed), the more we will see their real metal and it is violent, repressive and abusive.

Affording dialogue about what we allow in the public space and allowing people to a large extent to decide for themselves how they live their lives etc is in my view only something that comes out of Christianity. Unfortunately it is only when people acknowlege God, that a free and beneficial society can thrive. It is a combination of the freedoms a system built on Christianity inherently has and man's increasing refusal to acknowlege the author of that system - God, that is fast giving way to the totalitarian thinking we see on the increase today. How can Biblical warnings like " 'All things are lawful for me' but not all things are beneficial" be appreciated by people who refuse to accept that God knows better than them what is beneficial for mankind. Indeed they even argue that their lives are only fulfilled when they follow the lusts of their flesh.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Part 2.

The link can be found here.

-----

What do I think of the second chapter of McCormick's book? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

As we come to the second chapter, we get to the history of the Jesus story. Now I have to say that while the first chapter gave me some hope, pretty much everything else from then on goes downhill and it keeps getting worse and worse. Every night when I close my Kindle, I go to sleep astounded that someone could just be so unbelievably uninformed of what they write about.

To begin with, at location 482, when it comes to Jesus, McCormick tells us that the existence of such a person is an active point of some disagreement.

Sure. If he wants to say the age of the Earth or the idea of evolution are also active points of disagreement. Now I'm sure he'd say those are settled questions, but you will find more authorities in the field who question those claims than you will find those who question the existence of Jesus. Still, McCormick buys into the idea that there's some debate going on about the existence of Jesus. As Jonathan Bernier says

And on those matters Carrier fails, as has been shown repeatedly by various NT scholars, professional and amateur, here on the interwebs (which, one should note, is just about the only place that this "debate" is taking place. It's certainly not taking place in the academy. Kinda like what fundamentalist Christians euphemistically call the evolution "debate"; the debate, it turns out, exists primarily in their heads).

Unfortunately, as we go through this book, we will see more of the same. Regularly McCormick will speak of events like the alleged crucifixion and such. Most of us back in reality have realized that when someone is open even to mythicism, they're pretty much entirely unreliable on history.

McCormick will also say the Gospels were not by the people attributed to them and they do not contain eyewitness testimony. Of course, it would be good to have claims like these to be backed. I realize there are many scholars who would hold to this, but McCormick doesn't even bother making an attempt to name any such scholars. Instead, it's just thrown out there. One would think that if you were making a case, you might do something bizarre like, I don't know, make a case.

McCormick tries to respond to the idea of Jewish oral tradition and says the problem with saying the Gospel stories were handed down that way is that Jesus was seen as a radical new teacher so why would His teaching be preserved in Jewish oral tradition. It's simply amazing that someone thinks that this is an argument. Did the Jews use a different rule for memorization with their tradition than they did for anything else? Are they not aware that rabbis would quote teachings from other rabbis and who they received them from? Is McCormick not aware that even in non-Jewish societies oral tradition is still a reality and even in some parts of the world today still is? Oral tradition is not married to Judaism. Judaism uses oral tradition, but it's not the case that oral tradition uses Judaism.

Instead, Jesus's teachings as a rabbi himself would be memorized the same way. It's also fair to say that Jesus as a traveling teacher would give the same parable or sermon more than once. Just this month, I have spoken at two different churches and given essentially the same talk. Of course there are variations in what I say, but the talk is still the same. Are we to think that something like the Prodigal Son was told only one time and that was it? Jesus was completely different from every other teacher in that He taught a message once and never repeated it?

Jesus also used aphorisms. These are short pithy sayings that are easy to remember. Judge not lest you also be judged. What profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul? These are short sayings that would be readily remembered.

Not only that, there's also the point that in an age without post-it notes and computers to recall information, that people will rely on memory more and have better memories. A good researcher would have interacted with memorization at the time of Jesus and in oral traditions. Unfortunately, McCormick does not do this because he is not a good researcher.

At 512, McCormick says it's relevant that none of the original Gospels or any other NT documents have survived. For people who don't know a thing about ancient history and the transmission of documents, this can seem like a powerful point. For anyone who's read anything on the topic, it doesn't matter at all. Reality is I don't know of a single original ancient document we have. All we have in every case is copies. If McCormick wants to know how the NT stacks up with relation to copies in comparison to all other ancient manuscripts, we have far more manuscripts and such of the NT, in far more languages, and far closer to the time of the original writing than any other ancient document bar none.

Of course, don't count on McCormick to tell you this. No. McCormick is simply a popularizer of tired old canards that only appeal to uninformed atheists that want something to make them think they have a stumper. They don't. It's quite sad that McCormick quotes Ehrman's book on the NT and how we have copies of copies of copies and thinks he has a point. McCormick. Did you read to the end of the book, like I did?

In spite of these remarkable [textual] differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy. Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 481.

McCormick also says that even if we talk about the preponderance of documents later on, that doesn't prove their accuracy and more than a million copies of Sherlock Holmes proves he was a real person. Could someone please find the scholar who is arguing that because we have multiple copies of the NT that it must be true? Please let him know he's doing us a disservice.

Oh wait. That's not being said at all. All that's being asked by textual criticism is "Do we have what was originally written?" Whether it is true or not is completely irrelevant at this point. Once again, someone informed on the topic would know this, which is why McCormick doesn't.

Of course, McCormick has something to say about canonization. After all, there was a vast number of works floating around the Roman Empire by Christians and by the heretics as well and such and only a few made it in the canon. In trying to find which ones belonged in the canon and which ones didn't, McCormick says "A variety of criteria drove this separation." Now someone who really wanted to know about history and this process would then say "Ah. What were these criteria? Why did the Gospel of Matthew make it in and the Gospel of Thomas didn't?" These would be good to know. All McCormick points to is ideological and political disputes.

Well for those who don't know since McCormick hasn't informed you, let me list some criteria. First, was the text written by an apostle or the associate of an apostle. Now McCormick might think that it wasn't written by those people, but the question was did the church think it was? Second, was it accepted by the church as a whole? One little community over here liking the Gospel of Peter does not mean everyone thinks it should be canonical. Third, was it in line with what was known to be from the apostles?

These would all be helpful to know about, but of course, McCormick doesn't mention them. It's also important to note that the debate also was more cautious than anything. Many books we have today were heavily disputed and claims of authorship are nothing new. These were debated even then.

If he wants to know about the other Gospels, well one thing he could do is read them. If you read through the Gospel of Thomas, you will find that it really doesn't fit with the picture of Jesus. Also, all of these works are extremely late. All the canonical Gospels can be dated to the first century. The other Gospels come later long after all the apostles have died.

Naturally, McCormick has something about the accounts being written 30-100 years later. (Although I highly question the 100 date.) One wonders what McCormick thinks about the fact that this describes practically every work in ancient history. How skeptical is he of events that are written about when they're all this late? McCormick also would have you think that the writers had no clue about the story and then just wrote it down. Could it not be that they're out there teaching about what they've seen and then after years of speaking about it decide to write it down? Such ideas never come to McCormick. Again, this is because McCormick is just not a good researcher in this area.

McCormick also quotes Ehrman thinking that it's astounding that no two manuscripts of the NT we have are identical. Well geez. What's so scary about this? Most differences we notice are slips of the pen or spelling mistakes. They're easily detectable. Sometimes, there would be manuscript changes that were intentional and not for malignant reasons. Suppose you're writing out the text for the sermon this Sunday at your church in the ancient world. You start out with a section about Jesus going into the city and it starts with "He went into the city." Well your audience might not know who He is, so you just put in "Jesus went into the city." This is a change that could take place and it's easily noticeable. McCormick instead thinks like a conspiracy theorist as if there's some grand cover-up and by noticing that there are differences in the manuscripts, he's shown the emperor has no clothes. These differences were known from the beginning in church history. McCormick is just 1,800 years behind the times.

Naturally also, McCormick does not interact with 1 Cor. 15 significantly at all, despite this being the earliest account we have of the resurrection story. There is nothing about it being an oral tradition that can date to at the latest about five years after the events. (Note for atheist readers who don't pay attention to scholarship. I'm not saying the letter of 1 Cor. 15 dates to this time but the material in the creed in this text does.)

McCormick does say that if believing requires more or different scholarship than he has given, then most Christians have ungrounded belief. With this, I agree. I am not saying all Christians need to be reading scholarship constantly, but churches need to be educating their laypeople on what the scholars in the field are saying so that Christians have more than a testimony and a feeling to back their worldview. Of course, McCormick himself has unreasonable grounds for his unbelief.

McCormick also says that what Christians also did is just made a document based on what they already believed and then noted how it all fit together so well. It's amazing that he says this after talking about all the divergencies in the resurrection accounts. Of course, I've already pointed out what went into canonization and there were plenty of works that McCormick could have read, such as writers like Lee MacDonald or Michael Kreuger, but sadly he doesn't avail himself of those.

McCormick also says that with our sources, we have a disturbingly short list for the most important event in human history. Of course, McCormick says this as someone in a post-Gutenberg culture who believes the written word is the best way to establish anything. One also wonders who else should have written about this? Why should they? McCormick doesn't answer those questions. He just says we don't have enough writings. How many do we need before he thinks the case deserves a fairer hearing? If this is the most important event, would a thousand be enough? Ten thousand? How many?

While no doubt not everything in this chapter has been covered, enough has been. McCormick is speaking about matters he knows not. It's a shame he's seen as an authority for some reason.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

[One Bad Pig]

At 512, McCormick says it's relevant that none of the original Gospels or any other NT documents have survived. For people who don't know a thing about ancient history and the transmission of documents, this can seem like a powerful point. For anyone who's read anything on the topic, it doesn't matter at all. Reality is I don't know of a single original ancient document we have. All we have in every case is copies. If McCormick wants to know how the NT stacks up with relation to copies in comparison to all other ancient manuscripts, we have far more manuscripts and such of the NT, in far more languages, and far closer to the time of the original writing than any other ancient document bar none.

It would be more accurate to say that we have no consequential original ancient documents. I'm sure a lot of the tax receipts and letters found at Oxyrhynchus are originals, and we have a document signed by Theodosius the Great from the early 5th century.

[Apologiaphoenix]

It would be more accurate to say that we have no consequential original ancient documents. I'm sure a lot of the tax receipts and letters found at Oxyrhynchus are originals, and we have a document signed by Theodosius the Great from the early 5th century.

Sure. Of course, for the most part, these are accounts that people would not copy.

[psstein]

It would be more accurate to say that we have no consequential original ancient documents. I'm sure a lot of the tax receipts and letters found at Oxyrhynchus are originals, and we have a document signed by Theodosius the Great from the early 5th century.

I would add the Ugarit findings (primarily receipts as well).

However, I think Nick's point largely stands. Outside of tablets (from Egypt, Assyria, and the like), our knowledge of many ancient documents depends on a handful of manuscripts.

About the NT manuscripts: I think Ehrman (and by extension, McCormick) is only posing a difficulty for KJV-only believers. If you use any modern translation (NRSV, NAB, ESV, NIV, etc.), then the manuscript evidence has been taken into account.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Chapter 3.

The link can be found here.

------

Do the Salem Witch Trials disprove Christianity? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I'll be quite blunt at the start and say the Salem Witch Trials is not anything I've really looked into specifically. Of course, that means that when I approach them, I'm going to be agnostic. I do not claim to know what exactly happened there and I would really have to study the historical data. If any readers have any comments and some good sources to recommend, I welcome them.

McCormick begins with what is often said about the NT by Christians. We do have eyewitness accounts. We have the early church was persecuted. We have archaeology verifying many of the claims of the NT of a historical nature. This is all good, but now McCormick switches to the Salem Witch Trials. What happened?

He points out that there you have people claiming to see witchcraft going on. They all came from diverse backgrounds and social strata. They were all passionately convinced. People had a great deal to lose if they were wrong, such as friends and family. McCormick says it seems very unlikely that there would be an ulterior motive for being able to risk putting friends and family on trial.

McCormick says the accounts were investigated and we have hundreds of documents from the time. He claims we have enough documents to fill a truck. What was going on?

McCormick says he is of course not making a case for real witchcraft. It is a hypothesis, but one he doesn't consider likely. He says it is not the best or most probable one. The point he wants to establish is that the accused were not witches and you and I probably do not believe that.

Now to be fair, I'm skeptical, but I would like to see what was going on then and what the better explanations were. What explanation would best explain the data that we have? Therefore, as I come at this as someone who has not studied the events, I look and see what can explain it. I wonder if McCormick can do that for me or not.

Now of course, McCormick has statements about the Gospel stories being hearsay and anecdotal and such. We will look at that more in later chapters, but naturally, he doesn't at all bother to interact with 1 Cor. 15. We'll also find he doesn't really back his claims about the Gospels and the historical information we have, but I want readers to know that this is going to be discussed in a later chapter.

McCormick thinks with his comparison, there are three things a believer can do. The first is bite the bullet. He might lower his threshold of evidence to accept both claims. Now to clarify, this isn't my claim yet. My claim is simply that I don't know and I prefer to not speak on a subject I don't know about. Of course, I'm skeptical, but I'm not going to approach the data and say "I want to know what happened. Witchcraft is ruled out." McCormick says we shouldn't accept real witchcraft though because the best explanation doesn't involve that.

In this also, McCormick says lots of religions claim exclusivity and they do so on the basis of their historical miracles.

Okay.

Like what?

McCormick gives no examples. For Islam for instance, the only miracle I understand to be certain is the Koran. Buddhism is atheistic classically and miracles would prove nothing. Hinduism meanwhile is pantheistic. Miracles don't fit. Mormonism could be close, but even this one is supposed to be built on a prior Christian worldview. Even still if I grant just Mormonism, then that's just one. I can't help but think of the words of Sheldon Cooper.


https://youtu.be/OBfsEvizyk8

McCormick also asks "How does the evangelical Christian, who explicitly denies the doctrines of other Christian denominations, explain the widespread occurrence of miracles in those churches that seem to legitimate their actions?" (Loc. 895)

Like what?

I mean, I know many Pentecostals claim miracles, but I don't know any who would say "Therefore Pentecostalism is the one true faith and all other denominations are hellbound." I also don't think many would say that therefore everything they believe about God is absolutely right. McCormick acts as if a miracle can only happen because God wants to give a big affirmation to a movement. That could be, but it doesn't necessitate it.

I have no problem accepting miracles in other religions for instance. Perhaps God is giving some common grace to someone. Perhaps there is demonic activity going on with false wonders. I do not know. I'm also fine with that. The main point is I have no problem explaining it.

Now let's put the shoe on the other foot. Let's go to McCormick and say that how does he explain it if there is one bona fide miracle and there is no natural cause whatsoever? McCormick's worldview is in a bind then. Mine isn't. Chesterton said years ago that the theist believes in a miracle, rightly or wrongly, because of the evidence. The atheist disbelieves, rightly or wrongly, because he has a dogma against them.

McCormick also says that if some other entity is acting, then one of the central pillars of the natural sciences has been undermined. (loc. 910) He asks if my evidence for the resurrection is better than thinking the entire scientific enterprise's naturalistic worldview is correct.

First off, there are plenty of scientists who do not share a naturalistic worldview. Consider Francis Collins or John Polkinghorne. What McCormick means is "Is my evidence for the resurrection better than the evidence for naturalism held by atheistic scientists."

The answer is yes. I do not find the naturalistic worldview at all convincing. McCormick has given me no reason to think that it is and seems to have this strange idea that miracles undermine science. Why? We are not told. Science only tells you what happens if there is no outside interference. The fact that an outside agent could interfere does not mean there are no processes that would happen on their own regardless.

In fact, miracles rely on a natural order being a given. After all, if there is no natural order, then how could you recognize a miracle? If there is no natural order, you drop a rock and it falls. The next time it floats through the sky. The next time it shoots like a rocket through your neighbor's window. (Interestingly, the rock dropping idea comes from Hume who did decide to argue against miracles. Wonder why he wanted it both ways.) It is only if rocks consistently fall can you recognize a miracle if one does not. It is only if dead people stay dead and virgins don't give birth that you can recognize a miracle if a dead person returns to life and if a virgin gives birth. (And of course, I do affirm the virgin birth.)

This is simple thinking. It's a wonder McCormick doesn't see this, but in these statements he has just revealed his hand and said he would not believe in miracles because his own worldview will not allow it. Well it's nice to know who's coming to the evidence with their presuppositions ready.

The second response McCormick says can be taken is to deny the analogy. He says this is doomed to fail because it will end in ad hoc rationalization and special pleading. (Loc. 918) Well it's good to know that the conclusion has already been reached even before hearing the case.

I think some differences are the NT world was an honor-shame context instead of a guilt-innocence context. It was agonistic instead of individualistic. It was a movement that lasted hundreds of years under persecution instead of one that died out in about a year (According to the time given by McCormick.) It went against prior accepted beliefs whereas the Witch Trials I gather were built on a prior worldview.

But for McCormick, these are just ad hoc and special pleading instead of, you know, real historical facts.

He also says there are many other claims that are false like the Hindu milk drinking miracle, but you can do this with a tablespoon in your own house. Some surfaces just naturally take in the milk. As for Lourdes, I would refer him to Keener's work. I'm not about to say that all such claims are false.

Still, the real howler comes when he says "The original accounts of Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are filled with supernatural claims, and the circumstances surrounding their advents resemble Christianity in too many relevant respects." (Loc. 934)

Really?

Okay. What are the supernatural claims that are in the original accounts of Islam? Muhammad is said to have done no miracles save providing the Koran. The miracles come in the biographies that come 100+ years later. These are not the original sources.

Buddhism and Hinduism? We have original sources for these? I would love to get to see the original account of Buddhism and Hinduism. Does McCormick have them? Does he have some evidence that their origins were comparable to Christianity's or does he just want me to take it on faith?

The closest you might have is Mormonism, but even then that is shrouded in mystery. We do have evidence of Smith being a con man. We have multiple accounts of the beginning and no clear details on what happened. The original Book of Mormon that you can find has a number of grammatical and such errors that are changed in later manuscripts deliberately.

I take it McCormick really hasn't looked at the evidence of these religions too much. He's just accepted claims on faith. A shame. A good researcher would do otherwise.

He also says that Salem shows we don't need to have a fully articulated naturalistic explanation to believe there is one. (Loc. 956) Good to know. We have a position of faith. McCormick doesn't have an explanation for why all these people would see XYZ and be willing to put their loved ones on trial but, well, we know there HAS to be one! There has to be and we know this because naturalism is true. We know naturalism is true because these events don't happen. They don't happen because naturalism is true. Again, we are ultimately arguing in a circle.

Now a good researcher would want to know what that explanation is. Is there one? I don't know without studying it myself, but when it comes to Jesus, I invite McCormick to give his better explanation. Until he can give one, I am justified in my conviction that Jesus rose from the dead.

A third way McCormick says we can respond is to say evidence doesn't matter. Now this way apparently works fine for him, but it doesn't work for me. I say the evidence does matter and it does need to be explained. Unfortunately, McCormick has left out the fourth way to respond.

That way is to look at all the data and ask questions a researcher would ask and then seek to provide an explanation. As I've said, I haven't looked so I don't have one. Unfortunately, McCormick doesn't give me one either. All he ends up saying is "There has to be a natural explanation and likewise, there has to be one with Jesus." That's just question-begging. It would have been good for McCormick to do the hard research and read all scholarship he could find on this. Unfortunately, no such exercise took place.

Let's hope he doesn't make the same mistake with the resurrection.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

[rogue06]

[Punkish]

Nick, how can you call down McCormick for not doing research when you didn't read up on Salem Witches?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Nick, how can you call down McCormick for not doing research when you didn't read up on Salem Witches?

Because I'm not making any claims on Salem. I am approaching as an agnostic. If I was arguing for a specific conclusion on Salem, it would be different. I'm not.

[Apologiaphoenix]

On to the next chapter.

The link can be found hereIron Age.

Destroyer of the Gods here

[Apologiaphoenix]

Chapter 5.

The link can be found here

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Ehrman1998.html

And

In spite of these remarkable [textual] differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy. Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 481.

Teachers would often not like to write down their teachings because students could misunderstand them apart from their tutelage. All McCormick has done is show some cultural favoritism. Not only that, writing would reach far fewer people. Oral tradition was something everyone could understand and evaluate and keep in check. Writing was also costly and timely and would only reach readers and those who they would be read to. For a look at costs, consider this.