Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Book Plunge: Evidence Considered Chapter 1

  1. #1
    Department Head Apologiaphoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Corryton
    Faith
    Trinitarian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,595
    Amen (Given)
    262
    Amen (Received)
    2243

    Book Plunge: Evidence Considered Chapter 1

    What do I think of Glenton Jelbert on the cosmological argument?

    The link can be found here.

    ------

    Does the cosmological argument stand up? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    I've had sitting on the backburner for awhile another book besides*Seeing Through Christianity to go through and that's*Evidence Considered by Glenton Jelbert. Jelbert has decided to go after Mike Licona and Bill Dembski's book*Evidence For God. Jelbert is a former Christian and it is interesting to go through what he has.

    The first chapter is on the cosmological argument which was written by David Beck. It's noteworthy that there is no distinction between what kind of cosmological argument is used. Craig uses one kind that is called the horizontal argument. This one goes with the beginning of the universe and largely relies on Big Bang Cosmology. The vertical kind does not require any science at all and is more philosophical and asks what is the basis for the existing of the universe.*

    Imagine you wake up tomorrow and you hear some weird music playing. You ask "What is causing this sound?" It doesn't seem to make sense to ask "What caused this sound?" since the sound is going on in the present. The music is continually playing so you ask what is causing it.

    Now another day, you wake up and you go outside to do a morning walk and you find when you open the front door a giant crystal orb is blocking your path. You ask "What caused this?" because it's being put there is an event that happened in the past. It is often missed that you could just as much ask "What is causing this?"

    Why could you ask that? Because too often, the existence of these things is treated like a given. It's as if things can exist by their own power. One could say that we could commit suicide by our own power, but none of us can by our own power say "I don't want to exist!" and just poof out.*

    Jelbert begins his response by saying we could grant the argument and it doesn't really get us close to theism. He says that all religions are able to use this shows this, but can they all use it? For instance, Mormonism would not use this argument since matter is really eternal in Mormonism with gods begetting gods that create their own planets where the denizens can become gods.*

    The Abrahamic religions can use this because the vertical form definitely depends on one uncaused cause. Using natural theology and Aristotelian metaphysics, Aquinas can tell us plenty about the god that can be found. There is a false notion that to say that since natural theology alone can't tell us what god there is, then there can't be a god. In the Middle Ages, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian philosophers could all agree on the arguments of natural theology. They'd determine which form of theism is true by looking at special revelation.

    From there, Jelbert goes on to talk about how Jeopardy recently defined atheism as "The active, principled denial of the existence of God." Jelbert refers to this an absurd definition. Jelbert says "A definition of atheist as someone who does not believe there is a god, is the equivalent of saying that since the case has not been made, the burden of proof lies with the theist/deist."*

    First off, this sentence is incredibly unclear. Thinking it was just me, I showed it to one of my friends who's much more familiar with English and grammar only to get a similar response. My rule with the burden of proof argument is that anyone who makes a claim has a burden. If you come up and say "I am an atheist," and I ask why, you need to back that. It doesn't work to say "Unless you can demonstrate your case, atheism is true." It could be that I am a theist who has terrible reasons for believing in God and yet God still exists. If I come to you and say I'm a theist, it's not up to you to disprove theism. It's up to me to demonstrate theism.*

    As for the idea about it being absurd, perhaps Jelbert would like to speak to these others.

    “Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”

    William Rowe The Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy p.62

    “Atheism, as presented in this book, is a definite doctrine, and defending it requires one to engage with religious ideas. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a personal, transcendent creator of the universe, rather than one who simply lives life without reference to such a being.”

    Robin Le Poidevin Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion p.xvii
    Jelbert goes on to say that the argument proves nothing about Jesus, virgin births (Which I do affirm), the resurrection, or any creed. Indeed it doesn't. It is hardly a fault of an argument that it does not prove what it was never meant to prove. The argument could be entirely valid and Islam is true. Either way, atheism is false.*

    Jelbert goes on to argue that maybe the cause is itself physical. The problem with this is that in the horizontal form, the being is beyond space, time, and matter, which means it is not limited by any of those and thus it is not spatial, it is eternal, and it is immaterial. In the vertical form, it is a being that is not capable of change from another agent. Anything material is capable of such change. This is because in Thomistic and Aristotelian metaphysics, these kinds of things have what is called potential, which is capacity for change. Matter essentially has this. Thus, physical beings are ruled out.*

    Jelbert also argues that an infinite chain could possibly exist. This would be a problem for a horizontal version perhaps, but not a vertical one. There are two kinds of chains. In one chain, consider my wife and I. Suppose in a tragedy our parents all died through car accidents or some other means today. That would not mean that we suddenly go out of existence. In fact, we could have our own children still without our parents. (Obviously, we don't want anything to happen to our parents of course.)*

    If this kind of chain is what the universe is, then an infinite chain could be possible. I leave that to the mathematicians. Yet what if our universe is not like this? Aquinas gives the example of a stick pushing a rock and the rock pushing a leaf while the stick is pushed by a hand. This is a short chain, but in this chain, if you remove any part, all activity seeks. All present activity is continuously dependent on past activity. If that is the case for our universe, then an infinite chain is not possible.*

    A Thomistic argument gives a chain where existence depends on something else existing. If all existing depends on another existence, then you have such a chain going on as with the rock being moved, then there's no reason to think any existing would be going on right now. This is not chronological either. If it was, it would be the former chain. Too many atheistic arguments treat existing as if it was a given. It's quite odd to think that so many atheists who want to talk about how God doesn't exist don't really say much about what it means to exist.

    Jelbert then says that the third point is that there must be a single uncaused or infinite being. Jelbert sees a switch between cause and being, but it's a wonder what we're supposed to see. If anything is causing any change, it must be something that exists in some way, that is, it is. It's a being.

    Jelbert also says that Beck says that "We cannot make sense of the universe, the reality in which we live, apart from there being a real God." Jelbert says that this is an admission that the feeling of not knowing is something Beck doesn't like and he heals it with the idea of God. It's a wonder how this is read. Beck just gave a statement of fact. Nothing is said about personal feelings in the matter.*

    Jelbert then goes on to say that this is what has been done for millennia, but this is indeed too much of a leap. The first leap is to assume an emotional case for Beck. The second is to assume that everyone thinks in modern individualistic psychological terminology.*

    If we want to play this game, then we could say that many people find a God distasteful who will judge them for their sins, require repentance, or disagree with their political views. This causes psychological discomfort. The way to quiet this is to argue that this God doesn't exist to give emotional solace.

    Does this apply to some people? Sure. Are some people also Christians for emotional reasons? Sadly so. Does this tell us about the truth? Not at all. Instead, Jelbert has given a reason that cannot be known. Saying that you have an explanation that explains something is not necessarily addressing something emotional. It could provide emotional solace as a plus, but that does not mean that it is false.

    We will later on look at another chapter.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  2. Amen LostSheep amen'd this post.
  3. #2
    Department Head Apologiaphoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Corryton
    Faith
    Trinitarian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,595
    Amen (Given)
    262
    Amen (Received)
    2243
    Chapter 2 where Jelbert tries to take on objective morality.

    The link can be found here.

    -----

    Is the moral argument a failure? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    The next argument Jelbert goes after is Paul Copan's moral argument. Now as the moral argument is framed, I'm not much of a fan of it. I see it as too limited in fact. Why do we talk about moral actions and behaviors only? Why not try to cover goodness entirely. There are good actions, but there are also good books, good foods, good people, etc. Why not take on all goodness at once?

    Most all of us know how the moral argument goes. It can be something like this:

    If objective moral values exist, then God exists.
    Objective moral values do exist.
    Therefore, God exists.

    Or

    If there is no God, there are no objective moral values.
    But there are objective moral values.
    Therefore God exists.

    Jelbert's first objection is that Copan is wrong. Not everyone has a conscience because there are people like Psychopaths. I don't think Copan would dispute this. I think you could easily change the argument to say most everyone has a conscience just like most everyone has a body system that registers pain, though CIPA we can see is an exception to the rule.

    He also contends that Copan says there is not a behavior a Christian could do that an atheist could not that is moral. Even if this was true, so what? I have argued that forgiveness has been done uniquely because of the impact of Christ.*Jelbert goes on to say that warped behavior has been allowed because of religious books. Yet what would he say to something like this?

    The militant atheists lament that religion is the foremost source of the world’s violence is contradicted by three realities: Most religious organizations do not foster violence; many nonreligious groups do engage in violence; and many religious moral precepts encourage nonvio lence. Indeed, we can confidently assert that if religion was the sole or primary force behind wars, then secular ideologies should be relatively benign by comparison, which history teaches us has not been the case. Revealingly, in his Encyclopedia of Wars, Charles Phillips chronicled a total of 1,763 conflicts throughout history, of which just 123 were categorized as religious. And it is important to note further that over the last century the most brutality has been perpetrated by nonreligious cult figures (Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong-Il, Mao Zedong, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, Robert Mugabe—you get the picture). Thus to attribute the impetus behind violence mainly to religious sentiments is a highly simplistic interpretation of history.
    Or

    Militant atheists seek to discredit religion based on a highly selective reading of history. There was a time not long ago—just a couple of centuries—when the Western world was saturated by religion. Militant atheists are quick to attribute many of the most unfortunate aspects of history to religion, yet rarely concede the immense debt that civilization owes to various monotheist religions, which created some of the world’s greatest literature, art, and architecture; led the movement to abolish slavery; and fostered the development of science and technology. One should not invalidate these achievements merely because they were developed for religious purposes. If much of science was originally a religious endeavor, does that mean science is not valuable? Is religiously motivated charity not genuine? Is art any less beautiful because it was created to express devotion to God? To regret religion is to regret our civilization and its achievements.
    So is this a dyed-in-the-wool conservative Christian saying this? No. It's an atheist. It's Bruce Sheimon in his book*An Atheist Defends Religion. What I would ask at this point is that if an atheist murders someone, is he acting inconsistently with atheism? He could be violating his own moral beliefs, but atheism doesn't necessarily entail any particular moral beliefs. You can be an atheist and be a saint or an atheist and be a scoundrel and still be a consistent atheist. On the other hand, if you do murder someone as a Christian, you are violating the teachings of Christ. Should Christianity be judged on when it has not been applied consistently?

    Jelbert also says that the commandment against violating the Sabbath in Exodus 35 and that whoever does this shall be put to death is obviously a warped commandment. Is it really? This was part of the covenant between YHWH and Israel. In showing their trust in God, they were to not work on Saturday. Doing otherwise for a person would be known as the sin of the high hand, where a person goes against what the one in charge of them says and says they'll go their own way.

    In the terms of Israel, they were in a suzerainty type covenant. That covenant was a king would put his clients under a relationship where the king (or patron) would give benefits of protection and such to the clients in exchange for their loyalty. A person who goes against this is risking the welfare of the community for their own benefit.

    Secondly, Jelbert says that if Christians don't persecute him for his beliefs, it's because their religion no longer overwhelms their basic humanity, but it is a wonder which religion he is talking about. This is an idea that would be far more fitting for Islam. He contends that this was the case a few centuries ago, but has he really looked at the instances he speaks about? If we looked at the Crusades, while some of the Crusades were horrendous, should we remember that it was a defensive war at first where the West, at great expense to themselves, went to help the people in Jerusalem that had already been conquered by the Muslims who had been using the sword to spread their ideology for centuries? Should we consider that the Inquisition was seen as a force of good by even many non-Christians? The worst one of all, the Spanish Inquisition, left 3,000 deaths in 300 years. 3,000 too many to be sure, but not the numbers you would get from atheistic literature. Perhaps he should familiarize himself with historians of the time like Thomas Madden and Henry Kamen.

    Furthermore, what is this basic humanity? Is he implying that there is something about humanity that means that we automatically know right from wrong? Then if so, then that would mean that there are objective moral truths and that we are capable of knowing them and in fact do know them and if we don't know them, there's something wrong with us. That might seem like a small point to some, but as we will see, it is an important one.

    Finally, if we are talking about persecution like this being immoral, then what about the rampant killing done by atheist regimes that specifically targeted Christians in the 20th century and still to this day. Do they get a free pass? We can say again that Christians are acting inconsistently with Christianity. Are atheists violating any central moral tenets of atheism?

    It is important because in the very next paragraph, Jelbert says we get our morality from evolution. We might want there to be objective morality, and maybe science and peer-review can get us there, but the case is far from made that morality is*necessarily*objective. If Gilbert is right, then why is he talking about an obviously warped law with the Sabbath? A law in the moral sense is something that is meant to help you to do the good, but if there is no good to do, then there can be no such thing as a flawed law. It is just a law that you do not like.*

    Suppose for the sake of argument I grant evolution to Jelbert, which I really happily do with no problem. Saying that evolution provided us the features to come across certain knowledge does not explain how that knowledge itself exists. Perhaps evolution gave us minds capable of discovering the truth of mathematics, but to discover the truth of mathematics, the truth of mathematics must exist. If morality is something that we use just because it works, then perhaps we could say the same about mathematics, but nothing is objectively true in mathematics. If Jelbert says there are moral truths to be discovered, then it doesn't matter if one comes to them by evolution or divine revelation. They're still there and need an explanation. If he says there are no moral truths to be discovered, then evolution is leading us to believe something that is false and Jelbert has no reason to hold an argument from evil or talk about flawed laws or activities he deems immoral, such as persecution.*

    Jelbert then replies to the claim of Copan that if there is no God, there is no objective morality. Jelbert remarkably says that humans are masters of believing in things that do not exist. Indeed, many are. Yet now we have a problem. In this very paragraph, Jelbert himself talks about moral problems and sectarian violence. Perhaps Jelbert himself in arguing against objective morality has convinced himself that somehow it still exists.*

    Jelbert ends this section saying it might be difficult to see how valuable and thinking humans came from valueless and unguided processes, but that does not make it impossible. Indeed, it does not, but who said anything about that? How did a paragraph starting about objective moral truths end with talking about the origins of human beings?

    We could go further and say that it looks like Jelbert holds to some objective goodness, even if not objective morality supposedly, since he affirms that humans are valuable. Is this an objective statement or not? Does it apply to all humans? If so, we hope Jelbert is opposed to abortion. If not, then who does it apply to? If they are valuable, on what basis? What is it about humans that separates them from all other beings in the universe?*

    Jelbert also says that Copan says subjective morality would undermine moral motivation, but Jelbert contends that this is not so. He says that natural theories better explain things like moral gray areas and an evolving sense of morality and that religious opinions have been on the wrong side of morality often throughout history. It is incredible to see something like this written.

    Just at the start, Jelbert is obviously arguing for subjective morality, but if all we have is subjective morality, there are no moral gray areas because that implies a moral truth. There is also no evolving sense of morality, because that too implies a moral truth. All that there is is just changing opinions on how people want society to function, but to what end is to function? If there is any desired goal, then it is automatically implied that this is a desired goal which lo and behold, leads us to objective goodness which would entail objective morality.

    As for religions being on the wrong side, it is inevitable that with a nebulous term like religions, some will get things wrong and some will get things right so you can point to any religion that you want and find an error then somewhere either in its teachings or its history, but again, we could consider that the 20th century was one of the bloodiest centuries of all and a lot of this came from atheist regimes. Further, Christians have long opposed practices like murder, lying, theft, adultery, etc. Does Jelbert think that Christians are on the wrong side?

    If we wanted to see much motivation for the good in the world, it comes from Christianity. Christians originally ended the slave trade. Does Jelbert consider this a wrong? Christians ended widow burning in India. Is this a wrong? Christians have regularly gone out into the world and brought about literacy, medical care, and other such goods. It is quite unfair for Jelbert to take what he doesn't like and ignore all the positive. As Frederick Douglass said in his own account of his life.

    What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the *slaveholding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper; for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference--so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land.
    Jelbert then says that Sam Harris wrote a book defending objective morality and that it is discovered through science. Much of my review you can see starting here. A scathing review of that book by Michael Ruse can be found here. Jelbert speaks about the debate Craig had with Harris and says at the end that Craig admits he could not see how objective morality could arise without God, but if Jelbert thinks this is a point somehow, perhaps he would like to show how it could come about. Still, I once again wonder. Jelbert has spent much time arguing against objective morality. Has he suddenly switched here?

    Amazingly, Jelbert himself questions if science is objective. Maybe a society could have arisen that could have skipped Newton's understanding and gone straight to Einstein's. Perhaps, but if we say a Newtonian view is wrong in some way, then it is objectively wrong and not subjectively wrong. One wonders really if Jelbert knows what he's really writing here. For someone who is said to have a Ph.D. in physics, it has to be wondered if his degree is in something true or just subjective.*

    Jelbert concludes saying that the discussion is fascinating, but says it is far from true that morality is objective. Again, if so, then what are all these warped laws and evils that Jelbert is writing about? If all it is is Christians even being inconsistent, so what? That even assumes that hypocrisy is an evil which gets us back to objective morality.

    Second, he says it is not clear that objective morality could only come from God. Perhaps it isn't, but it is entirely consistent with the idea and a reasonable case has been made. Jelbert would need to, if he accepts objective morality, show where it comes from and how it exists. If he does not, then again, much of what he says is deflated.

    Third, he says it cannot be connected to any specific God. By itself, no. Jelbert should note the argument is an argument for God. It is not an argument for the triune God revealed in Jesus Christ. If the argument works, all we get is some form of theism and we have to go further to see which one is true, but theism is still established and atheism refuted. It is hard to say an argument is faulty for not showing what it was never meant to show.*

    Let's hope that things improve from here on for this chapter is certainly lackluster.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  4. #3
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,082
    Amen (Given)
    964
    Amen (Received)
    1053
    I figure the reason aesthetic goodness isn't used as an argument for God's existence is because ultimately aesthetics are mostly subjective, but morality is not.

  5. #4
    Department Head Apologiaphoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Corryton
    Faith
    Trinitarian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,595
    Amen (Given)
    262
    Amen (Received)
    2243
    I wasn't speaking about just aesthetics, but that is not a Christian view of beauty. Relative morality is saying nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so. Relative beauty is saying nothing is beautiful or ugly, but thinking makes it so.

    Do you truly want to say that a drawing of a stick man is no more beautiful or ugly than the Mona Lisa?

  6. #5
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,082
    Amen (Given)
    964
    Amen (Received)
    1053
    Quote Originally Posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    I wasn't speaking about just aesthetics, but that is not a Christian view of beauty. Relative morality is saying nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so. Relative beauty is saying nothing is beautiful or ugly, but thinking makes it so.

    Do you truly want to say that a drawing of a stick man is no more beautiful or ugly than the Mona Lisa?
    No. I also didn't say morality was relative. Ugliness Definetly exist.

  7. #6
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,082
    Amen (Given)
    964
    Amen (Received)
    1053
    Ap now I am curious about some things. A Christian concept of beauty. Please tell me more.

  8. #7
    Department Head Apologiaphoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Corryton
    Faith
    Trinitarian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,595
    Amen (Given)
    262
    Amen (Received)
    2243
    You didn't say morality is relative, but the concept is the same.

    Beauty. God is that which makes all things beautiful by His beauty. In creation, the #1 beautiful aspect of creation for beauty without a doubt is the human female. I really think that if creation was made to be beautiful, the woman was saved for last as the most beautiful of all.

    Beauty has been called that which pleases when seen, but I think that which pleases when experienced works better.

  9. Amen TheWall amen'd this post.
  10. #8
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,082
    Amen (Given)
    964
    Amen (Received)
    1053
    Hmm. Interesting.

    I have felt such things before. When I went to Saint Patrick's cathedral or when I read books like perelandra or Narnia.

    The fall did affect our bodies introducing death and diseases. Perhaps our sense of beauty is as tainted as we are morally. Yes it must be so.

  11. #9
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,082
    Amen (Given)
    964
    Amen (Received)
    1053
    Please do continue.

  12. #10
    Department Head Apologiaphoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Corryton
    Faith
    Trinitarian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,595
    Amen (Given)
    262
    Amen (Received)
    2243
    Not much more I can say beyond that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •