Dodge City part 3

The original Dodge City post featured a Christian Apologist avoiding the issue of verification when he realises he advocated verification but cannot verify the existence of God. That conversation can be viewed here.  We also have examples of question dodging by Christian Apologists which use the same tactics as politicians - as shown here

Here then, are some more examples:

Example 1

Christian Apologist

The early church was profoundly Jewish, as was Jesus. There were those within Judaism who recognized Jesus as the fulfillment of OT promises and those who did not. It's unfortunate that the opposing faction came to be labeled as "the Jews" when in fact both sides were Jewish.

JimC

I am intrigued by your concept of “profoundly Jewish”. Can you explain the difference between "Jewish" and "profoundly Jewish"? Also, when you refer to “Jews” in the context of “Christians” I assume you mean “followers of Judaism” rather than ethnicity? 

Christian Apologist

I'm rather tired of your constant challenges for me to jump through hoops of your choosing on these matters. When--honestly--will you choose to quote me completely and actually offer on topic responses to such? This isn't a one sided conversation, Jim, and you are not The Grand Inquisitor.

Commentary: I've obviously touched on a sore point. There is some decidedly peculiar use of the word "Jewish" and "Jew" which the apologist does not want to have to explain. I don't blame him! It's reminiscent of a previous Evangelical argument which referred to Christians as "Completed Jews" !

Example 2

JimC

The stories of prophecies being fulfilled by Jesus were invented decades after Jesus was dead - they were reverse engineered, as any Rabbi will tell you.

Christian Apologist

Any Rabbi" would of course make that claim--that is what s/he believes in the first place

Commentary: Yes, the follower of particular religion will make claims based on what they believe in the first place. The Christian apologist fails to see the irony in his comment! And... dodges the point about the prophecy stories being reverse engineered. 

Example 3

JimC

A survey by the Pew forum in 2013 revealed that 90% of Evangelical Christians in the USA are absolutely certain in the existence of God. But according to a Christian Apologist, “our understanding of anything and everything could be wrong" and "such is required In the case of Christians, otherwise there would be no such thing as faith... Our knowledge is imperfect and our prophesying is imperfect. When the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. - 1 Corinthians 13:9-10"

So who is right – the 90% of Evangelicals who have absolute certainty, or the 10% who have an element of doubt?

Christian Apologist

One would need to converse with those who apparently claim "absolute" certainty to understand the basis for their claims. We need their take on the issue. 

JimC

I think it would be difficult to "converse" with 75 million people to "understand the reasons for their claims" but we can at least read what they say their reasons for absolute certainty are, such as... "I know that God is real because He has revealed Himself to us." What you appear to be saying is that these Evangelical Christians should not claim to have absolute certainty and they mistakenly do so because they are "conflating objective evidence" with "spiritual experience." Is that right?

Christian Apologist

Again, we would need to hear from those who do claim certainty regarding God's existence to know how they came to their conclusions.

Commentary: The Christian apologist seems to be part of the 10% of American Evangelicals who are not absolutely certain that God exists. There's nothing wrong with that of course. The dodge here is the refusal to be drawn into the results of a poll on the basis that one would have to "converse" with the 75 million respondents who hold a different opinion to him. One assumes the "conversation" would be along the lines of persuading them they are wrong!

Example 4

Christian Apologist

You probably have the option--right now--of dipping your head in a bucket of acid or some other toxic substance. Would you choose to do so? Of course not! Does the fact that you choose not to do so mean that you don't have free will? Of course not! If--in heaven--one realizes that choosing any other option is absolutely foolish, it has everything to do with wisdom and nothing to do with negation of free will!

JimC

The point I think you're trying to make is that we could deliberately and consciously harm ourselves physically at any time, but the fact is we usually don't and if we did we'd likely need psychiatric help. To use your example, it never crosses my mind that I should dip my head in a bucket of acid – it is not a choice for me, and that's why I would never do it. Start from there, and then try and work out why, normally, we don't even think of harming ourselves.

Christian Apologist

Excellent--now read that back to yourself and realize that once we have the clarity that communion with God brings, any choice to do otherwise would be as foolish as dipping one's head in a bucket of acid, or any other ridiculous choice. 

Commentary: This was during a discussion on the concept of free will as an illusion. Notice how the Christian Apologist invents the bizarre "bucket of acid" analogy - only to dismiss it as a "ridiculous choice" later on! Notice also the non-sequitur regarding the "clarity that communion with God brings" - as if someone who has that "clarity" - never makes a "ridiculous choice"!

Example 5

Christian Apologist

Recent discoveries point to the probable existence of billions of earthlike planets throughout the universe. The building blocks for life and intelligence in the very nature of the universe itself seem to manifest themselves throughout such. You fail to acknowledge the ever-increasing evidence of organic and sentient life permeating the universe and the precariousness of your assertions that all came about through mindless mechanistic processes!

JimC

Although I think it is likely that there could be life on those planets, I can't be sure, so I have to remain agnostic until there's more evidence. [The hypothesis of abiogenesis] predicts the "building blocks of life" (and hence intelligence) to appear throughout the universe on comets, meteors and other planets, because it seems likely that life (and hence intelligence) arises from chemistry, and chemistry exists all over the universe, obviously. What I'm not seeing is evidence that intelligence existed before life, before the chemistry life requires and before the physics that chemistry requires. The evidence you are presenting supports the emergence of physics: chemistry: biology: intelligence - in that order. If you could provide evidence of intelligence that is not reliant on biology (and chemistry) - you might be on to something.

Christian Apologist

I'm not suggesting otherwise, although I am pointing out the same matters you do subsequently. You're not seeing evidence of life that is not reliant on biology because our earthbound senses, earthbound experiences of access to intelligence springing from organic life, and the tools (such as physics, chemistry, etc.) that we use to analyze such all limit our ability to recognize the "big picture." Intelligence nonetheless is part and parcel of our experience of reality. We access such through biological means. Through various apparently unlikely processes, our universe allowed for such developments to occur.

JimC

Lots of agreement here - excellent! 

Christian Apologist 

If that's a tacit admission that everything that forms the basis of our outlooks is ultimately based on faith in what we think we know--and that there is no such thing as a "default" position that favors any assumptions regarding such matters--we have made progress indeed!

Commentary: During a discussion no the origins of the universe, the Christian Apologist -  surprisingly, and perhaps by accident, makes a case for the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Having realised we agree, his only option is to dodge the issue with a non-sequitur about faith and default positions. Or something like that! 

Example 6

JimC
It was argued here recently that there is no sin in heaven because its inhabitants are simply unable to sin, because of the "awesome presence of God." 

Christian Apologist
The awesome presence of God and the complete understanding of the evil of other choices become so clear to us that we would never again opt to make the wrong choice.  

JimC
That implies the "awesome presence of God" removes free will and makes those in His "presence" predictable automatons. Can you give an example of the choices available to those who are in the "awesome presence of God"?

Christian Apologist
They retain their free will but the full consequence of choices is made crystal clear. Having been blessed with God's presence they would seek no other option. 

JimC
It seems to me the "awesome presence of God" removes free will from human beings and makes those in His "presence" predictable automatons because the actions of someone in heaven are, by your definition, totally predictable ("they would seek no other option").  Hence, you are unable to give a single example of the choices available to those who are in the "awesome presence of God" in heaven.  No choice=no free will.  

Christian Apologist
You are assuming that in heaven we will be pretty much as we are here on earth, and Jesus has made clear that such is not the case. We will be completely fulfilled in every way and beyond sorrow or discomfort for all eternity--rather we will spend an eternity rejoicing in love and gratitude!  We are promised something greater than eye has seen or ear has heard or anything that we could possibly conceive of from our limited earthbound perspective! 

JimC
I am making no assumptions at all about "how we are in heaven". Can you give an example of the choices available to those who are in the "awesome presence of God" in heaven. For instance, is it physically possible to steal in heaven if one had the power to do so? What does one actually do in heaven?  

Christian Apologist
In terms of many specifics, we just don't know. It will be an experience far beyond that which we can conceive of. I wouldn't be very excited about going somewhere where I'd look something like me but get a white robe and feathered wings and sit on a cloud playing a harp forever and ever.

Commentary: The Christian Apologist makes it clear that the actions of the inhabitants of Heaven are totally predictable. Then realises that having no choice is the same as no free will. He finally dodges the issue by introducing an infantile picture of the afterlife sitting on a cloud playing a harp. Ironically, that image provides more scope for free will than his previous description! 

Example 7

JimC
Do you consider all of Genesis to be metaphorical and if not, what process do you use to decide which parts to take literally and which parts to take metaphorically?

Christian Apologist

It's not really a cut-and-dry issue. I'm sure that there are elements of literalness in all of those accounts--but that's not the point. The point is in the spiritual lessons to be drawn from those accounts.  

Commentary: Notice how the Apologist says the question being asked is "not the point" - but of course the question is the point! This is the politician's tactic of ignoring an awkward question by answering a different question, a question of "spiritual lessons" in this example.

Example 8

JimC
Your reference to "contemporary fundamentalism" is interesting and I'd like to hear more about that and how you think fundamentalism has evolved since it appeared in the 1920s.

Christian Apologist
Rather, I'd be interested in the original debate referenced in your Marsden article, minus Marsden's obvious usage of loaded words such as defining fundamentalism as opposed to "modernism." 

Commentary: Having introduced the concept of "contemporary fundamentalism" into the debate, the Apologist dodges the opportunity to explain what it means, with what he'd "rather" discuss.