Dr. Price brought up, “extraordinary evidence for extraordinary events”, which to me sounds like a reasonable demand. However, it appears that many of those who use this phrase do not demand it when it comes to the origin of life by natural causes. I would guess that due to the extreme complexity of minimum life, even more extraordinary evidence, than that demanded for belief in the resurrection, would be demanded, and I don’t witness this happening.

Changing subjects:

I am enjoying the debate and its format very much and I think you are on the right track. Your idea of a go between is interesting and a good idea. I do not see that you are neutral, however, the way a moderator should be. In my view, your trying to gain an understanding of what both sides are saying is excellent, but when you change a royal flush to an alien to make it more plausible to you, you are becoming a debater yourself. It is up to Dr. Price to change the analogy if he wishes. A moderator can influence an outcome and it is very important that the only ones that should influence outcome are the two debaters. Mentioning an area of Don Johnson’s argument as weak and needing clarification is also an example of your lack of neutrality. I think Don Johnson’s point of one’s world view is very significant here. Everyone has a world view and you are letting yours show, whereas, in the role you have taken, your world view must not see the light of day.

I am having a hard time picking out the main points of each side If they have main points, for or against, they are clouded by rhetoric. I think you can help this a lot by listing the main points in favor of the resurrection and then having Dr. Price speak against Don Jonson’s main points. You can then list Dr. Price’s main points against the resurrection, etc. You can make sure each point to addressed by both sides and none are skipped. (Saying you don’t know of can’t know is addressing the point.)

It is most confusing to me when Dr. Price says the resurrection could happen and this makes me think you should have chosen someone else to represent the negative side. In normal debate in a school setting, one side is assigned a point of view. This they represent to the best of their ability. They never say the opposite side could be true. I think what Dr. Price means is that even though, highly, highly improbable, the resurrection might have happened, but he doesn’t believe it for a second. If this is his view, and he said so, my fault, I missed it.

Aaron, your comments are well thought out and insightful but didn’t you let the cat out of the bag at the end there when you revealed your predisposition to a world view sympathizing with atheists Dawkins and Harris?

I think this is quite a wild presupposition and amazing arrogance.

I haven’t heard him say that he would like to try to debunk other world views but if presented with any other world view he will then debunk it - as if it is a forgone conclusion.

From what he has said, I believe it stems from his belief that, e.g., Materialism/Naturalism is automatically rejected because he thinks it can’t, Necessarily, lead to debate since he feels we would just be following physical laws and not really debating but acting as if. (I’m sure this can be phrased better, but with Philosophical Charity, I think it can be understood).

However:
1. This may be the case but it doesn’t make it untrue. Lots of things are true even though we wish they weren’t. Just because he doesn’t prefer it, doesn’t mean he has debunked it. He is arguing from emotion, not Logic and Reason.

2. This is a particularly Deterministic view of M/N. Not all M/N’ists are Deterministic. Further, some Determinists feel that, though, we are living in a Deterministic world, we have the appearance of Free Will. Other M/N’ists believe that we have Free Will based on the Randomness at the Quantum level.

3. Studies show that we have much less Free Will then we ever suspected. I’ll be happy to provide links to solid, peer-reviewed, testable and well-established studies. Something Theists have never provided for the Supernatural.

4. The Bible is demonstrably not 100% true. Since these are your words (and, I believe Johnson has mentioned that there are minor errors in the Bible), i won’t pursue this.

5. I would like to know if Johnson does feel if his concept of God is 100% true. This seems impossible, since one would have to define God - something impossible since we aren’t talking about a real being with testable attributes. I think the best that could be said is that Johnson may have the arrogance to make a bald assertion that his Faith makes him “know” his concept of god is the right one, and everyone else is wrong.

6. Returning to M/N, Johnson has not debunked them - and how could he? In order to show that the Uniformity of Nature proves the miracles of the Bible existed, it would undermine the idea of Uniformity of Nature. Plus, by using “supernatural” as an excuse to prop up his assertions, he completely undermines Reason. He proposes a cartoon universe in which all things are possible:

“Many Christians of course will still resent it when non-believers point out that the theistic view of the universe essentially amounts to the view that it is nothing more than a cartoon. So here are some questions readers might ask themselves to determine whether or not they really do ascribe to the cartoon universe premise of theism. Any “yes” answer to one of these questions affirms endorsement of the cartoon universe premise; a “no” answer affirms either that one is an atheist, or, if he thinks he is a theist, that he thinks his god is impotent.

* Can your god create something ex nihilo (i.e., without using materials that already exist)?
* Can your god create a water-breathing man?
* Can your god create green snow?
* Can your god create red grass?
* Can your god create flowers that speak Mandarin Chinese?
* Can your god create a human being with 42 arms?
* Can your god create a woman who gives birth to elephants?
* Can your god create a teacup that dances with a spoon?
* Can your god create a second moon to orbit the earth?
* Can your god remove all salinity from the world’s oceans?
* Can your god create a biological organism which requires no nutrients or oxygen to live?
* And so on…
”
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/cartoon_universe_of_theism/

His cartoon universe makes the uniformity of Nature an absurd concept! There is no Uniformity except for what he prefers to call “Natural” or “Supernatural” or by his gods Will.

Did that woman get hit by a bus because it was an accident or the Will of his god?

I don’t know! Let’s ask Johnson which one he prefers - and don’t expect any evidence, just bald assertion.

Is the Resurrection a supernatural event or the Zombies that walked around after the Resurrection a true event? I don’t know! Let’s ask Johnson and don’t expect any evidence, just bald assertion.

Are the supernatural events in the Bible true, or are the ones in Greek Mythology? I don’t know! Let’s ask johnson…

After all, in a Cartoon Universe, everything is possible and apparently only Johnson can tell us which is real and which is myth.

Or… we can accept that the Uniformity of Nature is a starting point and is useful to trust since it verifies itself constantly. I will be happy if Johnson can point to one verifiable supernatural act, otherwise, I have little reason to believe in his cartoon universe.

Also, a note about “worldviews”: This is a horrible term and quite useless. What Johnson hopes to do is to divide people into two categories of Presuppositionalism. Perhaps because he recognizes his own presuppositions and can’t imagine that other people don’t hold and brag about presuppositions as well?

However, the fact is, is that many people DON’T hold presuppositions. Many people (I for one) have shifted between Supernaturalism and Naturalism.

The most important aspect is how to use Logic and Reason. To let Logic and Reason take root and not emotion.

The basic fact is that we have no experience of people coming back from the dead after 3 days. This basic fact is enough to throw the claim into question.

Second, we have no observable or testable event that we know is, without doubt, a supernatural event. This basic fact throws any claim of Supernaturalism into question - and throws out any reason to create a presupposition around it.

Third, we know that Man creates Meaning out of events, misinterprets events, creates gods, has limited knowledge, etc - these are evidential.

It is Special Pleading on the part of Johnson to assert that his belief is true while all others are not - especially when there are so many that incorporate his Cartoon Universe model.

I think in the end we simply see the arrogance of a religious extremist trying to gain support for his delusion. I might as well heed the ramblings of Osama Bin Laden, Jim Jones, Hitler or Stalin. While he may mean well, the implications of his abandonment of Reason and Logic would be a bane to society. We have made progress in morals and social health in spite of religion, not because of it.

I don’t mean to make a Slippery Slope fallacy. What I mean is that once you agree to his “worldview” presuppositionalism, you accept a Cartoon Universe in which a god operates with complete anonymity. If the Resurrection is true, then all of the implications of a Yahweh is true. Suddenly, we don’t know if someone has AIDS because of God or Nature. Did I get the job (and not another person) because of God’s Will or due to my own merits? Are prayers answered or not, and why or why not? In an instant, Johnson wishes to throw everything into a universe in which everything is subject to the Will of an imaginary being where only he and a select few are able to “read” the tea leaves or chicken bones.

This is not Reason, it is mythology - and for Johnson to presume he has the genius to figure all this out (as opposed to all other religions, and X’n’s of other beliefs), is a stunning show of arrogance.

(I have a lengthier post prepared but let me sum up quickly)

1. There are arrogant people on either side of the debate.
2. Let’s be careful in applying presuppositions to other people. Essentially, Presuppositionalism, as a theological construct started with Van Til:
“… Van Til’s distinctive approach is ‘presuppositionalism’, which may be defined as insistence on an ultimate category of thought or a conceptual framework which one must assume in order to make a sensible interpretation of reality: ‘The issue between believers and non-believers in Christian theism cannot be settled by a direct appeal to “facts” or “laws” whose nature and significance is already agreed upon by both parties to the debate. The question is rather as to what is the final reference-point required to make the “facts” and the “laws” intelligible. The question is as to what the “facts” and “laws” really are. Are they what the non-Christian methodology assumes they are? Are they what the Christian theistic methodology presupposes they are?’ (Defense of the Faith, Philadelphia, 1967).

Van Til, because of this, has become a poster child for circular reasoning. If one would like more see the many references to Presuppositionalism.

For example: http://www.rationalresponders.com/an_easy_argument_to_refute_van_tillian_calvinist_presuppositionalism

3. I am not automatically rejecting Xianity.
3a. I was a Xian. I was born into a Xian family, I was raised a Xian, I elected to become baptized, I spoke openly about my Xian beliefs and accepted Jesus as my “Christ and Savior”. It was an excruciatingly painful process to shed the yoke of Xiainty.
3b. There is no reason to automatically reject or accept Xianity, or any other idea at the outset, however, don’t you automatically reject the idea that Lizard People rule the Universe by mind control? Perhaps not, but I bet you don’t need more than a day or two to relegate it to the dustbin of insanity. The important thing is the process by which we accept and reject things.

4. a. Logic and Reason appear to be Brute Facts of Nature. There are other views, many of which don’t include a god. We could get into this, but it is enough to say, there are many other ways to account for Logic and Reason.
b. (What do you mean by Logic? Which Logic? There are many kinds)
c. A counter to a Xian source of logic is this: where do invalid statements come from? For example, “A cube has 13 sides.” If Logic, and the construct of premises, stem from God - how do we arrive at invalid ones? This problem reftes a Xian god as the source of logic.
d. Further, a problem exists with a basic theistic position: If god is the source of logic, how did it happen? In order for any first collection of “stuff” to act in a manner that would lead to a “Being”, it would need to act under certain laws that make it logical (esp. the laws of identity). That is, Logic would have had to pre-date a god in order for that god to come into being.
e. Even if we were to reduce everything to basic epistemological questions, we don’t get to fill in any “worldview” we want. Philosophers are in the habit of living in perpetual questions. We can question everything - there are legitimate issues with many aspects of our knowledge, but this doesn’t default to a religion. That is shutting off Reason.
f. There is nothing about the TAG (Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God) that arrives at or presupposes the Xian god. In fact, the TAG fails on many levels. THat is, Johnson is simply asserting that “god” is the answer despite any logic and reason to the contrary. (There are many sites that debunk the TAG)

To be continued…

I did not read the other comments here. I wanted to point out that I feel that Don Johnson, et al. seem to be doing a little bit of needlessly rhetorical attack on Dr. Price.

“You don’t make a career out of defending the–uh–proposition that ‘Jesus is dead’ if you claim to be a complete agnostic about the topic.”

As this is a respectful exchange, I would hope that they would try to withhold rhetorical attacks that border on straw man argument and the ad hominem fallacy.

The statement being debated is “Resolved: It is reasonable/rational to think that the resurrection of Jesus as at least approximately accounted for in the Gospels was an actual historical event.” In this recording, the hosts push the idea that Price argues something different than what he believes. I posit that he is arguing in the negative, as he should. For them to spend a long time chastising Dr. Price for his arguing style betrays the spirit of the beautiful project that Paul has set out to create.

Don provided a NATURALISTIC account of the dating of the gospels from a NATURALISTIC WORLDVIEW

Price also provided a naturalistic account of the dating of the gospels from a naturalistic worldview.

Don’s account fails to definitively refute Price’s account and so is merely one among many NATURALISTIC explanations.

This is my main comment and conclusion from an initial listening to the program. Please read further (below) if you like.

I also really enjoy the format and the idea of “slowing down the debate process”. Don’t doubt your original intuition about getting to the common ground. I think you’re doing great stuff here.

Additional comments/thoughts:

whether one is a natualist or a supernaturalist, Don seems to think he needs to counter the naturalist argument on the naturalist’s own terms. What does this say about his own worldview? On the other hand, a naturalist would likely critique a supernaturalist on NATURALIST TERMS. That is, a naturalist would critique the supernatural on the basis of inconsistency, cogency, sufficient grounds, objective evidence, etc. , all naturalistic tenets. A naturalist would not, for example, critique a supernaturalist on the basis of her own special revelation (or alien visitation).

Example: a believer in aliens might critique another beliver on the basis of her own special revelation (the aliens that visited her had green heads not brown!!!) NOT on the basis of lack of objective (in the Popperian sense) evidence or corroboration (i.e. not according to a “non-believer’s” standards)

regarding his own worldview, Don mentioned (paraphrase) that:

1. his standard of evidence is admittadly lower than that of a naturalistic worldview
2. he rejects Price’s naturalistic evidence for a naturalistic explanation of the gospels in terms of a Markan response to Marcionism.

If #1 then it seems Don should admit Price’s evidence AS evidence (which he does seem to) since his standards are lower (i.e. by lower standards I assume he means he would generally be disposed to admit as evidence more things than would a naturalistic worldview)

Yet it seems he provides us with little naturalistic reason to reject Price’s evidence and since, even if we accept Don’s worldview, it necessarily allows naturalistic explanations as evidence too, on what basis should we reject Price’s account?

In other words, a worldview with lower standards of evidence would seem to need a higher standard of justification for the rejection of any particular evidence than a holder of a worldview with stricter standards of evidence.

It seems to me that a supernatual worldview can only critique a naturalistic worldview on the naturalistic level (and Don seems to agree); the supernaturalistic critique must relegate itself to an immanent or internal critique of the naturalistic argument.

Don seems to accept this strategy since he tries to critique Price’s Marcionite account on naturalistic terms. He presents a reading of ACTS that would place it prior to 70 AD thus placing Luke and the subsequent gospels earlier still. But THAT critique (i.e. the one he presents on naturalistic terms) is not objectively stronger than Price’s, at least to the extent either accounts were expounded. He provided no reason why Price’s arguments are internalyy inconsistent or invalidated by other naturalistic evidence, for example. Price’s theory, however, does seem to explain more of the facts than Don’s. Yet both explanations could be accurate with niether one excluding the other on logical grounds.

Conclusion: naturalistic theories do not fail to account for the evidence

NOTE: that they do not fail does not mean they are true

Here is my attempt to get a bit technical on the above assertions:

A = supernatural worldview
B = naturalistic worldview
C = supernatural evidence
D = natural evidence

Proposition:

1. All D’s are in A
2. No C’s are in B

Given that no C’s are in B, B need not justify C’s exclusion. Yet given that all D’s are in A, A WOULD NEED TO justify the rejection of any particular D.

That is, if this is right then it is incumbant on the holder of A to justify the rejection of any particular D whereas the holder of B need not do so for the C’s.

Granted, B may need to justify why they hold B at all (as would A) but my particular point is that both worldviews are NOT operating on the same level. If A includes all D’s, and no C’s are in B, then it seems to me that A can only critique D’s on the basis of B.

I suspect this discussion will lead the supernaturalist to reject, in one form or another, the law of non-contradiction.

That is, the supernaturalistic worldview seems in danger of accepting (A and Not A). If supernatural explanations are allowed, then I worry that anything follows from anything and no knowledge is possible. I obviously haven’t made a case for this suspicion here but it is a conclusion my mind seems drawn to whenever I ponder the mysteries of supernatural explanations.

Aside: I present things like consistency, cogency, etc as naturalistic tenets. I admit these are not exclusive properties of naturalism. Yet supernaturalism would seem to want to accept these AND MORE, namely, supernatural standards of knowledge(special revlation, etc). That’s fine but that’s also why I suspect a supernaturalist will slide into accepting (A and not A)