Don Johnson responds to user comment
The page linked here contains a text sent to me by Don Johnson on 11/13/08 which Don asked me to post. It contains a comment from Aaron, a listener (in black) with Don’s response interspersed in blue. (Looks like it may be time to get a message board going in the near future…)
7 Comments on “Don Johnson responds to user comment”
The Robert Price - Don Johnson debate is one of the best I have heard. Very Thorough - Thank you!
I note one glaring problem with Johnson’s argument when he was claiming that Jesus is different from Aliens.
He said that “if a billion people believed in aliens” then he would have pause to believe it.
1. Argumentum ad Populum - a fallacy
2. A billion people DIDN’T believe the Jesus story when it counted - during Jesus’s (alleged) life.
3. A billion people DO believe in aliens today.
These undermine the framework he tries to set up. Basically, his argument is “I believe therefore I think its plausible”.
It’s not a “worldview game”. By trying to shift the goalposts it undermines their position even more.
IMO, Price has not only won this debate hands-down, but has seriously eroded any belief that Jesus existed in the first place.
I think this debate clearly shows the lack of reason most religionists have - and I thought they did a great job!
I never said that if a billion people believed in aliens that I would have cause to believe it. I said that if you were going to make alien appearances analogous to the the resurrection you would have to include the fact that a billion people believe in it. I was not making an argument for the truthfulness of the resurrection from the number of people that believe it - I discounted that as silly when Paul asked me about it in interview one. I was simply showing where his alien analogy was weak.
You set up a complete straw man here, daudalus. My argument is never “I believe therefore I think it is plausible.” It is “The Christian explanation of the data is more plausible than any other.”
But your argument IS as I said when you raise the specter of “worldviews”.
Basically, this is your argument:
“I believe therefore I think it is plausible… because my worldview allows it.”
You have said as much, and have ‘attacked’ Price for the opposite - that his world view does not allow it to be plausible. (Or, rather, he says it could have happened but doesn’t seem likely or plausible - in fact, often he said it was absurd that the stories of the Bible are accurate descriptions of one event.)
Fine, let’s go with “The Christian explanation of the data is more plausible than any other.”
1. Price just argued strongly and convincingly that this is not true.
2. “The data” seems to refer to the events in the Bible describing the Resurrection - this is a vicious circle: The Xian explanation is more plausible because the Bible makes seems more plausible.
a. How did you come upon having the Xian ‘worldview’ if you weren’t predisposed to accept the stories in the Bible? There are other religious texts that you don’t accept, yet they are as internally consistent as the Bible.
3. What first gave you the idea that a god existed in the first place? where did your presupposition come from? Personal experience? Hindu’s have personal experience of their God, and some atheists have personal experiences of oneness with the universe in which they ‘know’ there is no god. How do you judge the merits of each? (IMO, we agree on the basics; that Matter and Energy exist and move from there, not that something “Supernatural” exists and then try to fit it into what we observe.)
4. What is the difference between Supernatural, Natural and Subnatural? If you can’t give me definitions of them, why posit they exist in the first place?
5. Perhaps a good comparison for Jesus’ death is the death of Hitler. We have some eyewitness testimony, we had a body, etc. but still, no one knows really what happened. Not with absolute certainty. But we can rule out all sorts of things. Did Hitler really die? What do you tell a person whose ‘worldview’ says that conspiracies are the norm?
6. As an extension of #5, the way we determine these things is through what we DO know. 1. That people die - there has never been a verifiable story of someone NOT dying. 2. We have a body and strong testimony - by people who would gain from lying about Hitlers death - but we accept it as true because it conforms with the uniformity of Nature (something you believe God created… but then overturned… This is not an unchanging god.) 3. Can you say we will ever KNOW what happened to Hitler? I think we can safely say that some of the things happened, but some of it is lost to history (Price’s point, which is particularly strong since we are talking about a 1,910 year difference or so. Bronze Age to Modern Age.
Note about worldviews: you made it sound that people have views that restrict them from understanding the “truth” (as you see it, or at least, simply as understanding another worldview). A ‘worldview’ (a VERY sloppy term, btw, which means very little in philosophical terms), could include someone who feels that they follow the strongest evidence and they have no predisposition for Supernaturalism or Materialism. Even if they come to agree with all Materialist explanations, this doesn’t mean the have a restricted worldview - it may mean that the evidence is convincing for a materialist worldview.
Also, it is not universally true that a worldview stops people from understanding the other side. This is demonstrably so: many people move from Atheist to Theist, Supernaturalist to Materialist.
In the end, your claims need to stand on their own merit and withstand scrutiny from many ‘worldviews’. Again, I would refer you to Carruthers list for a good explanation - and encourage you to not think in terms of monolithic ‘worldviews’ but individual claims, evidence and apply your method of logic equally. After all, if you allow Supernaturalism, a priori, then there is nothing that would be impossible and you would have no reason to believe anything, since gods, demons or magicians could change the facts in an instance.
Thank you for responding. I have a brusque writing style, but in noticing your radio show, I noticed you are not opposed to giving as good as you get.
So: “The Christian explanation of the data is more plausible than any other.”
Why? Because the people who created the X’n explanation tell you so?
I have a nice bridge here in Brooklyn….
BTW, i might also add that Johnson’s attempt to turn it into a game of worldviews is a vast ad hom:
Essentially, he is saying that if you can’t understand his position you are defective (did god make you that way?), ignorant or stubborn.
I have seen few people attempt to win an argument by saying “first, you have to see the world as I do and THEN all my evidence makes sense.”
The issue is whether the evidence holds up in any world view - across the board (barring some of the fringe hypotheses that are untestable - which MAY be true, but are useless to pursue: 5 minute-old universe, Idealism, etc.)
If the supernaturalists have a claim, show us how to test it. Materialists/Naturalists have a claim and they beg for people to test it.
The only test I have ever heard from a X’n is “read the Bible and see how it changes your life!” or “pray to believe in God” or “accept Jesus and then you will believe”.
These are exactly the same as what a Muslim would ask of Johnson.
Don, have you done this? Have you prayed and committed yourself to all other religions? Why not?
After all, if they include the concept of a Magic Man, all is possible - and so contradictions in their texts only APPEAR to be contradictions.
As I said, if you believe this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn at a great price…
Wordlviews got something to do with it, yes, but there must be ways to keep even a resurrection debate strictly on resurrection.
Maybe this way:
- Documented evidence outside Bible (nonexistent from Dr. Price’s POV, also Don’s)
- Documented evidence from Bible and similar religious texts (this is where it should get interesting)
- whether to interpret literally, how literal can we get (this is what people’s debates are mostly limited to)
- if we interpret allegorically, what does it mean to Dr. Price and what to Don (maybe boring for some, but not me; e.g. “regeneration of soul”, which basically means constant refreshment of one’s world view and sense of purpose in life, is what brings the resurrection story to life in the present moment, whereas the previous point may (dis)prove its historical accurateness, but all of its significance will stay entirely in history too; thus the previous point, debate only on historical proof about resurrection is not satisfactory for me personally at all)
Mr. Johnson permitted Dr. Price to steal control of the debate early on when he allowed Price to put him on the defensive about the authority of the gospels.
Here are the facts seemingly forgotten by Mr. Johnson:
1. The gospels are the written record of the event and have been accepted by scholars and laymen as authoritative for nearly 20 centuries.
2. No text of antiquity has endured as much exegesis as these documents.
3. These texts have been relied on as a guide for living and sufficient reason for dying by billions of people for two thousand years .
4. N.T. Wright world renowned theologian and historian whose seminal work The Resurrection of the Son of God is an exhaustive study of the historical Jesus concludes the gospel account of the resurrection to be as sound as any of the accepted histories of that period or before.
5.Given the weight of the above it is incumbent on Dr. Price to impeach the gospels at a very high level of certainty or accept them authoritative.
6. Not withstanding that much of what Dr. Price asserts is demonstrably false -the late dating of 3 of the 4 books, the legitimacy of the gnostic gospel of Thomas etc. - [see Reformation Study Bible]the remainder of evidence is little more than conjecture.
7. Dr. Price will certainly attack the conclusions of believing theologians as biased. He must then be held to the same standard his employment being as a professional skeptic.
Finally, It is very, very difficult to prevail against one such as Dr. Price for he will assert very little that is remotely testable and relies on his academic credentials as his own ad homeinem argument, seeking to cow his opponent down with high sounding sophistries. The best chance to succeed is to tirelessly, relentlessly and unapologetically charge him with proving HIS assertions.
Legitimate scholars such as Wright in the aforementioned book and Dr. R.C. Sproul,Dr. John Gerstner and Dr. J.M. Boice and others through their Inerrancy of The Scriptures project have more than adequately rebutted the Jesus Seminar deconstructionists.
To Don Johnson: don’t negotiate your evidence it has stood the test of time against all comers and will prevail against the “gates of hell itself”
Sincerely,
Joe Hacker
Lexington KY
J. Robert Brock Hacker:
Here are the facts seemingly forgotten by Mr. Johnson:
1. Argument from Tradition. Just because it has withstood time, doesn’t make it true.
2. Argument from Authority. Just because many people have spent so much time on it, doesn’t make it true. (Case in point, the Hindu scriptures).
3. Argument ad populum. Just because it is popular, doesn’t make it true.
4. Argument from Authority. other biblical scholars argue against Wright’s position. What Wright says, doesn’t make it true.
5.False dilemma. He doesn’t need to do one or the either. The gospels are a collection of writings from various sources. Each should be considered on its own merits. Also, Price DID give strong accounts of why the texts aren’t trustworthy.
6. Bald assertion. They certainly aren’t demonstrably false! Why does the debate rage on?
7. Ad hominem. Just because someone is a skeptic, doesn’t make what he says untrue, just as we can assume a Theologian doesn’t always tell lies.
Each of your examples is a fallacy. Would you care to reconsider your position?