Podcast Episode 12 Available
The twelfth episode of the OpposingViews.net Podcast is now available right here.
In what may be the last podcast dedicated to the resurrection debate between Don Johnson and Dr. Robert Price, I give my thoughts on the whole idea of worldview as it pertains to this debate and others. (That’s what the image in this post is about.) I also talk about the big mistake I made setting this debate up in the first place, and why the best course of action at this point may just be to chalk it up to experience and move on. That makes it sound gloomier than it is, though. Hope you give it a listen!
Please post comments or send to paul@opposingviews.net.
13 Comments on “Podcast Episode 12 Available”
Phewee,
Thanks Paul for the show and all your work on it, its been really interesting so far. The format has been a bit awkward at times, but I dont think that’s a bad thing at all. How people react or their arguments evolve when pushed or wrong footed can reveal a lot.
To me it’s really interesting how flare ups can reveal personality traits that underlie certain viewpoints or ways of approaching the subject matter.
I think I touched on it in my earlier email to you, that “worldview” is really where its at.
To me Dr. Prices argument is more convincing from a mundane perspective, but Don’s I think has more strength if we are willing to entertain the possibility that it really happened. Basically that we can project a path from the reality to the written accounts just as logically, as we can project a path from a myth-maker to the written accounts.
There are plenty of areas of the testimonies that haven’t really been addressed, such as the numerous explicit pleas and warnings by the writers that the events factually happened and that those trying to turn them into myths are deceivers. But I suspect that Dr. Price would pretty much just say, we cant know, or that they could easily have been motivated by something other than the desire to preserve the truth. And I think thats fair enough. Funny how it seems to come down to trust etc.
I think my take/view is that if it really happened then we are living in that universe right now and so therfore everything we do is influenced by it. Or vice versa. So its not really about the past or history, it’s really about right now and all time and all reality. As you say… too big a topic perhaps.
Thanks
another note! Another few problems with Johnson’s position (and, to be fair, it is not his, but of many supernaturalists/religionists) is that it diminishes into virtual nothingness.
First, he tries to undermine all established knowledge and reduce it to a universal skepticism.
Then, he tries to build it back up on the assumption that the uniformity of nature suggests that a miracle occured - which contradicts the claim of the uniformity of nature.
Then, he suggests that the Xian book is the proof of the truth of Xianity (a vicious circle).
Then, he suggests that “magic” (supernaturalism) happens, but only in the precise ways that make it impossible to verify - which not only undermines the uniformity of nature but erases any concept of anything natural: what is natural if we simply can’t distinguish it from a rare or random event?
On and on it goes until he builds a rickety house of cards that must be supported by Ad Hom attacks, threats of damnation, appeals to authority, and many other fallacies.
in the end, not only do Religionists have an obligation to support their naked assertions, but they should be held accountable for the lies they perpetrate. Lies, because they are claiming them as truths, though, even in Johnson’s worldview he must admit that he is flawed, a wretch, and cannot claim to know the mind of gods, but only take on faith various ideas in an ancient book.
He may say he believes it to be true, but in his heart - as in all people’s - he must know that he is fallible. To advocate for an untestable position - and hang morality and eternal judgment on it - is a morally vacuous position.
After all, he can’t claim that once he chooses a religion that he can rest on the infallible source of the religious text. He, a fallible human being, chose that one religion - based on what?
Most likely, what his parents taught him, in response to his parents, or by the influence of society or an authority figure, or some much more mundane explanation.
I don’t think the topic is too big, necessarily. It is only if you allow someone to undermine everything and throw it into some universal skepticism that rejects well established knowledge, as Johnson, et al, have tried to do.
After 2000 years, after all the suffering and pleading, Johnsons God has not come back to clarify issues, shore up inconsistencies or done anything else that would be considered Good by any objective sense. 30,000 sects of Xianity and counting is not a strong argument for the truth of the Bible but clear, objective and demonstrable evidence that it is flawed and not to be trusted.
Not to mention - the obvious errors, interpolations and contradictions - especially in the important matters of doctrine.
I just saw this that I think sums up Johnson’s argument very well:
MITCHELL’S ARGUMENT
(1) The Christian God exists.
(2) Therefore, all worldviews which don’t assume the Christian God’s existence are false and incomprehensible.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
From:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
You’re kidding! Just when it’s getting good…. Come on, please at least let the participants wrap up with closing statements?
Yes, let the participants make closing statements. Let each hang their Reason and Logic out in full view and scrutiny. Especially, if Johnson wishes to make his “worldview” argument.
I would suggest that a later debate can tackle that subject, address issues of Epistemology, matters of doctrine, and other related topics.
I think then we will see how Presupositionalism fails and that Price’s position of “we can’t know, but we can be very confident in concluding…” is a very solid philosophical position. It is very much a “Inference to the Best Explanation” kind of position.
Now, if we can just get Price to revisit Global Warming and see if he can accept the strong, scientific evidence and consensus!
(Also, i would like Price to argue the Historic Jesus position against a true Biblical scholar, like Ehrman - I think that would be an incredible debate. If nothing else, it would be incredibly educational).
Inspired by this debate, particularly about the classification of narratives here, I have come up with a classification of Bible debaters. Enjoy (in case my English is good enough).
There are two broad classes based on whether the Bible text is initially assumed as authoritative or not. Let’s call them conservatives (Bible is exclusively authoritative) and liberals (Bible is subject to comparison with other sources). There’s also another axle: literal interpretators vs allegorical or intuitive interpretators.
Thus the types are:
Conservative literalist (Bible-thumper)
Conservative allegorist (theologian)
Liberal literalist (strict historian)
Liberal allegorist (philosopher)
Conservatives are not disputing the text of the Bible beyond the undeniable discrepancies between manuscripts, errors in copying or translating. They also usually accept early Church tradition as it is. Any historical or archeological evidence may be added to the mix of scientific data, but no evidence to the contrary is even considered. So the picture is fairly clean in terms of the body of original text and they can concentrate on debating interpretation and the doctrine. People with more allegorical tendencies among conservatives may become authoritative theologians of their particular denomination.
Liberals are decisively more skeptical and relativist. Those liberals that feel more like historians don’t accept the documents at face value unless these are supported by other documents or archeological evidence. Dating the texts tends to go late with this method. Those liberals who feel more like philosophers like to connect the text by logical and philological methods to all sorts of schools of thought in ancient Greece and Rome and Middle East. For philosophers, the literal historical value doesn’t matter that much, except when it happens to illustrate (”prove”) a particular trail of logic.
Conservative literalists always end up in those disputes about how this or that Bible quote can be true while science says something else (cf. the current debate). This is the point where Don Johnson seems to stand, though I’d say he has intellectual capacity to stand above it.
The so-called liberal scientific methods are much more diverse, the results are usually much more interesting, though sometimes unfortunate rubbish, depending on the capacities of the scientist of course. This essentially defines Dr. Price. The problem with his attitude, as far as I see, is this: strict literalist historian interpretation can’t accept the text in those points that have no external support, so they are left with very little material. Everything that can’t be externally substantiated goes overboard. That’s too much.
I’d rather go with a broader philosophical point of view: it is obvious that the text exists, whatever its literal value, and it has had an impact on the course of history. There’s a broad field to study right there. Dr. Price, IMO, has shown traces that he stands in the philosopher camp as a believer.
Inspired by this debate, particularly about the classification of narratives here, I have come up with a classification of Bible debaters. Enjoy.
There are two broad classes based on whether the Bible text is initially assumed as authoritative or not. Let’s call them conservatives (Bible is exclusively authoritative) and liberals (Bible is subject to comparison with other sources). There’s also another axle: literal interpretators vs allegorical or intuitive interpretators.
Thus the types are:
Conservative literalist (Bible-thumper)
Conservative allegorist (theologian)
Liberal literalist (strict historian)
Liberal allegorist (philosopher)
Conservatives are not disputing the text of the Bible beyond the undeniable discrepancies between manuscripts, errors in copying or translating. They also usually accept early Church tradition as it is. Any historical or archeological evidence may be added to the mix of scientific data, but no evidence to the contrary is even considered. So the picture is fairly clean in terms of the body of original text and they can concentrate on debating interpretation and the doctrine. People with more allegorical tendencies among conservatives may become authoritative theologians of their particular denomination.
Liberals are decisively more skeptical and relativist. Those liberals that feel more like historians don’t accept the documents at face value unless these are supported by other documents or archeological evidence. Dating the texts tends to go late with this method. Those liberals who feel more like philosophers like to connect the text by logical and philological methods to all sorts of schools of thought in ancient Greece and Rome and Middle East. For philosophers, the literal historical value doesn’t matter that much, except when it happens to illustrate (”prove”) a particular trail of logic.
Conservative literalists always end up in those disputes about how this or that Bible quote can be true while science says something else (cf. the current debate). This is the point where Don Johnson seems to stand, though I’d say he has intellectual capacity to stand above it.
The so-called liberal scientific methods are much more diverse, the results are usually much more interesting, though sometimes unfortunate rubbish, depending on the capacities of the scientist of course. This essentially defines Dr. Price. The problem with his attitude, as far as I see, is this: strict literalist historian interpretation can’t accept the text in those points that have no external support, so they are left with very little material. Everything that can’t be externally substantiated goes overboard. That’s too much.
I’d rather go with a broader philosophical point of view: it is obvious that the text exists, whatever its literal value, and it has had an impact on the course of history. There’s a broad field to study right there. Dr. Price, IMO, has shown traces that he stands in the philosopher camp as a believer.
Excellent post.
I would be interested to know if Johnson considers himself one of these, and if not, what error is in the Bible. Maybe he can name one or two?
Otherwise, he is an inerrant’ist, which is just absurd and he doesn’t need to be taken seriously.
BTW, what has happened to him? It’s becoming very disturbing that theists are continually “hitting and running” on these issues. Even Craig has been reduced to simply preaching in his “debates”.
I am enjoying this debate series so far and I commend the Paul the moderator. I have not heard this latest episode, but I can guess what happens.
My guess is that Paul found out what I have found out after listening to many of these debates. Debates over the existance of God, the historicity of the Bible, or the Resurrection ultimately boil down to the theist having Faith in their position, and allowing room for a Supernatural explanation to the problem. This position never works in any discipline outside of religion, so the non-theist and the theist are always left at a stalemate. When the apologist says that their worldview allows for the Supernatural, they are expressing in million dollar language that they believe it to be true because they have Faith. Game Over.
Paul, I am afraid that you will come to the same conclusion after you host a debate over intelligent design. Those debates always boil down to a debate over allowing a supernatural framework to invade a discipline of Natural Science. Faith vs Scientific Method. Stale-mate.
This is why the whole subdiscipline of Christian Apologetics is so maddening to me. Every objection to an apologetic argument ultimately boils down to Faith. So it seems to me that Apologetics merely cloud the reasoning of those who already believe. As Christians themselves readily admit, apologetic arguments never ‘win people to Christ’. Apologetics arguments are therefore ultimately pointless - they do not provide Faith for the believer, they never convince the unbeliever, and they are impossible to debate against because logical fallacies are excused in the name of Faith.
I agree with daedalus when he says a debate between Price and lets say Ehrman over the historicity of Jesus, or the authorship of the Pauline Epistles would be fruitful. At least both men appear to come from the same epistomological framework and can speak the same language. Similarly, I would love to hear a debate between Don Johnson and a catholic scholar over something like Sola Scriptura.
Hey Daedalus,
Been out of town and busy with other things, so just wanted to drop you a note to say I’m still around
Just skimmed the posts briefly and it seems that, although I have said it time and time again, you fail to grasp my worldview argument. My position is that the best explanation of the data is a supernatural theistic worldview. This data does not need to include the resurrection or the Bible or the doctrines of Christianity for it to be a convincing case.
If you listen to the first interview, you will notice that I did not present any Christian doctrines as evidence of a theistic worldview, nor did I assume the resurrection to have happened when talking about worldviews.
Rather, I presented other data that I believe is best explained by theism. This data includes: the existence of good and evil, the existence of free will, the existence of conscience, the validity of logic and reason, the existence of “supernatural” experiences, among other things. Because no other worldview explains them nearly as well, these bits of data are good evidences for the truthfulness of theism.
What worldview do you hold and how does it explain these things? Whatever it is, I don’t think it does as good a job of explaining them as theism and I would be happy to debate that with you. In fact, just so you know I don’t “hit and run”, I am officially inviting you to come on my show so we can discuss it.
My email is don@donjohnsonministries.org. Drop me a line, we’ll set up a time, and then I will post a link to the audio here on this blog. I look forward to hearing from you. (This invitation is open to anyone else who has been posting here as well. I’d love to chat with you.)
[quote]Hey Daedalus,
Been out of town and busy with other things, so just wanted to drop you a note to say I’m still around
Just skimmed the posts briefly and it seems that, although I have said it time and time again, you fail to grasp my worldview argument. My position is that the best explanation of the data is a supernatural theistic worldview. This data does not need to include the resurrection or the Bible or the doctrines of Christianity for it to be a convincing case.[/quote]
No, I grasp your “worldview” argument perfectly. You claim that your presupposition leads to a completely internally consistent explanation of everything. Whether you know the facts or not, you can always claim “Magic Man Done It”. I don’t know if you accept that it is a presupposition, but I allude to the problem later. Also, we could go into the problem with presuppositionalism if you do claim you are a presuppositionalist.
[quote]If you listen to the first interview, you will notice that I did not present any Christian doctrines as evidence of a theistic worldview, nor did I assume the resurrection to have happened when talking about worldviews.[/quote]
Then what first gave you an idea that a god existed that meets any of the criteria that your view of the Christian god meets? It certainly isn’t an obvious fact, since only a minority believe as you do. In the absence of an idea of gods and magic, what gave you the idea that they exist? Where have you witnessed them?
[quote]Rather, I presented other data that I believe is best explained by theism.[/quote]
But why theism in the first place? If you don’t use the Bible as a jumping-off point, and the other theistic worldviews are (apparently, according to you) wrong, where did you first get the idea that a “god” (a poorly defined term – especially at this point in your argument) is a “better” explanation?
[quote]This data includes: the existence of good and evil,[/quote]
Why is this evidence of a god?
[quote] the existence of free will[/quote]
Why is this evidence of a god?
[quote], the existence of conscience, [/quote]
Why is this evidence of a god?
[quote]the validity of logic and reason,[/quote]
Why is this evidence of a god?
the existence of “supernatural” experiences
Why is this evidence of a god? (And what supernatural events are you talking about, and why did you put it in quotes?)
[quote], among other things.[/quote]
Why is this evidence of a god?
[quote] Because no other worldview explains them nearly as well, these bits of data are good evidences for the truthfulness of theism.[/quote]
You miss the point, though – WHY THEISM AT ALL? For example, why not magic aliens?
[quote]What worldview do you hold and how does it explain these things?[/quote]
The worldview I hold? Well: One that doesn’t profess an answer for everything. One that doesn’t need an answer for everything. One that can adjust to information as we discover it. One that takes our existence as beings of Matter & Energy in a Space/Time universe as a beginning of understanding our universe. I believe we both agree on last one, but we differ on the others. How do you explain this?
[quote] Whatever it is, I don’t think it does as good a job of explaining them as theism and I would be happy to debate that with you.[/quote]
Theism is an “omni-answer” it answers everything, yet nothing. For example, what is the purpose of Man? What is the cure for cancer? Theism offers nothing useful, and the term “god” is poorly defined. You must resort to a religious view to claim an answer to the first, abdicate any power over the second.
[quote]In fact, just so you know I don’t “hit and run”, I am officially inviting you to come on my show so we can discuss it.
My email is don@donjohnsonministries.org. Drop me a line, we’ll set up a time, and then I will post a link to the audio here on this blog. I look forward to hearing from you. (This invitation is open to anyone else who has been posting here as well. I’d love to chat with you.)[/quote]
That is gracious of you and I am glad to be shown wrong about Christians often “hitting and running”. I have no doubt your rhetorical skills are vastly superior to mine (isn’t it part of your training as a clergy member?) and I would be at a significant disadvantage. However, the challenge is intriguing. Give some time to consider it and see if I can fit it in.
In the meantime, it would be great if we could continue this conversation.
(I used a forum format (note the [quote]) - it would read better if inserted into a forum text box. Sorry if it is confusing.)
I have been following the debate and am sorry there is consideration of just stopping it and going on.
I went back and listened again to the first two episodes where you talk about island metaphors and exploring those islands. Islands that are fundamental to the positions taken by the debaters. And also making sure that all the points of one side are addressed by the other.
What happened to these great ideas? Were they consistently carried out? Were the debaters made to answer each and every point made by the other side? Were all the “islands” thoroughly explored? What I heard happening in actuality was a limiting of the “islands” as if we were limited by time and we have to move on. For example Don brought up the importance of ones “world view”, you weren’t sure you wanted to go there. What ever happened to exploring the islands mentioned in episodes 1 & 2? Sub-points made by Dr. Price as to why would the writer of a particular Gospel say this, were never put back to Don for an answer. Why not?
——————————————————————————————
“islands” that need a complete exploration
before the debate question.
Fundamental Island #1:
Is there a God?
- Probably many sub-islands would come into play here. That’s o.k. according to episodes 1 &2
If the answer is no, we are done. No need to go to the debate question.
Fundamental Island #2:
Does God perform miracles?
If no, are miracles performed in some other manner? If no, we are done. No need to go to the debate question.
Fundamental Island #3:
Is the Biblical record of Jesus true?
Sub-islands
-Yes
- Partially
If the answer is no, we are done, unless the debaters can support their positions without using the Bible.
Island #4 - The debate question
Does reason and evidence lead to the conclusion that the resurrection is a historical fact?
If Dr. Price believes that there is no such thing as a historical fact, only historical possibilities then we are done before we start, unless we change the wording, because he would be against anything that would be postulated as historical fact.
——————————————————————————————
I disagree that you shy away from summary written text on the basis of inaccuracy. I think a writing of the points made and their rebuttal would be very helpful. Perhaps in chart form. The advantage to written “islands” as opposed to audio only is that after the debate is formally over, these islands could be further explored by others. They might even spawn further debates by new experts. You could even start a new debate on a completely different topic and keep the old islands open for further discovery.
I hope you continue this debate and your unique format. I enjoyed your interaction, but you must be more careful in the future not to expose your bias or enter into the debate yourself.
Good debate on the resurrection using conventional debate format:
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf
38 pages.
I have been following with great interests these podcast and I hope you will continue with them.
I have noticed that Don Johnson has basically admitted that by using the normal historical method it is not possible to ascertain the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
He has to bring in other concepts. Au contraire, Robert Price has no need to do so and is comfortably using the historical method.
I think that that is quite telling.