The following was sent to me by Don Johnson on 11/13/08.  It is 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…) - Paul

Again, great podcast.

I am impressed by your sincere, unbiased look into this incredibly important topic. Throughout the discussion, you have approached both sides of the issue with respect and a genuine desire to better understand the fundamentals of the arguments. And interestingly enough, I think the format has revealed (even if by accident) the fundamental lack of reason on the part of the affirmative view. Podcast 11 is an amazing testament to circular logic. And I’m sure you can appreciate the incredible hornet’s nest you’ve stumbled into.

As I state at the end of this comment, as soon as I actually see the evidence of circular logic, preferably in a syllogism, I will address it.

Quote from the show:
“If someone wanted to convince me that an alien had visited them [they would be] best served not to sell me on that event [but instead] get me to buy into aliens in general….”

Just so we are clear about this quote, let’s make sure we have some context and understand what we meant by it. We were speaking of the importance of worldviews – what their function is in a debate about an alleged historical event. As the beliefs you already hold about the universe, worldviews determine how probable or improbable you think certain events are. As such, any debate about the veracity of an alleged event should include an explanation and defense of this worldview: “I think this is (improbable or probable) because [my worldview] and I think [my worldview] is true because of [this evidence….]”

For alien stories, you would say, “I don’t think this story is improbable because aliens appear to people all the time and here is my evidence to back that up…” This would be a better approach than just saying “An alien appeared to Joe and here is my evidence for that particular event” Establishing how probable or improbable and event is to begin with determines how much evidence you need and what kind of evidence you need.

So, then, if you came to me and wanted to convince me that an alien had visited you, you would be best served to try to convince me of a worldview that includes a belief that alien visits happen quite regularly. That is what the quote is about.

In this argument, Don tells us that even though the single event of an alien visit can appear ridiculous at first, in the context of a worldview that accepts alien visits, the event is not only plausible, but can further validate similar alien encounters.

This is not what I said. What I said was: from one worldview an alien visit looks ridiculous, but from another worldview it appears entirely plausible. I was making a point about the nature of worldviews. I said nothing about “at first.” The only way for this sentence to capture any sense of what I actually believe would be to expand it to say something like this: “Although a story about an alien will appear ridiculous to someone with a particular worldview, if that person can be persuaded, through cogent arguments and a presentation of solid evidence, to accept that his or her worldview is wrong, then the story about aliens may not appear so ridiculous later, and may, in fact, appear plausible.”

Let’s apply Don’s reasoning to the infamous case of Jim Jones and the “Peoples Temple” in Jonestown, Guyana. Using Don’s argument, we can acknowledge that, on it’s face, Jones’ request of his followers (and their children) to commit mass suicide by drinking cyanide seems irrational - but in the context of Jones’ cultist worldview, it’s actually pretty reasonable.

Actually, this is how I would apply my reasoning to the Jim Jones case: “According to my worldview, drinking cyanide is stupid. According to the worldview of Jones’ followers, it was wise. If I were going to try to talk them out of it, I would start by trying to convince them that their worldview was false, and I would do this through presentation of cogent arguments and solid evidence. Your attempted application of my reasoning to the Jones case shows that you don’t understand the argument. Another example of your misunderstanding comes in the next paragraph:

Similarly, Don and his associate argue that based on the current evidence, they actually don’t think it’s reasonable to claim that someone named Jesus came back to life after three days UNLESS you are predisposed to want to believe it, in the context of a larger belief system that would inherently validate such a claim.

That is not what we argued at all. We said that based on the current evidence, it is much more reasonable to hold to a theistic, supernatural worldview, which then makes the claim of a resurrection must less improbable than it would be if you held to an atheistic worldview (a worldview that we submit must be held contrary to the current evidence.) It is only people who are predisposed to hold anti-supernatural claims (claims that we find to be un-supported and unreasonable) that find the resurrection story improbable on its face.

To see an example of how anti-supernatural worldview beliefs influence an argument, we need look no further than Dr. Price’s first interview in this debate. As the lynchpin of his positive case against the resurrection he presented the “principle of analogy.” According to this principle, if we have no current events that are analogous to a claimed event, and the claimed event is similar to other ancient stories which we believe to be false, then we can conclude that the claimed event is likely false.

In showing how he applies this principle to the resurrection he explains that supernatural events don’t happen today. For example, he says that spiritual renewal (changed lives due to supernatural intervention) “does not happen!” and then asks “why do we not see these things (miracles) today?” (He gives the example of Oral Roberts not seeing anything supernatural and then states that supernatural events don’t happen anywhere).

So Dr. Price is saying that the principle of analogy can be applied to supernatural events in general and, since supernatural events don’t happen today, any historical claim to the supernatural can be discounted as improbable. The resurrection is a supernatural claim and can therefore be, a priori, classified as improbable.

In syllogism form, Dr. Price’s argument looks like this:

Premise 1: if we have no current events that are analogous to a claimed event, and the claimed event is similar to other ancient stories which we believe to be false, then we can conclude that the claimed event is probably false.

Premise 2: supernatural events don’t happen today (we have no current analogous events to anything supernatural)

Therefore: One cannot accept an historical account of a supernatural event as probable

Dr. Price’s argument clearly rests on the premise that supernatural events don’t happen today. This is a worldview claim, one that is not determined by the story of the resurrection, but one that he already holds prior to even thinking about the story of the resurrection. As such, he is predisposed to find the resurrection improbable and would not necessarily find it so if he did not hold these prior beliefs about the world.

My main point in the last podcast was simply to show the importance of worldview in the structure of the argument. Although we didn’t expand on the implications very much in the show, one such implication would clearly be that worldviews should be reasonable held and capable of defense in the debate. In debunking Dr. Price’s principle of analogy as applied to the resurrection, we would of course want to show that his second premise (“supernatural events don’t happen today”) is false. We would do this through a presentation of evidence and cogent argument. As I said in both my first interviews, to make this a full discussion of the resurrection, we would need to go through all the data. This would include determining if we can reasonable come to the conclusion that spiritual renewal doesn’t happen or supernatural events don’t occur.

Don’s argument is actually very frightening. Carried to it’s extreme, you get 918 people dead in a jungle in South America and airplanes flying into buildings. Obviously, making your kid drink cyanide is NEVER reasonable. EVER. But as Don illustrates, no amount of reasoning or doubt will ever convince some people that their beliefs are, at best wrong and at worst deadly, no matter what evidence you present to them. Those unfortunate souls in Jonestown were living with a worldview that compelled them to see their circumstances through a lens that made the irrationality of mass suicide to appear rational, or made their creeping doubts to appear weak, or made simple reason appear to be an obstacle to truth.

This paragraph is ridiculous. The deaths at Jonestown have nothing to do with my argument about the nature of worldviews and their role within debates about historical claims, carried to an extreme or not. I don’t know why Jones’ followers or the Muslim terrorists believed what they did, or what, if anything, would have convinced them to abandon those beliefs but the fact that Jonestown and 9/11 happened is not illustrative of any point that I have made regarding worldviews.

If I were to use Jonestown or 9/11 as an illustration of a worldview point, it would be to say that I believe both worldviews were highly fideistic beliefs systems in which reason and evidence played little role and that this shows you should not join fideistic religions.

Obviously, I don’t mean to imply that Don is equivalent to Jim Jones or that the horrors of Jonestown are on par with believing in the salvation of Jesus Christ. I do however believe that Don’s life is a constant and continually re-enforced paradigm where community experience is the only necessary validation for community dogma. By his own admission, the shear volume of Don’s personal Christian experiences, re-enforce his predisposition towards a belief in a Christian worldview - even when determining whether or not the very history on which that worldview is founded is accurate!

Community experience is not the only validation (if by validation you mean evidence) for our belief, but it certainly is one major piece of evidence. I stated this clearly in interview one. Like I said in interview two, all the pieces of evidence I present support each other, including current experience and historical data. This is very common epistemology, and I am not sure why you would question it. After all, Dr. Price used exactly the same argument from community experience when he stated the second major premise of his argument, namely that supernatural events don’t happen in our current experience. The sheer volume of humanity’s supposed lack of experience of God was presented as evidence number two in Price’s argument. Of course I think that the assertion that humanity lacks spiritual experience is false, but I don’t question the validity of using the category of community experience as evidence in the argument.

Don’s complete breakdown of logic is what scares bestselling authors like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. In his book, Letter To A Christian Nation, Sam Harris writes that Mother Teresa experienced an absolute crisis of faith toward the end of her life, in which she doubted the very existence of god. After confessing this to Church Elders, she was told her doubts were a gift from Jesus and that, in her heartache, she would share in the suffering of the crucified savior, and thus grow closer to God.

This circular reasoning is inescapable and has nothing, whatsoever, to do with reason.

I do not see where there is a breakdown in logic or where the argument is circular. If you could present evidence of those problems, preferably in the form of the faulty syllogism I am supposed to be employing, I would appreciate it. I will then address it.