The Failures of Don Baker

The latest episode of The Atheist Experience TV show is on-line. Co-Host Don Baker had done yet another of his "Failures of Christianity" series. I've complained about Baker before and, in this episode, he has certainly gotten no better.

Baker devotes the beginning of the episode to talking about "The Dark Ages." I want to stress, Baker's rant was not an off the cuff response to a question, it was pre-prepared, so he had ample opportunity to fact check. To give a full list of his factual errors would take a long post indeed. Some of these claims are popular myths which have long been refuted , such as the claim that Christians burned the Great Library of Alexandria. Had Baker simply bothered to read the Wikipedia article on the destruction of said library he'd have recognised what rubbish he was talking.

Other claims are simply bizarre, Baker actually claims that Christians of the middle ages persecuted Zoroastrianism. Yes, you read the correctly. How Baker would get around the small problem of no Zoroastrian communities existing within Christian lands during the middle ages, I'm not certain of.

Even when describing real atrocities, Baker shows a horrific lack of attention to details. Take, for example, his discussion of the crusades. Now, there is no question, a lot of horrible things were done by Christians during the Crusades, and it's fair enough to criticise this. Baker, however, can't seem to wrap his head around the basic history of the Crusades. He notes. accurately enough, that there were six major crusades, but then says, eventually, they captured Jerusalem. Actually, the first Crusade captured Jerusalem, the second failed to hold it and the remaining four were failed attempts to retake it. In other words, even when describe an actually failure, Baker can't be bothered doing a simple Google search to get the details right.

I mention these three examples, those with more time and patient could list many more. My question, however, is this, how does Baker get away with this? This is by no means the first time, that he's made factual claims this wide of the mark. The show is sponsored by the Atheist Community of Austin, Texas, which I understand to be a reasonably large organisation. Surely there have to be people in the ACA who would know enough history to know that Baker is frequently wrong. Alternatively, there must be people who, hearing one of Baker's bits, will think it sounds interesting, doing a quick Google search and discover that Baker is wrong? Have none of these people tried to talk to him? If they have, does he care?

This matters because people on the show frequently call creationists and others to account for their failure to do basic research. If people want to be consistent however, they need to hold their own side to the same standards.

You Can Do Better Than This

Those of you who have read my blog for a while will know that I'm something of a fan (for a certain value of fan) of the T.V. Show “The Atheist Experience”. While I obviously have big disagreements with the people running the show, I like the way in which they openly engage in dialogue with all comers. It has occurred to me that, if any of them saw the light, some of these guys would make good Dominicans. I also appreciate the fact that most of the hosts make an effort to fairly represent the views of those they are arguing against.

One of the exceptions to that rule is Don Baker, who co-hosted the most recent episode. Mr. Barker does a semi-regular section on what he calls “the failures of Christianity.” I've seen a number of these sections and quite frankly, he makes no serious effort to understand what Christians are actually saying.

His most recent section is on “The Failures of Scripture” and is found here. He spends most of his time reading from Thomas Paine's “The Age of Reason” and suggesting that this pamphlet presents unanswerable arguments against scripture.
 

Among these arguments is the claim that God wouldn't have given revelation in ancient Hebrew because words change their meanings so some of the words in the Hebrew Bible now mean different things than they once did. Yes, that's true, that's why we have translators and scholars. We are also told that it's ridiculous to believe in an Old and New Testament, since this implies that an all-knowing God changed His mind. Not the slightest effort is made to interact with the Christian belief that it was always God's plan to deal with humanity in successive dispensations. We are also told that, if Jesus of Nazareth had wanted to found a new religion with new scriptures, He would certainly have written it Himself or at least made sure it was written in His lifetime; how this is known, we are not told.

A somewhat better argument comes when it is pointed out that there was a human process, after scripture was written, of discussion and debate to determine which books would be accepted into the canon of scripture. This is a slightly more valid point; the process referred to was a real one, but Don Baker seriously suggests that anyone who believes the Bible is God's word must be ignorant of this process. This is simply false. For a Catholic, who believes in the authority of the Church, the role of the Church in canonising Scripture is frequently appealed to as an argument for the authority of the Church. Even among our protestant friends, while I disagree with them on this issue, it is simply not true that anyone with a knowledge of the history of this project lose their belief.

 

The silliest part of the whole argument, however, comes right towards the end. Mr. Barker quotes, uncritically, Paine's assertion that the New Testament could only have been written by people who believed the earth was flat. I really thought this particular piece of silliness had been thrown on the scrap heap long ago. The spherical nature of the earth was well known long before the time of Christ and was universally accepted throughout the Greco-Roman world by the time the New Testament was written. For Mr. Barker to recycle this rubbish is a sign of how lacking his critical judgement is when it comes to any argument against Christianity.
 

I can imagine some readers will suggest this rubbish is not worth the time to refute. In response to this, first, these guys have a substantial following and are worth responding to. Second, I like this show and want to like these guys and I actually expect better from them.

Special Pleading and the KCA

The latest episode of The Atheist Experience is online. Towards the end of the show, they took a call, which you can find here. The call included a discussion of the claim (which I have heard before) that the various cosmological arguments commit the fallacy of special pleading.

For those unfamiliar, the phrase “Cosmological Argument” refers to a variety of arguments for the existence of God which seek to prove the existence of God as a first cause. Probably the best known version these days is the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA). The KCA exists in a variety of forms, but at it's most basic, it's premises are:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.

From these premises, the conclusion is drawn that the universe had a cause. As I said, that's the basic argument. Most variations add premises to support the conclusion that the cause of the universe must be something recognisable as a God.

I must make clear, KCA is not my favourite version of Cosmological argument, but, for our purposes, it will serve as a model. The caller to the atheist experience mentioned his experience arguing with theists, their invocation of various forms of the cosmological argument. He said that he replied by asking who made God and they replied by saying that God, has always existed. The caller, host and co-host all agreed that this was an example of special pleading. I disagree.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines special pleading thus:

Special pleading is a form of inconsistency in which the reasoner doesn’t apply his or her principles consistently. It is the fallacy of applying a general principle to various situations but not applying it to a special situation that interests the arguer even though the general principle properly applies to that special situation, too.

For this discussion, the key part of the definition are the words “even though the general principle properly applies to that special situation.” The special pleading objection would, quite reasonably, apply to the popular caricature of the cosmological argument which has, as its first premise, “everything must have a cause.” As as been pointed out, however, numerous times, no actual theist philosopher has ever put this argument forward.

Some will suggest that to apply a principle, in this case needing a cause, to everything in the universe other than God is automatically a case of special pleading. Not so. There are close on seven billion people on earth today. Of those seven billion, any one of them who believes that he or she is current President of the United States is suffering a serious delusion, with the one exception of Barack Hussein Obama. This isn't special pleading in President Obama's case, it's because there is a real principle which would legitimately apply to any other person who thought they were president but not to the person who actually is.

The principle “whatever begins to exist has a cause” legitimately does not apply to a being which has always existed. Now, I have heard atheists attempt to defend the special pleading charge with the claim that, theists get around this problem by arbitrarily defining God as having always existed.

Two things need to be said to that: 1) Even if the claim were correct, that isn't special pleading it would be closer to the ad hoc rescue fallacy. 2) More importantly, the claim is actually wrong. The theist is here not arbitrarily defining God as something that always existed but rather pointing out that the argument, if true, necessarily leads to something which has always existed.

A final point, I'll reiterate that the KCA is not my favourite form of the cosmological argument and not one I'd use a normal apologetic context. If anyone wants to comment on this post, I'd appreciate you restricting your comments to the narrow question of whether or not cosmological arguments in general or the KCA in particular commits the fallacy of special pleading. Id' rather not have this turn into a free-for-all of criticisms of the argument.

A Few Quick Links

First, last week, I mentioned philosopher, Dan Fincke's appearance on The Atheist Experience. I said that Fincke had mentioned a particular post on his blog as a good starting point to understand his thinking. Here is the post in question and here is a critique of it by Prof. Edward Feser which says essentially what I would have said but he says it a lot better.

Second, I was saddened to hear of the passing of Fr. Andrew Greeley. For a number of years, I read his columns with considerable regularity; it would be an understatement to say that I didn't always agree with him, but I did frequently find him interesting and engaging. I was touched to read this tribute to him by his fellow Chicago priest, Fr. Robert Barron.

Third, having, in my last post, criticised Jimmy Akin, I'd like to recommend this post of his on prayer.

Finally, speaking of theistic evolution, have a read of this.

An Intersting Argument about Ethics.

The latest episode (no. 817) of The Atheist Experience was an interesting one. The show is usually devoted to answering calls from whomever happens to call in. On this occasion, however, about half the program was taken up with a pre-arranged call from an atheist philosopher by the name of Dan Fincke. You can find the relevant section here. I'd never hear of Prof. Fincke before but, after hearing what he had to say on the show, I went over to his blog “Camels with Hammers” and, after reading for a bit, I added his blog to my list of those I plan to read regularly.

The Prof. seems to have a double mission, on the one hand he wants to convince his fellow atheists to embrace objective morality, on the other hand, to convince we theists the objective morality can exist without God. This a subject of no small interest to me and I was interested to here his views. I, of course, will be attacking his arguments from one side, I believe in objective morality but don't think it can be meaningful without God. I suspect, however, that many of my atheist friends who reject objective morality will agree with at least some of my disagreements with him
 

Before commenting on what Prof. Finke had to say, I have to note, at several points during the program I felt a strong desire to throw something at the show's co-host, Martin Wagner. For example, at at 7:40 minute mark, Wagner states that “Christians” not some or many Chrustians but Christians generally, when we argue for objective morality, “always” his word, always, claim that such things can't be gotten to rationally but require divine revelation. Mr. Wagner, if that;s what you think Christians always argue, I'd ask you to do some reading on the natural law tradition in Christian moral thought.

Mr. Wagner then goes on to tell us that many Christian apologists, he explicitly mentions Willaim Lane Craig, openly encourage disdain for reason and argue that reason and evidence have no value in getting to truth. Now, I'm sorry, I'm no fan of Dr. Craig, but Mr. Wagner's characterisation of his views is either shockingly ignorant or an outright lie. Craig is known as an evidentialist apologist, as someone who seeks to show that evidence and reason lead to the Christian faith. I could go on, listing Mr. Wagner's incredible distortions, but this is supposed to be a blog post about Prof. Fincke.
 

The central part of Prof. Fincke's argument, if I understand him correctly, come between about the eleven and sixteen minute marks. His argument stands on two main points. One of these is formal consistency. He argues that, just as we can't believe what we see to be contradictory, so there are certain acts which are contradictory. The argument seems to be that, if we attempt to hold others to a standard but fail to live up to that standard ourselves, we would be aware of an inconsistency. There are any number of arguments I could make to this, but I'll confine myself to this reply: I agree that we would see as inconsistent to hold others to a standard and fail to live up to it ourselves, but that simply begs the question of why we should seek to hold people to such standards in the first place.

The second prong of Prof. Fincke argument has to do with the fulfilment of various powers.
According to the good Prof. We have certain powers, our intelligence, our our capacity for technology, our capacity for enjoyment. He thinks it is self evident or something we would all intuitively recognise that we should seek to maximise these powers in order to flourish. Now, in many ways, this seems very close to the Aristotelian and Thomist position. I certainly agree that developing our human powers is a desirable thing. Having said that, I don't think this is self-evident and it isn't intuitively obvious, nor is it clear to everyone. My belief in the moral desirability of developing these powers is based on certain metaphysical beliefs which I assume Prof. Fincke doesn't share. (If he does share them I'd love to here how he reconciles those with his lack of belief in God.) Absent those metaphysical beliefs, many people will in no way see the desirability of developing such powers as obvious, indeed plenty of people seem quite content to drown those powers in drugs and alcohol.
 

Prof. Fincke ended his call with a recommendation to check out his blog and recommended one particular blog post of his. I had originally planned to include comments on that post in this post. I decided, however, that it deserves a response of it's own. God willing, I should get to that in the next few days.

How not to Evangelise.

I'm a Christian. I'm also a sufferer from a long term mental illness. I can remember one day, many years ago, when my depression was unusually bad; I was walking through the Central Business District in Canberra when I was approached by a fellow who mentioned that I looked like I was unhappy. He went on to tell me that he was a pastor at a certain church. I won't name the church, but the senior pastor (presumably this guy's boss) was, at the time, a fairly well known name in Canberra’s evangelical community.
 

The gentleman told me that he could see I looked unhappy and assured me that, if I would simply embrace Jesus, he'd take away my depression, just like that. I didn't particularly feel like discussing theology at the time so I just smiled politely, thanked him, took a leaflet from him and went off to get some lunch. (If my memory serves, the lunch cheered me up considerably.)
 

I thought about this today, for the first time in a while, while watching the most recent episode of the T.V. Show The Atheist Experience. You can find the episode here.

At approximately the twelve and a half minute mark of the episode, they receive a call from a gentleman who identifies himself as an atheist and as suffering from long term depression. As he tells it, various Christian friends and family who knew he was an atheist before this and never made any particular effort to convert him have suddenly started using is depression as a way to tell him that he needs God and blaming his depression on his atheism.
 

Now, obviously, I have to offer a caveat here that I haven't heard what his friends actually said to him and don't know their side of the story. Having said that, if they really have been blaming his depression on his atheism or suggesting that embracing Christianity will make it all go away then they need to wake up and discover reality. Christians suffer from mental illness, Christians get depressed.
 

I'd love to say that the behaviour of this gentleman's friends was an isolated incident, but I think we all know I'd be lying. I've met too many Christians who seem to think in this way. I also wish, as a Catholic, I could say that this sort of stupidity was confined to evangelical protestantism. Sadly, while thinking of this nature seems to jibe well with the prosperity gospel embraced by a certain for of evangelical, we Catholics are not immune it. I can well remember a Catholic telling me that they couldn't understand how any Catholic could be depressed because we are called to rejoice in the Lord.
 

I should also add, while I don't know exactly what his friends have and have not said to him in the past but, if he is accurate in saying that his friends never tried to evangelise him until the issues with his depression arose then the co-host of the show was probably fairly accurate in describing them as opportunistic (word I won't say.)

Word to the wise, my fellow Christians, embracing Jesus does not grant you automatic immunity from all of the crap that comes with being human. To suggest that it does makes us look like idiots. It also makes us look like jerks.

p.s. On a semi-related note, my friend Karl Hand recently had a post on unhelpful ways to evangelise. While I'm not sure if I agree with everything Karl says, I defiantly think he raises some points worth pondering.