Subject: Re: tough questions Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 23:54:58 -0800 From: "Brian Holtz" Organization: Sun Microsystems To: "glenn miller" Hi Glenn, I asked: If you believe that the evidence for your god is compelling, how do you explain that it is not accepted by so many otherwise reasonable people? You replied: "I dont actually argue that the position is 'compelling' in the strictest sense of the word." And in http://www.christian-thinktank.com/2many1.html you wrote: "Christianity doesn't actually "use" apologetics much to "prove" its truth." But in your "Argument for the Faith" you wrote: "My studies and experiences over the past 25+ years have led me to the inescapable conclusion that just such a communication has occurred." So if the evidence is not why you believe, why *do* you believe? (What are these "experiences"?) And again, if the evidence *is* why you believe, why do so many *not* believe? (Your discourse on "resistance" can only explain why they do not *heed*, but not why they don't *believe*.) You excuse revelation's ambiguity by saying "God did this thing inside our history, and with our hands, and with our language, and in front of people like us". This excuse is extremely weak. I know of many ways a smarter God could have revealed himself unambiguously. I'll spare you the list I posted to alt.atheism.moderated, but it breaks down into two tricks: 1. Encode or authenticate his message through various unrelated natural phenomena in a way that could only be explained supernaturally. 2. Cause an ongoing series of supernatural miracles that reveal or authenticate his message. No religion seriously claims that either type of strategy has been used by its god(s). I would conclude that no revelation to humanity has been competently attempted by any god(s). You site disagreement on 1) intepretation of Aristotle/Plato, 2) the "Unity of Homer's works", 3) the assassination of JFK, and 4) "Shakespearian forgeries". But: 1) Disagreements about philosophy are not disagreements about history. 2+4) Certain facts about literary history (like whether Homer was left-handed) may indeed never be known to history, but that is utterly irrelevant in excusing why god(s) cannot competently perform revelation. 3) As an amateur JFK assassination buff, I can assure you that the core facts of the case are not in dispute among serious historians. So I would ask again: what other thesis so important and compelling (e.g. heliocentrism, evolution) defied general consensus for this long? You write: "a large proportion of our 'apologetics' (but not all by any means) is required ONLY BECAUSE of the large amount of attacks that are levied against us". Why then is there not required a large body of heliocentrist apologetics against voluminous attacks by flat-earthers? You write: "The main day-to-day and wide-scope evidence of supernatural reality within history is supposed to be personal (and often, unpredicted) transformation of individual people". Surely you realize how unpersuasive such alleged evidence is to anyone who knows the obvious alternative naturalistic psychological explanations for it? You wrote "i dont believe pre-death consensus on matters of value and personal interest CAN BE EXPECTED to develop consensus like the heliocentrism--due to the ethical implications of any position on values." Again: believing is different from heeding. Most smokers can believe smoking is unhealthy without heeding the advice to quit. So you seem to be ducking behind the why-no-[heed] question to hide from the why-no-belief question. I know you value intellectual honesty, which makes me confident you'll be willing to tackle this question head-on. Brian.Holtz@sun.com Knowledge is dangerous. Take a risk: http://humanknowledge.net