The article refutes a common misunderstanding that Catholics must believe anything the Church teaches even if it's logically irrational.

The refutation seems to consist of: If the church teaches it, then it's not irrational.

Going back to the conversation between Josh and Brandon. Even though it was several days ago, it remains posted and people continue to read it. I am not a philosopher and don't perhaps understand all the components of logic or even, necessarily the rules of discussion here. Perhaps in future, another person, not involved in the conversation, should moderate so that one person who is engaged in the argument does not have the ability to withdraw the other's comment. Then the discussion would at least appear more objective and fair.

The problem of course is that your four facts are not data or evidence. The evidence consists of ancient supernatural tales of uncertain authorship based on unknown sources which are themselves removed an unknown number of time from the original events by decades of oral tradition.

Your facts are themselves explanations of that evidence, which cannot be considered any more secure or certain than the evidence upon which they are based no matter how many professors of New Testament studies agree to them..

As a side note, William Lane Craig is one of the most respected experts on New Testament textual history. He's published many journal papers in the field. Writing him off as a "huckster" is not only fallacious but detracts from whatever points you're trying to make.

Be careful about whose mast you tie your colours too Brandon.

He is on the record as saying that arguments and evidence play only a “ministerial” role, and if they collide with his faith, it’s faith that should take precedence. Not very rational a position

He has stated...

"I remember well one of my theology professors commenting that if he were persuaded that Christianity were unreasonable, then he would renounce Christianity. Now that frightened and troubled me. For me, Christ was so real and had invested my life with such significance that I could not make the confession of my professor. If somehow through my studies my reason were to turn against my faith, then so much the worse for my reason! It would only mean that I had made some mistake in my reasoning... If my reason turned against Christ, I’d still believe. My faith is too real."

In another debate...

"Consider also Craig’s behavior during his debate with Hitchens where he had the nerve to urge Hitchens to become a Christian and said “If Mr. Hitchens is a man of good will, he will follow the evidence where it leads and all the evidence tonight had been on the side of theism!” It is only when one takes on board fully the fact that this comes from a person who was quoted earlier in that very same debate as saying “Should a conflict arises between witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa.” – the very antithesis of intellectual honesty and what academia stands for, and who’s made it abundantly clear he will not follow the evidence where it leads if it leads away from his faith (The Holy Spirit trumps it all!), and is therefore by his own definition not “a man of good will”, one can truly appreciate the extent of Craig’s utter, almost pathological, shamelessness and dishonesty."

That alone negates him from the label of historian and over to being a hack.

Further evidence of his being a lying hack...

http://www.theaunicornist.com/2013/08/lawrence-krauss-reams-william-lane-craig.html

William Lane Craig is a lying gish galloping toad with his finger continuously pressed against the reset button. He is self serving and has nothing to offer the dialogue.

"William Lane Craig is a liar. Here is what he says in a debate with Sam Harris about hell:"

"Honestly, that just simply shows how poorly Sam Harris understands Christianity. You don’t believe in God to avoid going to Hell. Belief in God isn’t some kind of fire insurance. You believe in God because God, as the supreme Good, is the appropriate object of adoration and love. He is Goodness itself, to be desired for its own sake. And so the fulfillment of human existence is to be found in relation to God. It’s because of who God is and his moral worth that he is worthy of worship. It has nothing to do with avoiding Hell, or promoting your own well-being."

"Then in a podcast found he openly says that fear of hell was a major factor in his embracing of Christianity, and that it was perfectly valid that many people come to Christ through fear of hell, rather than the love of Christ (from 20:50 to 22:00)" http://www.reasonablefaith.org/rob-bell-and-hell

Of all the arguments he makes that I know of, only one goes to the assertion of only a capital "G" god. That of his assertion that the most probable explanation for what he calls "evidence" from the gospel accounts of the empty tomb and sightings of a risen Jesus must be of a resurrected deity. That is just rubbish and not even a reasonable historiographical assertion.in higher criticism of the NT.

So jumping all over Josh for telling you exactly what WLC has shown himself to be, a lying hack, is just wrong.

The Church is teaching that a miracle is something that cannot be detected.

I don't see how I could ever be a Christian.

The idea of repeating the words that Catholic apologists do when explaining transubstantiation would be totally alien to me.

It makes as much sense as claiming that the Pope is wearing an invisibility cloak when he appears on the balcony of St. Peter's. You can still see him, but that does not mean the invisibility cloak is not working.

Still, if Catholics want to proclaim that Transubstantiation is something that makes sense, they are entitled to do so.

And the rest of us can get on with our lives knowing that a lot of people in the world say things that can safely be ignored as totally irrelevant.

It was a simplistic argument. And I wasn't referring to just the doctrine of the Eucharist, that's just a particularly egregious example. In fact it is downright bizarre, since here is a case where it would make perfect sense to read the biblical passages as symbolic, but the fideism of your religion has forced you to abandon reason in favor of a mental contortion which exists only to maintain a literal meaning while ignoring the obvious.

The problem isn't the general claim that one could have a mistaken impression, it is that you are to accept a claim completely at odds with your senses purely on faith. The problem is the completely unreasonable metaphysics which you are also claiming for religious reasons and which you are using to defend a claim against all possible evidence. The Jim/Bob case is resolved precisely because there is sensory evidence to distinguish them.

An apt analogy to your claims would be if Jim said "Hey, I'm Jim", everyone confirmed it and no one had ever heard of a twin brother. But you, based purely on faith, allege that Jim, before our very eyes, had been replaced with a kumquat, which retained all the accidents of a person, but was now perfectly reasonable to eat.

I appreciate the support of commenters below.

Brandon,

This is your blog and if you want to kick me off that's your call, I'll consider myself in good company. But I maintain that I don't insult people gratuitously. You appear to have a problem with sustained criticism of your beliefs and a double standard about what counts as 'productive' discussion.

For example:
(me:)
"Hilarious. William Lane Craig isn't a historian, he's widely regarded as a huckster."

This isn't ad hom. It's a response to your snarky comments about 'assuming you're a historian' and the appeal to the authority of 'almost all mainstream historians'. Your only source after these dismissive remarks? A non-historian, who, as others have pointed out before, is regarded by many as sloppy or even dishonest.

(me:)
"Maybe you need to familiarize yourself with what the word
'independent' means. Multiple sources that derive from the same source
aren't independent. "

(you:)
"Again, the sarcasm is unnecessary. I clearly know what independent means, and so does William Lane Craig. Suggesting I'm unaware that multiple sources depending on one source are not independent is to construct a straw man."

Note that the snarky phrasing is a direct response to your similar dismissive words above. But it's not a strawman. You claimed that we have evidence from independent sources that supports your alleged 'facts', and so does Craig. But they aren't known to be independent in a way that confirms the pertinent claim. We know some of the sources borrowed freely from other known sources, we strongly suspect that some derived in part from common unknown sources, like the Q hypothesis. We don't know that, say, Mark's gospel and some putative independent source for parts of Matthew don't derive from an earlier common source. None of these are contemporary accounts. If Paul is referencing an older tradition, while somehow managing not to say anything about Joseph or a tomb or any details other than crucifixion, then what we can't assume is that the Gospel's are repeating an independent other unknown old tradition. A known independent source would be something like a contemporaneous Roman or Jewish record that mentions the burial or disappearance of that Jesus guy who was stirring up trouble.

We are debating what is known to be true, 'historical fact' in your words. The claims I cited are not known to be true. It is not my burden to prove them false, only to point out your lack of compelling evidence. I don't know to what degree 1 Corinthians and the Gospels are independent and neither do you.

An entirely plausible scenario is that an apocalyptic preacher was crucified. One or more of his followers, unable to accept the death of their would-be messiah, preaches a new doctrine of resurrection where Jesus puts on a new body, triumphing in a spiritual sense, perhaps making a miraculous ghostly post-mortem appearance. This would all be in line with Paul's teachings. Over time, the story is elaborated upon, so that Jesus is secretly given an honorable burial by a heretofore completely unknown benefactor. No mention is made of the location of this tomb. As the story grows, more details and miracle claims are added in: people go to visit the tomb but it is empty, a stone is mysteriously moved, angel's make proclamations, post-mortem appearances are multiplied and elaborated on.

I don't know if this is exactly how things came about, but it fits the knowledge we do have, and it definitely isn't disproven. Therefore, your claims aren't facts. This is like pointing out that multiple accounts of King Arthur, even when we don't know the original sources, don't make his

friendship with Merlin a historical fact.

It really was special pleading, which is why I called it as it was.

As it is not 'theologically correct' to use the same word for Jesus use of spittle and magic formulas as other stories of people healing with spit (like Vespasian) , I can understand why you choose to use a different word.

Yes, I think that's right. "Magic" has traditionally held a negative connotation, and associating an opponent with it is a rhetorical maneuver with a timeworn pedigree. It was very common in Antiquity for opponents of Christianity to toss around the magic label, and Christians did the exact same thing--ergo the need to trace the point-of-view and determine the "why" of the term's use in argument.

"That is special pleading, and won't fly except among people who think they should be allowed to use special pleading."

Steven, it's clear you have your own definitions of magic and miracle which, I would argue, are far different than what they have traditionally meant. That's fine; you're entitled to define words the way you would like.

I'll only note that I was asked how *I* distinguish the two, and I explained, carefully and repeatedly, how I do. Your only response was essentially, "No, you're wrong....That's special pleading."

I'm not sure how else to reply.