https://winteryknight.com/2025/02/12/wikipedia-co-founder-who-holds-phd-in-philosophy-returns-to-christianity/
I regularly hear people, both Christian and non, claiming that there are no good arguments for Christianity. That somehow they have exhaustively examined every argument and found them wanting for some objective reason. Then we see stories like this, where well educated non believers actually examine the arguments/evidence and realize that there are good arguments for things like the existence of YHWH. Personally, I think that it's laziness that makes people draw these conclusions. Primarily laziness in thinking that whatever answers they sought several decades ago have not changed with the times. I understand that it's easier to form one's opinions decades ago, then just pretend as if nothing has changed or that new information doesn't exist, I just don't find it compelling.
33 comments:
This fella does, indeed, make some compelling points in believing in a God and a Creator God. These same reasons are, in part, why I remain a God-believer. Because it makes rational sense.
Craig:
claiming that there are no good arguments for Christianity. That somehow they have exhaustively examined every argument and found them wanting for some objective reason.
That is sad, to the degree that it happens ("that there are no good arguments for Christianity...") I don't know how large a degree that is, but it's sad when it does. Although, on the other hand, if they truly find some various arguments/theories wanting for some objective reason, that's a very solid reason to not embrace those theories.
Do you agree?
What I hear from agnostics and former believers is not so much that there are no good arguments for Christianity (as in the teachings of Jesus) but that there are no good arguments for modern conservative religions and human traditions, which they find rationally and morally wanting. As a point of fact, I've not heard one non-believer say they have a problem with the teachings of Jesus. For what it's worth.
Craig:
Primarily laziness in thinking that whatever answers they sought several decades ago have not changed with the times.
Amen and amen. This is why, in part, I regularly seek to engage with believers who still believe what I used to believe decades ago. To listen to their arguments to see if I've missed anything or if there are any better arguments than the ones I was hearing decades ago to support the human traditions and theories I grew up well-grounded within.
But, in my case, the more I listened to the arguments for conservative religious traditions when I was a young man, the more I found those arguments uncompelling and unbiblical and, in some cases, un-Godly and immoral. And, to your all's credit, when I come back and revisit those same questions, I find your theories and opinions even less compelling than when I was a young man. I can thank you all for solidifying my decisions to not merely go along with the human traditions I was taught as a youngster.
Tradition is not a compelling reason, on its own, for believing anything.
Is that reasonable, to you? And is it reasonable to you that if I (and those like me) find your human theories (about war, about atonement, about foreigners, about LGBTQ questions, about grace, etc) to be very unsettling, uncompelling and anti-biblical, that I would not accept your opinions as reasonable?
"Do you agree?"
I loathe the laziness and lack of integrity that this question represents. That you have the hubris to make some claim as if it is established fact, then add "Do your agree? or Where am I mistaken?" Just makes you look incredibly arrogant.
However, since you make a point worth responding to, I'll do so.
I guess it depends on what the alleged "objective" reason is. If the "objective reason" is that someone excludes any possible conclusion that following the evidence might lead to before examining the evidence, then that is not a good reason. If they do so because of a philosophical presupposition, that is not a good reason. If they have an actual alternative, based on actual evidence, then that could be a good reason.
Because "what you hear" can be extrapolated out to cover everyone and every argument. When you lean of this absurd trope, I simply ignore you because it's a worthless basis to make a claim. That you compound this error by suggesting that the "teachings of Jesus" are the only thing to be considered, just points out your insularity.
Your ability to ignore the substance of the arguments that convinced Larry Sanger, or the work of people like Meyer, in favor of platitudes and your version of the "teachings of Jesus", tells me plenty. That you choose to conflate your versions of "human theories" with the actual science that Sanger and Meyer are talking about reinforces my belief in your shallowness.
That the "atheists and agnostics" you know don't find any problems with your versions of Jesus' teachings doesn't surprise me in the least. That you are unfamiliar with the current state of arguments for the existence of YHWH, is likewise unsurprising coming from someone who's proudly acknowledged that he stopped paying attention to anything from the "conservative" side of things decades ago.
Nothing in Meyer's work or Sanger's shift is based on "tradition", that you ignore that is (again) unsurprising.
"This fella does, indeed, make some compelling points in believing in a God and a Creator God. These same reasons are, in part, why I remain a God-believer. Because it makes rational sense."
1. "This fella", who just happens to be more educated and accomplished than you, isn't basing his conclusions on what "makes rational sense" to Dan. He's literally basing his conclusions on the scientific arguments put forth by experts like Meyer.
2. By all means, deal with the cosmological argument or the fine tuning argument, that have based on scientific findings that have happened since you decided that you knew enough about every argument put forth by a "conservative" several decades ago.
3. That your rationale for being a "God-believer" (whatever that means) is based totally in what you subjectively find to "make rational sense" is simply one more example of you grounding your worldview in yourself.
"This is a greatly condensed summary; I developed these ideas in much greater depth. But beyond such details, what I dwelled upon more than anything is the fact that the arguments taken together are far more persuasive than I had understood. Individually, the arguments might seem relatively weak. As I said, the Argument from Contingency only shows that a necessary being exists. The Argument from Causality shows only that the universe had a cause outside of itself. The Argument from Design shows only that the universe has some sort of designer or other. An Argument from Morality might add that the designer is benevolent, to some degree, in some way, but not even necessarily personal. But what happens when we combine all the arguments to make a unified case for the existence of God? I’m not sure the idea had ever dawned on me, certainly not with its present vividness. Taken together, the arguments point to a necessary being that exists apart from space, time, and matter. This is the very cause of the universe, which was designed according to orderly abstract laws. Ever more complex properties emerge, one from another, with great beauty and rationality—rationality that exhibits various mind-like features. This order can even be described as good, a cosmos indeed, because life and its preservation seem to be part of the plan, and life is the very standard of value."
None of this, nor arguments like the Kalam argument, or the fine tuning argument, are arguments from "tradition". Something you seem to be unaware of.
Kind of sounds like Psalm 19:1 or Romans 1:19 manifested.
From Art. I commented on the wrong post and he replied.
There's a quote that says something like "The best information modern science has accumulated tells us the the origin on life was incredibly similar to what we see recorded in Genesis.". I wish I could find the exact quote and who said it, I'll keep looking.
Craig:
None of this, nor arguments like the Kalam argument, or the fine tuning argument, are arguments from "tradition". Something you seem to be unaware of.
What are you talking about? I did not mention these arguments, nor did I say anything against them.
When I mentioned the traditions of humans, I'm speaking specifically of human traditions. Penal Substitutionary Atonement IS a human tradition and one that I find unbiblical, anti-Christian, contrary to moral reason, unjust and plainly irrational. For instance. That is not touching on these arguments you're speaking of. Same for "inerrancy" heresies/traditions or "TULIP" nonsensical heresies/traditions. THOSE very specifically very human traditions are what I'm speaking of.
Do you understand that this is what I meant when I referred to human traditions?
Craig:
I guess it depends on what the alleged "objective" reason is.
I'm talking about actually objective data. IF some religious humans point to Genesis and claim a human theory that the earth (universe!) is only roughly 6,000 years old and the objective data is quite clear that the universe is, of course, not a mere thousands of years old... the OBJECTIVE data is of course reason not to blindly accept a human tradition that teaches (contrary to the data) a very young universe/earth.
Do you disagree?
And again, I'm positing what I think is an incredibly obvious, rational point and I'm asking you if you disagree (in this case - if you agree in other cases) because I'm trying to clarify what it is you actually are saying and where we actually disagree, or IF we disagree. HOW does someone do that without asking that sort of clarifying question?
What in the name of all that is holy, decent and rational is wrong with stating a clarifying point and asking if we are in agreement?
SO bizarre.
For another example, I said, then asked:
Tradition is not a compelling reason, on its own, for believing anything.
Is that reasonable, to you?
I'm stating an obviously clear point, one I am nearly positive you agree with (that tradition is not a compelling reason on its own to believe something) and I'm trying to clarify if we agree (as I suspect we do) by asking if that is reasonable to you?
Is it NOT reasonable to you that tradition alone is NOT a compelling reason to believe something?
Extremist Muslims, Christians and Mormons do not believe that women should have a voice in matters. They think this because it is their tradition to think that. But that tradition ALONE is not a reason to blindly accept that human theory. You can't possibly think that tradition alone is reason to believe anything, but I'm asking for clarification.
What is wrong with asking for clarification? WHAT is lazy (as you stupidly, falsely suggested) or lacking in integrity to ask that kind of clarifying question?
It's an irrational claim to make, on the face of it.
Help me understand your fear of clarification.
1. "This fella", who just happens to be more educated and accomplished than you, isn't basing his conclusions on what "makes rational sense" to Dan. He's literally basing his conclusions on the scientific arguments put forth by experts like Meyer.
A point with which I agreed. He makes a compelling case. AS I SAID. Perhaps you missed it when MY FIRST WORDS were "This fella does, indeed, make some compelling points in believing in a God and a Creator God."
Why do you kick against the goads? Why can't you take agreement for an agreement?
I'm thinking you're reading my words and not understanding what I'm saying, since your summary of what I've said is exactly contrary to what I said.
And once again, if you can't understand my clear and direct words ("HE MAKES A COMPELLING CASE...") then why do you think you can understand the words from the biblical authors?
Tell me, Craig: What do you THINK I was saying when I said "This fella does, indeed, make some compelling points in believing in a God and a Creator God"...?
Do you think I was disagreeing with his cosmological and other arguments? If so, WHY do you think that, since I literally did not say that?
Craig,
Regarding your last comment on February 14, 2025 at 11:55 AM, I've been looking at a lot of documentaries and videos on YouTube related to how science supports the Genesis account, even to the extent of supporting the "Young Earth/Universe" position. It's difficult to regard the many of science whose efforts and analysis of all available data on board with the Young Earth paradigm do so without sounding the least bit like a whackjob. I say this because those who regard them as such merely do so because they don't abide the standard, humanist version of creation and the "Old Universe" paradigm...not because they've actually considered the YE arguments. Such dismissals are typically the same we hear from Dan, that the OU position is "self-evident". The YE people are saying it most certainly isn't.
In one of the videos or docs I watched, someone mentioned that the idea of a "billions of years old" universe really didn't exist until Darwin's theory of evolution became all the rage. It was clear such a theory couldn't possibly make sense unless the earth was older than 6000 years old. Thus, the secularists began to push that notion and reject Genesis as "mythic style"...to paraphrase Dan's self-evident nonsensical position.
Personally, the young/old earth discussion is one that I've never been that worked up about. If one accepts that there is a God who has the ability to literally create everything that exists out of nothing, then the rest seems like less important details. I have no problem accepting that an all powerful Creator God who spoke everything into existence could have done it however He wanted to. Why take 6 days? Why not just a "snap"?
IMO, it's a distraction for those who want to cling to a Materialist/Naturalist/Darwinian/Evolutionist worldview. As long as they can point fingers at those crazy YEC folks, they can ignore the problems in their won camp and the fact that the best current science supports a singular Creation event.
No you didn't, and you're right you've never said anything about them when I've asked you to.
I appreciate your commitment to the bit, though. This post, WK's piece, and Sanger's change of mind are NOT based on "human traditions". Which is your problem, you're obsessed with things you think are "human traditions" to the point of being virtually ignorant about how science is providing support for Theism (at a minimum). You're ignorant of the above mentioned arguments for the existence of God, because you formed your opinions decades ago then ignored anything that's happened since.
I understand what you mean, and what you hope to accomplish, it just has no bearing on anything related to this post, WK's post, or Sanger's change of mind.
"I'm talking about actually objective data."
So are Sanger, WK, and myself. Where in either Sanger's writings, WK's post, or my post, do any of us reference YEC? Where do any of us reference Genesis as our primary source of information?
Of course I disagree with you ignoring what is actually being argued (the presence of scientifically based, data supported, arguments for the existence of God), in favor of attacking one of your favorite straw men. Especially one that I have not advocated for, and rarely mention.
I understand that you are engaging in lazy behavior, by asserting your opinion as the standard and asking if others "disagree". I understand that your attacking of straw men is necessary, because you can't or won't deal with the actual arguments being offered. It's incredibly obvious that your personal conviction that absolutely nothing has happened in conservative Christian thought for decades, and that therefore something you read decades ago is still relevant, is failing you.
If you'd like to address the arguments being made, by all means do so. If not, please stop with the straw men.
It's a cheap, lazy, and stupid tactic to try to position your human tradition as the standard that must be disprove, so that you can continue to avoid the actual arguments being made.
Yes you are. Anything to avoid dealing with the actual subject MK, Sanger, and I are discussing and to pretend that the arguments Sanger found so compelling are merely "human tradition".
I have no fear of clarification. I'm only pointing out that your demands for "clarification" are obfuscating the actual topic of Sanger's change of mind, and WK's post on that topic.
It's lazy because you frame your opinion as the standard that must be "dis proven" or "disagreed" with, and put the onus on others to respond to your straw men, instead of you responding to the arguments being made.
I was pointing out how demeaning it is to refer to this gentleman, who's vastly more educated than you as "this fella". It's strange that you "agree" that he makes some "compelling points" then spend the rest of your comments bitching about and bringing up straw men (YEC and human tradition) as opposed to dealing with the "compelling points" he actually made.
Given that you spent absolutely ZERO time discussing this "compelling case" and multiple comments full of straw men, I think my problem should be obvious. You have some default responses/straw men/bogey men (YEC, human tradition) that you trot out whenever these topics come up. That NONE of Sanger's change of mind was based on a YEC reading of Genesis, seems to escape you, given how much time you wasted arguing against that straw man. That you are arguing against the scientific arguments referenced, by dismissing them as "human tradition", and wasting time on that straw man, merely makes my larger point.
When you take that one phrase out of the context of everything else you wrote, it's easier to obfuscate and pretend like you haven't ignored the arguments he found compelling and merely beating your YEC/human tradition dead horses some more.
Craig:
It's strange that you "agree" that he makes some "compelling points" then spend the rest of your comments bitching about and bringing up straw men (YEC and human tradition) as opposed to dealing with the "compelling points" he actually made.
? I agree that there are rational reasons to believe in a God. I don't complain about his points there because I don't disagree.
I note (at least that I saw) that he doesn't talk about the human traditions such as YEC or a literal Adam/Eve or human theories about "atonement" or a "sin nature of humanity."
I was noting that on the points HE was making, I don't disagree, he makes compelling points. AND I was noting that those points do not extend to the human theories associated with more conservative religions of humanity.
That fella IS a fella, it would appear. I don't see how that's demeaning at all. Strange, the things that you find worthy of complaining about.
DOES this gentleman offer opinions about YEC, "atonement" theories, "sin nature" theories? That is, does he try to defend your particular flavor of human religious traditions?
So what? You agree that there are "some" rational reasons for believing in God, yet you don't mention what those are, nor do you address the scientific reasons mentioned by Sanger or WK. The fact that you personally have some reasons that you subjectively find "rational" based on your subjective opinions, means nothing and has no value to anyone but you. Who freaking cares?
You're the one who's spent multiple comments complaining about your pet "human traditions", I see nowhere that you bring up his not mentioning them, and fail to see the relevance of wasting multiple comments bitching about what he didn't mention, while ignoring what he did mention.
You've literally said nothing about the points he did make beyond that you find them compelling, again who cares.
No, and no. I guess your obsessive focus on what he didn't mention, combined with your compulsion to refer to the specific arguments he found so compelling in the vaguest of terms and to spend zero time talking about what he did mention seems a bit bizarre.
I know you don't understand why your referring to others with terms like "son, brother, fella, etc" 'comes off as demeaning, yet after being told repeatedly that it does, you continue to do so. As far as this specific instance, given your obsession with credentials, it seems strange to refer to someone with his credentials as "fella".
"DOES this gentleman offer opinions about YEC, "atonement" theories, "sin nature" theories?"
Who knows and who cares? These posts are the arguments he DOES mention, not about arguments that he DOESN'T mention. Why would you waste time on things he doesn't mention? He's making arguments for the existence of God, and neither the YEC or any other of your bogeymen have ever been arguments for the existence of God. You're literally focusing on pomegranates when we're talking about apples.
"That is, does he try to defend your particular flavor of human religious traditions?"
Agan, who freaking cares. He's NOT arguing about your bogeymen, he's referencing specific arguments for the existence of God. Your obsession with filtering everything through your list of bogeymen is so freaking irrelevant to this post, WK's post, and Sanger's writings, that your insistence on pursuing this absurdity is baffling.
Again, perhaps focus on the scientific arguments he's making, not things that he never mentions.
I think there's great value in research focused on creation. The more which comes out which shows the connection between available evidence and Genesis, and the more that connection is made more widely available to the masses, the less the masses can reject the possibility of God so cavalierly. Whether or not that might come to pass is another thing, but to put it all out there for whomever is willing to consider it can't help but open a few eyes and hearts to the truth of God's existence. It provides more to make good on Peter's encouragement in 1 Peter 3:5, as citing the archaeological evidence does.
"Penal Substitutionary Atonement IS a human tradition and one that I find unbiblical," except that it is "...anti-Christian," except that it isn't in any way "...contrary to moral reason, unjust and plainly irrational." except that it's aligned with truth, justice and is perfectly rational. But Dan, despite having no intelligent argument against PSA, brings it up because he needs to convince himself at every opportunity that his rejection of it is just and proper. He needs to believe he can reject anything he doesn't like and still claim to be heaven bound.
I don't understand why Dan feels the need to mention muslims or mormons and worse, to dare suggest that one is an "extremist Christian" for abiding the clearly revealed Word of God. When discussing Christianity, no other religion is of any consequence. But it's another way for Dan to rationalize his rejection of that he doesn't want to abide. Goats do that.
To speak of "tradition" is another way of rationalizing his heretical bent. There are traditions of ritual and process that aren't necessarily Biblically mandated, but subjectively chosen by a congregation or denomination. That's apart from tradition which is actual teaching of Scripture...as in, I believe Jesus is Lord. When Dan speaks of "human tradition", he is again subjectively choosing against actual truths of Scripture he finds unappealing or inconvenient to his personal narrative.
I'll slightly disagree with part of what you're saying. I 100% agree that research on the origin of everything should absolutely be engaged in. That research should follow the evidence, be free from any presuppositions and should not exclude any possible conclusion. That the most current, and best scientific research does point toward a creation event that aligns with Scripture is an excellent argument for the existence of YHWH. Further, it's an excellent argument for science. If (as most of the founders of modern science believed) YHWH did create everything, and if He did so in such a way that we could study His creation and that Creation would point to Him, then that pursuit should be engaged in vigorously.
Research with the intent of pursuing an agenda (proving a preconceived conclusion) is always going to be counter productive IMO.
This is why I am trying to get Dan to focus on the scientific arguments being presented by Sanger and WK, instead of his bogeyman "arguments" that no one is making. I think that it's amazing that despite the attempts to define YHWH out of science, that what is found does point back to a creation event that aligns with the Genesis account. I think it's important not to overstate what this is saying, and to accurately present the findings of the scientists.
That's why the arguments Sanger mentions are critical.
"I note (at least that I saw) that he doesn't talk about the human traditions such as YEC or a literal Adam/Eve or human theories about "atonement" or a "sin nature of humanity.""
Like Craig said, so what? I would add, why must he? I think he gets to speak on his change of heart in a way that reflects what changed his heart and that should be enough for anyone. If Dan has any questions about his perspective on topics not mentioned, maybe he should drop the guy a line and ask him, rather than clutter this thread with irrelevancy.
The most important word in Dan's statement is "I". It's all about what HE personally and subjectively feels about this doctrine. He's never offered any convincing arguments against the scriptural basis for the doctrine, nor has he proven that HIS feelings about the doctrine are any more valid or accurate than anyone else's. This is the problem when literally everything one argues is grounded in the feelings and subjective conclusions of the person making the argument.
It's a goofy thing about which to wonder. But again, Dan's point is to rehash those issues and fail again to support his opinions on them. Heaven knows we're well aware with where he stands on them. It goes this way: I don't like that, therefore it's not Biblical.
I don't either, beyond his need to insist that Christianity is on some level equal to those other faiths.
That the Mormon "scriptures" have been corrected over 3000 times on substantial issues and insist on historical events that have absolutely ZERO evidence has no bearing on how science is pointing towards a creation event much like the one described in Genesis.
We were driving through Provo last fall and passed an LDS bookstore. My youngest commented, "I bet their religious fiction section is huge.". He similarly wondered what one might find in the BYU natural history museum.
Dan's "human tradition" canard is simply one more of his straw man arguments. He's concluded that the fact that someone or a group of people took what scripture says and condensed it into a form or term that expresses the Biblical view on something, that the "human tradition" must be assumed to be wrong. Except, when it's "human traditions" that he agrees with, those "human traditions" are perfectly fine and should be accepted as Gospel.
Dan can't really make a rational, reasoned, scriptural argument against PSA, nor can he make an argument that the scriptural support for PSA is lacking. All he can do is insist that the scriptural support really, secretly, means the opposite of the plain meaning of the text, and that it should be ignored because it's a "human tradition". It's not an argument on the merits, it's dismissing the very concept based on Dan's biases, preconditions, and subjective hunches about what scripture "really" says and what Jesus "really" meant. He can't deny that Jesus said things that support the PSA conclusion, so he just says that they really don't mean what the text says.
Finally, he acts as if those who hold to PSA are adamantly demanding that PSA is the only possible theory of the atonement and that failure to agree with it is something that calls one's salvation into question. The most common argument I've heard is that PSA is the best offering that most closely aligns with scripture, but that most of the other atonement theories do contain elements of Truth.
It's one of his bogeymen, that he uses to stop conversation without actually proving his conclusions are accurate, it's not a serious argument and shouldn't be treated like one. The fact that he brought it up in this thread makes that point incredibly well.
I've mentioned before that I've seen a comparison of the most "popular" (for lack of a better term) atonement theories, and as I read them I can't shake the opinion they're all variations on the same theme, with PSA the most recent and most accurate way to explain atonement at all from a Biblical perspective. But even if one wishes to proclaim charity for the poor and oppressed is the most common preaching in Scripture, the most important and essential to the faith is Christ's death on the cross and what it means and why it was necessary. Dan writes it off as a consequence of the politics of the time and not THE MOST important reason Christ was born.
I agree that they are, to some degree, simply variations on a theme. That the ""most recent" is also the most accurate, is likely because people wanted to fill in the holes in the other theories. The problem is that the "Moral Example" theory is even more recent than PSA, yet is also the one that is probably the least accurate in terms of encompassing the entirety of the work of Jesus.
Dan writes off anything he doesn't like.
He's literally written a piece about his change of mind after years of dismissing arguments for the existence of God. He literally was persuaded by the scientific arguments that he referenced. That Dan would demand that he address things beyond the scope of his "conversion" is simply Dan demonstrating his hubris and trying to deflect attention away from the compelling science based arguments. Are you surprised that Dan is demanding that someone else perform in the way Dan demands?
Yet goofiness is the coin of Dan's realm. It seems obvious that by focusing on what Dan wants this guy to talk about, rather than what he did talk about, that Dan is not particularly interested in the specific arguments that Sanger found so transforming.
Part of this is because Dan simply stopped paying attention to anything that anyone he deems "conservative" has said or any "conservative" arguments several decades ago. He did so because he has heard every argument made by "conservatives" and found precisely zero of those arguments to be worth further study. Bear in mind that he's never actually argued against any of these arguments, never offered proof that these arguments are false, never actually engaged with them at all, just chosen to ignore them because he knows they're not worth his time.
Is it any wonder that he doesn't mention any of the arguments specifically brought up by Sanger? No, because he thinks that his decades old "study" of "conservative" thought has given him all of the information he needs.
Craig...
"Part of this is because Dan simply stopped paying attention to anything that anyone he deems "conservative" has said or any "conservative" arguments several decades ago."
Do you understand the incredible irony of you continually making this absurdly false claim... YOU, a conservative offering your conservative opinions and citing other conservative opinions which I've been reading and asking questions of for the the last TWO DECADES.
Our very conversation disproves your silly little claim. Add to that, that I regularly practically beg you all to provide links to conservatives making the case for your claims?
Dan
Which then, often go unanswered.
Silly.
I'm simply taking your responses to you asserting multiple times in earlier conversations that you had no need to address recent "conservative" arguments because you'd seen everything you needed to back when you paid attention to what "conservatives" were saying.
This conversation "proves" nothing of the sort. You've said literally nothing about the arguments that have actually been referenced, and prattled on about your bogeymen/straw men bullshit.
It's not my job to spoon feed you anything. Especially since I've given you a multitudes of resources in the past and you've interacted with precisely zero of them. I'm done spoon feeding you information that is readily available.
However, the WK piece references several specific arguments for the existence of God, why not go into depth on those?
Well, spouting nonsense is one alternative.
Post a Comment