The Secular Frontier

WHERE WE ARE One important reason for rejecting the view that Leviticus was inspired by God is that this book contains several FALSE claims and assumptions.  I have already argued that Leviticus contains FALSE historical claims and assumptions and that it also contains logical contradictions, so I have already shown that Leviticus contains FALSE claims and assumptions: In Part 8 of this series, I presented some general points in support of my fourth reason for doubting the inspiration and authority of the book of Leviticus: 4. Leviticus is NOT an historically reliable account of actual events. In Part 9 of this series, I presented a number of examples of contradictions between Leviticus and other books in the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) to provide additional evidence in support of this fourth reason.  There are dozens of contradictions between Leviticus and the other books in the Torah.  Nearly all of these contradictions cast doubt on the historical reliability of the book o ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In his book Philosophy of Religion  (hereafter: POR), Norman Geisler provides an argument in support of the second premise of his Thomist Cosmological Argument (see pages 194-197).  Here is my understanding of the argument that Geisler gives in support of that premise: 52. But no potentiality can actualize itself. THEREFORE: 53a. There is some actuality outside of every composed thing to account for the fact that it actually exists.  51a. Every limited changing thing is composed of both an actuality (its existence) and a potentiality (its essence). THEREFORE: L1. There is some actuality outside of every limited changing thing to account for the fact that it actually exists. THEREFORE: 2b. The present existence of every limited, changing thing is caused by another thing. Before we can evaluate this part of Geisler's argument, we must first have a clear understanding of what these claims mean.   CLARIFICATIONS NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND GEISLER'S ARGUMENT FOR THE 2ND PREMISE This part of th ... Read Article

When Easter rolled around this year, I dove back into the questions "Did God raise Jesus from the dead?"  and "Did Jesus rise from the dead?"  These are issues that I have enjoyed thinking about for the past four decades, and will continue to think and write about for the rest of my life.   DEFENDING THE HALLUCINATION THEORY I wrote a series of posts defending the Hallucination Theory, specifically examining seven objections raised against this theory by Josh McDowell in his book The Resurrection Factor.  I discovered that the main problem with McDowell's discussion about this skeptical theory is that he DOES NOT HAVE A CLUE about (a) what the word "hallucination" means, (b) what psychologists have learned about hallucinations and dreams, and (c) how to present a clear and intelligent argument for an historical claim about Jesus.  So, McDowell had no chance of producing a solid and strong refutation of the Hallucination Theory.   His more recent defense of the resurrection in a book co-authored wit ... Read Article

In the series of posts titled "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" I have argued in defense of the Hallucination Theory, the view that one or more of Jesus' disciples believed that Jesus rose from the dead because of a dream or hallucination (or some other form of distorted or mistaken perceptual experience) in which it seemed that a living and physical Jesus was seen and/or heard by the disciple(s) at some point after Jesus was crucified, and presumably died. I do NOT confidently believe that the Hallucination Theory is TRUE, but I do think it is a plausible theory that should be taken seriously, and I firmly and confidently believe that the attempts of Christian apologists to refute or disprove this skeptical theory have (so far) COMPLETELY FAILED. (I also confidently believe that the attempts of Christian apologists to refute or disprove the Apparent Death Theory have COMPLETELY FAILED; see my series of posts defending this theory against several objections raised by Peter Kreeft.  I also confidently believe ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Parts 1 through 7 of this series,  I argued that at least six of Josh McDowell's seven objections (in The Resurrection Factor; hereafter: TRF) against the Hallucination Theory FAIL. In Part 8 of this series, I began to examine McDowell's one remaining objection: Objection TRF2 ("Very Personal").  McDowell presents this objection in three short paragraphs (TRF p. 93-94). I found some serious problems in the first paragraph on Objection TRF2.  I pointed out that McDowell commits the fallacy of EQUIVOCATION, because the phrase "the same hallucination" (and "the same dream") is AMBIGUOUS, and McDowell shifts from one meaning of this phrase to another meaning in the course of his confused reasoning. In Part 9 of this series, I began to examine the second paragraph in McDowell's presentation of  Objection TRF2.   I also found some serious problems in the second paragraph on Objection TRF2. I pointed out that, contrary to McDowell, common experience, scientific studies, and a number of pass ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Parts 1 through 7 of this series,  I argued that at least six of Josh McDowell's seven objections (in The Resurrection Factor; hereafter: TRF). against the Hallucination Theory FAIL. In Part 8 of this series, I began to examine McDowell's one remaining objection: Objection TRF2 ("Very Personal").  McDowell presents this objection in three short paragraphs (TRF p. 93-94). I found some serious problems in the first paragraph on Objection TRF2.  I pointed out that McDowell commits the fallacy of EQUIVOCATION, because the phrase "the same hallucination" (and "the same dream") is AMBIGUOUS, and McDowell shifts from one meaning of this phrase to another meaning in the course of his confused reasoning. Furthermore, I argued that two people having "the same dream" is NOT as unlikely as it might seem, because dreams are based on our experiences and memories, and because people often have similar experiences and similar memories.  We know from empirical studies that people often have similar drea ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Parts 1 through 7 of this series,  I argued that at least six of Josh McDowell's seven objections (in The Resurrection Factor; hereafter: TRF) against the Hallucination Theory FAIL. In Part 8 of this series, I began to examine McDowell's one remaining objection: Objection TRF2 ("Very Personal").  I pointed out that McDowell confuses a legitimate conceptual point with a significant empirical claim.  While it is a legitimate conceptual truth  that it is not possible for two people to experience "the same hallucination" or "the same dream" because hallucinations and dreams, are purely subjective phenomena that occur in a person's mind, it is also an empirical truth that two people can experience "the same hallucination" or "the same dream" in the sense that two people can have hallucinations or dreams that have the same detailed description. McDowell mistakenly infers from the conceptual truth that two people cannot experience "the same hallucination" or "the same dream" the conclusion that t ... Read Article

Philosopher Dale Tuggy has written an incredibly helpful paper which seeks to help clarify some of the confusing terminology in the philosophy of religion regarding God vs. gods. Key terms defined in this paper include deity, godhood, ultimate, the Ultimate. So far as I can tell, his modest proposal for terminology does not appear to beg the question in favor of western monotheism vs. other religious beliefs such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Hellenistic polytheism (think: Zeus and the ancient Greek pantheon), Jainism, and so forth. Of special interest to readers of this blog is how atheism and naturalism fits into his proposed schema. Using his definitions for ultimate, god, and deity, the following terms are of interest: naturalistic adeism: This is the view that (i) there is nothing with supernatural powers and so no deity; (ii) no god; and (iii) no Ultimate. adeistic ultimism: This is the view that (i) there are no deities; (ii) there is no god; and (iii) there is an Ultimate. monodeistic ultimism: This i ... Read Article

I'm planning to write my first book this year: Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus Actually, a good portion of the book has already been written, at least in terms of the key ideas and arguments. The book will have two main purposes: Critical Analysis and Evaluation of Peter Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus. Teach and Promote the key concepts, principles, and skills of critical thinking. The initial outline of the book follows the main premises of Kreeft's argument: Introduction to Kreeft's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Introduction to Critical Thinking. Did Kreeft Refute the Swoon Theory? Did Kreeft Refute the Conspiracy Theory? Did Kreeft Refute the Hallucination Theory? Did Kreeft Refute the Myth Theory? Are There Only Four Skeptical Theories of the Resurrection of Jesus? Conclusion Each chapter will focus on a few key concepts, principles, or skills of critical thinking, based on what is most relevant for the subject and thinking examined in that c ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In the previous seven parts of this series, I have shown that at least six out of the seven objections raised by Josh McDowell in The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF) against the Hallucination Theory FAIL.  So, at least 85% of McDowell's objections against the Hallucination Theory FAIL: Given that at least 85% of his objections FAIL, one may reasonably conclude that McDowell has no ability to distinguish between a good solid argument, and a weak and/or defective argument.  So, it should be no surprise that in this current post, I will show that Objection TRF2 ("Very Personal") also FAILS, and thus that McDowell has a perfect 100% failure rate, that ALL of his objections against the Hallucination Theory FAIL, and that McDowell is several fries short of a happy meal.   OBJECTION TRF2: VERY PERSONAL Here is a basic assumption behind Objection TRF2: Second, hallucinations are linked to an individual's subconscious and to his particular past experiences, making it very unlikely that more ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In the previous six posts of this series, I have shown that at least five out of seven (71%) of Josh McDowell's objections in The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF) against the Hallucination Theory FAIL: McDowell has at most provided only two solid objections against the Hallucination Theory, NOT seven.  However, in this current post I will show that Objection TRF7 (Doesn't Match the Facts) also FAILS.  Thus, at least six out of his seven objections FAIL, at least 85% of his objections against the Hallucination Theory FAIL.   THE "DOESN'T MATCH THE FACTS" OBJECTION (TRF7) In TRF McDowell states his seventh objection, Objection TRF7, in a single paragraph consisting of only two sentences: A final principle is that hallucinations have no spectrum of reality--no objective reality whatsoever.  The hallucination theory in no way accounts for the empty tomb, the broken seal, the guard units, and especially the subsequent actions of the high priests.           (TRF, p.86) First of all, ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In the previous five posts of this series, I have shown that the best case scenario (for Christian apologetics) is that MOST of Josh McDowell's objections against the Hallucination Theory in his book The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF) are WORTHLESS CRAP: One problem that I pointed out with Objection TRF5 (No Expectancy) is that the word "usually" in the revised and improved version of that objection is VAGUE.  My use of the word "MOST" is similarly vague, but I can quantify my point in a fairly precise way.  At least four out of seven of McDowell's objections against the Hallucination Theory are WORTHLESS CRAP, which means that at least 57% of McDowell's objections against the Hallucination Theory are WORTHLESS CRAP. Furthermore, (***SPOILER ALERT***) after taking a few minutes to read and think about Objection TRF4 (No Favorable Circumstances), I realized that this objection was also a stinking pile of WORTHLESS CRAP.  So, now I am confident that at least five out of seven of McDowell ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE TRF5 is the fifth objection presented by Josh McDowell against the Hallucination Theory in his book The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF). The objection TRF5 can be stated in terms of a brief argument: 1. Hallucinations REQUIRE that a person who has an hallucination of circumstance C previously had a hopeful expectation or wish that circumstance C would occur, to which the hallucination provides an imaginary fulfilment (since circumstance C only seems to occur but does not actually occur). 2. After Jesus' crucifixion, Jesus' disciples had experiences of what seemed to be a living Jesus who had risen from the dead. 3. After Jesus' crucifixion and prior to Jesus' disciples having experiences of what seemed to be a living Jesus who had risen from the dead, his disciples did NOT have a hopeful expectation or wish that Jesus would rise from the dead and be alive again. THEREFORE: 4. After Jesus' crucifixion, the experiences of Jesus' disciples of what seemed to be a living Jesus who had risen from ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Part 1 through Part 10 of this series, I have presented some reasons for rejecting the idea that the book of Leviticus was inspired by God, and for rejecting the view that this book is a reliable source of truth or wisdom. In Part 11 of this series, I began to discuss, two more reasons for rejecting the idea that Leviticus was inspired by God, or that it is a reliable source of truth or wisdom: 5. Leviticus contains bad moral guidelines. 6. Leviticus contains bad laws and bad social guidelines. The Bible in general, and the first five books of the Bible in particular, is supposed to provide us with excellent moral guidelines, and exemplary laws and social guidelines.  The book of Leviticus, however, is FILLED from start to finish with BAD moral guidelines, BAD laws, and BAD social guidelines.  If the book of Leviticus contains messages from Jehovah (as most Christians and Jews believe), then we may reasonably infer that Jehovah is either a SHITHEAD and/or an ASSHOLE, based on the lousiness o ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE TRF5 is the fifth objection presented by Josh McDowell against the Hallucination Theory in his book The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF). The objection TRF5 can be stated in terms of a brief argument: 1. Hallucinations REQUIRE that a person who has an hallucination of circumstance C previously had a hopeful expectation or wish that circumstance C would occur, to which the hallucination provides an imaginary fulfilment (since circumstance C only seems to occur but does not actually occur). 2. After Jesus' crucifixion, Jesus' disciples had experiences of what seemed to be a living Jesus who had risen from the dead. 3. After Jesus' crucifixion and prior to Jesus' disciples having experiences of what seemed to be a living Jesus who had risen from the dead, his disciples did NOT have a hopeful expectation or wish that Jesus would rise from the dead and be alive again. THEREFORE: 4. After Jesus' crucifixion, the experiences of Jesus' disciples of what seemed to be a living Jesus who had risen from ... Read Article