Christian Apologetics Exposed: What the Case of Christian Apologist Randy Everist Demonstrates About Christian Apologetics

This is a blog post meant to illustrate some of the problems with Christian apologetics. Christian apologetics is aimed at presenting a "rational basis" for Christian faith by defending Christianity against criticism and presenting a rational basis for their faith. According to R.C. Sproul, "The defense of the faith is not a luxury or intellectual vanity. It is a task appointed by God that you should be able to give a reason for the hope that is in you as you bear witness before the world." This is based on the following verse from the  First Epistle of Peter (3:15) "...but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." (Wikipedia)

There are conceptual and internal inconsistencies in the Christian apologetic methodology in that faith is the belief without evidence, and knowledge is belief with evidence. Since Christianity is founded on faith, that faith overrides reason and evidence when it goes against their Christian faith. The Christian apologists claim to base their faith on evidence and reason, when in fact, it is based on faith first and foremost. When evidence and reason disproves their faith, they turn their backs on the results, and forsake the knowledge gained from the results. The Christian philosopher Soren Kierkegaard recognized this problem and argued that:

"Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion of the individual's inwardness and the objective uncertainly. If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I don not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water, still preserving my faith." *

Kierkegaard openly admitted that Christianity was illogical, and in fact a paradox was the center of his faith. This paradox was the Christ. According to Kierkegaard, an "Absolute Paradox" of Christianity was that a temporal being would take physical shape and allow itself, or at least a part of itself, to die a terrible death. Furthermore, the Trinity itself was a paradox, unless it is accepted that any son is his father through reproduction. To accept the paradox of Christian faith was to embrace something without relying upon abstraction, something beyond basic duty to society. At the heart of Christianity is the Christian conception of the trinity--which is illogical.  I posted arguments that demonstrate that this is the case. The Christian apologists cannot provide evidence for the trinity. Their belief in the trinity is founded on faith, and not evidence and reason.

Like the great American pragmatists would say, in particular Charles Peirce, the best way to fix beliefs is NOT via tenacity which is the method of tenaciously holding to ones beliefs no matter what; and NOT by authority, which is the method of going by what those in authority tell us without considering the alternative; and NOT the method of a priori, which is the method of using what is agreeable to a person's reason. It is through inductive, and in particular deductive logic and the Hypothetico-Deductive method--which is self-correcting--that we gain knowledge. When we use a deductive argument, the argument must be valid and the premises must be true, in which case, the conclusion must also be true. If the argument is not valid or sound, then the conclusion does not follow; in which case, one ought come up with another argument, or give up the conclusion. When we use the H-D method, we propose a hypothesis, and then we must present reproducible evidence that supports that hypothesis. If the hypothesis cannot be supported, then the hypothesis is given up. This is what we mean by knowledge, when we say knowledge is based on evidence. The Christian apologist's faith cannot stomach this result. That is why it prefers the aforementioned methods, which do not work as well in fixing beliefs as the H-D method. They use tenacity, ie. they will tenaciously stick to their faith despite the lack of evidence for it, or when there is evidence against it; they use authority, i.e. even when that authority has been proven to be wrong; and they use a priori, i.e. what seems agreeable to their reason when it supports their faith, and not otherwise. So, when apologists claim that they are presenting a rational basis for their faith, they are in fact, putting faith before reason. Their claim to be presenting a rational basis for their faith is only a pretense, for they are not in it to discover truth and knowledge--but only to support their faith based beliefs. Worse yet, when reason goes against their faith, they reject it outright or they use the ad hoc and/or Humpty Dumpty methods in their attempts to rationalize their beliefs and hold to their faith. Let me provide you with an example that illustrates the problem of Christian apologetics when faith comes into conflict with logic, truth, and evidence--when objective reality comes into conflict with subjective reality.

Recently, I presented an argument that proved that the Christian apologist, JW Wartick's blog post illustrated that the Bible makes no sense. Another Christian apologist by the name of Randy Everist commented on my blog, telling me I had not given arguments to support my case, and that I had not provided the proper exegesis of the text--which I actually had done. I answered all his points, and proved that my argument was both valid and sound. I wrote another post pointing out the arguments and exegesis in bold in order to illustrate that his claims were unfounded and that he had not refuted my arguments. His only response was ad hominem --all he could do was ask where I teach, and claim that I am not a "real philosopher." I showed that Randy's replies are those of a "mental baby,' and NOT those of a scholar. Another commenter that goes by the name The Truthful Heretic, made the remark that Randy might be a troll:

"The guy talks of argument in the start, and then thinks this annoying childish way of asking a repetitive personal question, is going to make it look good for him?

I'm thinking maybe he's just a troll, especially because of the "Humpty, Dumpty" as you suggested. Even if not, he is just annoying as hell!

After not being able to refute the argument, and being made to look like a fool, and thereafter trying to use tricks such as using ad hominem as a red herring, he thought he could save face by accepting the Truthful Heretic's potential way out of his predicament by claiming that he was really just a troll. As Randy himself said:

"lol. So which school do you teach at? Yeah, that's what I thought. I AM in fact just trolling, and I never knew how fun it could be! I just have a strict policy of not debating with anyone who is non-serious. Sorry. lol"

Note, that it can be seen from his comment that he has never trolled before, as he did not know how much fun it could be!--thereby telling on himself, that in fact, he was not actually trolling in the first place--he got beaten so bad, in order to save face, he would rather be called a troll! At any rate, Randy's responses to my argument were those of a mental baby or a troll. If his responses were those of a mental baby, then his responses were not those of a scholar. The definition of a troll is:

"In internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.    The verb troll originates from Old French troller, a hunting term. The noun troll comes from the Old Norse word for a mythological monster.

In modern English usage, the verb troll is a fishing technique of slowly dragging a lure or baited hook from a moving boat.The word evokes the trolls of Scandinavian folklore and children's tales, where they are often creatures bent on mischief and wickedness." (Wikipedia)

If his responses were those of a troll, then his responses were not those of a scholar. Either way, the Christian apologist Randy Everist's responses were not those of a scholar.

Here, we have a Christian apologist who could not refute my argument that the Bible makes no sense, and as a result, Randy merely resorted to debate tricks such as repeated uses of ad hominem as a red herring. To make matters even worse, in one of Randy's post's called "Debate Tactics" he also said the following:

" Though I do not condone debate tactics for the sake of winning a debate, I do want people to recognize when particular tactics are done to them. We ought not to be concerned primarily with debating, or even being right. We rather ought to be concerned with knowing and being in alignment with the truth of God. That said, many times atheists/skeptics (and even believers) evince some confusion (or outright dishonesty) when it comes to debate tactics."

Randy Everist claims that "we ought not to be concerned primarily with debating, or even being right, and that we rather ought to be concerned with knowing and being in alignment with the truth of God"--but his responses and his actions demonstrated, that in fact, he was not concerned with knowing and being in alignment with the truth of  God!  When the argument and evidence went against his faith, Randy Everist, by his own declaration, resorted to debate tricks and trolling--just to save face and to hide from the truth that the Bible makes no sense--and to hold onto his faith.

Randy went ad hoc by pretending to be a scholar who refuted my argument, to claiming he was just trolling after the Truthful Heretic said that Randy might be  a troll because of his inability to grasp the arguments, and because of his use of ad hominem. Randy saw this as a way out of his predicament, and to avoid looking like a fool, and to hold onto his faith, he claimed to be a troll instead. However, through our interaction on this blog, Randy has illustrated what is wrong with Christian apologetics. For them, faith overrides logic and truth--which results in the use of ad hominem and these types of ad hoc responses and Humpty Dumpty Semantics when they cannot refute an opposing argument that would undermine their faith. In the face of logic and evidence that does not support their faith, or if it goes against their faith, they will hold to their faith--no matter what.

Now, let me say something more on the difference between debating and philosophy. The art of debate is usually, but not always housed in the Communications department, and not the Philosophy Department. Let me explain why. Debate is concerned with winning people over to one side or another, and not whether what they are arguing is true or not. Why, a person, if they can get away with it, can use fallacious arguments, or whatever other means (such as avoiding to answer a question that they know the answer to because it would defeat their position) A philosopher--and by philosopher, I mean a REAL philosopher--ought to be concerned with getting at the truth. The definition of philosophy is the study of knowledge, and as a philosopher, I seek truth and knowledge--not just for the sake of knowledge but to increase the overall good. As a philosopher, I use logic and the dialectical process towards that goal. On the other hand, we have Christian apologists, like Randy Everist, who only accept arguments and evidence when they are "in alignment" with their Christian faith and are only concerned with winning a debate. Randy Everest demonstrates the mental baby and troll aspects of Christian apologetics and their lack of scholarship. Since Christianity is founded on faith, that faith overrides reason and evidence when it goes against  their Christian faith. The Christian apologists claim to base their faith on evidence and reason, when in fact, it is based on faith first and foremost. When evidence and reason disproves their faith, they turn their backs on the results, and forsake the knowledge gained from the results.  This is one of the biggest problems with Christian apologetics--using any means necessary, regardless of whether it is true or not.

*Classics of Western Philosophy Steven Cahn. p. 1014

Stephen Meyer's Intelligent Design Argument Refuted--Part 2

 

In my last posting regarding Stephen Meyer's claim that the Intelligent Design argument: "stands as the best- most causally adequate- explanation for this feature of the cell, just as it stands as the best explanation for the origin of the information present in DNA itself," I argued that there is a hidden premise in his argument; that being if anything has intelligence and information in it, then it must be explained. The result being that if there is a designer, then that designer would also need a designer, which I then showed led to a vicious infinite regress via reductio ad absurdum. A comment by someone by the name of Greg was made in which a competing hidden premise was offered:

"... all I have to do to show your argument fails is to disprove your statement that his hidden premise must be what you say it is. Otherwise, you are putting words in his mouth, or, essentially, setting up a straw man. And if that is the case, you are not accepting his premises to be true. You are accepting his premises to be true plus other premises that make his argument fail. I think you would agree as a philosophy professor that this is not the correct way to do the reductio ad absurdum argument."

Keeping in mind the phrase that I have emphasized ("in our cells") means that his hidden premise is not that anything that has intelligence requires an explanation, it is instead that anything with an origin in the finite past that has intelligence requires an explanation."

Let us consider Greg's proposal for the hidden premise. We now have two competing hidden premisses, and I have already shown that my hidden premise leads to an infinite regress. But now let's consider the hidden premise that was offered by Greg as an alternative to mine. Greg's hidden premise is that "anything with an origin in the finite past that has intelligence requires an explanation." Let's assume that Greg's hidden premise is the actual hidden premise. Then we have at least two cases. I will show that both these cases also lead to the same infinite regress, or absurdity, or a contradiction. Case 1 leads to the vicious regress I have already proved. Case 2 leads to a contradiction. That contradiction being there would be no need for further explanation and there is a need for further explanation--for it would have to be shown that the designer was in fact infinite and not finite!

Case 1

Case 1 is that the intelligence or information in our cells is due to design and that the designer is finite. For example, the designer could be an alien scientist who was commissioned to create a planet with information and intelligence in it, so that they could study and research the results. In this case, the designer would have to have information or intelligence, and in which case, the designer would need an explanation, and hence we would have a vicious infinite regress.

Case 2

Case 2 is that the intelligence or information in our cells is due to design and that the designer is infinite. In which case, there would be no need for further explanation. At which point, I would argue, and have argued, that the best explanation for the universe is it being "in its own nature." The best explanation of any so-called "designer" is the universe itself--and not a god. Therefore, the intelligence or information that is in the universe is explained by being "in its own nature."

Now, there would be two reasons why this explanation requires no explanation or proof. One being that the best explanation requires no further explanation, and the commentator’s hidden premise which states that if something is infinite, it requires no further explanation. I define the universe as being infinite, and I base this definition on the new research in quantum mechanics. Quantum fields are said to be infinite, and universes can come from quantum fields. If someone says, "How do you know that the universe is infinite?" We can ask the same question for any other potential designer. Let's assume that the designer is a god. The fact of the matter is, saying that God is infinite by definition just begs the question. Note, that I said that I define the universe as being infinite, but this is not just by definition. There is some scientific evidence that points towards the universe being infinite, but there is no evidence, not even a priori evidence for the existence of a god of any kind, let alone that this god is infinite.

If we accept the Greg's’s hidden premise, then it is clear that if one wishes to consider the designer to be infinite, then we are permitted to ask for an explanation or proof that the designer is indeed infinite. If this is not the case, then it would also be the case as it relates to the universe being infinite--no explanation or proof would be required!

If the designer is said to be god, and is therefore infinite, because god by definition is said to be infinite, then to paraphrase Kant, any first cause argument, in this case ID argument, is dependent on the ontological argument. Kant was correct, since the only answer for god being infinite is by mere definition. Let's consider some of the refutations of the ontological argument:

1. Thomas Aquinas argued that the ontological argument would only be meaningful to someone who knew the essence of God completely, and since only God could completely know his own essence, only God can use the ontological argument to prove his own existence to himself. This undermines any kind of causal argument for God’s existence, including Stephen Meyer's Intelligent Design Argument--

from our standpoint, for God only has causal powers on this account from within some larger context that is itself inaccessible to us. So, if the designer is god, and if god exists, then only god would know that he is infinite! The commenter, nor any other person can provide proof that if god exists, that he is infinite, since no one would know his essence.

2. The character of Cleanthes, in David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, argues that no being could ever be proven to exist through an a priori demonstration:

"There is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable."

Though this criticism is directed against a cosmological argument, it applies to the ontological arguments as well. So again, the ontological argument fails.  Likewise, there is no contradiction in conceiving of a god that is finite, which further illustrates the absurdity of the claim that god is infinite by definition, or a priori.

Hume also pointed out that causal relations are dependent on experience, and the premise of causality is the result of inductive, or a posteriori reasoning. Causal relations are not true a priori, or deductively. We know causal relationships because we have experienced them. However, we do not know if these causal relationships hold for the universe or anything prior to our known universe. Any first cause argument is making a fallacious move because it tries to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond our experience. The premise of causality is based on induction, and thus, experience. All things in the universe that exhibit order, or information, or knowledge, to our knowledge, are created by material, imperfect, finite beings or forces. We have no known instances of an immaterial, perfect, infinite being creating anything. We have no experience of finite things being caused by an infinite designer, other than perhaps the universe being "in its own nature." Which further supports my argument that the best explanation for intelligence or information in the universe, IS the universe.

This also raises a further problem for the ID argument. How can a designer, who is said to be infinite and eternal, be the cause of intelligence or information in cells which are finite, changeable, and of limited duration, if a cause must be a logically suffi­cient condition of its effect? If the cause is eternal, and the effect follows logically from it, how can the effect not be eternal? The answer is that designer, in so far as he is infinite and eternal, would not be the ade­quate cause of intelligence or information in finite things.

3. William Lane Craig has tried to address this problem by claiming that "...the idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible." According to Craig :
 

 "In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed   in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.  The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained.  This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!"

There are at least two problems with Craig's explanation. The first problem is that I and others like me do not in fact have any "intuitively intelligible notion" of divine causation, nor are we able to explain the supposed relationship between God and the universe.  For every known causal relationship that we know or can conceive of is based in a materialist model of causation and not that of a supernatural model of causation. 

The second problem is that, if we assume that Craig is right, then the same would apply to the universe being the cause of itself. I paraphrase Craig, "This notion certainly applies to the universe causing the universe. If the universes' causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!"

4. In Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Kant argues that if we include existence in the definition of something, then asserting that it exists is a tautology, and if we say that existence is part of the definition of God, i.e an analytic judgment, then we are just repeating ourselves in stating that God exists. It is not a synthetic judgment which adds new information about the real existence of God to the purely conceptual definition of God. Note, that the same thing applies to the property of infinity. Furthermore, if you cannot prove that god exists, then clearly you cannot show that he is infinite! If you can not prove that the proposed designer is infinite, then we have no way of knowing whether the proposed designer is not finite.  If we have no way of knowing that the proposed designer is not finite, then we would need an explanation or proof of the designer in question.

In my last posting regarding Stephen Meyer's argument for intelligent design, which he claims "stands as the best- most causally adequate- explanation for this feature of the cell, just as it stands as the best explanation for the origin of the information present in DNA itself," I argued that there is a hidden premise in his argument, that being if anything has intelligence and information in it, then it must be explained. The result being that if there is a designer, then that designer would also need a designer, which I then showed led to a vicious infinite regress via reductio ad absurdum.

Now, we see that if we accept Greg's hidden premise that "anything that is infinite that has intelligence or information in it requires no explanation," still needs an explanation. The designer would need an explanation and/or proof of being infinite.

So, we have two competing hidden premisses. Either way, Stephen Meyer's argument for intelligent design fails. If we accept my hidden premise, that "if anything has intelligence and information in it, then it must be explained, leads to an infinite regress, and if we accept the commentator's hidden premise that "anything with an origin in the finite past that has intelligence requires an explanation," leads to the same vicious regress or a contradiction. That contradiction being there would be no need for further explanation and there is a need for further explanation!--For it would have to be shown that the designer was in fact infinite and not finite! This has not been shown. Therefore, Stephen Meyer's argument for intelligent design fails.

Stephen Meyer's Intelligent Design Argument Refuted

 

According to Stephen Meyer in "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidencefor Intelligent Design":

"Intelligence is the only known cause of complex functionally integrated information processing system. It follows once again, that intelligent design stands as the best- most causally adequate- explanation for this feature of the cell, just as it stands as the best explanation for the origin of the information present in DNA itself".

Let us set out Stephen Meyer's ID argument. Premisses 1-7 is my recasting of Stephen Meyer's ID argument as it is presented in "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design".


1) If there is intelligence or information in our cells, its origin must be explained.
2) There is intelligence or information in our cells.
3) Therefore, the origin of the intelligence or information must be explained.
4) There are three possible explanations for intelligence or information: chance, necessity, or design.
5) Chance and necessity are not sufficient explanations for intelligence or information.
6) Therefore, the intelligence or information is in our cell due to design.
7) IF the intelligence or information is in our cell is due to design, then there must be a designer.

Many Christian apologists, such as JW Wartick find this to be a satisfactory argument and explanation. However, this is not the case, as I will prove the argument leads to a vicious infinite regress.

Premisses 8-16 is my reductio ad absurdum of Stephen Meyer's ID argument. My premise 8 follows from Stephen Meyers' argument, for there is a hidden premise in his argument. That hidden premise is that if anything has intelligence and information in it, then it must be explained. Now note, according to Meyer, that explanation is either chance, necessity or design. Since the designer designs, I take it the designer must have intelligence or information, which would mean that the designer must have been designed. Here is the rest of the argument that Stephen Meyer left out:

8) If there must be a designer, then there must be intelligence or information in the designer.

9) If there is intelligence or information in the designer, then its origin must be explained.
10) There is intelligence or information in the designer.
11) Therefore, the origin of the intelligence or information must be explained.
12) There are three possible explanations for information: chance, necessity, or design.
13) Chance and necessity are not sufficient explanations for intelligence or information.
14) Therefore, the intelligence or information in the designer is due to design.
15) Therefore, the designer was designed by a designer, which must have been designed by another designer, ad infinitum.
16) Therefore, the ID argument fails due to a vicious infinite regress.

Now Stephen Meyer could reject the hidden premise and say that there can be something that has intelligence or information in it that was not designed, and that the designer is the "uncreated designer," but then I can say the same thing about the universe itself. In fact, I have already argued in another post that this is in fact, the "best explanation." We can use the same explanation that Christians use for the existence of their "designer" for the explanation for the existence of the universe, in that, it is "in its own nature.