top of page
zackkendall
Oct 23, 202242 min read

My Friendly Interlocutor

16 Dec. 2016

Back to the Front Lines


So much of the best of what I do is outside of the formal gears of operation of the local church. Many of you may be wondering what it is like “on the ground” in the cyberspace debate on religion. Sure, you have seen some videos, and you can learn quite a bit from those, but another way to learn is to actually communicate with others directly.

In the section below, I will give an extended example of what that might look like, from an actual real-life example. I will start here with the metadata, continue with some preliminary notes, proceed with the actual extended conversation, and then finish with an assessment. The extended conversation is very long. For those of you who would like to just go to the assessment, it might be best to scroll all the way down and then scroll up slowly from there, to find the beginning of that section. Emphasis is my own.





Metadata:

My Profile: Redacted name: ZK State or Province of Residence: Kentucky in the United States (obviously) Age at Time of Conversation: Mid 20s Extended Conversation: 20 Apr. 2016 to middle of August 2016 General Stance toward Interlocutor: Open

Profile of my friendly interlocutor: Redacted Name: TH State or Province of Residence: Ohio in the United States Age at Time of Conversation: High school upperclassman / older teenager Extended Conversation: 20 Apr. 2016 to middle of August 2016 Then Current Attitude toward Christianity: Affirmative

For legal privacy reasons, the redacted name of my friendly interlocutor (i.e., “TH”) will be used for his real name throughout the conversation below, even if only the first name or last name was originally stated. Likewise, I have also given a redaction of my own name, and replaced it with “ZK” throughout. These redacted names also apply for the indicator of who is communicating. The redacted name (with a colon afterward) will appear directly above what the person stated. Note also that InspiringPhilosophy’s real name does not appear in this discussion, even though I could have decided to include it, being aware of who IP is. So I am not against preserving the wishes of others concerning non-disclosure.


The bulk of the conversation is below. There are some needless sections that I have discarded. They do not affect the outcome of anything else, legal or otherwise. Some links I have not included, and some punctuation and spelling mistakes have been corrected. For the record, I am technically not the founder of the Den of Christian Apologists. On that account, TH was mistaken.


This conversation ended after the involvement of the interlocutor’s mother, who preferred that her son would not be discussing such matters with people that the family was not as a whole more familiar with on a personal level. At least, that’s the most comfortable way to put it. Not long after the end of the portion herein, his Facebook account was deactivated entirely, apparently to prevent me from communicating with him. My mention of doing a video chat at the end was meant as more of an off-hand remark, as I have done video chats with others before. Perhaps it would have been viewed as an “escalation,” but I was fine with simply continuing through Facebook.


Our Extended Conversation (with some redactions):


Intro: While online on Facebook one day, ZK notices that a message has suddenly popped up. The time of year is right in between two rather busy times of year concerning his video work.

TH:

Hey just wondering…as a Christian apologist where do you stand?

ZK:

On what topic?

TH:

Well I mean in general as your viewpoint like what type are you?

Sorry if that comes off very judgmental.

ZK:

Out of the 5 views (e.g., classical, evidential, presuppositional, reformed epistemology, and cumulative case), I would be an advocate of Cumulative Case with evidential leanings.

TH:

I’m sort of a sprouting apologist so do you think you can clarify what that means?

ZK:

at the CAA, I helped with an article on the topic of Cumulative Case apologetics.

Read here for more:

TH:

That’s cool… Well I guess what I was trying to get at was like denomination wise

ZK:

Well, that would be a personal question. Although I am technically a member of an independent Baptist church, I would not personally self-identify as any particular denomination of Christianity.

To me, it’s more important that you stand for Christianity than for any denominational subgroup.

TH:

Okay so I was just wondering if you know anything regarding the existence of the soul…

ZK:

well, that’s not my particular sub-field of expertise per se.

There are a few videos that you might find interesting though, if i could remember what they are….

Here is one of them:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVeoV14J2dY?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent]

TH:

“Phew!” for a bit I worried if you were a Christian naturalist/materialist…I’m trying to make it my expertise and just needed some help from another apologist.

ZK:

I’m not sure why you would come to that conclusion concerning me. Are you in any groups that I am also in, on Facebook?

TH:

Oh I joined Christian Apologetics Alliance and for some reason your icon rang a bell so I friended you.

ZK:

well, i did spend about 7 years in online religious discussion forums…. as well as was instrumental in launching Equipped.

TH:

I sort of drew that conclusion because another guy I was talking to on a forum said most intelligent Christians are that way [i.e., Christian naturalists]

ZK:

I’m not sure why someone would reach that conclusion. Now, there are a few philosophers who take such a stance or a similar stance (Peter Forrest [….], I think). But others take a different view similar to Swinburne’s view of dualism, if I recall correctly.

TH:

Okay. I know it may not be some expertise but do you think you can help me a bit on the evidence for dualism biblically/theologically?

ZK:

I’m going to punt that one, TH. But again, I think it comes back around to some extent to your question of the soul. Think mind-brain duality, something like that. Consciousness as not necessarily being an emergent property or process of matter.

TH:

Hmm…okay… that makes sense. Do you by any chance know anyone good in the expertise I can talk to about such?

ZK:

I would suggest asking a question in the CAA forum along those lines.

There are people I am aware of in somewhat related topics but I’m drawing a blank at the moment.

TH:

Nah its ok…hey if you remember anyone can you message me them?

ZK:

I’m not sure I’d remember to do that. However, I suppose I could post a question in the FB forum….

TH:

Okay.

ZK:

Ok, here are a few names that came up.

  1. John DePoe

  2. Brandon Rickabaugh

  3. J. P. Moreland (not in CAA)

[included inserted link to Brandon Rickabaugh]

TH:

Ah thanks man I really appreciate it!

ZK:

perhaps also of interest….

TH:

Thanks as well too man! God bless.

Oh hey one more question…do you know anyone good in the problem of evil?

ZK:

Do you know anyone evil in the problem of good?😀

Well, I’m not all that sure that I know anyone that’s known for it. Some like Clay Jones focused on more specific issues like the Canaanites.

Of course I have my own views on the topic, but I’m not sure whether you want to go through all of that.

I personally do not believe that there is a soundbite answer, though in one sense, William Lane Craig was on the right track in implying that it is a non-sequitur to argue from evil that God is not real.

So the starting questions are really questions like these:

Does evil preclude the real existence of God? Does evil destroy God? Is evil somehow else incompatible with God? Would particular versions of evil somehow be incompatible with God?

I am not persuaded that the argument is successful in defeating theism. To me, it seems like at best, it is a skeptical argument against worthiness of worship, in which case, one has some options in combating it on that level.

TH:

Hey just wondering do you know any good YouTube channels dedicated to Christian apologetics? I found this great one called Inspiring Philosophy but I was wondering if you know of any others.

ZK:

InspiringPhilosophy is okay. He is a part of the Christian Apologetics Alliance.

Um… I have a blog where I listed some videos…

TH:

Ah, he [i.e., InspiringPhilosophy] is? Cool.

ZK:

Yes, he is a part of the CAA, but not as InspiringPhilosophy. If I recall correctly, he is in it under his real name, which, I think he doesn’t particularly desire for me to disclose.

TH:

Nah, it’s cool. I understand. It’s a harsh world out there for Christian Apologists.

ZK:

What precisely do you mean?

TH:

Well, I have seen many YouTube atheists/ commenters really make fun of and insult Christian apologists.

even though most of the time they aren’t really as smart.

(Well, they can be smart sometimes).

ZK:

Well, that happens, yes. Most Christian apologists aren’t really paid for what they do either…. well, I guess you could say I got an apologetics study Bible out of it, but… that’s not that much.

But yeah, feel free to go to those links to the blog, and then search through the materials.

TH:

Ah, thanks, ZK. Btw I saw you were working on a book recently, how’s that been going?

ZK:

Which one? Maybe you mean the one about the existence of God?

TH:

I think that’s the one. I got a notification in my email that you posted something of that sort.

ZK:

yeah, that’s an ever growing project, and I just got an increased work-load… so, that’s going to be quite a while as well. However, I did recently get a couple of new books on PDF to go through.

Assuming I get it done, what it’s going to end up being is a multi-volume set—at least 10 volumes, total over 1000 pages, covering a fairly wide range of arguments, from Cosmological and Ontological and Moral Arguments to ISA and TMSI.

one of the things i’ve been doing is listening and watching and reading many of the debates that have been made available online, as well as have been incorporating material from many book sources, articles, etc.

So, it’s a pretty big endeavor.

Recently purchased The Language of God by Francis Collins, and plan on eventually incorporating some of that into the multi-volume set. Of course, when I say “incorporating,” I don’t mean copy-pasting it all. That would be illegal.

TH:

Wow that’s a lot. Btw, I’m assuming you have a theistic evolutionary idea?

ZK:

I am not as TE as some others, and would tend to just leave it at Old Universe Creationism with limited evolution.

TH:

I have a TE view, but it’s sort of hard to find people with the same view as me.

Well in the Christian apologist’s world

ZK:

consistency is key. your interpretation of Scripture should not conflict against your interpretation of the non-Scripture external world.

TH:

True. But also do you know anyone with a view like that?

ZK:

it’s not something i generally keep track of—who is TE in the Christian apologetics community. Of course, BioLogos, Collin’s organization, is TE.

TH:

Well of course but most of them have a materialist or naturalist view.

ZK:

at BioLogos?

TH:

most of the people on the forum on biologos

ZK:

ah, well, with forums of course, you will get a diversity of views, and it is generally the case that the more skeptically inclined participate more on online forums.

TH:

Ah, ok.

Anyways good luck on all that! I have to get set up for my bday party. I’m having some of my good friends over (and one of them is bringing her old homework to roast over a fire)

ZK:

Also, not sure if i shared this with you or not, but I also finished a PowerPoint on archaeology that is available online (scroll down to the link).

Oh, well, happy birthday then!

TH:

Hey by the way the group you started; den of Christian apologist doesn’t have any atheistic trollers or spammers in it, does it?

ZK:

I didn’t start the group. Evan Minton started the group. We do try to keep the trolls and spammers away though.

TH:

Ok nice so if I ever place a question on there, it won’t be dumped.

ZK:

I don’t know what you mean by that. if a post is against the rules, someone might delete it.

TH:

Ah ok. It seems the question I posted got way out of hand. So what was the point Lyndon was trying to make?

ZK:

To know something happened somewhere at a particular time, you have to have been there at the time and place where it happened. But I don’t agree with him. However, to a limited extent, he would be correct: there are likely some things that we could only know if we were able to observe them occur at a given place in time; however, the issue here comes down to what evidence is left of the events in question, and as it concerns the universe, i think we have sufficient evidence to conclude that it had a thermodynamic beginning.

TH:

Thermodynamic beginning?

ZK:

Yes, as opposed to a total beginning. I am more modest than Craig in making the claim.

That is, as opposed to a beginning of space-time as well as energy, etc.

TH:

You mean WLC (William Lane Craig)?

Also why is that other guy on there seeming like evidence is bad?

ZK:

Who are you talking about? Angus?

TH:

And when you said (yes, as opposed to a total beginning. I am more modest than Craig in making the claim.) I thought you meant William lane Craig.

ZK:

Yeah, I was referring to William Lane Craig. Does that make sense then?

TH:

Yeah…it makes sense. Oh, by the way, let’s just say I run across an atheist who believes that Jesus doesn’t exist. What would be some things he may ask me or use to try and deny His existence? And from his questions what would be the best answers?

ZK:

While I would be a good person to ask these sorts of questions, since the apologetics community has soundly dealt with this topic given the ongoing debate over the last decade or so, I must confess that I am a bit sleepy now and will be going on vacation very soon. In short though, there are at least 3 distinct types of Jesus-Mythicism. Hmm… well, i kind of wish i had finished the Mythicism PowerPoints of mine by now. If i had, i’d be fine sharing those with you. However, I guess I can extract a few slides for you…

[included at least five or six PowerPoint slides on Mythicism]

Hope that helps at least give you a start. I am in need of sleep.

if you have a specific question, feel free to ask, though.

Also, have you heard of Alinconism and the debates over Lincoln’s real existence? Alinconism is a parody that Jesus-historicists have made of the Jesus-Mythicism stance (or, at least, one of the versions of Jesus-Mythicism).

TH:

Thanks man…btw what are you doing for vacation?

Hey just out of question do you think that Google is atheistically biased? Like they don’t really celebrate Christian holidays and only other holidays of other religions and secular achievements like Sigmund Freud. Also when you search things like is god real or do I have a soul they seem to go against Christianity.

ZK:

You obviously haven’t seen my experiment, TH. Of course Google leans more toward the atheistic side than the Christian side.

[Next Statement redacted for privacy of TH.]

For vacation, I went to Charleston, West Virginia and Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

TH:

Nice!

ZK:

[Statement redacted for privacy of TH.]

TH:

Yeah just noticed…jeez reddit is even promoting atheism?! Someone should make a Christian apologist subred.

ZK:

well, I cannot say anything about reddit other than that it has a robust atheist community within it.

well, you know, with knowledge and relevance to your last statements…

TH:

True…they even had top leading speakers come on the forum like Degrease Tyson to answer others questions.

Also I tried this one time. I searched what’s the meaning of life on there and they gave me the nihilist response that you’ll never find it by quoting Albert Einstein.

Jeez there got to be a better search engine that doesn’t hate us

Also I remember searching do I really have a soul a while back and every single result was marked “scientists say we do not have a soul”. Don’t even get me started on YouTube…now because of all this bias I have to quickly blur my own eyes so I don’t become anxious about the search results.

ZK:

well, the issue of the “ghost in the machine,” as it is sometimes called, has basically come down to only two options. Either there is no ghost in the machine (and hence naturalistic emergent consciousness is true) or there is a ghost in the machine, but the physical brain is the mechanism through which that consciousness experiences the world as long as that consciousness is linked with that brain. The old analogy was that of a person being within a room with a window through which that person saw the outside world. The new analogy is something that I have recognized and is slightly more accurate as an analogy—that of the (internally) human-operated mech (think mech animes here).

But this means that the only clear evidence for the real existence of the soul must come from a rather particular version of out of body experience…

TH:

I was more giving that one search result as an example but still. I think what you mean is materialism, not naturalism as Buddhism believes in a (different) soul but doesn’t believe in god (well not generally). I have met naturalists on biologos with a dualistic perspective interestingly enough. The sad part about the soul evidence is most people play the “we only use 4.5% of our brains” card when bringing up ndes/obes…the greatest line of evidence would be the ndes have one just-dead person that the experiencer didn’t know died but sadly that too falls prey to the 4.5% excuse as well.

ZK:

A philosophical naturalist is not the same as a biological naturalist.

TH:

What’s the difference? Oh and for extra reference is there anyone you recommend from aa that I should possibly add to my fb friends for future contact?

ZK:

From Apologetics Academy? I’d have to look quite a while there to see.

However, there are several recommendations I can make concerning those in the Christian Apologetics Alliance and those connected to it (indirectly).

TH:

Thanks.

ZK:

[inserted link to Robin Collins material on Fine-Tuning]

TH:

Thanks! I just saved it to my phone. Oh one other thing…what would be the best way to answer the many-other-religions-with-many-different-views-of-god/so-many-religions/pastafarian arguments? I know it sounds ridiculous but it is a common thing I have heard people use (I think the argument was even used in the Batman v. Superman movie).

ZK:

Well, Got Questions actually has a pretty good article concerning a few talking points and introductory points:

But in the end, you need criteria-based argumentation.

I’m not really sure what the best way is to deal with the issue, but there are ways that can deal with the issue, and it might be helpful to use them to whatever extent you can.

Method 1: Demonstrate the real existence of God in such a way that it entails the Deity connected with the religious sacred writings of one’s own religious tradition.

This provides a positive thrust in favor of one’s own religious tradition. Some TMSI argumentation can accomplish this, such as arguments from multiple qualified prophecies (that is, multiple prophecies adhering to the criteria needed to make them qualify as clear evidence for the real existence of a deity).

Method 2: Use a set of criteria by which we can eliminate alternative religious traditions or at least deem alternative religious traditions to be less likely to be the most accurate religious tradition on the fundamental levels.

For example, if there is a real deity, there are some things that we might expect that deity to do.

  1. Send messages to those loved creatures which are capable of receiving those messages, and to send them in a media form once media forms had been developed and capable of being reasonably preserved

  2. Sustain that religious tradition, such that there is never an absence of a witness to spiritual truth

  3. Ensure that the religious tradition that the Deity starts is a growing religious tradition over the course of time, having evolutionary advantages in the marketplace of ideas, particularly if the religious tradition is important in the mind of the Deity in question

Taking these three (and other) points together, we can get pretty far. The majority of the major religious traditions that were around at the time that we can go furthest back with reliability of knowledge.

After going through a process like this, one’s options are narrowed considerably, perhaps even to just three religious traditions (Shaddaist, Hindu, and Shinto).

From our standpoint, then it would remain for us to demonstrate the falsity or inadequacies of Hinduism and Shintoism.

Method 3: Attack the god-concepts of alternative religions where those god-concepts differ from (1) our own religious tradition and (2) philosophically defensible positions. Insist also that other religions also have a burden of proof to meet concerning their own claims about their own postulated deities. Thus, the polytheist has a burden of proof to demonstrate that each of his gods are real, and this burden of proof is collectively greater than the burden of proof needed to establish monotheism (i.e., the real existence of one deity).

I hope some of the above points help, or at least help you to go in the right direction. Of course, the skeptical tradition (including atheism, cold deism, physicalist pantheism, and agnosticism) must also be combated.

TH:

Also speaking of skeptical combatants how should I confront Confucianism or Buddhism?

ZK:

Um… well, what precisely do you mean by that? Personally, I really would need to do more studying on both of those stances.

However, what questions in particular are you getting from a Buddhist/Confucian perspective?

From our own perspective, Buddhism and Confucianism lack substantial doctrines of Christianity and are thus incomplete at best; consequently, the Christian does not see Buddhism or Confucianism as a religion to switch to, as though trading in Christianity for Buddhism or Confucianism.

Moreover, if you can argue that there is a real God that ought to be a central facet in one’s own religious tradition, then one can combat Buddhism, for the notion of deities are largely irrelevant to Buddhism, and thus, Buddhism’s perspective is one of non-centrality of any deities (if those deities are real).

also, there is the whole issue of the samsara paradigm, that needs justification, for the Buddhist or Hindu.

TH:

Well what I mean is that Buddhism kindled meditation in a way that it is central to its belief in which one can reach positivity through acceptance of nothing… I find it a bit of an issue as science seems to be pointing towards Buddhist meditation as being positive.

Ex: mindfulness

ZK:

ok, so you are saying that science’s embrace of Buddhism’s mindfulness practices as being successful is something that you are concerned about?

TH:

Well the void without god seems to be filled with this, according to followers [of Buddhism].

ZK:

Well, we can use the approach to this called the even-if approach to say that even if it is true that Buddhists who practice meditation do not perceive themselves to have a god-shaped hole left, and even if there are practical benefits to the practice of meditation/mindfulness, there are still core facets of Buddhism as a religion which are questionable, such as the samsara paradigm, as well as the absences of other things that we believe are true and important

In other words, even if the Buddhists are correct, there may be a better religion out there which is more comprehensive and has less of a paradigm problem.

This being said, though, the Christian religion has a resurrection paradigm; the Hindu or Buddhist has a samsara paradigm.

TH:

So are we in a better place than they are?

ZK:

what do you mean by that question? In the process of interacting with the claims of other religious traditions, we still need to justify our own beliefs/religious tradition. (Though of course, we do not have to try to defend any particular follower of the religious tradition, or any particular religious institution.)

TH:

What I mean is do we have less of a paradigm problem?

ZK:

I think so, though that might take a long time to explain. The Christian’s paradigm here is a resurrection paradigm (with of course, monotheism). So, one could say, the Christian has a monotheistic resurrection paradigm.

Given the success of some arguments for theism as well as the evidence in favor of it, I do think that the notion that there is at least one deity can be answered rationally in the affirmative, and also, it does appear to me that the case for the resurrection of Jesus is a strong case, and that additionally, it may be possible for humans to perform genuine resurrections in the future as well, though the result will not entail a glorified body.

TH:

True but that’s totally way down the road and Jesus’s resurrection was pre-science so the plausibility of it being an act of god is increased. Although here and there we have cases of poorer resurrections that really were more plausible to not be an act of God.

ZK:

the point is this: if man can create a resurrection of a human, how much easier should it be for a potent monotheistic Creator-God to create a resurrection?

TH:

True….And in post days it wouldn’t really be desirable to have someone resurrected but rather extensive life. But if man were to be able to execute resurrections then it is only logical to draw the intensivity of a resurrection not by human hands.

ZK:

intensivity?

We would still have the anachronism issue that man could not perform resurrections in the ancient world.

//Although here and there we have cases of poorer resurrections that really were more plausible to not be an act of god.//

The claim is not that a deity is the only way to get a resurrection and that thus, a resurrection is a proof of the real existence of God. One can demonstrate God’s real existence without an appeal to anyone being physically resurrected.

well, i hope at some point we can resume this discussion, because I’m not really sure what your last objection was supposed to be.

TH:

It wasn’t really an objection more a re-clarification of what you said, to myself.

ZK:

i’m still left hangin’ here

TH:

What I meant was if we were to make resurrections happen then when in comparing it to the resurrection of Jesus one could show the probability of it happening by god rather than man better

ZK:

That may be a bit stronger of a claim, depending on what you mean by that.

TH:

Oh…well then forget that…hey, I sort of have a personal question to ask. How can I be more open minded and not get sidetracked from my faith? It seems when I’m surfing google everything tries to pull me away from Christ or get to me.

ZK:

Good luck, there, man. The whole way the media system is run is meant to sell you to advertisers. But you’ve got to try to stay focused. Do searches that are on topic.

If you need something to keep your mind somewhat closer to the right place, listen to some good music, like some hymns or what not.

In other words, what I’m saying is this: be intentional and have a game plan; as soon as you notice that you are getting distracted, stop what you are doing and get back to something more focused.

Have an overarching goal. Know what it is you want to study and focus on. Philippians 4:6-9.

I guess I wasn’t all that helpful on that account. sometimes Facebook gets to me, and I spend too much time on that…

so maybe I’m not the best person to ask that particular question to… but in my case, i usually get bored and move on to something more focused anyway. Too much of what is put out there is not worth our time, and that’s also something to keep in mind. Is what we are doing actually important? To what extent?

TH:

Hey I’m about to go on a trip for two weeks…do you have any good pdfs I should read on my trip?

I am also listening to john grisham’s the firm via audiobook but I think it would be also nice to squeeze in some apologetics papers (or in Spanish, “los papeles”)

ZK:

[Sent links, Habermas on Jesus Resurrection, Camels in Ancient Egypt article, Confirmed facts on the Book of Acts article, and all four volumes of Equipped, etc.]

That should give you more than enough reading.

TH:

Not really but thanks so much…by the way you ever heard if the firm? Its a really good book.

ZK:

no, i don’t think i’ve heard of it. but do you want more things to read?

TH:

That’s actually a lot but if I ever do have time I will ask you…I have data (but am not looking to playing Pokémon Go)…I never heard you started equipped.

ZK:

“I have data”…. um… so you are thinking of reading pdfs via cell phone? I am more of a computer guy myself.

TH:

I prefer computer too but in going to utah so I dont want to lug a laptop around.

ZK:

not staying anywhere in the evenings?

TH:

Probably some inns but most of the time I think ill be in either a tent or a bus.

ZK:

is this, like, a missions trip or something?

TH:

No…something for my (super liberal) school. I think it’s like a leadership program.

ZK:

Ah, ok. Well, I suppose that makes some sense, maybe. Hopefully what I’ve given you will help you have the right pulse for the trip then… sort of. For what it’s worth, Glen Richmond was the other major contributor who helped launch Equipped.

[Link to instrumental songs, perhaps controversial but they were instrumental, so… a diversion into a conversation on music that is unnecessary to repeat here]

TH:

Wait who is Glenn Richmond?

ZK:

The other guy who helped launch Equipped. He went on to be its editor.

TH:

Cool.

Good morning! Oh one more thing…do you know any debates I should listen to?

ZK:

There are plenty of God debates online to listen to or read. (At least 300, if you are willing to entertain secondary topics.)

But one of the more important ones is probably the Sharp v. Craig debate.

While Craig is helpful, I think we need to learn from Craig and progress to the next step.

TH:

That one was definitely a filled debate…he followed up personally for an hour on his RF [i.e., Reasonable Faith] website.

ZK:

see, i’m not sure what debates you have even seen… so, it may be that recommendations will be those debates that you’ve already seen.

There are a lot of debates out there that are ok but, well, i wouldn’t necessarily call them the best to watch and learn from.

Millican v. Craig was interesting.

TH:

I don’t think I have seen that one.

It would be interesting if Dawkins debated Craig

I heard though he declined to Craig…guess Craig really is that good. J

Hey do you know where I can find the latest CAA quarterly?

ZK:

the latest is Vol. 1, No. 4. We haven’t resumed the periodical. However, there is a desire to make a second volume.

TH:

Oh cool! I’m back.

We didn’t have technology so I read Mere Christianity.

ZK:

well, you still have the documents. Read them when you can… I guess.

TH:

Thanks. I do want to ask another question. I had this crazy pagan evangelist/apologist who loved to talk about how much Judaism and Christianity copied off of paganism and loved calling Jesus He-Zeus. I just wanted some help with dealing with whatever he may say towards our youth group during next year.

ZK:

uh, huh…. well, there’s a clear difference in my mind between (1) a lack of clear evidence of identical content between religious traditions on a given detail in question, (2) the use of polemics against an outside religious tradition, and (3) plagiaristic borrowing. Your interlocutor would like to demonstrate (3), but it is much more plausible that (1) or (2) is correct, depending on what precisely is the detail in question.

(2) comes up quite a bit. You need to have it clear in your mind what the difference is between (2) and (3).

TH:

Yu have any pdfs on that? Sorry… Kinda was annoyed when I found out about the pagan dude. I was like common i wanna enjoy the view but then “suprise!” New topic you lack intelligence in so now you are distracted from the beautiful views of giant rocks.

ZK:

Take photos

TH:

Film. 35 mm.

ZK:

do i have any PDFs? Well, uh…. not sure i do. Oh, your camera is only 35mm?

TH:

Yeah, I love film.

ZK:

that’s unfortunate. i recently bought a telephoto lens for my camera. i works really well for photos. gets up to 250 mm, I think

TH:

Unfortunate? Its pure mechanical processes (that’s why I love it) mine did break half way though…jeez though I do wish I had a leika though.

ZK:

Here is a pretty good article about the polemics of Paul in the Epistles. It’s on the more clearer side of polemics though, as the genre of epistolary writing would tend that way.

TH:

Mine though was a konica.

Thanks.

I way you never send me photos of your trip.

ZK:

photos of what trip?

TH:

Oh remember when you we’re off on the trip that one time and you said you can send me a Messages or whatever that after I was like OK how was your trip?

ZK:

ok, well, the planned trip to D.C. was cancelled, but I did take a trip to Gettysburg…

or were you thinking of earlier when I took a trip to Greenville? But that would have been in May.

[sent Greenville Falls picture]

This was from Greenville… the falls at the park downtown.

TH:

Wow, nice bruh

ZK:

the issue of polemics is sort of like that of a parody… there are bits and pieces from another religious tradition that are used, but they are used in such a way as to imply or claim something else against that other religious tradition.

Or else, something like saying, “If any deity/religious figure is the real X, then it’s ours”

The plagues against Egypt that are mentioned in the Book of Exodus are an example of a polemic against the Egyptian pantheon of gods.

TH:

Hmm.

The guy wasnt really taking paganism as a joke though

He seemed to take it legitimately.

Sorry didn’t understand your conclusion that well.

ZK:

i wasn’t referring to your interlocutor taking paganism seriously or not.

Go back to the Bible’s own writings and look at this stuff for yourself. The plagues against Egypt were plagues that mocked, as it were, the Egyptian gods, demonstrating that Yahweh was the real God over the forces of nature, at least, according to the polemical perspective.

(Perhaps “mocked” is a bit strong here. I’m just trying to drive home a point.)

TH:

Ah I understand.

ZK:

But the polemics in Scripture are a bit different from each other… there’s variety in the polemical forms.

you also have to think about this in the sense of writer-and-audience, as each polemic has an intended audience.

TH:

Hey im gonna be posting a comment on my facebook page…I get really anxious when I do this because of the athiest friends I have. Can you back me up man?

If anyone comments?

ZK:

that depends on whether or not (1) I have time (2) you tag me and (3) I actually agree with you.

TH:

Well all I need you to do is if atheists say something irrelevant or crack a joke you can write something intellectual to throw them off.

Hey so listen I have another round of questions that came upon me during my trip to the airport with my atheist roommate and my Buddhist agnostic (believes in god) teacher I was hoping to be helped upon. The first was what I call the comprehension argument. This goes by saying we can’t say from nothing only nothing can come because we simply can’t comprehend something coming from nothing. The second came from the Buddhist where he said it would be weird for god to make a book of rules for humanity and write them down on one small planet. Now I contemplated this and it seemed to make me a bit confused. Why? Well I thought of how in the old testament god focused his wrath on specifically ob earth…nowhere else but there. Anyways those are the questions.

ZK:

//The first was what I call the comprehension argument. This goes by saying we can’t say from nothing only nothing can come because we simply can’t comprehend something coming from nothing//

Are you making an argument for agnosticism concerning the topic at hand, or are you projecting a mere personal incredulity? It seems like someone could argue that you were.

[I was a bit confused in my above comment when I originally typed it. It wasn’t TH who personally advocated for that argument but rather, his interlocutor.]

I would say something rather different. I would use the Impotence of Abstractions Defense. Nothingness (represented by the empty set in mathematics) has no empirical causal capabilities, so nothingness (in the philosophical and mathematical sense) cannot cause anything other than nothingness to be real.

Given then, that something is real, we have to conclude that at least something of that something has always been real. In other words, there exists a minimal reality.

//it would be weird for god to make a book of rules for humanity and write them down on one small planet//

That last word threw me off. Are you sure he said “planet”? Why would he say that? Also, the Bible is much more than a “book of rules.” It is something that helps the religious tradition continue.

We can think of things to a limited extent in the following manner:

If God desires to create a religion for at least some form of His creatures, then that religion has one or more major purposes. However, if those purposes would be best fulfilled through the continuance of the religion throughout multiple generations of creatures, then it stands to reason that God would do something to help that religion continue to exist through the generations, at least as soon as it was reasonably feasible to do so, from the standpoint of the creatures.

The Bible, I think, would qualify as one of those things that help the religious tradition continue. So, there is some relevance that the Bible has for the relationship between God and man.

TH:

Ok so here’s two I have been saving. Number one would be the problem of animal evil (aka the verse ib genesis where god says everything is good). Then the second would be on how to defend against the argument of evolutionary psychology.

ZK:

Why have you been saving them? Ok, well, I’m not going to really say much to you about “the problem of animal evil,” since that’s an area that I would need to do more studying on.

However, if you can reduce the problem of animal evil to one or more other problems within the general argument from evil, or something like that, then you can proceed to deal with it in that manner.

In other words, break up a large problem into smaller problems, or convert small problems in one area to small problems in another area.

You might even end up doing something mildly controversial and ascribing ethical qualities to animals and using a sort of “animal free will” defense or something.

But again, I’m not going to go with a full endorsement of that necessarily either, since, as i said, there’s more that i would want to look into.

Now, to some extent, some degree of suffering is going to occur. Some degree of struggle is going to occur, just due to our limited resources. Earth is a limited place, in size. Making it extremely large would not be so helpful, as the gravity would be too much for many lifeforms.

Of course, then the question gets kicked back to fine-tuning. The question is then asked, “Could there have been a universe which God could have created which would not have had such limitations to growth imposed?”

There are a lot of questions that can be asked, and I am not precisely sure what particular questions you have on these topics.

Are you asking how the verses in Genesis 1 relate to the problem of animal evil?

What precisely are you thinking of concerning an argument of/from evolutionary psychology?

TH:

From evolutionary psychology that god was just an evolutionary coping mechanism of some sort.

ZK:

Well, one thing that does come to mind is that we could use an *even if approach* to that topic. This is an approach that is very important for skeptics, but since it is a fair approach to make regardless of one’s stance, we can use it here.

Would such a notion of god as a coping mechanism, if correct, really explain all of the concepts associated with God?

Would that really explain the evidence for a Time-Mastering Super-Intelligent Being? Would that really explain the fine-tuning of our universe?

It seems to me that, even if we accept such a notion, we would not be obligated to accept atheism. It could very well be that a real God would put a belief in a real God in our minds, or that God would create creatures which had the tendency toward belief in Him (if such a belief mattered at all for such a creature’s well-being).

And so, we could still be in a situation where the atheistic argument fails, yet we still have a few arguments for theism remaining.

TH:

Makes logical sense.

Oh hey, btw, this is kind of off topic, but what site should I go to for Alvin Plantinga?

ZK:

Well, there *used to be* a website specifically for Alvin Plantinga, but it no longer exists. Even the Wayback Machine cannot get you back to the substantial part of the website.

However, you can still find some materials from Plantinga. For example, there was the 2014 Plantinga Conference in which many speakers, including the CAA’s own Dr. Tim McGrew, as well as Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, Lorraine Keller, and others.

In YouTube’s video search bar, type in or copy-paste “Baylor ISR Plantinga Conference”

Or if the playlist link here works, you could try that:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=videoseries?list=PL0JmtbsEea3gcN5eNq-0JXq2qTwDg7L_Q&hl=en_US]

TH:

Hey do you know what a paganaski ratnik is?

ZK:

um… no.

But this is what a ratnik is:

TH:

Well, now I feel super stupid.

Hey this is very general but I just got to ask how do I stay intellectual but at the same time a Christian? Most of my friends are agnostic now and seem to feel believing in a biblical god is metaphysically unintellectual.

ZK:

Well, there are several short recommendations that I could give that quickly come to mind.

1.) Read, baby, read. Stay in the Word and in the words. If you knew the Christian apologetics community well, then you’d know that people like Robert Webb (the Christian one, not the agnostic [Robert Webb]), Dr. Timothy McGrew, David Marshall, J. P. Holding, Brad Cooper, and myself have long bibliographical lists of the books that we have read and or long (or multiple) lists of recommended resources.

It may also help you to amass your own lists of resources that have been helpful for you, because such lists might have resources in them that are helpful for others. By the same token, the sorts of people that I mentioned above are just the sort that you might benefit either from reading their materials, getting their lists of various resources, etc.

Within the CAA, we have over time been noting various resources, and Brad Cooper’s lists form a substantial portion of those resources (scroll down on the webpage):

2.) Focus on constructing and comprehending theistic philosophy in such a way that it actually works. This takes quite a bit of time, or at least can, but I think that it is well worth it.

3.) Abstain from committing sexual sins and getting into a sexual lifestyle that sensible Christianity does not approve of. So, for example, do not get into a poly-amorous lifestyle.

4.) Know the skeptic’s arguments as good as if not better than the skeptics themselves. Focus also on their objections which use an “even-if” approach. Also, especially for objections that are not explicitly even-if claims, try to comprehend the “level” at which the skeptical objection is made. To what degree is it superficial, if at all? What does or could it fail to account for? What are all of the possibilities? Could there be something that both you and the skeptic have missed?

Occasionally, skeptics do make good points. Be willing to learn from them without tossing aside everything else that you have already learned.

5.) Remember that what you are called to defend is only what Christianity fundamentally is, not any particular institution (e.g., the Roman Catholic Church or the NRB Network), person (e.g., your pastor/priest), or pet interpretative theory that is peripheral in nature.

6.) Keep in mind at all times what the actual “minimal Christianity” is, and do not confuse it with something else. For example, the age of the planet Earth is not an essential doctrine to Christianity, so whether YEC (Young Earth Creationism) or OEC (Old Earth Creationism) is correct or not is not technically essential. A refutation against YEC, thus, is not a refutation and does not even undercut Christianity. (However, to be consistent and uphold a general reliability of the Bible, you are going to have to translate and interpret a few Bible passages differently than YECs would.)

This brings me to the next point.

7.) Strive for consistency. The moment that you stop caring to strive for consistency is the moment in which you have ceased to be intellectual. Keep in mind also that striving for consistency also means striving for having reasonable expectations concerning both (1) what evidence you will find and (2) what other people, including allies, actually know.

8.) Understand that, for what you propose to others as rational to belief, confirmation is preferred, compatibility is acceptable, parodies need examination, and disconfirmation must lead to abandonment.

9.) Keep in touch with others in the Christian community (and ideally also, outside of it). What I am saying here is that one must have a holistic approach, and the only way to do that as a policy is to continue to listen from multiple sides of the debate (i.e., more than just 2).

I could offer more, but hopefully some of what I have mentioned above will help. Oh wait, before I forget:

10.) Remember that you as a Christian do have Biblical support for being intellectual (as long as you are also humble).

See Luke 10:27, 1st Thessalonians 5:21, Jeremiah 9:23-24, and 1st Peter 3:15.

Hope this helps.

TH:

Thanks, ZK.

ZK:

Well, let me know if you have any questions.

TH:

Will do, ZK.

ZK:

[shared instrumental Phillip Lober soundtrack link]

TH:

You know what a good genre of music is?

Ever heard of electro swing? A really good one is belleruche.

ZK:

well, I’m still exploring for more music tracks….

[shared link to Position Music instrumental soundtrack]

TH:

Cool. Hey, so I was wondering if you could help me navigate extra-biblical evidence for the reliability of the new testament? In other words, is there any extra-biblical texts that show Jesus rose from the dead or existed that are dated from around that time or is there any physical relics or materials from around the time that help pull the evidence into a more relative view?

ZK:

//Hey so I was wondering if you could help me navigate extra-biblical evidence for the reliability of the new testament? //

I could, to some degree. I don’t think that I have those materials efficiently organized on my computer(s) though.

//is there any extra-biblical texts that show Jesus rose from the dead//

I’m not sure what you mean by this. If you are talking about non-Christians admitting that Jesus rose from the dead, I see no reason why we should expect unbelievers to accept the resurrection of Jesus and yet still remain unbelievers, especially given that, for many in the ancient world, such a resurrection would have been thought impossible or at least not likely to occur until the end times.

Cultists upon Christianity aside, the only sorts of people that I am aware of who were skeptical yet ended up accepting the resurrection of Jesus and yet don’t become Christians are those who think that God meant Christianity to be for the Gentiles, and Judaism for the Jews/Hebrews. And I’m not aware of any in the ancient world that would have thought that way.

//is there any extra-biblical texts that show Jesus….existed that are dated from around that time //

Well, although it is not “contemporary with Jesus” (i.e., originally written between Jesus’ birth and Jesus’ death in 33 C.E.), Josephus did mention Jesus twice in Antiquities of the Jews. However, it should be known that in the Testimonium passage, some of what we have in most of the manuscripts is an interpolation rather than what Josephus originally wrote.

That topic of the Testimonium is one that skeptics regularly get wrong. They often read articles that claim that the Testimonium is an interpolation, but only parts of the Testimonium are, not the whole thing. Alice Whealey and Shlomo Pines are two names of scholars to keep in mind when discussing the Testimonium passage.

We also have a reference from Tacitus that is fairly early, though Tacitus’s mention is a bit less significant.

But as for the larger question, I am not persuaded that the Jesus-Mythicists are successful in making their case. But that takes a very long time to fully explain.

But “contemporary” evidence is not even needed. People can remember things from another person’s life even after that person has died, and some of those people who make it to adulthood, even in the ancient world, lived to be about 70 to 80 years old or so. (I can’t necessarily say that they were in good health by then though.)

But one also has to note that, even going by the Traditional Gospels, it would appear that, when Jesus was in the cities, scribes were sometimes nearby. It may be the case that some scribes could have written down some of the words of Jesus as He spoke. However, if this happened, we do not have any of those manuscripts now.

//is there any physical relics or materials from around the time that help pull the evidence into a more relative view?//

Could you explain what you mean by this question please? And are you meaning it to refer to Jesus Christ specifically, or to characters in the New Testament in general?

TH:

What I mean Is physical relics from places Jesus went to.

Hey I also have a question on something called meditative nihilism, in other words people who really think deeply upon meaninglessness and sort of defend the doctrine of meaninglessness.

Like how should I answer those such people.

ZK:

You seem to encounter some of the strangest people, TH.

I’m not really sure that there’s much to go on here… do you think that their nihilism is a barrier to the Gospel?

TH:

The internet breeds weird people…like as an example I know the basics of Rastafarianism and how to make a broken cassette player work again…two random things learnt from the world wide web.

ZK:

Rastafarians make some good music.

It is self-refuting to deny the real existence of meaning.

TH:

Lol true…one example to counter it all would be Bob Marley. The nihilism seems to be breeded from mainstream catchy atheist science videos on YouTube, like denying objective meaning, or calling all Christians blonde dumbys.

ZK

but most Christians aren’t blond….

You still there? Didn’t mean that as an insult.

Anywho, to deny the real existence of meaning is self-refuting because only a meaningful denial is worthwhile to begin with, and the very claim that there is no real meaning, for it to be substantial, must be vacuous, and that’s self-contradictory.

Also, here’s a music track for listening.

[link to Phillip Lober’s soundtrack “Go”]

The notions of certainty and the real existence of truth must be upheld.

TH:

Yeah…sorry just made sushi.

ZK:

well, certainly not a dish that I would be inclined to eat, but to each his own, I suppose.

TH:

It’s more of something I taught myself to surprise guests… Like sort of showy appetizers.

ZK:

oh, ok.

TH:

Well, I would also say, if objective meaning cannot be proven then God cannot be disproven.

Just a personal take on one’s conclusion on objectivity.

ZK:

But in that case, neither could God be proven either. The whole denial of objective meaning sends us into an “island of knowledge” that’s cut off from the mainland, which means that it’s not correct.

TH:

Oh ok.

I also read IP’s take [i.e., InspiringPhilosophy’s perspective] on it but at the same time I still am hung over on my bae’s paper.

[includes link to comments section under one of InspiringPhilosophy’s YouTube videos]

[includes link to his girlfriend’s speech paper, which at that point was a work in progress.]

Oh and I met her [i.e., TH’s girlfriend] at an art class.

ZK:

what kind of file was that?

[I couldn’t open the file.]

TH:

.pages

It’s for Mac’s app pages.

I’m more showing this to you so you understand her worldview better as well.

ZK:

[engages in discussion over tiny font size with TH.]

I skimmed through it anyway. not sure what exactly it’s for…. but hope for the best.

TH:

Alright here.

ZK:

So recently, I’ve started reading Mackie’s The Miracle of Theism. It’s a classic 20th century work by a skeptic, concerning the arguments for God’s existence, as well as a number of other things.

TH:

Nice…I’m converting it to pdf so while I’m waiting explain about it

ZK:

wait, what?!

[It sounded like he was saying that he was converting Mackie’s book to PDF, but what he really meant was that he was converting his girlfriend’s document to PDF.]

Mackie tries to give reasons for rejecting the various theistic arguments, as well as discusses the problem of evil.

TH:

Oh! So it’s a book against theism?

ZK:

Yes, for ontological arguments, he covers Descartes, Anselm, and Plantinga.

TH:

[gives link to PDF converted speech text, incomplete text]

ZK:

What is this speech for?

TH:

Her school…I told her it’s too deep and depressing but she said it’ll get her a better grade.

ZK:

No, like, what in particular? A particular class assignment?

TH:

I got to admit may since her school has a communist sort of backdrop and tries to deny specific Christian rights at the school. It’s a speech I think she gives to a body of students and faculty.

As an example any other religion besides Christianity can explain how their faith guided them towards their goals in their senior speech.

If I were there Id register as a Rastafari dualist (since its basically Christianity with a different name) but it probs won’t fly.

ZK:

it’s the whole mindset of “privilege” and having to try to “equal the scales” so that there is an equality of outcome, or a retribution.

The government school system is something that will only serve the State, ultimately, and thus is not really the best vehicle for real education.

TH:

Ah, ok.

ZK:

but there’s also the issue of Leftist bias in academia, which is something that we now have evidence for, and not simply impressions…

but there I speak of college-level education

I’m not sure really what you wanted me to do concerning that speech. there’s really not much that I can do about it.

TH:

Well, just opinions that’s all.

ZK:

it doesn’t bother me so much, concerning the sadness of tone.

it does look incomplete though.

TH:

Well she’s still working on it of course.

ZK:

is there something else you’d like to ask?

TH:

I did…I just need to remember what it was.

ZK:

Ok. For what it’s worth, I don’t really fully endorse anyone.

just in case you are wondering.

TH:

What does fully endorse mean again?


ZK [surprised]:

?

I’m not staking my reputation on the work of someone else, promoting others as though I agree with them 100%, even on the things that I try to show others as recommended resources.

TH:

Ok. Sorry, still a dumb teenager, so there still are things I don’t know. Like I didn’t know what “secular” meant until 5 months ago.

And I learned it from a 14-year-old.😦


ZK:

We are all at varying points in the learning process. The important thing is that you don’t stop in the learning process.

TH:

Except for Bill Gates. He dropped out of high school and became a billionaire.

ZK:

Well, I’m not talking about money, here

TH:

Lol I know.

ZK:

The learning process does not require formal education, though some formal education can be helpful.

Once you know how to learn, and how to process information properly, and have some background experience, you can benefit from doing your own research, and may actually prefer to do your own research without the incentive or limitations of formal education.

TH:

True…also with formal education you get condensed and organized information you don’t have to search around for.


ZK:

Yeah, it’s a process, in the end. It is best to gradually transition, gradually doing more of your learning through non-formal ways.

do you have any lists of resources that you keep with you? It may be helpful to organize resources according to the topic, and then having and building that list for future reference. This is an idea, and probably a good one, but I don’t know how much of a computer guy you are, though I suppose you could just keep it all in google docs…


TH:

Not really…I actually have horrible organization skills.

ZK:

Well, it’s not that difficult to get organized in the digital files thing. Just make sure you have folders within folders, or spend the time to actually organize the items into lists.

So much is out there. it would also help to use the lists that others have already created.

Oh, did I ever mention to you about the archaeology PowerPoint?

Scroll down in the link for the link to the PowerPoint for download. It has a recommended references and bibliography list in the back, as well as quite a bit of material in it itself

Also, the Scientism PowerPoint under “14 Scientism.”

Hopefully you can open those files….

Without too many glitches when you get the time. Let me know if you can access the PowerPoints.


TH:

Ok.

[TH accidentally FB calls me.]


ZK:

why the call? Sometimes I can do video chats, but I do them over Google+, and then, I’d need to schedule it.

[interrupted by discussion with TH’s mother involved, followed by some questions about how TH came to be aware of the CAA/ZK.]


ZK:

oh, ok. Jonathan. Yes, he has done some things online, participated in at least one or two discussions/debates in the media.

well, I’m glad you here, anyway. chat with you sometime later.


TH: TTYL.

[Discussion termination.]


Assessment:


Some Context:

In a portion of the conversation not included here, the interlocutor mentioned that he first learned about the Christian Apologetics Alliance from Jonathan McClatchie. Apparently, he had joined a Facebook group either related to Jonathan or to the CAA, and I had also joined it through one way or another. (I have ended up in countless Facebook groups either because someone else had added me to the group, or I had gone from link to link and discovered a new group to join, or I had been going through Facebook profiles and saw another group of interest, or a number of other means.) On occasion, I had participated in that forum. I suppose he must have seen my participation from somewhere before, perhaps from that forum or elsewhere. At any rate, after searching through a list of CAA members, he found my name, and sent me a message. What does this show?


Well, one thing it shows is a willingness on the part of the interlocutor to actually seek people out to begin a dialogue. Another thing it shows is that, given the more integrated framework of the apologetics community since 2010 C.E., it is now reasonably feasible to learn from one Christian apologist and then benefit through direct communication with another. The same sort of thing that is commonly spoken about for evangelism––that one person might “plant the seed” and another help bring someone one more step closer to Christ––can now be said of apologetics. That is to say, someone who is not as well-versed in apologetics can go from Christian apologist to Christian apologist to get many of the answers that they seek (on various topics), and in the process, those apologists which respond can know that they are a part of a process that is very much step-by-step and person-to-person.


One of the first things to note about this conversation is that it was not I who reached out to my interlocutor but rather, my interlocutor who originally reached out to me. Now, many months before on various forums, I had made the offer to do discussions by private message and other means, and I had made known that I would be willing to do that sort of discussion. Admittedly, it had been several months until anyone really took me up on that offer. However, with this interlocutor, I do not believe that he was aware of that policy of mine. He just happened to contact someone who happened to be willing to do this sort of thing.


Sorts of Questions Asked:


Now, in a forum in which we were both members, after our extended conversation had begun, the interlocutor did ask a question concerning “the wandering Jew story.” Was it likely to be historical? If not, what was the meaning behind it? Now, in the field of apologetics, this is a question not often asked at all. (Now, there are a couple of important things to remember concerning the wandering Jew story. It is not thought to be as early in origin as the Gospels, neither is it canonical or known to have been considered canonical by the early Church fathers. So Christians should not feel the need to defend it as though it were historical, in as much as it is unique in content.)


Now, some of the concerns of the interlocutor were mostly what we could expect. Questions concerning the intellectual integrity of Christianity abound, and the context of meeting people of various viewpoints even without express evangelistic efforts on the part of the Christian young person. Atheism, Jesus-Mythicism, and questions of evidence for Christian claims were major topics.


A Bit about My Methodology:


In the discussion time that I had with him, I tried to share many different resources on a variety of apologetics-related topics. In so doing, I was trying to provide some of the resources that would be beneficial, trying to take advantage of the medium of social media to do what social media does best, provide for the sharing of resources. In the process, I mentioned several other apologists and supporters (e.g., Nick Peters, Brad Cooper, Timothy Joel McGrew, and J. P. Holding). This sort of thing is also essential, as it gives the interlocutor some names that he can remember later for later reference and later searches that he can do on his own. Not only does this free up my time, comparatively speaking, but it also gives him the opportunity to go step-by-step through the details, through the arguments, and, ideally, to comprehend them for himself.


Although there were questions that I could have answered in a much lengthier fashion, given the time constraints and all that needed to be done, as well as other issues with computers, I’d say I did okay overall in trying to respond to questions. (I could have gone on and on about Josephus and the references to Jesus, for example, but did not want to belabor the point, and also had other things to accomplish.) Ideally, however, if I had the opportunity and the adeptness, I would have rather gone beyond the use of the even-if approach in some circumstances.


Quite a bit of the conversation did not cover apologetics topics. Topics such as the interlocutor’s cooking, his girlfriend’s paper, and various music tracks were not topics directly related to the mission. However, whether online or in person, one needs to remember that there is a social element in apologetics, and that, for many young people, they desire the apologist to be not only a mentor but also a friend. But for the online apologist, this presents a small difficulty. How does one communicate friendship without hugs? How does one relate without being physically in the same room? Engage in these side-discussions. Interject some comedy if the moment is right (though admittedly, mine is often corny). Show a willingness to ask and answer, to read and reply, often in a timely manner.


From Questions to Answers? Some Context on Why I do This


I appreciated the general humility that my interlocutor had throughout this discussion. The interlocutor in this discussion had a keen awareness of his own lack of knowledge concerning several topics. This keen awareness provided for questions but also a comparative lack of self-esteem or recognition of shame. However, one of the important things for the apologist (and really, any teacher) to stress is that ignorance is not itself shameful, provided that it is not deliberate ignorance. Consequently, it is important to stress that we are all at varying stages in the learning process. By putting things in their proper contexts, needless shame disappears, and those in the dialogue, whether or not they are both on the same side of the overall debate, can proceed to discussing more and more topics of interest with a sense of comfort.


Now, several stories of people who have turned aside from Christianity to unbelief share similar elements. One of these elements is the belief in the doubter that other people around them (including those who are their elders, parents, peers, and clergymen) either do not have the answers to their questions or would not be willing to seriously help them try to get answers to their questions. In other words, in some cases, there is nothing that clearly suggests to them that it is okay to ask questions and that they can reasonably expect that most of those questions will be answered in a satisfactory manner. In many cases, local church congregations are either not equipped, not capable, or not concerned with answering such questions. The rigidity of the church congregations contributes to this problem, as well as a failure to be the counter-culture to the pervasive anti-intellectualism that plagues the West, and particularly, the United States.


Why do I mention this? Well, one of the positives in the conversation on my part was the explicit mention that questions were welcome. Notice that after I stated, “Well, let me know if you have any questions,” questions eventually came, and they included at least one question (i.e., the Testimonium of Josephus) for which I had plenty of experience dealing with and hence could at least make a cursory answer. Now then, what if my tone had been different before that point? What if I had acted indifferent or pushed him away instead? Then I would be no better than the “outside counsel” would have been––the counsel that would have been more locally accessible but often, less helpful. Parents might expect that there would be others locally accessible (i.e., physically residing nearby) who could answer all of those sorts of questions, but at least to some young people, they are not seeing that sort of situation as being plausible.

And this is not to say that clergy are never willing and never capable. However, there is a sense in which considerable specialized training is now needed for particular fields of study, and given the focus of religious educational institutions for pastors and preachers, it is not really to be expected that a high percentage of them would be sufficiently well-versed in some of these fields that demand such specialization.


There really is a need for a “resident apologist” in the local church, but in the 2010s C.E., it appears that the most accessible apologists are the ones who do their work at least somewhat online. We have deacons. We have pastors. We have youth pastors (in many churches). We have choir directors or music pastors. We have all of those positions in the local church. But where is the teaching from within the local church concerning topics such as logic, Jesus-historicism, etc.? Sunday school? When I think of Sunday School, I don’t think of apologetics. Study of the Bible, yes. Church history perhaps. But many topics get overlooked.


Those within the church, as well as those outside of the church, are asking questions. They have their doubts, suspicions, and concerns. Online, apologetics is increasingly becoming more well-known. However, within many local churches, the intellectual defense of the Faith has not really been a major concern. While it is important to love God with all of one’s heart, let’s mind the mind as well. How much longer are parents going to be skittish about this? How much longer are church leaders and educational faculty going to fail to adapt to the full implications and opportunities of internet communication, and of questions coming from within their own ranks? How much longer are people going to be willing to ignore the crucial questions? How many more young people am I going to have to see leave the Faith before this sort of thing gets fixed? Are church leaders really “preparing to go to zero,” here?

The only way to stop the bleeding is to apply the pressure or put up the proper barrier. Well, the churches are bleeding. Now, who’s going to apply the pressure? Who is going to put up that intellectual barrier against unbelief? I don’t know what’s going to happen to my interlocutor. I really hope that he benefits in the future somehow from what has happened in the past in our conversation. I really hope that he sticks with it, and he doesn’t end up abandoning Christianity but instead, finds a version of Christianity that is more intellectually defensible. Only time will tell.


Who knows, maybe one day in the future, he will reconnect with me. But it’s up to him, and it would likely have to wait a while; or maybe he will find someone else. Perhaps he will have to be content with just watching videos and reading articles. But it’s really the conversation that matters most. Churches keep the physical doors open. It’s high time we keep the conversational doors open too.

1 view0 comments

Comments

bottom of page