Here are a few previews from the initial dialog between myself, Lifeguard, MS Quixote and Dominic Saltarelli, continued from here. Brad is currently absent:
...I was thinking more along the lines of there being certain elements in the GH that are decidedly non-Biblical, rather than simply a reduced set of Biblical attributes.
(Dominic Saltarelli)
I think that DD could have made that distinction a little clearer...
(Lifeguard)
...it appears DD desired to set a baseline hypothesis without reference to Christianity in order to construct an analytic framework from which to ultimately analyze the claims of Christianity... the GH, as proposed, does not represent a baseline common to all Christian faiths as is necessary to critique Christianity as a whole.
(MS Quixote)
Although by no means do I imply my Power Commenters agree with me in full (actually, Quixote does), we can still clearly see that it's not exactly the same story as over at DD's, right?
Dominic Saltarelli said...
I'd like to see you make a stronger case that DD has denied the GH is Christianity in such a black and white manner. I've only seen one actual quote so far that includes an admission that the GH and the Bible are in fact related. A full half of your argument rests upon this assumption, and you need to provide a more substantial case than the one instance where he said:
Some of the commenters seem to have slightly misunderstood the Gospel Hypothesis. I am not claiming that the Gospel Hypothesis is Christianity (we’ll get to the relationship between Christianity and the Gospel Hypothesis later on). (DD)
I've put a response of my own to his latest post at Evangelical Realism referring to his GH as a sort of "proto-God", made of Christian elements, but isn't necessarily Christian. Sort of like how a dish made from sugar, flour, eggs, milk, and baking soda isn't necessarily cake. The argument I've seen yourself and others make is that the cake isn't a chocolate one.
When I raised the objection that his response to got under your skin, I was thinking more along the lines of there being certain elements in the GH that are decidedly non-Biblical, rather than simply a reduced set of Biblical attributes. Specifically the reference to God being "all-loving" and wanting a personal relationship with each and every one of us, as I'm not aware of any Biblical teaching that actually says this. The rest of my post seems to have been lost in the storm in the subsequent controversy over the earlier accusations that the GH is a strawman because the Bible doesn't say God is obligated to show up here and now.
To continue with the baking analogy, I think you've been arguing the recipe isn't for chocolate cake, and his response has been that he's only arguing cake in general terms, where I was trying to say it seemed like one of the ingredients listed was ketchup.
MS Quixote said...
Now, folks - as if it wasn't bad enough already, as if it could get any worse, (cl)
You’ve devoted an extended, introductory portion of your post to exposing foul play and to arguing that the Gospel Hypothesis is a thinly veiled, or an explicit characterization of Christianity. This section is well documented and multiply attested. Coupled with my lurking survey of the events at Evangelical Realism, I’d concur that your case is solid, and I understand your offense. Frankly, the entire situation is peculiar: entertaining, to be sure - as long as one is not the target - but just flat out weird.
Leaving those issues behind, I’d like to give DD as fair a reading as possible, given my status as the lone Christian theist [Power Commenter]. Here goes:
How does DD's claim that his GH isn't Christianity parse against the following strings he also typed?
It doesn’t. Again your case is clearly demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt; however, it appears DD desired to set a baseline hypothesis without reference to Christianity in order to construct an analytic framework from which to ultimately analyze the claims of Christianity. Since he evidently wished to construct the framework without working through constant rejoinders regarding specifics of the faith, he attempted, in my estimation, to create the GH and work through the implications before applying it to Christianity. He may correct me if I’ve misrepresented his actions.
The problem is, as you mentioned repeatedly, the GH, as proposed, does not represent a baseline common to all Christian faiths as is necessary to critique Christianity as a whole. The GH might adequately encapsulate baseline features of some Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian / Arminian conceptions of Christianity. As far as that stretches, the GH may indeed be useful in evaluating those doctrinal formulations.
Nevertheless, even within these systems, the GH is not universally applicable. Take William Lane Craig’s Molinism, for instance. Molinism is founded on a full and free libertarian view of the will; however, under Molinism, God is not thought to appear to all in the real world in the same manner, nor is He obliged to do so. The GH is simply inadequate as a hypothesis with regard to Molinism.
Moreover, I, as a Calvinist, disregard the GH outright. Reformed Theology is antithetical to the GH: God does not act as the GH hypothesizes. RF is no backwater theology open to “no true Scotsman” charges. It includes as adherents some of the theological giants of the faith: Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and arguably the apostle Paul and Christ himself.
I’d also argue that — and this appears appropriate based on constant reference — the Bible itself argues against the GH, but we’ll leave that for another time...
Therefore, if DD intended to construct a comprehensive baseline hypothesis to apply to the whole of Christianity, he’s failed. Nonetheless, if he wishes to apply it to Arminianism or Catholicism, I’d say he is well within his logical rights to do so. And when it comes to the sub-Christian views of Faith Theology, I’ll probably commandeer a revised version of the GH and use it myself, if it’s amenable to DD!
If DD's GH is not Christianity, doesn't it follow that his MH cannot possibly constitute evidence against the Christian God?
I don’t think this follows, logically. The MH can constitute evidence against the Christian God on its own merits; it’s just not able to do it in logical opposition to the GH, except in the limited scenarios described above.
If DD’s GH is not Christianity, don’t you think he’s misnamed at least that particular hypothesis and potentially his entire series?
I believe it is and was always meant to be Christianity. It’s just that DD wished to work out the kinks before unveiling it. Problem was, DD didn’t have a suitable cloaking device.
Really? What's more baffling is that at least four highly-intelligent commenters who claim to have been following the discussion all put their 2¢ in after this exchange, and not one of them spotted the elephant in the room.
What bothers me more is when the elephant is pointed out clearly, and is still ignored. But, being the theist, I recognize that I could be biased, though I believe I’ve given DD a fair shake, agreeing with some points where it seemed correct, if not all. I’ll be keenly interested to see how my commentary aligns with your skeptic commentators. That’s a particularly interesting feature of your exercise here, cl.
Of course, that doesn't mean I'm right, but is there anyone who would say I've not sufficiently argued my case?
To summarize, your case is well documented and attested through multiple sources, both logically and with the personal references in view. In my judgment, you’re presently on firm ground, with due consideration given to my objections to you noted above.
For DD: In my estimation, there exists a large set of Christians who profess the Christian Gospel as formulated in the GH. He could argue fairly with such folk as the GH currently stands.
Lifeguard said...
It was bad enough when DD denied that his GH was Christianity, yet absolutely refuses to this date to explain why it consists of distinctly Christian pre-conceptions about God. (cl)
Oddly enough, methinks you've hit upon the real heart of the matter here by using the words "Christianity" and "Christian." I can’t speak for DD, but, based on what I’ve read, I believe he would concede that the GH consists of distinctly Christian pre-conceptions about god. The fact, however, that a hypothesis is distinctly Christian does not make the hypothesis "Christianity." A crucifix is a Christian symbol, but that doesn’t make it Christianity. Transubstantiation is "christian" insofar as it is a feature of a Christian denomination, but that does not make it "Christianity." DD, as I read his posts, is simply stating that the GH does not represent Christianity in it’s totality, but, at the same time, it is a common theory that runs through all manifestations of Christianity. He thinks that, while it does not encompass everything that Christianity represents, it is such an essential feature the Christianity lives or dies based on the truth of that hypothesis. That’s why he has written, in various places on his blog, that the GH is Christianity and is not Christianity. In other words, the fact that something is "distinctly Christian" does not make it "Christianity." I think that DD could have made that distinction a little clearer, but I do think the distinction is there if you read what he has written. Indeed, I think his posts make a lot more sense when read in this light.
It was bad enough when DD crafted an entire sub-series titled The Loser's Compromise in direct response to his perceptions of my arguments, then denied that the posts were aimed at me. (cl)
Once again, I can’t speak for DD, but, after reading through the statements he made in the original posts and various threads, it appears to me that when DD denies the posts were aimed at YOU, he was making a distinction between aiming at you personally (as in an ad hominem attack) and aiming at his understanding (or misunderstanding as I believe you have pointed out) of your position.
You quote DD,
I have documented the real-world facts that any reasonable person can verify for themselves and that demonstrate that reality is more consistent with the Myth Hypothesis than with the Gospel Hypothesis. This constitutes a reasonable basis for rejecting the truth claims of Christianity. (DD)
And then you go on to state:
What’s more baffling is that at least four highly-intelligent commenters who claim to have been following the discussion all put their 2 cents in after this exchange, and not one of them spotted the elephant in the room. (cl)
By "elephant in the room," I assume you mean that if DD claims that disproving the GH effectively vanquishes Christianity, then how can the GH not BE Christianity? I hope by now it’s clear why this is not the case. A human heart is not a human being, but if you shoot a human in the heart, that human will die. But a human heart is still "human." It’s the same thing here. The GH is clearly and undeniably a Christian hypothesis without necessarily encompassing every aspect of Christianity as it is practiced in various incarnations throughout the world. It is, however, the heart of Christianity. It is, in fact, such an essential part of Christianity, that Christianity falls if the GH is disproved.
cl said...
Thanks guys. Bear with me while we smooth out the kinks in Power Commenting.
Dominic,
I'd like to see you make a stronger case that DD has denied the GH is Christianity in such a black and white manner. I've only seen one actual quote so far that includes an admission that the GH and the Bible are in fact related. A full half of your argument rests upon this assumption, and you need to provide a more substantial case than the one instance... (Dominic)
Did you see his direct concessions since? Realize we share a common frustration. With transactions like the following, I have no idea what DD's trying to say anymore:
Some of the commenters seem to have slightly misunderstood the Gospel Hypothesis. I am not claiming that the Gospel Hypothesis is Christianity (we’ll get to the relationship between Christianity and the Gospel Hypothesis later on). (DD, bold mine) Notice that nowhere did I ever say that the Gospel Hypothesis is not Christianity. (DD, bold mine)
Can you offer a reasonable explanation for how DD can both "not claim the GH is Christianity" and "not claim the GH is not Christianity" at the same time? Such seems to clearly violate clear Boolean logic, no? DD's admitted that he's unwilling to give a clear answer, so until that changes, it seems we're currently at an impasse as far as determining whether DD proffers his GH as Christianity or not, don't you think? We should ask DD that question.
Specifically the reference to God being "all-loving" and wanting a personal relationship with each and every one of us, as I'm not aware of any Biblical teaching that actually says this. (Dominic)
Such is not a concern we share. I think that part of the GH is logically permissible from scripture, for example 2 Timothy 1-7 which describes God as desiring "..all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." 2 Peter 3:9 says that, "God is not willing that any should perish, but all should come to repentance." Although I can certainly raise quibbles as to "all-loving," for the sake of our discussion I also grant DD correctness in that regard on behalf of verses like John 3:16 and 1 John 4:7-8 which claims we should "..love one another, for love comes from God," and that "God is love." What do you think? Would you say those are sufficient to justify DD's claim? Or should I dig deeper?
To continue your baking analogy, I'm also claiming one or more ingredients offered is ketchup, and I submit that DD presents his dish made from sugar, flour, eggs, milk as if it is pure vanilla when it is in fact ketchup-y chocolate. How can criticism over flavor be logically sustained when DD refuses to say what flavor the cake is supposed to be? Again, is it vanilla? Or chocolate? Is it that DD's given a straight answer and that I've just missed or misunderstood it?
Lifeguard,
The fact, however, that a hypothesis is distinctly Christian does not make the hypothesis "Christianity." (Lifeguard)
Correct. Let's take a look at DD's analogy addressing this point:
The Jewish Migration Hypothesis [JMH] doesn’t need to be Mormonism in order to evaluate the truthfulness of Mormon Scriptures. (DD)
In our discussion, this translates to, "The GH doesn't need to be Christianity in order to evaluate the truthfulness of the Bible," and I anticipate surprise and more accusations of contradiction when I say I agree. I believe I understand DD's reasoning - refuting even one of Christianity's claims brings the whole thing down in light of theopneustos, and the GH doesn't have to "be Christianity" in order to do this - it just has to accurately identify a single Christian claim and falsify it.
In the vein of your apt analogy, stopping the heart kills all humans. While I'm convinced I understand the distinction DD made - I'm not convinced DD understands why I say the distinction he made fails: the catch is that the claim we purport to have falsified must have been accurately identified as one of Christianity's claims, and the necessary all-or-nothing approach cuts both ways. The GH cannot evaluate the truthfulness of the Bible if even one of the Bible's fundamental premises are distorted or diminished in the GH. The GH's claim that God should be right here, right now, in person, on the evening news and on magazine covers cannot be accurately identified as one of Christianity's claims; it is a distorted claim.
Still, DD continues:
The JMH does not need to be Mormonism, or to be the Book of Mormon [BoM], in order to demonstrate the fraudulent nature of the Mormon Scriptures. (DD)
Correct, as we just covered. Problem is, the BoM must logically permit each and every one of the JMH's predictions, else we've only proven that something other than the BoM is fraudulent. If his analogy were truly parallel, DD's JMH would feature additional predictions that the BoM doesn't logically permit, and it would ignore predictions the BoM logically requires. Right?
DD, as I read his posts, is simply stating that the GH does not represent Christianity in it’s totality, but, at the same time, it is a common theory that runs through all manifestations of Christianity. (Lifeguard)
I agree, and when DD's GH does represent Christianity in its totality, or at least consists of accurately identified foundational Christian claims, then we might be able to get somewhere. Jayman, Facilis, myself and MS Quixote have all raised objections that the GH is not enough of a baseline hypothesis. Those objections have not been addressed, except to label me a troll, heckler, and all sorts of other things.
I think that DD could have made that distinction a little clearer, but I do think the distinction is there if you read what he has written. (Lifeguard)
Thank you. I agree, and have already offered that DD's distinction doesn't solve the problem. Do you agree with that? Or do I need to explain more?
Once again, I can’t speak for DD, but, after reading through the statements he made in the original posts and various threads, it appears to me that when DD denies the posts were aimed at YOU, he was making a distinction between aiming at you personally (as in an ad hominem attack) and aiming at his understanding (or misunderstanding as I believe you have pointed out) of your position. (Lifeguard)
Then by all means, read this. Would you say The Heckler's Defense is aimed at the issues, or DD's perceptions of my personality? I say the latter. Remember, DD types stuff about me like "infiltrator", "troll", "heckler", "loser", etc. Those are all consistent with ad hominem strategies, wouldn't you say? If so, would you be willing to take a stand for me over there? If not, I understand.
The GH is clearly and undeniably a Christian hypothesis without necessarily encompassing every aspect of Christianity as it is practiced in various incarnations throughout the world. (Lifeguard)
Correct, and those parts the GH fails to encompass directly challenge one or more of its predicted consequences. Why he fancies it complete is beyond me, especially when other also disagree. So, is it that Jayman, Facilis, Quixote and myself are all just wrong? That's what DD would have his guests believe, and it's worked rather effectively.
[the GH] is, however, the heart of Christianity. It is, in fact, such an essential part of Christianity, that Christianity falls if the GH is disproved. (Lifeguard)
I strongly disagree. For example, DD's GH doesn't even mention things like sin or Satan. DD claims that God should be right here, right now, in person, on the evening news and on magazine covers - but among other problems with such a claim - how can such be possible when scripture says no human may see God's face in person and live?
MS Quixote,
...it appears DD desired to set a baseline hypothesis without reference to Christianity in order to construct an analytic framework from which to ultimately analyze the claims of Christianity. Since he evidently wished to construct the framework without working through constant rejoinders regarding specifics of the faith, he attempted, in my estimation, to create the GH and work through the implications before applying it to Christianity. (MS Quixote)
We are most certainly in agreement there.
..the GH, as proposed, does not represent a baseline common to all Christian faiths as is necessary to critique Christianity as a whole. The GH might adequately encapsulate baseline features of some Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian / Arminian conceptions of Christianity. As far as that stretches, the GH may indeed be useful in evaluating those doctrinal formulations. (MS Quixote)
While I agree, I anticipate Courtier's Reply responses, and that's why I say DD had the right idea by attempting to begin with as baseline a positive hypothesis as possible. If we go the denominational route, our opponents can simply accuse us of saying, "Oh, well you can't disprove my beliefs," and they'd be correct. You've heard it before: "What, do we have to disprove every single interpretation of Christianity?" Of course, you and I know perfectly well that's not what theists ask. The error is in attaching a negative stigma to strawman claims, and Courtier's Reply -type responses are the perfect rhetorical devices for dismissing them.
..under Molinism, God is not thought to appear to all in the real world in the same manner, nor is He obliged to do so. The GH is simply inadequate as a hypothesis with regard to Molinism. (MS Quixote)
I agree, but you see what I mean about Courtier's?
Here are some other angles regarding DD's claim God should be right here, right now, in person, on the evening news and on magazine covers: DD never even sets definitions for the terminology in his argument. By "God" does he refer to God the Father as expressed in the OT? Jesus the Messiah as expressed in the NT? The Paraclete? The Bible states that mortals cannot see God the Father's face in person and live, so the idea that God the Father should show up right here, right now and in person is not logically permissible. The Bible also states that the Paraclete is right here, right now. What does DD mean by Gospel?
I’d also argue that — and this appears appropriate based on constant reference — the Bible itself argues against the GH, but we’ll leave that for another time... Therefore, if DD intended to construct a comprehensive baseline hypothesis to apply to the whole of Christianity, he’s failed. (MS Quixote)
I agree, and that's what I was getting at in the short paragraph just previously.
...I’ll probably commandeer a revised version of the GH and use it myself, if it’s amenable to DD! (MS Quixote)
That's what I'm doing with the MGH, only I welcome your criticisms.
Regarding the "elephant in the room" part of my comment, which Lifeguard also commented on, I think DD is within reason to note that the GH doesn't need to be 100% Christianity in order to evaluate the truthfulness of the Bible, and I believe I understand DD's reasoning - refuting even one of Christianity's claims brings the whole thing down in light of theopneustos, and the GH doesn't have to "be 100% Christianity" in order to do this - it just has to accurately identify a single Christian claim and falsify it. As stopping the heart kills all humans, falsifying a single Christian claim kills theopneustos.
However, while I'm convinced I understand the distinction DD made - I'm not convinced DD understands why I say the distinction he made fails: the catch is that the claim we purport to have falsified must have been accurately identified as one of Christianity's baseline claims, and the necessary all-or-nothing approach cuts both ways. The GH cannot evaluate the truthfulness of the Bible if even one of the Bible's fundamental premises are distorted or diminished in the GH. The GH's claim that God should be right here, right now, in person, on the evening news and on magazine covers cannot be accurately identified as one of Christianity's claims; it is a distorted claim. To address DD's analogy,
The JMH [Jewish Migration Hypothesis] does not need to be Mormonism, or to be the Book of Mormon, in order to demonstrate the fraudulent nature of the Mormon Scriptures. (DD)
Certainly, but the problem is, the BoM must logically permit each and every one of the JMH's predictions, else we've only proven that something other than the BoM is fraudulent. If DD's analogy were truly parallel, his JMH would feature additional predictions that the BoM doesn't logically permit, and it would ignore predictions the BoM logically requires.
Although DD banished that comment to the Troll Watch Forum, I explain this and other things quite thoroughly here.
