My Evening With A Christian Apologist

[bfuddled]

Sorry to those of you I said I would update, the kids are going back to school this week and work has been crazy, so I haven't gotten on here for a few days.

 

I shared with a few people in the chat room that I was going to meet up with a local Christian apologist. I was browsing his website the other day and realized that he was local and had a radio show every weekday. I live in a relatively small area, so there's not usually any "big name" or big events going on, so I was intrigued.

 

I listened to his radio show a few times (although it about drove me crazy at some points), and last week, when I found myself sitting in my car, listening as I was waiting for a client to show up, I figured what they hell, and called in. I told the screener that I was an atheist, and I had a question about a movie that I had seen recently being promoted in Christian circles (the Holy Ghost movie, I made a post about it). I wasn't agressive, just asking for his perspective on the movie. He hadn't heard of it, but we chatted for awhile about it, and before I hung up he asked if I'd be willing to chat further on the phone. I figured why not, so I gave the screener my phone number.

 

He called about 45 minutes later, and I talked to him on the drive home (about an hour). I was actually pleasantly surprised that he was NOT a total jerk, as I've read some of this articles and watched videos with him "witnessing" to other people, and I expected him to be much more confrontational.

 

He is very fond of the TAG argument (here if you're not familiar with it), and "talked me through" most of it. I had read TAG before, but had not fully understood it, so I wasn't really able to refute him. I told him that I fully expected him to be able to out debate me, since he does this for a living, but that I was more interested in hearing his arguments and being able to ask questions without worrying about offending someone.

 

At the end of the conversation, he extended the invitation for me and my husband to come to his house and have dinner with he and his wife. I fully expected my husband to decline (he's a bit antisocial), but surprisingly, he said he'd go. So I called the apologist back and set up a time.

 

We went on Sunday, and I went into it with my expectations low, fully aware that the entire situation could turn out horribly. I am glad to say that the entire evening actually was pretty enjoyable. He and his wife were very nice and welcoming, not stuffy or rude or anything.

 

He was pretty arrogant and very sure of his ability to "out debate an atheist any day of the week", but I just ignored those kind of statements and focused on his actual arguments. My goal was to learn as much as possible about engaging in these kinds of debates, and to be able to ask all the questions that I always avoid posing to Christians in my own life, for fear of offending/hurting them.

 

He walked me thru the TAG argument again, and explained it in a way that I actually understood it this time. There was things that just did NOT make sense to me, but I couldn't fully explain why it wasn't working, so I let it go. He basically said that after he PROVED that God was the only logical conclusion (as opposed to there being no god), he could then walk me thru showing that all the other worldviews are illogical, except for Christianity. One thing I appreciated was that he didn't use any of the touchy feely "you just need to open your heart to God" lines that so many Christians use to cover up the fact that they don't have any answers for your questions. He honestly believes that everything in the Bible/Christianity makes LOGICAL sense, and can prove it. I don't agree with him on his conclusions at all, but I can respect that he's at least thinking about things.

 

He's also a calvinist, so he believes in predestination, which would have never made sense to me, even when I was a Christian. According to him, you CANNOT lose your salvation, so the solution in my case was that I was never saved in the first place. I asked him why, if he's a calvinist, does he evangelize? If it's already set in stone who is going and not going to hell, why bother telling people? He said that 1., he doesn't know how God will choose to "call" people, it could be thru him, and then said that he's not 100% sure he's right on the calvinism part, so part of him wants to cover all the bases anyway. He said that he would pray for me, asking God that if I wasn't "elected" that he would elect me. I pointed out that, according to his theology, that wouldn't make any difference anyway, which he agreed, but he said he will do it anyway.

 

We spent a few hours there, and I can't say that he was anything but a gracious host. Sure, he was/is arrogant and cocky, but I think that probably comes with the territory of what he does for a living. So all in all it was a pretty decent evening. I enjoyed myself, and my husband and I have had a few interesting conversations since then.

 

I'm fully aware that the likely reason he is being "nice" to me, is because he sees me as someone he can "save", and that if/when he realizes that I'm not going to be persuaded he may have an entirely different attitude. But I see it as a learning experience and a way to sharpen my own debate tools on someone who does this for a living.

 

We're going to meet up again some time in the next few weeks, he's going to illustrate to me why all the other worldviews are illogical and Christianity makes perfect sense!

 

In the meantime, I think I finally "get" the TAG argument and am prepared to counter a few points on it, so that should be interesting. I'm not a confrontational person by nature, but I was proud of myself that I stood up for myself and articulated what I believed/didn't believe.

 

I don't want to post his name, simply because I don't want it showing up in google since the board is searchable, but if you look on the iron chariots website's page about the TAG argument, and look at the website listed on point 2.3, that's him.

 

Anyway, sorry to write a novel, I just have had a few people msg me and ask how it went, so I didn't want to leave anyone hanging. I'll let you know if anything interesting comes up when we meet next time.

[bfuddled]

bfuddled,

 

Thanks for the update. I'll look forward to hearing more. So, did you agree to continue the discussion with him? What do you expect you'll talk about next time? And do you have any particular points you plan to bring up then?

 

Thanks for the link to the page about TaG. I skimmed it. It's all that theological philosophy that I overdosed on, and burned out from, years ago. You're much more tolerable and patient than I would be with this stuff. I don't give much attention any more to apologetics/counter-apologetics. Once I finally cast out the evil Yahweh, none of the other stuff was even relevant to me any longer. But I probably would do well to remain aware of it. So, I look forward to learning more about how you approach this opportunity you have.

 

Human

 

Yep, I figured as long as he wants to discuss, I'll do it (unless it becomes weird). I think next time I'll bring up my objections to the TAG argument, now that I have fully understood it and solidified in my mind what my objections are. I'd like to get into the part where he will show that Christianity is the only logical worldview, that should be interesting.

 

There was actually quite a few things that I agreed with him on, in terms of how the church operates and some of the idiocy that is rampant, so it just reminded me that not all Christians are irrational and into the Woo part of the religion. It's amazing to me how someone obviously very intelligent can be so incredibly wrong and biased. I know we all are to a certain extent, but I was baffled at how someone so logical and logic driven could still come to the conclusion that an invisible man in the sky created us to worship him forever and ever.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Thanks for the update, bfud.  I'm glad things are going ok and I hope they stay that way.  It's great experience in apologetics/counter-apologetics.  Very impressive on your part!

[♦ ficino ♦]

Interesting what you've found so far, bfuddled. I don't really think you are befuddled!

 

Anyone I ever encountered who was into TAG was a Calvinist.

 

If you can get the search engine to work, there are some threads about TAG on here from prior years.

 

TAGers rely on assumptions that aren't proved by evidence. Rather, they interpret evidence from those assumptions (most philosophies wind up doing this). My way of dealing with TAG so far is to refuse to grant the initial assumptions. In the end, even one of my Calvinist cohorts years ago admitted that Calvinism and "secularism" are both circular. He said, you just have to decide which circle you want to stand in.

 

After a while, I realized how much the TAG circle was fucking up my life.

 

As I remember, one of the TAG premises is that we can't know anything unless an omniscient being guarantees the foundation of our knowledge.

 

So, maybe not. Maybe we can only have the evidence of the senses (which can be deceived), and then do the best we can to form judgments that stand up repeatedly under testing. Maybe knowledge in this lesser sense is all we can have. Christianity, on the other hand, propounds shit that either doesn't stand up under repeated testing or can't be tested at all.

 

Keep us posted!

[♦ Fuego ♦]

 

I was baffled at how someone so logical and logic driven could still come to the conclusion that an invisible man in the sky created us to worship him forever and ever.

Starting with a false premise, a person can logically reach any conclusion.

Their beginning false premise is "God."

 

Not just "God", the Christian God specifically.

[Darklady]

Thanks for the update. It was interesting.

[DoubtingNate]

Awesome story!  Thanks for following up.

 

I think I must have come across variations of TAG when I was growing up, and it seems to go hand in hand with Calvinism.  That whole debate style (really most 'God arguments) seems to rush through the premises without firmly establishing them.  What Human said, I couldn't say better myself:

 

Starting with a false premise, a person can logically reach any conclusion.

 

 

It seems very disingenuous.. 'moving the goalpost' so to speak.  It takes a special kind of intelligence to be able to rationalize things that are irrational.

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Spectrox's thread from last year gets into TAG:

 

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/57485-james-hilstons-presuppositional-argument/?hl=transcendental#.U_cdtPldXUU

[Llwellyn]

TAG is a kind of parlor trick. The argument itself is equally capable of "proving" the Spaghetti Monster is God.

[Aggie]

As I remember, one of the TAG premises is that we can't know anything unless an omniscient being guarantees the foundation of our knowledge.

 

So, maybe not. Maybe we can only have the evidence of the senses (which can be deceived), and then do the best we can to form judgments that stand up repeatedly under testing. Maybe knowledge in this lesser sense is all we can have. Christianity, on the other hand, propounds shit that either doesn't stand up under repeated testing or can't be tested at all.

 

 

Ficino, interesting thoughts.  I think they highlight how Calvinism is just an assertion that can't provide any confidence in itself.

 

My take...

 

Calvinism is in many ways appears self-refuting.  Its emphasis on human depravity and the noetic effects of sin are not applied internally.  Calvinism (or the different types of Calvinism one should probably say-- some of which have condemned each other) are often extremely tight doctrinally-- but also unwillingly to observe that human depravity should make one skeptical of one's own theological and metaphysical assertions due to the large gap between God's perfection (if the Calvinist has rightly judged this doctrine correctly to begin with) and man's ability to correctly apprehend God's perfection.  

 

Furthermore, in Calvinist doctrine you can believe you are elect but still have false assurance.  Calvin's sinful nature could have just as easily led him into false and heretical doctrines.  Why should we trust his exegesis above the various Anabaptists who questioned his salvation?  Or the Roman Catholics of his day who thought he was damned?  Or the Eastern Orthodox Council of Jerusalem who found his doctrines “wicked,” under “eternal anathema” and “worse than any infidels.”

 

Or why not go for Catholic Augustinianism instead?  Of course Augustine held low views of human nature-- but also believed that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church.  If Calvin was 90% correct in his doctrines, he would still be a damnable heretic according to many theologians. 

 

Of course, the Koran has predestinarian doctrines as well which suggest that Calvin had a hardened heart that was closed to God ...

 

“People of the Book!  Why do you deny Allah’s revelations when you know that they are true?”

“This Book is beyond doubt revealed by the Lord of the Creation.” 

“The man whom Allah guides is rightly guided, but he who is led astray by Allah shall surely be lost.  We have predestined for Hell many jinn and many men.” 

[LongWayAround]

Kudos to you bfuddled for being brave enough to go to a dinner to discuss religion with all of the other people being christians and one being a professional apologist.  Good luck with your future meetings.  There is a lot of good information online for rebutting the TAG argument.

[Leo]

My first thought on looking at this:

3.1 = God's God. Gods all the way down, as it were. If something has to have a something that brought it into existence, then God had a god had a god had a god ... or the concept is in and of itself not valid.

Anyway good on you, I will read everyone else's post now. I'm not sure I'm ready for apologetics. Mentally, reasonably so yes. But I spent so much time as a Christian dealing with apologetic types who were trying to convince me of Christian apologetics for all sorts of things from the six-day creation to the use of the no absolutes straw fallacy - think Dinesh D'Souza and Ravi Zecharias. Anyway I just read your first post and checked out the TAG argument, but now will

When he brings up 3.1 again, mention this:

For that law to be true, he is assuming the preexistent entity that brought this entity into existence had to be greater than the one brought into existence. They toss around this maxim that the creator is by necessity greater than the created. They never set out to prove it, nor do they deal with composit systems. Not intelligently anyway.

Anyway I congratulate you. There'a actually a lot I could say about these arguments. I've heard them in various contortions but didn't know someone had them structured under the name TAG.

[Leo]

I'd like to address also the idea that we can't know anything without the intervention of an omniscient being.

You all could learn to program without the help of a computer programmer. Blaise Pascal invented the first elementary programming language before there was even a computer available. The technology did not exist then. There was no concept of bits and bytes, units of measure for memory and data.

If it were true that you could know nothing at all without the help of a "knowledge benefactor," then nothing could have been invented. Math as a symbolic representation did not have a meaningful predecessor, it "came from nothing" as it were.

I know there are flaws in what I just said, namely one could argue the emergent properties of human ingenuity is a "thing" from which knowledge came.

Also, the argument that in order for there to be a law, there must be a lawgiver. TAG alludes to this, but that is a C. S. Lewis quote. It's a gross misunderstanding of "law" as used in scientific terms. "law" as we use it in everyday use does require an enforcer and a judge. But "law" as scientific law is merely principles we believe to exist based upon the preponderance of evidence. None of that implies a "giver" or enforcer of said laws at all.

Take gravitational theory: Nobody "enforces" gravity. Gravitational theory merely explains what we observe. Smaller mass is attracted to larger mass. We use the term "laws of physics" but there is no Mr. Physics up in the sky enforcing them, to make sure electrons spin in the right direction. the "laws" are descriptions of the observed natural world.

This is a common fallacy wrapped up in apologetics all over the place.

Oh, and as for the laws applying to everyone, and no subjective morality? Then genocide was wrong for all people for all time everywhere. Including Yahweh. As soon as Yahweh becomes the exception, the morality absolutist argument is wholly lost.