Right Reason

When I was a kid I always said I wanted to be an archaeologist. After a while I gave that idea up because it wasn’t realistic as a career option, so I thought. How ironic that I ended up studying music, theology and philosophy!

Anyway, this is one of the examples of why archaeology is so cool – seeing how it ties into the lives of biblical figures.

Israeli scholars have confirmed the authenticity of a 2,000-year-old burial ossuary bearing the name of a relative of the high priest Caiaphas, who is well known to Christians as a rival of Jesus. The ossuary – a stone chest for storing bones – bears an inscription with the name “Miriam daughter of Yeshua son of Caiapha, priest of Ma’azya from Beit Imri.”

The High Priest known as Caiaphas was an adversary of Jesus (Yeshua) and played a key role in his crucifixion, according to the Christian bible.

The Yeshua mentioned in the ossuary is not to be confused with the Christian bible’s Jesus, as the name was a common Jewish one at the time.

The Israel Antiquities Authority says the ossuary was seized from tomb robbers three years ago. It is believed to have been taken from a burial site in the Valley of Ela in Judea. The IAA says in Wednesday’s statement that microscopic tests have confirmed the inscription is “genuine and ancient.”

As of yesterday, I have a mission statement.

A reader contacted me and commented that he wasn’t able to find one at the website. Well, that’s because there wasn’t one. From time to time I offer a vague comment about just what it is I’m trying to do via this blog, but there was really nowhere where I state it succinctly in an easy to find place. And now there is (see the About / Mission link above, or the button over on the right). This is what I want to do with this blog and podcast:

Mission Statement

Say Hello to my Little Friend exists to serve several ends:

Firstly, to provoke readers and listeners to critically engage philosophy, theology and biblical studies as they relate to academia, culture, history and the most important questions in life.

Secondly, to demonstrate – and to encourage others to demonstrate themselves – that a perspective of Christian belief is not only compatible with the above, but absolutely conducive to it as an intellectually defensible worldview that has much to commend itself to the honest and fair minded critic.

Thirdly, to challenge fellow Christians to be genuinely self critical in their acceptance of theological or philosophical traditions, and to be willing to scrutinise those traditions with a mind to being faithful to truth, to Scripture and ultimately to God.

These ends are met in a variety of ways – through blog entries, discussions in blog comments, direct discussion with readers, through the podcast, publication of articles as prompted by issues that arise here, speaking engagements and face to face with readers and listeners at events.

So now you know! Thanks for the email, Roy.

If the blog looks quiet, there are certainly works in progress. While some blogs have new a ton of new posts day after day in an incessant, hurried effort, with virtually no mental checkpoint at all between “the first thing that comes to mind and sounds awesome and devastating in my internal monologue because I haven’t paused to examine it for weaknesses” and “the final version that appears on my amazing blog Debunking Christianity” (not looking at anyone in particular!), posting good material actually requires a decent amount of preparation time, which just doesn’t allow the constant barrage of posts. But rest assured, I haven’t forgotten you, and I’m working every day on new material, getting it finished and into shape to be posted only when it’s ready. I hope you appreciate the difference!

So what am I working on? What is this stuff you’re waiting for?

Firstly, there are two podcast episodes in the works. One of them addresses the question, “what is faith”? It’s not about theology but epistemology. When we talk about faith and reason, what is the “faith” have of that couplet? What do Christian theists have when they have faith in God? Is it a kind of will to believe without the need for reasons or evidence? Or is it something else? The second podcast I’m working on is actually another instalment in the popular series In Search of the Soul, where I look at the mind-body problem. When I finished the series previously, I was aware of having omitted any coverage of the view of Aristotle (and of Thomas Aquinas, the Western medieval champion of Aristotelianism). So that’s what I’ll be looking at in that episode.

There are also a few blog entries in the making as well. I’ve already posted part one of a three part series on Richard Carrier’s arguments against the resurrection of Jesus. There I looked at Carrier’s extended comparison of the Rubicon crossing of Julius Caesar and the resurrection of Jesus. I’m working on parts two and three of that series. In part two I will be looking at his claims about the general insufficiency of the resurrection as a argument for Christianity, and also his rather extraordinary claim that Jesus’ survival of his resurrection and his escape from the sealed tomb and defeat of the Roman guards would be a more likely explanation for early Christian belief than his actual resurrection. Then in part three – in my view easily the most important of the three, I’ll be looking at Carrier’s most significant claim, to which he devotes by far the most time as it carries most of his case: His claim that the early Christians did not believe in the physical resurrection of the dead body of Jesus at all, but that they actually believed that while the former body remained dead in the tomb, Jesus left his body and entered a new, spiritual body – and that this is what they believed about the future resurrection of the dead as well.

I’m also chipping away at a post offering a historical perspective on the Classical Liberal political tradition and welfare, looking primarily at John Locke and his theory of property rights, which included his theory of the right of those in need to the support of others. I’ll also be contrasting that view with that of utilitarian John Stuart Mill.

There are a couple of other posts I’ve started, but I’m not sure that they’ll make the final cut, just due to my uncertainty over how much they really interest me: A post explaining the position known as sola scriptura, primarily for the sake of providing a fair explanation of that point of view for some of my Roman Catholic friends who seem to misunderstand that position considerably. The other post I’ve started is one discussing some comments by Thom Stark on whether or not some of the conquest accounts in the Old Testament might be hyperbolic, and whether or not we can tell this is the case (at least in part) by comparing contrasting accounts in those histories.

As is always the case, short term interests will pop up that suddenly occupy my attention and that I’ll write on (as in the last two posts on final punishment), but those are the pieces that I’m currently working on. Suggestions are always welcome!

Glenn Peoples

Dear friends

Not just friends, but brothers and sisters. Some of you might think that I am feigning my treatment of you as both friends and even family. I’m not sure how to persuade you that I’m genuine, but I am. I’m writing this open letter because I don’t know you all personally (in fact I don’t know any of you personally), and I also think other people might benefit from seeing what I have to say.

Who are you? In the long and protracted debate over the biblical teaching on judgement and final punishment, you’ve gained the label “traditionalists.” You say that the Bible teaches that God will punish the lost with eternal torment. There’s a range of different terms that many of you use, but that’s a reasonable summary. Some of you use those terms, while others prefer what you take as less crude language like “eternal separation from God.” But you believe that it will last forever, it will be a conscious experience, and it will be horrific. In particular, I write this for those of you who are apologists for this belief. The people I have in mind have contributed to a veritable torrent of books, articles, public talks and sermons on the subject, assuring the church and the public that the Bible teaches eternal torment.

I don’t believe you’re correct. I am persuaded that the Bible teaches annihilationism. You don’t like that fact. Many of you are on record telling people that annihilationism is false and unbiblical, that it is clearly so, that it undermines the Gospel, that it misrepresents God, that it underestimates sin, that it is a concession to postmodernity and so on. Many of you swarm theological organisations, gatherings, websites and so on, reassuring your peers and your readers that you hold the solid, clearly biblical position, and that annihilationists quite clearly lack biblical support for their view, and many of you encourage theological organisations and colleges that would literally exclude me from working or even studying there because I am persuaded as I am.

Other readers who perhaps do not wade into theological controversy and who might not be familiar with this issue will likely find this letter rather dreary and irrelevant. They can simply ignore it, I suppose. But I am writing to you. What’s more, I have nothing personally to gain in writing this. Your colleges will continue to be unlikely to hire me because of my beliefs on this issue (and writing this will certainly not help this situation), and mainstream colleges will be uninterested in the fact that I have an interest in the subject at all. I will not increase my number of friends, but may potentially increase the number of people hostile to me. But I’m writing to you anyway.

Read More

If you’re not from New Zealand you may never have heard of a taniwha, a creature from Maori mythology that lives in the deep. While some such creatures were good, serving as protectors of an area, some of these monsters were killers who, like dragons in myths from other nations, needed to be taken care of by taniwha slayers.

There have even been the occasional Nessie/Bigfoot style sightings. More seriously however, A couple of times in modern history, local Iwi (Maori tribal groups) have sought to halt construction or development projects because, according to them, they would disrupt an area that is occupied by a one of these creatures, a taniwha.

A few days ago the issue was raised again in Auckland:

Read More

Later in 2011 William Lane Craig will be visiting Oxford, stomping ground of Richard Dawkins. It’s no secret that Dawkins has quite self consciously presented himself – both in publications like The God Delusion and in public speaking engagements – as an outspoken apologist for atheism. For that reason then it’s a little surprising that he has repeatedly refused to debate probably the best known apologist for Christianity today, William Lane Craig. Craig has made it clear that he is more than happy for that public discussion to take place, and his time in Oxford would present the opportunity for just that.

There’s mounting pressure for Dawkins to take the opportunity – both from Christians and atheists alike. To an extent I confess that I’m in two minds. The fact is, Dawkins’ case against theism is an attempt at philosophy, and it’s really really bad philosophy. I frankly don’t think it deserves a platform like this, and it doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously. However, I’m well aware of the fact that regardless of what scholarly merits his work against theism might have, it has an enthusiastic fan base. Dawkins gets attention that he doesn’t deserve, and for that reason perhaps a public meeting like this is justified.

It’ll be interesting to see if this eventuates!

At his Internet Infidels website and in a number of talks including a debate with Michael Licona on the Resurrection of Jesus, Richard Carrier presents an argument for “Why I Don’t Believe the Resurrection Story.” I have decided to put together a response to the reasons that Carrier offers for not believing in the resurrection of Jesus. This will be a series of three or four blog posts, and when complete I will make it available in the article section.

At his website, his presentation is divided into five sections: Main Argument / Rubicon Analogy, General Case for Insufficiency, Probability of Survival vs Miracle, General Case for Spiritual Resurrection, and Rebutting Lesser Arguments. Actually the section that drew my interest the most was Carrier’s arguments for a “spiritual resurrection.” His position is that the earliest biblical account of the resurrection of Jesus has nothing to say about Jesus actually coming back to life in any bodily sense. Instead, says Carrier, the first disciples of Jesus had either a vision or a dream of Jesus in heaven, and came to believe that in spite of his death, Jesus had spiritually survived in an immaterial form in heaven. I’ll say more about that later.

Out of convenience, I’ll divide my coverage of the arguments into five sections as Carrier did. For what it is worth, I commend to readers the debate that Carrier had with Michael Licona (see the link provided above) for a succinct, clear verbal presentation of Carrier’s position.

Read More