Is that TRUE?! | Response to Frank Turek's 4 Reasons Why Christianity is True

the reason that we believe christianity is true is because the answer to four questions is yes and here my fellow apes are those four questions one were you born in a majority christian country yes two will you accept the reliability of an ancient collection of books saturated with contradictions and atrocities yes three will you misrepresent science for jesus yes and finally four from the low price of just seven thousand five hundred and ninety nine dollars per person will you go on exquisite cruises from midian jeffrey saudi arabia egypt and israel yes well then lucky goose the kingdom of heaven is bestowed upon thou if you answer those four questions in the affirmative because there's evidence that the answer to those four questions is yes then christianity is true as i'm sure most of you are aware the christian apologist frank turek has for many a year been battling the evil atheist professors of the world those atheistic college professors and consequently he has a vast ocean of gish gallop for poor sods like me to clear up and like all prolific apologists tariq has several sermons or apologetic preachings at his disposal and i plan to respond to his most popular starting with his four reasons why christianity is true here are the four questions you need to answer to show that christianity is true the first question is does truth exist the second question is does god exist the third question is are miracles possible and the fourth question is the new testament and therefore the bible true if you answer those four questions in the affirmative because there's evidence that the answer to those four questions is yes then christianity is true in pursuit of maximal charitability i've trailed through several turrets presentations of this preaching and have combined them to present the strongest possible case in his favor for instance in the short and punchy presentation he is scripted and far more precise in his language but in the graduation presentation he provides greater detail with additional content what you'll see here is the best of all presentations what's more for the purpose of being thorough i'm going to break my response into four parts i appreciate that this might appear unwarranted but like it or not the only way to comprehensively clear up the gish gallup is to invest the necessary time and attention so with that let's get to the first question how about the first question does truth exist does truth exist you may hear people say there is no truth you got your truth i got my truth all truth is relative obviously you hear people say all the time there is no truth or you got your truth i got my truth all truth is relative except you don't hear people say this all the time do you people say all the time which explains of course why tarik doesn't provide any examples whilst there are many theories of truth the vast majority of people be them religious or non-religious subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth they say that if some claim correlates with reality with facts then it's true for instance when someone says that the earth is an ellipsoid they are asserting that in reality as a fact the earth is an ellipsoid now the way in which people justify their truth claims is a question of epistemology it's a question of how they know a given proposition is true and fast when someone calls into question the truth claims of say the resurrection of jesus or muhammad split the moon or perkily slay the linear hydra they are not stating that there is no truth or you've got your truth of the hydra once existing and i've got my truth of the hydra never existing but rather that we don't have the extraordinary justification required to believe such extraordinary claims there's more to be said here of course but before doing so let's hear the rest of turek's argument when somebody says there is no truth you ought to ask that person a question but if someone were to ever say to you there is no truth you should ask that person a question what should the question be this is the interactive portion of the program school's not over go you ought to say is that true is it true that there's no truth because if it's true that there's no truth the claim there is no truth can't be true but it claims to be true yeah you'd say how is that true or is that true is it true that there is no truth because if it's true that there is no truth to claim there is no truth can't be true but it claims to be true did i say that right i know that can give you intellectual constipation oh turek you give the world intellectual constipation and that's the truth claim that we have ample epistemic reason to believe in other words it's a self-defeating claim if somebody says there is no truth that claim doesn't meet its own standard because that very claim claims to be true it's like saying i can't speak a word in english if i were to say i can't speak a word in english you'd go huh or it's like saying my parents had no kids that lived or it's like saying my brother is an only child or it's like saying everything i say is a lie some of you will get that tomorrow or it's like saying all generalizations are false some of you will never get that one indeed it's like saying that i'm a married bachelor it's definitionally impossible to be a married bachelor just as it's definitionally impossible for the proposition there is no truth to be true no doubt turret has made short and comedic work of this weak argument but to what end if on the one hand turric is aware that objective truth is compatible with the vast majority of religious and irreligious worldviews then his first question serves as little more than rhetoric and sophistry it butters up the audience to his charisma and charm but it conveys nothing of intellectual value his first question may as well be is the world you experience real because obviously obviously you hear people say all the time that we're in the matrix while it might be the case that a bunch of post-modernists will claim that the world we experience isn't real and a similar fringe group will claim that there is no truth there is no spoon the vast majority of people and especially the most prominent critics of religion don't say this so to reiterate on the one hand this first question of turrets serves as chiefly rhetoric but if on the other hand tariq believes that this claim is frequently made by the critics of christianity then well he's at best not been paying attention and in any case he's emboldening the ignorance of his flock from hitchens to dawkins to sherman to o'connor critics of the truth claims of christianity don't assume the self-refuting position that there is no truth but rather emphasize that we simply do not have the extraordinary evidence required to justify the extraordinary claims of christianity here's how the english philosopher john hawthorne who's currently serving as professor of philosophy at the australian catholic university in melbourne succinctly puts the epistemic question in regards to abrahamic religion even if there is a god take the best case scenario for the theist as it were there is a god uh god made the world god appeared to moses moses wrote some stuff down supposing that's all all right all true should we conclude people in the good case scenario know that there's a god by say reading the the the bits of scripture i mean there are some arguments designed to show that even in the good case scenario you're irrational i mean if i have a box and there's a beetle in the box and you can't see in the box you'd be irrational to believe that there's a beetle in the box even if it's right what i like about hawthorne's beetle example is that it simply and effectively illustrates the difference between truth and rationality even if it were the case even if it were true that there's a beetle in the box if you don't have epistemic justification for believing there's a beetle in the box you'd be irrational unjustified and believe in what is in fact the truth another example i've used in the past is the shape of the earth despite it being an ellipsoid our ancient ancestors who didn't have access to the evidence and data that we do today would have been irrational to believe that the earth is an ellipsoid now to contextualize this in relation to strictly christianity even if it were the case that jesus was the son of god that he performed all of the acclaimed miracles assuming this is all true that it's all factual here's the epistemic question are we today reading translations of translations of contradictory accounts written by anonymous authors many moons after the supposed extraordinary events and in mutual exclusivity with the extraordinary claims of many other religions justified in believing such claims the honest answer is no absolutely not even if the claims of christianity were true we would not be justified in believing that it's true as the evidence we have is shockingly poor what's more an all-knowing omniscient god would know this and if it was also all loving omnibenevolent it certainly wouldn't threaten hell upon those that earnestly using the brain that it gave them are not convinced by the evidential disarray or to flip the script if the kingdom of god is reserved only for those that use their brain then by divine irony the residents are chiefly atheists or at least they were before they expired because then you get you get all the christians dead and then a load of bitter atheists going and worst of all i was wrong [Music] so to reiterate tariq employs his first big question either for the purpose of rhetoric or because he doesn't understand the truth claim objections of non-christians considering that at least as far as i've seen he's never employed this smackdown argument against a prominent atheist during a debate i'm going to assume the former that it's all for show these are self-defeating statements you're gonna hear this all truth comes from science now in the graduation presentation turret kindly provides us with extra intellectual constipation by conjuring and then hastily defeating yet another weak argument all truth comes from science what question would you ask somebody who says that yeah does that truth come from science no it doesn't come from science at all it's a philosophical claim you couldn't do science without philosophy science is built on philosophy you couldn't understand the bible or the newspaper without philosophy so don't let them snow you whilst it's entirely possible that tariq has bumped into someone who has genuinely maintained that all truth comes from science this strikes me as a straw man of the very popular sentiment that science is the best path to truth which also manifests in such quotes the good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it it's always irked me that the religious so easily utilize the extraordinary value of science when it comes to health and technology taking full advantage of the cornerstones of science that is rigorous skepticism and empirical methodology but so easily dismiss science under the rubric of scientism when it contradicts their barbaric mythology the philosopher and cognitive scientist dr daniel dennett has referred to this scientism dismissal as an all-purpose wild card smear calling a spader spade he says that when someone puts forward a scientific theory that they the religious don't like they just try to discredit it as scientism but when it comes to facts and explanation of facts science is the only game in town anyhow there's my response to taric's first reason why christianity is true in a nutshell it serves as little more than sophistry to those unaware of the truth claim objections against christianity it paints the illusion of tariq being an intellectual and comedic juggernaut but to those who are aware of the truth claim objections against christianity it comes across as sophistry and honestly really quite weird you're like a bit weird now in the next episode the intellectual constipation goes into overdrive as the gish galloping accelerates to the next level and i must say that if that hasn't enticed you to hit the subscribe button then i don't think i'm ever going to win you over as always thank you kindly for the view and an extra special thank you to my wonderful patrons and those of you who have supported the channel via other memes together we are fighting against the propaganda of apologetics and we are as a whole having tremendous success if you support me or any other skeptical youtubers podcasters authors etc know that your generosity really is making a difference until next time my fellow apes until next time

Channel: Rationality Rules

Views: 98,632

Rating: 4.9134154 out of 5

Keywords: Turek trotting, turek trot, frank turek gish gallop, gish gallop, turek religion, turek reason why Christianity is true, turek christianity, frank turek response, frank turek, cross examined, cross examined response, frank turek debunked

Id: 1fgUuGhxq3k

Length: 11min 59sec (719 seconds)

Published: Sat Feb 20 2021