"What can be asserted with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence." – Christopher Hitchens
It sounds so convincing, so logical and seemingly so devastating to religious belief. However, I can guarantee that Hitchens most assuredly beliefs something with no evidence and all I need to prove it is the statement I just quoted.
How much evidence does Christopher Hitchens have for his statement? How can he demonstrate the truthfulness of his claim?
He has no evidence and he has no way to demonstrate the truthfulness of his assertion, so by his own standard, I can safely dismiss his reasoning without presenting any contrary evidence.
I could, but I won't.
Besides, Hitchens' catchy turn of phrase being self-defeating, it is also illogical. We all believe things for which we have no evidence. I believe that when you are reading this post, it is an actual mind processing the information. If I have talked with you before, I believe that we actually shared that conversation as opposed to me being created 15 minutes ago with already present memories. You believe numerous memories you have in your mind are real, but for many you could provide no evidence for their truthfulness.
I have a fun little habit of reading atheist blogs, articles, comments and I see this fallacy repeated over and over and over again. Some smarmy atheist thinks he can show the idiocy of thousands of years of theological and philosophical beliefs by quoting or rewording Hitchens (who reworded A.J. Ayer, who reworded W.K Clifford, who reworded David Hume …), so he writes something of the sort: "Until you give me some evidence I know all your beliefs are B.S." [paraphrase of an actual comment I read today] How could churches keep their doors open against such intelligent and through-provoking challenges?!? [Now, I'm being smarmy. ;) ]
I wonder how often smarmy atheist blogger guy has sat down to actually think about what it is he is saying. Has Hitchens ever responded to the refutation of his claim?
None of this even touches the debate I have had here often about dismissing evidence as not being evidence because you do not agree with it or find it convincing.
In a murder investigation motive and time of death may not be "smoking guns," but they can most definitely be evidence.
When discussing the metaphysical idea of God, the ontological, teleological, cosmological and moral arguments may not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, but that does not prevent them from being evidences.
This leads to yet another tactic of Hitchens and the New Atheists (which is a rehash of older arguments yet again), shifting the burden of proof.
In the average philosophical discussion, the question is not whether one can "prove" one thing over another, the question is which thing is more reasonable or more likely. In the God-discussion, many atheists have been successful in moving the goal post to where God is guilty until proven innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Can God be disproven to that same standard? Of course not, because to completely disprove the notion of God, one would have to have ultimate knowledge of all things to know that nowhere at no time does God exist, but if you reach that point you become self-refuting because your omniscience would show you to be God.
If God cannot be disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt, why should the theist be forced to prove God to that same measure?
Both Hitchens' assertion and the moving burden of proof are subtle ways that atheists have been using to claim victory in every discussion and debate. If you let me establish all of the guidelines, making self-refuting statements and force you to play the game by my rules, then I can win every time as well.
Here's my hope: Christians would stop using bad, heard-it-from-an-email evidences in trying to discuss these issues and atheists would stop using bad, read-it-in-a-Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris-book quotes, but instead both sides should evaluate the claims and have fruitful, enjoyable conversations about difficult, important topics. Great pithy sound bits may be sacrificed, but I think we should be able to live without them.
So what's the proof? You never present one.
Speak for yourself. Personally, I do not believe anything whatsoever that I cannot justify with evidence or logic.
And there would be good, logical reasons for you to believe those things, you needn't just take them on blind faith.
Much like my fun little habit of reading theist blogs, where I see over and over people asserting things as if they were facts, never backing them up, but acting like they'd proven their arguments.
The well-known holes and logical fallacies in those arguments, however, do.
What Hitchens' aphorism is saying, in your courtroom metaphor, is: If you have no evidence, your case may be dismissed. Or: If you have no evidence, you have no case.
So what's the proof? You never present one.
I repeatedly demonstrated the claim is self-defeating. What evidence does Hitchens have for his own comment? What proof can he give me to demonstrate the truthfulness of his own statement?
He asserts it as fact with no evidence, therefore, according to his own standard, I can dismiss it.
Personally, I do not believe anything whatsoever that I cannot justify with evidence or logic.
Nice switch there. You added the word "justify" and you added the caveat "or logic." There is a difference there, a subtle difference but a difference none the less.
I would say it is more logical to believe that I have lived for 30 years and am not just recently created with a built-in memory. But what factual evidence can I point to that would suggest that to be the case? What evidence can you give for the existence of other minds? We can think that logically it makes sense to believe that our memories are correct and that other individuals have minds just as we do, but there is no evidence that we can look to, hold on to that makes this the case.
You seem confident about it. What evidence can you give me that proves that we were all not recently created and implanted with pre-existing memories, thoughts, etc.? What evidence do you have that we aren't really jacked up someone to a computer feeding us all of our experiences a la The Matrix?
I suppose you would say logic, but what makes it more logical to believe one over the other? Do you have any substantial evidence to base your "logic" on?
The well-known holes and logical fallacies in those arguments, however, do.
Please, go on. Demonstrate the logical fallacies in the teleological, ontological, cosmological and moral arguments. Because I can assure you, for all you assert to find in those, I can do the same with the counter-arguments.
If you have no evidence, your case may be dismissed.
On what evidence do you base that assertion?
Besides you miss [and prove] my point, it is not that no evidence has been given, it is that the atheist establishes himself as judge and jury, both deciding as the judge what evidence is admissible, ie none, and then as then as the jury declaring the case to be empty because no evidence was presented. Anyone can do that in any argument to prove anything.
Who couldn't win a debate if you got to determine both what constitutes evidence and then the validity of the evidence?
The question is about determining both of those issues (What is the evidence? Is the evidence compelling?). Atheist seem to want to jump past those debates and straight to the sentencing phase of the court room. That's not how it works. Neither side gets to simply rule out all of the argumentation of the other side a priori. You would not let me do that, so neither will I let you or Hitchens get away with it either.
Ah.
So in short, you ask me to provide evidence to prove the assertion that (as I paraphrased) "If you have no evidence, you have no case."
I could essay to back up that statement by defining each word and demonstrating how that logically follows from their meanings, and perhaps we could then get bogged down in a pointless argument over semantics. However, I dare say you don't really need me to derive the obvious to you. You're just engaging in sophistry there.
You restate that your point is, "It is not that no evidence has been given, it is that the atheist establishes himself as judge and jury, both deciding as the judge what evidence is admissible, ie none, and then as then as the jury declaring the case to be empty because no evidence was presented."
Atheist: "Why should I believe a god exists?"
Evangelist: "OK, well, the Bible…"
Atheist: "Copies of copies of retranslations of copies of hearsay of ancient legends. Too unreliable. What else have you got?"
Evengelist: "The Shroud of Turin…"
Atheist: "Was proved to be fake. What else?"
Evangelist: "Every effect has a cause…"
Atheist: "Which needn't be supernatural."
Evangelist: "A watch is made by a watchmaker…"
Atheist: "A rock isn't made by a rockmaker."
Evengelist: "A perfect being has to exist by definition…"
Atheist: "Hey, Perfect Butler, bring me a beer! Nope."
Evangelist: "You had to get your morals from somewhere…"
Atheist: "My parents, same as you."
Evangelist: "Look at the trees!"
Atheist: "All natural. What else?"
Evangelist: "Why should I bother? You'll reject any argument I make."
Atheist: "No, just bad ones. It's not my fault if that's all you've got."
You're just engaging in sophistry there.
Actually what I'm pointing out is that people constantly assert things with no evidence given. As you did in your statement and as you do later. But more to your point.
I enjoyed your brief representation of an apologetic conversation between "Evangelist" and "Atheist." It was witty, which is often effective. However it often can gloss over huge issues. Soundbites can be very damning, but often times they lack the larger context which gives them meaning.
While that conversation may be too close for comfort for many evangelist (I'm not sure how many, but I would agree some), it is not close to accurate for an actual discussion between a Christian philosopher and an Atheist one.
For starters the atheist character, which I assume represents yourself, makes numerous assertions themselves with no evidence along with numerous strawmen arguments.
I go one by one.
Copies of copies of retranslations of copies of hearsay of ancient legends. Too unreliable. What else have you got?
Going back to our initial discussion, how much evidence do you have for this assertion? ;)
Seriously, how much actual study have you done on this topic? Or more to the point, are you simply reasserting things you have heard other atheists say. Because I can give you much of the actual literary, historical research on the documents of the New Testament. There are very few, even those who are not Christians, who hold to the legendary hypothesis when trying to explain away the Gospel accounts.
Even if you discount the Gospels as late and legendary (which they still were written before legend could have crept in and they do not bare the marks of a legend that the later Gnostic Gospels have), you still have to account for Paul's writings, especially books like 1 Corinthians, which even the most liberal and skeptical scholars agree was written by Paul and in the mid first century, which materials tracing back to a few short years, perhaps months, of Jesus' crucifixion. Legends don't happen that fast.
Overall, you seem very bright and knowledgeable about a host of topics, but when you begin asserting things about the existence of Jesus, etc. Your rhetoric does not live up to your normal standard of knowledge.
The Shroud of Turin…
Wow! That's the second line of evidence that your hypothetical evangelist resorts to? I don't know of any credible apologist or Christian philosopher that would ever appeal to the Shroud. I think it's fake myself.
Which needn't be supernatural.
Again, witty but doesn't address the actual philosophical question. The proposition is: "Every being which begins must have a cause for its beginning." You are right that, in general, nothing requires that to be supernatural. But the actual argumentation comes when that is applied to our universe. All the scientific data we have suggests a finite beginning for our universe, the question becomes what was the cause for it. Many suggest an infinite regress of natural, physical causes, but the idea of the infinite brings philosophical problems that lead to absurdities and actual impossibilities.
Then some atheist get cute and think they have asked an impossible question, by saying "What about God, what's His cause?" Of course, God does not violate the proposition because God is said to be eternal, that he does not begin to exist.
A rock isn't made by a rockmaker.
Are you seriously comparing the intricacies of a rock to a watch, much less the universe? Saying that a mud puddle didn't need a designer does not say anything about a painting, the lack of a designer for a dirt pile does not speak to the same for a laptop.
Hey, Perfect Butler, bring me a beer! Nope.
Ah, Anselm's Ontological Argument, followed by the same refutation that was given by a Guantalo, a monk, immediately after it's publication. Anslem appreciated the argument (substitute island for butler) and wanted it published along with his argument. I do not and would not use the ontological argument because it is so complicated and abstract. Not many apologists use it today. However, Anselm did have a response. His argument was about a Being that had existence as part of its nature. Any other item you think of differs from the Being in Anselm's argument because it does not possess existence as one of its perfect attributes.
My parents, same as you.
And their parents before them, and those before them? They had to originate from somewhere. You could argue evolution has brought about our morality, but at best an evolutionary argument on morality is descriptive, not prescriptive. It can argue how we behave, but it cannot argue how we ought to behave. If morality is an evolutionary instinct, why do we often struggle to do the "right' thing? Shouldn't it be easy to be good? Wouldn't it come as natural as eating, if it was an evolutionary instinct? If it is an evolutionary instinct that we all share, why do some humans act in ways that are horribly contradictory to the instinct, while others seem to follow it virtually all of the time?
All natural. What else?
I'm not sure what argument "Look at the trees!" is supposed to represent, so I cannot really respond and defend it.
No, just bad ones. It's not my fault if that's all you've got.
If the only arguments that theists and Christians had were the ones you have mischaracterized then I would be right with you. All of the arguments you refuted were weak and bad, but those are not the arguments that actual philosophers present as evidence and argumentation for God.
But again, even in this wildly simplified version you did the same thing to which you assert you are not doing. You do not take the time to actually engage the real arguments Christians are making, you rip strawmen to pieces and in doing so claim that no real evidence is presented. It goes back to the formula you quoted from me. Judge: Deciding, a priori, that all the evidence is bad. Jury: Rejecting the argument because there is no good evidence.
Again, it is very easy to win arguments if you afford yourself the privilege of being one of the participants in the discussion and being the outside arbitrator who gets to decide both the admissible or credible evidence and the outcome of the discussion.
One more note on this previous quote of yours:
Personally, I do not believe anything whatsoever that I cannot justify with evidence or logic.
On what basis do you trust your senses that gather evidence and your mind that processes logic? If we arrived at our present state through the random process of evolution, why are those things trustworthy? Evolution has as its goal – survival, not truth. Now truth may be an advantage to survival, but it is not a requirement. Nothing in the evolutionary process requires it to result in a being with senses that analyze data accurately or a mind that finds logic correctly, if that is the case, could we not be in a world where that is the case? Is it not more likely that given all the possible outcomes of evolution, that we would inhabit a world were those things did not come out perfectly for us to be able to process both sensual evidence and logic?
Mind if I jump in here with a comment? It's been a while. I think Robin's characterization of a typical Atheist/theist conversation was pretty good. We here at 2or3 should be able to recognize these recurring themes as we've had countless similar discussion over the years.
Atheist: "Why should I believe a god exists?"
Evangelist: "OK, well, the Bible…"
Exactly, evangelists often resort to scripture to prove their point because they assume it's the word of God. Therefore, it's true. They don't realize it's circular reasoning.
http://thebeattitude.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/…
Atheist: "Copies of copies of retranslations of copies of hearsay of ancient legends. Too unreliable. What else have you got?"
And this one Aaron and I talk about a lot. Only Christians believe this. If this stuff was truly history then it would be in history books not religious faith books like the Bible. Muslims feel the same way about their own holy books. So, what else have you got? :)
"Evangelist: "Every effect has a cause…"
Atheist: "Which needn't be supernatural."
Yup! Why insert a supernatural cause like The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Jehovah, or Allah?
"Evangelist: "A watch is made by a watchmaker…"
Atheist: "A rock isn't made by a rockmaker.""
Again, this is dead on. Aaron talks about laptops and paintings which we know are manufactured products. It doesn't lend a lot of weight to the supernatural FSM/Jehovah/Allah designer argument at all.
If morality is an evolutionary instinct, why do we often struggle to do the "right' thing? Shouldn't it be easy to be good? Wouldn't it come as natural as eating, if it was an evolutionary instinct? If it is an evolutionary instinct that we all share, why do some humans act in ways that are horribly contradictory to the instinct, while others seem to follow it virtually all of the time?
LOL! No! Remember we've talked about this so often and I'm sure I'll make the same point again and again in the future. It's our natural instinct to procreate but we often choose not to.
"Of course, God does not violate the proposition because God is said to be eternal, that he does not begin to exist."
The people who say this are pulling this out of their butt. They actually have zero knowledge, zero facts, zero evidence. It's nice that they say it, but that is all they do. They just say it without basis. Nothing more.
"All of the arguments you refuted were weak and bad, but those are not the arguments that actual philosophers present as evidence and argumentation for God."
Well, provide some then. I assume you'll go with the teleological argument once more and then argue how Jesus' resurrection is historical fact, etc, etc, etc.
"…you rip strawmen to pieces and in doing so claim that no real evidence is presented."
Aaron, you've often done this to me. I just don't think that people who live in glass houses should throw stones. Present your evidence then. I just have a feeling that such a discussion will turn out very close to what Robin caricatured.
Mind if I jump in here with a comment?
But of course.
I think Robin's characterization of a typical Atheist/theist conversation was pretty good.
But of course. ;)
They don't realize it's circular reasoning.
Actually, they do. Those Christian philosophers who argue for belief in God based on Scripture are called Presuppositionalists and they argue that everyone, at some point in their worldview, relies on circular reasoning.
I do not hold to that form of apologetics. I do believe the Bible is trustworthy, but I would not use it as a means to convince an atheist that he is wrong. I do and will defend its trustworthiness, but I do not say, "You (as a Non-Christian) should believe this because the Bible says it is true." That is a strawman and a mischaracterization of, at least, my argumentation. [I use the Bible as a basis for reason only when speaking to other Christians who accept its authority.]
If this stuff was truly history then it would be in history books not religious faith books like the Bible.
Speaking of circular reasoning … The accounts in the Bible are not history because they are not in history books. They are not in history books because they are not history. Therefore, we cannot trust the Bible as history.
I will ask you the same thing I asked Robin, how much of this area, ancient literature, history, marks of legendary material, have you actually studied? My point being, it is easy to just say because these things contain the supernatural they must be legendary. But that succumbs to at least the logical fallacy of petitio principii. You are begging the question by saying that anything that contains supernatural must be legendary.
Do you know of any example from history of legendary material arising and overtaking the actual historical events in terms of acceptance in only a few years with witnesses to the actual events still living and in the area of the purported events, as the resurrection account of Jesus did?
Those who deny that account, must provide an alternative that explains the empty tomb, the disciples (and critics) reporting to have seen him alive, and the emergence of the Christian religion. Those are historical events that have to be explained. I'm not saying that Jesus did rise from the dead or people did see him alive after his death. I'm saying the tomb was empty and people reported seeing him alive. Those along with the origin of Christianity must be explained by other alternative.
Why insert a supernatural cause like The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Jehovah, or Allah?
See, here is wonder if you even read what I wrote. I agreed that a supernatural cause does not and should not be considered for every event. I am speaking of only one specific example – the universe. What explanation do you have for the origin of the universe that avoids the problems I outlined?
Aaron talks about laptops and paintings which we know are manufactured products. It doesn't lend a lot of weight to the supernatural FSM/Jehovah/Allah designer argument at all.
So you believe that this planet, which is specifically designed (Dawkins uses that terminology) to support our living here, along with all life, including the complexity of human life, which is vastly more complex than any computer, is more akin to a rock than a painting? You will have to explain that to me.
You are correct that my analogy could be considered begging the question, by comparing life and our universe to an item which we know is designed, but the same critique could be applied to Robin's analogy, as it compares the same to something we know is not designed. So that leaves us to where we must consider which analogy is more appropriate. I will leave it to you to attempt to convince anyone that a human is more like a rock than a computer or painting.
It's our natural instinct to procreate but we often choose not to.
Very true, but why is that? Many would contend that it is tied in to the issue of morality. You have not answered the question or addressed my point.
Can you explain how evolutionarily mandated morality moves us to "ought?" Evolution can describe how we behave, but it cannot prescribe how we should behave. That is the question of morality – not what we do, but what should we do.
E.O. Wilson has done extensive research on animals and how they behave in a social manner. He saw how ants behaved in a social manner and they applied that to humans. Only problem? Those ants never make a choice to behave otherwise. No worker ant decides to overthrowing the queen ant. Humans continually act contrary to the social good or even their own personal good.
We have numerous natural instincts like eating and sex. If morality is just another instinct like those, then what judges between all the instincts? Why should I listen to the moral instinct instead of the sex instinct? Why should I listen to the moral instinct instead of the eat instinct?
If morality is entirely evolutionary, then what choice do I have and responsibility do I have for those choices? If it is totally a matter of the way I evolved, then I should bare no responsibility for it. I'm merely acting the way evolution has made me. The lion is not responsible for eating the gazelle. Why should the rapest be responsible for following one natural instinct over the other?
The people who say this are pulling this out of their butt. They actually have zero knowledge, zero facts, zero evidence.'
Two things. Actually, no there is philosophical and logical reasoning behind the idea that God is eternal. Secondly, that has nothing to do with the objection.
The theistic argument for a Creator says "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." The question becomes do you agree with that or not? The next premise is "The universe began to exist." Do you agree with that? The last premise is "The universe has a cause?" Do you agree with that? Now the question becomes what could have caused the existence of both time and space? Logically, only something that existed previous outside of both time and space, since they just were caused to exist. What exists outside of time and space? Theist say that something is God.
The cute, smarmy atheist response is not to address any of the premises, but rather to ask "Well then, who caused God?" My point is that the postulated God does not require a cause according to premise 1 because he does not begin to exist. He exists eternally outside of time and space. I'm not saying that is a proven fact. I'm stating that is logically the case from the argument and it is consistent with the tenets of monotheistic religions (which again do not make it true in and of itself).
Well, provide some then. I assume you'll go with the teleological argument once more and then argue how Jesus' resurrection is historical fact, etc, etc, etc.
When you refute the ones I given, I'll be happy to give you some more. ;) I could discuss the teleological issue and how the 250, at least, variables present in our universe are intricately fine tuned and balanced on a razors edge, just perfect for life to exist. That raises the question of if you are standing in front of an expertly trained firing squad poised to issue execution and you hear them yell "Fire" and you hear the bullets fire, but you find yourself still alive – what would be more logically to assume: all the members of the firing squad just happened to miss or there was some larger reason, a choice, at play behind the actions. It is not that any of this would prove a Creator or anything else. It is simply that it makes it logical acceptable to hold to the premise of a Creator and often the case that it makes it more logical to hold to that premise than to do otherwise.
Present your evidence then. I just have a feeling that such a discussion will turn out very close to what Robin caricatured.
Once again, we get to my objection from the post. I present argumentation for my beliefs. You reject it as being acceptable, often with little more than an "LOL" or some other quip [Judge]. Then you decide that since I have no evidence, God must not exist [Jury]. It's easy to win discussions that way. That is circular reason at its finest. "I say your evidence is not good enough to be accepted as evidence. I dismiss your claim because you have no acceptable evidence." You have no evidence because I say so. I say your argument is bad because you have no evidence.
I'm not living in a glass house. I've never said you have no evidence for your claims. I've said I agree with much of your evidence, but I have a different interpretation of the data. In this discussion here, no positive evidence has been presented for atheism. So how have I displayed the same type of a priori rejection? All that has been done here is the attacking of over-simplified, at best, theistic philosophical arguments. I would love to discuss any of the merits of any of the arguments I've brought up. I'm just waiting on someone to actually respond to them and not their own caricature of my arguments.
"They (religious myths) are not in history books because they are not history."
Exactly so. I don't want to single out Christianity here. This applies to the Koran, The Book of Mormon, The Iliad, etc., as well. They can weave history into myth. For example, the existence of Troy as a city is factual. However, only a devote of ancient Greek religion would truly believe the gods took sides in the war largely because Paris thought Helen, a mortal, was more beautiful then Hera or Athena. The point being, only Christians believe their miracles to be historical. No one else does. Only Mormons believe their accounts of Jesus in America to be historical. No one else does.
"You are begging the question by saying that anything that contains supernatural must be legendary."
Straw man. I said no such thing.
"Those who deny that account, must provide an alternative that explains the empty tomb…"
I was spot on. :) Didn't I just say, "I assume you'll go with the teleological argument once more and then argue how Jesus' resurrection is historical fact, etc, etc, etc." Even if we assume that Jesus' tomb was empty, what does that prove? That Jesus was resurrected? That is one possibility but there are other possibilities as well.
Aaron, please check this out: Sword in a Field
That's the point I'm trying to make. As far as debating the nuts and bolts of the historicity of the claim, I'm not really that interested in the subject matter. I did read an argument by William Lane Craig about this as well as a rebuttal. You may find this more interesting than I did: Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story
"I agreed that a supernatural cause does not and should not be considered for every event. I am speaking of only one specific example – the universe."
Why is this an exception? You know your physics right? What did the big bang come from? The universe, everything, was compressed into a singularity right? In that state, time didn't exist. Space didn't exist. You know, the whole space time thing from Einstein? That didn't exist. So in that state where there is no such thing as time, is the universe eternal?
"… as it compares the same to something (a rock) we know is not designed."
Do we really KNOW that Aaron? Isn't it the Christian belief that God designed everything from every simple rock, to every snowflake, to every person. If God didn't design that rock, who did? An atheist would say, no one. How would a Christian answer?
Sometimes I get the feeling that you view these logical conundrums as little tests of faith that non-believers throw at you. Do you really think hard enough about these points for them to raise any questions in your mind or do you think any doubting God is sinful? If you think that your doubting God is sinful, isn't that itself kind of a circular rational for not having doubts about your God. Any discussion with such a person would be pointless. What could they learn except nothing? I mean, Paley's watchmaker analogy is just plain bad. Do you recognize it as such or do you think it's just super?
"It's our natural instinct to procreate but we often choose not to.
Very true, but why is that?"
Why? Personal reasons. Some people just don't want to have a baby so they use birth control.
We talked about this. Remember our last discussion about Hume and "is" "ought?" I refer you to that.
"E.O. Wilson has done extensive research on animals…"
Isn't he the pastor who was touring with Hitchens? He's not an authority if you are presenting him as such.
"If morality is just another instinct like those, then what judges between all the instincts?"
Aaron, do me a favor. Can you provide a synopsis of my position about morality that I painstakingly laid out for you the last time we spoke? What is my position and how does it compare to what you present here? Do I really hold that "morality is just another instinct" or is that a caricature?
"The lion is not responsible for eating the gazelle. Why should the rapest be responsible for following one natural instinct over the other?"
That, my friend, is just sad. I laughed at first but then I thought to myself this might actually be what you think. When I think about that, it's depressing.
"When you refute the ones I given, I'll be happy to give you some more. ;) "
In my view, you haven't provided any evidence that is worth refuting. So far it's the empty tomb argument. Again, so what? What about the sword in the field? Explain that! LOL!
"Then you decide that since I have no evidence, God must not exist [Jury]."
Nope, just that it's very improbable. Remember what we talked about? This makes the sentences after the one I quoted "blah, blah, blah."
"I'm not living in a glass house."
You ARE throwing stones when you chastise Robin for using a straw man. You've done it as well. So have I. [mumbles]: But not as often as you. :)
"I've never said you have no evidence for your claims. I've said I agree with much of your evidence…"
I have no evidence. No data. That's why I DON'T assert the non-existence of God or even the supernatural, for that matter. You, however, assert that God does exist. That's your claim. Is it not? I made no claim about that because it's a poor argument to do so. I mean, "What can be asserted with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence."
******************
Separate topic: since we last spoke, I've thought about what I said to you about how your going to seminary is a waste of time. In retrospect, it would be easy to take it the wrong way. I was not trying to be insulting. It's what I honestly think. To clarify, I am not impugning the rigor of your degree. I'm sure it's a lot of studying and hard work. I say you are wasting your time in the same way you would think a Mormon who is rigorously studying The Book of Mormon and Jesus' exploits in North America is a waste of time. I question the whole premise of such an education as you would a Mormon's. I read the post about it on your blog and you made it seem like I was questioning the rigor of your degree and not the premise of it. I refrained from commenting there because it seemed to me the blog is more for personal thoughts than a place to discuss or debate. I do that here. :)
Anyway, if you think I missed some of your points, it wasn't intentional. These posts get real long real fast so I do try to be discerning. If I missed anything that you think is important, let me know and I'll respond.
Don't assume too much. That was a cartoon atheist and a cartoon evangelist, not you and me personally.
My little dialog's moral was "Just because your arguments get shot down doesn't mean you're being thoughtlessly dismissed. You may just have weak arguments."
Me either. I've only encountered the argument from the Shroud twice, from Christians unschooled in apologetics or philosophy. And you're right, it's out of character for even a cartoon evangelist acquainted with teleological, ontological, and moral arguments to lead with that.
I'm glad you recognized those common arguments I reduced to simplified ten-word-or-less minatures, but I didn't mean for you to try to defend them.
"Look at the trees!" represents another unsophisticated argument I occasionally hear from people who haven't given the matter much thought: "Look at the trees! Look at the flowers! Look at the clouds! Isn't that all the evidence of God you need?" Or to put it more articulately, "Nature exists, therefore God exists." (Also unworthy of the evangelist in my little dialog.)
As to your defenses, I don't have a lot to add to Cineaste's rejoinders.
Of course they do. How long did it take Marshal Applewhite, Jim Jones, or David Koresh to become messiahs? Or to take an even more legendary figure, the John Frum cargo cult sprang up during World War II, and there are still cultists awaiting his return to this day in Vanuatu.
What's so impossible about infinity? There's an infinity between any two points in space you can name. Actual infinities are everywhere.
Let's assume the atheist defined the Perfect Butler as a butler who can hear any request from anyone anywhere and can instantly fulfill it, who has existence as one of his perfect attributes.
We can pretend anything into existence that way: A unicorn is a magic one-horned horse that totally exists. Therefore, unicorns exist! Yay!
Good points and good discussion. I will definitely respond to them. I'm enjoying this! I've got three finals next week, so I may or may not get to respond before Wednesday. But I will definitely respond. Talk to you soon
It seems to me that there are at least two types of knowing on display here: rational argument and revelation (I do think there are others – like love – but they aren't at issue here). It's clear that these are two avenues which may parallel each other, but which don't intersect at any obvious point – which is why you guys continue to argue past each other. Revelation is a matter of faith which, though it may have its rational points, is based mainly on some sort of divine revelation. Now, the rationalist (Cineaste, Robin) will, of course, dismiss revelation as superstition or, at least, something not supported by evidence or reason. But that's the point, isn't it? The rationalist demands that revelation conform to its standards of judgment and knowing when the very point of revelation is that it is knowing which bypasses the rational faculty. Just because the rationalist doesn't accept this "supernatural" form of knowing doesn't automatically mean that divine revelation is wrong, just that it doesn't conform to rules of logic or the presentation of evidence. It has its own logic. The same is true from the opposite direction
I think it's a mistake for the religiously-minded person to accept the rules that the rationalist demands. Just say, I accept it because I believe it is true revelation – I have been touched by God directly, or I know with my heart it's true. That's all that's necessary. The same goes for the rationalist: he can state that he doesn't accept divine revelation, that reason and logic are more compelling. At that point (the point we see above), paths diverge and each side talks past the other to their increasing frustration.
For those of us who cannot accept either avenue there are other forms of knowing (including the possibility that we can't "know" anything for certain – an attack on both avenues). The rest is silence.
What do you say to people who think that it's revealed knowledge that gays are morally repugnant and shouldn't be treated as the equals of heterosexuals? Don't pretend like these are separate but equal avenues to knowledge. At least with rationality, you can argue the point. That's not so with revelation.
I think it's a mistake for a member of Heaven's Gate to accept the rules that the rationalist demands. Just say, I accept it because I believe it is true revelation – I have been touched by Do [Marshall Applewhite] directly, or I know with my heart it's true. That's all that's necessary.
Now lace up your Nikes and eat your applesauce, we're going to Hale-Bopp!
That's a good question.
I know my senses aren't fully reliable. One morning after having been up all night, I was walking through my unlit living room, and glimpsed my sister's dog out of the corner of my eye. Wait, that can't be right, interrupted my brain, you sister's dog lives with her in Oregon. I turned to look, and realized I'd seen a beige footstool of similar height and color. My sleep-deprived brain's pattern-matching had misfired.
(I do miss that dog.)
Millennia ago, such premature pattern matching may have saved some half-asleep australopithecine ancestor of mine in the steppes, glimpsing a tawny shape through the trees and filling in a lion. Evolution might have optomized my brain to jump to conclusions in some circumstances. On the other hand, it's obvious how natural selection would favor creatures with brains capable of logic over their brethren with brains incapable of logic, since those with brains unsuited to logic would tend to be less successful at passing on their genes.
The footstool incident illustrates that I can't be 100% confident in what my senses are telling me, and should be prepared to disregard them in light of new evidence. Fortunately, at the time, my mind did a good job of processing logic. Past experience suggests to me that I can have a high degree of confidence in my mind's logic processing abilities.
"But wait," you might cry, "you're using your mind to evaluate the reliability of your mind. That's presupposing that your mind is reliable!" No, it's not. Imagine an addle-minded person (maybe they were a habitual drug user) in a lucid moment used their mind's logic to assess their mind's track record and concluded their mind was unreliable. It'd be paradoxical to assert that their conclusion that their mind is unreliable presupposes that their mind is reliable.
However, I recognize the circularity. The solution isn't to give up and take it on blind faith that my mind works, it's to answer the question with whatever faculties I can bring to bear. If I had another tool I could use to evaluate the reliability my mind, I'd use that instead. But since there's nothing else I could possibly use, I have to make my best effort with the mind I've got.
Note, I didn't try to argue that these are "separate but equal" methods to true knowledge, just different and incompatible. I was merely trying to illuminate why you guys continue to argue to no avail: your methods of investigating and knowing reality are so different as to be mutually exclusive. I, myself, do not accept revelation at any point, but I do see where the religionist might. I do think reason is a better avenue for assessing reality, but it is not the last word as Robin has stated. For instance, can you rationally prove why you love someone? Rationalism has its limits too.
Lots of comments, I don't want to write a book in response so I'll pick out what seems like the most potent arguments. If I miss some that you feel were especially important, please let me know.
The point being, only Christians believe their miracles to be historical. No one else does.
If that was the case, does that necessitate them being false? Actually members of other religions also believe in the historicity of some Christian miracles, but none of that makes them false or true by itself.
There have been numerous instances were history has had to be revised because we learned later that something which seemed impossible was actually the case. Again, none of that speaks directly to the Christian testimony, but it does negate some what your assertion that we should not believe the miracles because they are not in history books. (One could argue that if you go back far enough, you could find history books that did speak of the Resurrection as fact because the realm of academia and text book authors was controlled by Christians. That is no longer the case.)
Even if we assume that Jesus' tomb was empty, what does that prove? That Jesus was resurrected? That is one possibility but there are other possibilities as well.
Very much so, I agree. What are some of the other possibilities? Swoon theory, conspiracy theory, hallucinations, wrong tomb theory. Those are the ones I know of off the top of my head. Which one of those explains the empty tomb, the postmortem appearances and the emergence of the Christian faith?
The video you linked to is a perfect example of giving numerous possibilities for an entirely natural event. But you will have to admit that is a bit more going on with a empty tomb and a proclaimed resurrection than someone finding a sword in the field and accrediting it to God. Surely, both can be attributed to deity with no real evidence, but one happens all the time. The other is a bit more rare.
So in that state where there is no such thing as time, is the universe eternal?
OK so we have the singularity. Where did it come from? That's my question. You side step a little speaking around the issue of time. You are speaking as if someone could be outside the singularity and observe it existing outside of time and therefore be "eternal." There is no outside vantage point, unless you want to allow for the supernatural. That's all that could exist outside of the natural, which was all bound into that one point.
But physicists are not arguing those semantics. They are trying to get around a beginning point by proposing all kinds of theories from a Universe Generator, which simply cranks out universes somehow, to all sorts of other wild theories with no real evidence. We can go through all those one by one if you'd like, but it boils down simply to "where did the original singularity come from?"
Isn't it the Christian belief that God designed everything from every simple rock, to every snowflake, to every person?
The Christian position would be that God designed the processes that naturally create the rocks, snowflakes and humans. The issue of people would move a step farther in that the natural process is used for the making of the human being, but then it enters into a discussion about consciousness and the soul.
But the simple answer to your question is: No, I don't pick up a rock and say, "Wow look at this rock God made by hand." Simply because the theist allows for the supernatural does not mean that they do not allow for the natural. We have room for both types of causes and more often than not it will simply be the natural cause.
Sometimes I get the feeling that you view these logical conundrums as little tests of faith that non-believers throw at you. Do you really think hard enough about these points for them to raise any questions in your mind or do you think any doubting God is sinful?
Let me answer the question myself before you start assaulting what you think might be my answer.
No, I do not think doubts are sinful. The way my mind works I want answers. I see that as the way God programmed me. I've been through entire periods of doubt in my life. I have doubts on different things on a regular basis.
Do some Christians view doubts as sinful? I think they do. Some respond to questions with, "You just need more faith." That never satisfied me. It's why I'm in the field of theology I am in.
I do think about the arguments given here. Some are really well thought out. Some have challenged my perspective on issues. Some have caused me to rethink my positions. None have caused me to disregard my faith in Christ. It goes to a larger point that Louis raises, which I'll get to later.
I guess I could flip it for you, do you ever doubt your belief system? Do you view Christian arguments and rationale as little more than the rantings and ravings of Joan of Arc in the jail cell?
That, my friend, is just sad. I laughed at first but then I thought to myself this might actually be what you think.
That's not what I think about rape or even what I accuse Darwinian evolutionists of thinking about rape. That's what many have said themselves. I would not even begin to think anyone would make that type of argument, but they have. Remember the controversy over the book "A Natural History of Rape."
To your closing comment, I appreciate clarifying your stance. It's a difference in how we would communicate it. If I used the same standard of "waste of time," I would call degrees from BYU that. But again, I would also do the same to degrees that have their foundation on any other faulty (from my perspective) perspectives be it atheism, naturalism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. But I don't hold to that standard and would not call them such.
As to my other blog: feel free to comment. It is a bit different than here. It is more personal and wrote more specifically toward a Christian audience, but I have no problem with you or anyone else commenting there regardless of your perspective.
Robin:
How long did it take Marshal Applewhite, Jim Jones, or David Koresh to become messiahs?
We are talking apples and oranges. People can gather followers who believe them to be a messiah. That's not the issue. A comparable status would be if today, people claimed that Koresh came back to life after that fire and his followers were still preaching him as messiah and they were spreading across the nation despite persecution to the point of death.
What's so impossible about infinity? There's an infinity between any two points in space you can name. Actual infinities are everywhere.
Those are not actual infinities. Those are probable infinities. Sure you could take any distance and perpetually divide it into halves, but that is not the type of infinite I am speaking of.
Think of a hotel with an infinite number of rooms with an infinite number of guests. If one more person came, would they have room? Of course, there is an infinite number of rooms. An actual infinite brings about absurdities.
If the universe has had an infinite regress of events as part of the past, then it would have been impossible to arrive at this present moment. It is impossible to count from 0 to infinity. How much more absurd would it be to count down from infinity to 0 (present moment)?
Let's assume the atheist defined the Perfect Butler as a butler who can hear any request from anyone anywhere and can instantly fulfill it, who has existence as one of his perfect attributes.
Again, I don't want to defend the argument because I don't use it, but …
It's not about how you are I define anything. It's about the issue or being being discussed. When you speak of "being which nothing greater can be conceived" it is different than simply speaking of a perfect island or perfect butler. Anslem argued that the being which you conceive would not be the greatest unless it existed because existence is greater than non-existence. Again, that's as much time as I want to spend on the argument because I don't use it. At best, it's too philosophical, complex and prone to misunderstanding.
But since there's nothing else I could possibly use, I have to make my best effort with the mind I've got.
Most take that path. Some go the route of giving up. There is nothing within the naturalistic system to say one should not give up all hope of ever knowing anything because there is no real reason to think that our senses and our mind is functioning properly.
There is a different way. If our senses and our mind were designed with the purpose of properly receiving and interpreting data, we could trust them much more than we could if we arrived at our present state by a blind, random, purposeless process.
Louis:
William Lane Craig speaks of the difference for a Christian between knowing and showing. He says the Christian can know Christianity to be true based on revelation, based on the Christian doctrine known as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. However, moving outside of the individual one must transition to showing by use of reason.
It is not that I do not accept reason as a means to knowledge. It is that, as you say, reason cannot and does not explain everything. Again, as you say, it has its limits.
"I was merely trying to illuminate why you guys continue to argue to no avail: your methods of investigating and knowing reality are so different as to be mutually exclusive."
Well, that's the thing. Faith is not a method of knowing or investigating reality. Faith is simply believing something without compelling evidence. Faith is just the opposite of what you said. Why do theists even bother with the pretense of rationality instead of just admitting, "I have no evidence for my beliefs, I just know it in my heart." I might also add that one can also just know in their heart that Allah is God or that Jesus came to America.
"For instance, can you rationally prove why you love someone? Rationalism has its limits too."
Love is also not a way of knowing or investigating reality.
Christian myths don't appear in history books because they are not historical.
As I said, previously Biblical events were in history books. What changed? For starters, academia transitioned from an entirely Christian enterprise to a decidedly anti-Christian realm. Therefore those that wrote history books moved from being Christians to not being Christians. That certainly has a barring on what becomes part of textbooks.
Secondly, the Enlightenment succeeded in dividing faith and reason, religion and science, for the majority of the populace when previously no such division was present. That removed ideas and events that were considered religious from textbooks which were considered scientific. [Personal opinion: I don't want a teacher in public school teaching on the resurrection. They should mention Jesus and the birth/growth of Christianity as that is one of the largest influences on Western Civilization. They should mention what Christianity believes about Jesus. They should also talk about the birth and growths of other major religions and the major tenets of them as well, always leaving room for those who hold to those faiths discussed to not feel attacked.]
A sword in a field has about as many natural explanations as an empty tomb would have.
Again, very true as I have said, but the empty tomb must be considered with the other historical facts surrounding the resurrection claims – followers of Jesus claim to have saw him after his death, even adversaries of the new sect admitted the tomb was empty, Christianity exploded and taught from its earliest point that Jesus was God and was resurrected from the dead.
Wrong. According to the Bible, divine resurrections happened for more often than divine swords in fields.
So for at least 4,000 years of recorded biblical history, we have nine instances of someone being resurrected (10 if you count Jesus). You wouldn't count 1 occurrence every 400 years as "rare." You also believe that resurrections occur more often than someone finds a sword in a field? That seems a bit of stretch to me.
It's eternal so it's like asking where did God come from. God always existed. The singularity always existed.
Is that your position on the singularity? That it is eternal. I do not want to waste my time discussing that proposition if you are merely throwing things out there that you do not believe. If you hold to that position, I will gladly discuss that with you.
You said, "… as it compares the same to something (a rock) we know is not designed." Explain to me again how we know this?
It bears no characteristics of design. Let me ask you a similar (reverse) question, how do you know that a computer is designed? What causes your mind to look at it and assume it is the product of design?
As an aside: I'm really not sure where you are going with this argument, as I know for certain you do not believe rocks to be designed. I'm wondering why you are trying to attribute an opinion to me and cause me to defend it when I do not hold to it.
Give 3 short examples of your perspectives and positions that have actually changed from arguments here.
From early on, dealing with Louis (and others) on the issue of homosexuality has caused me to re-evaluate the way I speak of related issues and the people involved. With my cultural milieu, it was easy to not think of the issues in terms of individuals on the other side who were created in the image of God and who deserve love and respect. It was easy to simply talk about sin without speaking of grace. It was easy to focus on the sin of those which were "other" and not on the sin of those which are "us."
There have been other instances, mainly politically, were I have said something. You or someone else challenged it, so I went and researched it and found out my source for the information was wrong or at least biased in some way.
I think back to our discussion on the burning building and the embryos. It did not change my opinion, but made me think through my position more clearly and thoroughly.
Again, there have been numerous discussions here that have shaped who I am now and have made this man different than the one I was when I first started our interactions.
You did not answer my similar question to you. Do you hold the same opinions about the same issues as you did when you first began interacting here?
Have you ever heard of Russell, Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, et al. say that? No?
Those four? Not that I can recall. But I think part of that is them stopping short on living out their worldview to its logical conclusion. They will hold to a contradiction in order to avoid following naturalistic atheism to its natural end. Others are much more honest about where it leads like Nietzsche and Singer.
One can argue which one more rightly deserves the mantle, but one cannot say that no one argues that way or it is some kind of "misinformation from theology school."
Well, first, they don't give out degrees for atheism or naturalism, as far as I'm aware of, so that kind of makes you calling them a "waste of time" a moot point, yes?
You are continually missing my point here. I'm not concerned with the field of subject it says on the degree. I'm speaking of the philosophical underpinnings of the degree program and the professors who teach it. Your degree may be in English, but if you learn that from people with a faulty worldview then, if I used your previous standard, I would call it a "waste of time."
However, I would not and do not say that. If someone puts forth the effort to obtain a degree from BYU or Atheist U (Yes, I know that's not a real place), I would not call it a waste of time. They have pursued an advanced degree and have better themselves through education. I will disagree with much of what they were taught, but I would not call it a waste of time. That is to degrading and dismissive in my opinion.
"For starters, academia transitioned from an entirely Christian enterprise to a decidedly anti-Christian realm. Secondly, the Enlightenment succeeded in dividing faith and reason, religion and science, for the majority of the populace when previously no such division was present. That removed ideas and events that were considered religious from textbooks which were considered scientific. "
People moved away from a state of ignorance after becoming educated through science and reason. It was religious doctrine that the stars and planets revolved around the Earth. Science showed that no, the Earth actually revolved around the Sun. The faithful held their position out of ignorance. Galileo was branded a heretic. Since the enlightenment, it is Secularism that has grown the most and influenced Western civilization the most, including The United States. Creationists essentially learn the equivalent of the stars orbiting the Earth. Sad! So, this shift away from faith based thinking is a very good thing.
"Christianity exploded and taught from its earliest point that Jesus was God and was resurrected from the dead."
So what? Islam exploded and taught from it's earliest point that Muhammad rode a winged horse to Heaven. Both of these things sound crazy.
"So for at least 4,000 years of recorded biblical history, we have nine instances of someone being resurrected (10 if you count Jesus)."
Well no, that's only what a quick Google search turned up. I thought there was one where a whole cemetery full of people got raised. You'd know more about that then I. Was it Matthew 27:51-53 or some other mass resurrection of a bunch of people at once? Wiki Answers said there are 33 accounts of resurrection in the Bible but it didn't list them. How many are there then, Aaron? Anyway, ya, it does seem like a common occurrence in Christian mythology. There are examples of resurrections in many other religions as well.
"You also believe that resurrections occur more often than someone finds a sword in a field? That seems a bit of stretch to me."
Oh, to be sure! However, you neglected to mention that the sword in the field was viewed as a sign from god by Joan of Arc in "The Messenger." It would be kind of stupid to actually hold a position that finding a sword in a field is more common place than a resurrection, something that I believe has never happened even once. Just to make it clear, I think what you wrote about my beliefs is quite stupid and I actually do not believe what you attributed to me. On the contrary, that means I believe in at least 9 fewer resurrections than you do. :) It all comes down to the interpretation. One can interpret an empty tomb as evidence of a resurrection just as easily as Joan interpreted a sword in a field as a divine sign. And, who knows? Maybe that really happened and maybe it was. Same with your > than or = to 9 resurrections.
"Is that your position on the singularity? That it is eternal."
Do you have a better word to describe the state of the universe before time and space began with The Big Bang?
"It (a rock) bears no characteristics of design."
Please enlighten me as to exactly what characteristics of design you are referring to? How do you actually know it wasn't designed. How do you know snowflakes are not designed? They all have structures and they are all unique. You said that you know these things weren't designed. I just want to know how you know this?
"Let me ask you a similar (reverse) question, how do you know that a computer is designed?"
Because I already know people make them.
"I'm wondering why you are trying to attribute an opinion to me and cause me to defend it when I do not hold to it."
Clarify? What are you talking about? I only asked questions.
"…on the issue of homosexuality has caused me to re-evaluate the way I speak of related issues and the people involved."
But you haven't changed your position on the matter? Louis' orientation is a sin?
"I think back to our discussion on the burning building and the embryos. It did not change my opinion, but made me think through my position more clearly and thoroughly."
Okay. You and Seeker are different in that respect. I remember that talk as well.
"Do you hold the same opinions about the same issues as you did when you first began interacting here?"
Aaron, when I first came here I thought of myself as an agnostic. You Christians made an atheist out of me LOL! The process of actually writing down my thoughts in the form of reasoned argument functioned a lot like a crucible where impurities were burned away and my beliefs became crystallized.
"But I think part of that is them stopping short on living out their worldview to its logical conclusion."
Which is? (This should be entertaining)
"I would not call it a waste of time. That is to degrading and dismissive in my opinion."
I asked, "So, would you call Mormons studying Jesus' exploits in America "a waste of time?" No?" and that's your answer? You think they are teaching factual BS yet you think it's "degrading" and "dismissive" to tell them the truth? For you, I think it would be more degrading and dismissive not to to tell them the truth, "In point of fact, Jesus didn't come to America." Why respect their delusion or ignorance? Is pointing out reality "degrading" and "dismissive?" I think you'd be doing them a favor. Of course, if they are devout Mormons, there's almost no chance you'd get through to them anyway. You can't reason with someone's religion.
People moved away from a state of ignorance after becoming educated through science and reason.
Spoken like a true child of the enlightenment and modernity. ;)
It was religious doctrine that the stars and planets revolved around the Earth.
At best, it was a religious opinion, not a biblical one, and one that had been around before Christ.
The faithful held their position out of ignorance. Galileo was branded a heretic.
The actual story of Galileo is a bit more complicated than that with various factors leading to the final conflict.
In fact, if you look back at Copernicus and his developing and publishing his heliocentric theory, you find that he received support from both Rome and the new Protestant churches. That doesn't fit the Enlightenment narrative of evil, anti-science church vs. progress focused science.
So, this shift away from faith based thinking is a very good thing.
So your position is that our current culture is better as religious or faith influences are removed? Current US culture > previous US culture? Current US culture > Indian, South American or African cultures, which place a higher priority on religious ideas?
So what? Islam exploded and taught from it's earliest point that Muhammad rode a winged horse to Heaven.
True, but compare the situations. How did Islam expand? How did Christian expand? Is a trip to heaven on a horse falsifiable? Is a body permanently resurrected falsifiable?
There is nothing I can show a Muslim that would disprove Muhammad's trip. The critics of Christianity could have ended the whole thing if they produced a body.
My point is that an explanation for the empty tomb has to explain it along with the reports of post resurrection appearances and the development and growth of the Christian faith.
Islam grew among people that were nominally religious and others that were polytheists. Christianity began among deeply religious monotheistic Jews. Those who converted to Islam did so on pain of death or promise of being part of the conquering herd. Those who converted to Christianity did so with the promise of persecution up to death. There was nothing physical, worldly to be gained from conversion apart from relationships with other outcasts.
I can understand why the first Muslims followed Muhammad. They weren't really leaving a deep religious connection they had possessed as a people for their entire history. They could use the new faith as a means to conquer lands and people. There was much to be gained from following Islam.
I cannot understand why the first Christians followed a martyred Jesus (unless there was something beyond the natural). Deeply, monotheistic Jews shifted to proclaiming a man executed as a Roman criminal as God. In accepting this new faith, they would suffer persecution from the Jewish authorities for starters and later on the entire Roman government. All of this with a very pacifist attitude.
Those are very different beginnings. That does not automatically make one true and the other false, but one is easily explained by natural reasons. The other? Not as much.
Wiki Answers said there are 33 accounts of resurrection in the Bible but it didn't list them. How many are there then, Aaron?
Good question. I've never sat down to count them. However, even if we take the 33 accounts – that means you have 1 every 121 years. That is ignoring the theological placement of the resurrections in the Bible. (That is they occur primarily during the periods when God is revealing more of Himself and His message, especially during the age of the prophets and the time of Christ/early church.)
I still don't think that's not very often, but that's not really the point.
However, you neglected to mention that the sword in the field was viewed as a sign from god by Joan of Arc in "The Messenger."
Yes, but there is no testable way to discuss how many times people would find a sword in the field and claim it to be divine. That seems to be a fairly specific issue and definitely hard to measure.
A resurrection is something that can be tested and seen. Seeing something divine in a naturally explainable phenomenon is something that cannot be tested or seen. Apples and oranges.
Just to make it clear, I think what you wrote about my beliefs is quite stupid and I actually do not believe what you attributed to me.
Very true. I apologize for misstating your position. I should have said, "You also believe that reports of resurrections occur more often than someone finds a sword in a field?" But maybe even that is not a fair restatement.
But again, my point is that the comparison is not valid. One is an untestable, personal experience attributing divine motives to an action that is easily explained by natural reasons. The other is a falsifiable, public experience that, if true, would only have a supernatural explanation.
Would you not agree that those are different things?
Do you have a better word to describe the state of the universe before time and space began with The Big Bang?
Yes. Nonexistent. ;)
Here's my question, if the singularity existed in an eternal state as the singularity, what caused it to explode into the current state of the universe?
[I'm not asking this as a means to say the "cause" is God. I'm asking to discern your specific position on this.]
Because I already know people make them.
So that is that the determining factor for design? Obviously, if we know people design something, then that solves the question for us. But how do we know something is designed if we did not know the process? What if we found something on another planet, what would signal that it was intentionally designed versus naturally, randomly made?
Clarify? What are you talking about?
The issue of a rock being intentionally designed. It seems as if we are operating on the idea that I believe that to be the case.
But you haven't changed your position on the matter? Louis' orientation is a sin?
Two things. No, I have not changed my entire position on the matter. Secondly, I have never believed or said that Louis' orientation is a sin. An "orientation" cannot be sinful. All of us have a orientation to sin, but that does not mean we are in sin because of that inclination. Sin comes when we behave or think in ways that are contrary to the revealed will of God.
The process of actually writing down my thoughts in the form of reasoned argument functioned a lot like a crucible where impurities were burned away and my beliefs became crystallized.
So … would I have been wrong if I said that our interaction here had brought no real, positive (from your perspective) change in my behavior or beliefs? Would that make me a fundamentalist?
Which is?
I already said, "Others are much more honest about where it leads like Nietzsche and Singer."
I believe that nihilism, an elimination of free will and a devaluation of human life to being on par with other life is the logical conclusion of atheistic naturalism.
You think they are teaching factual BS yet you think it's "degrading" and "dismissive" to tell them the truth?
That's not a fair representation of what I said. I said it is dismissive to say that their pursuing a degree is a waste of time. I have no problem telling a Mormon or an atheist that I disagree with their worldview. I do have a problem with telling them a degree pursued with that belief as a foundation is a waste of time.
Of course, if they are devout Mormons, there's almost no chance you'd get through to them anyway. You can't reason with someone's religion.
That's actually not true. There are many people who are former Mormons, many are now Christians. In my Hebrew class, there was a girl who used to be a Mormon. The majority of her family still is. There are people who used to be Muslim and are now Christians, including the son of the founder of the Islamic terrorist group Hamas.
"I said it is dismissive to say that their pursuing a degree is a waste of time."
What you actually said is, and I quote, "I will disagree with much of what they were taught, but I would not call it a waste of time."
You are not talking about a difference of opinion here. It is a flat fact the Jesus didn't come to America, correct? If someone is learning something that you KNOW for a fact is not true, why isn't studying a falsehood a waste of time?
"That's actually not true. There are many people who are former Mormons, many are now Christians."
It is true. If someone has already made up their mind that Jesus came to America, there is no way one can reason with them about that. When I say religious, I'm speaking about devout followers like yourself. There is no argument that can be made that would convince you that Jesus wasn't resurrected and is not divine. You can't be reasoned with about that because you won't allow it.
Also, why don't you mention the former Christians who have turned away from Christianity? Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former Muslim turned atheist. Non-believers are growing in number faster than Christianity in the United States.
"In fact, if you look back at Copernicus and his developing and publishing his heliocentric theory, you find that he received support from both Rome and the new Protestant churches. That doesn't fit the Enlightenment narrative of evil, anti-science church vs. progress focused science."
No, it was Christian doctrine and heliocentrism was heresy according to the church. That's just a fact. A fact you need to learn to accept no matter how much it conflicts with what you have been taught about that history. In fact, it was only on May 22, 500 years late, that the church finally gave in and buried Copernicus as a hero. He was buried in an unmarked grave before. I give the church credit for doing this but it is a bit late, no?
"So your position is that our current culture is better as religious or faith influences are removed?"
When faith conflicts with fact, like creationism vs. evolution, yes, we are better for it if things like creationism are removed. Creationism is a lie and lies should not be propagated.
"Is a trip to heaven on a horse falsifiable? Is a body permanently resurrected falsifiable?"
[boggles] Neither are falsifiable. Neither are verifiable. Never mind permanently resurrected, just show me a temporarily resurrected person. LOL!
"My point is that an explanation for the empty tomb has to explain it along with the reports of post resurrection appearances and the development and growth of the Christian faith."
First, the rapid development and growth of Christianity means absolutely jack squat. "How long did it take Marshal Applewhite, Jim Jones, or David Koresh to become messiahs? Or to take an even more legendary figure, the John Frum cargo cult sprang up during World War II, and there are still cultists awaiting his return to this day in Vanuatu." – Robin Lionheart
Second, the only people who believe the reports of Jesus' resurrection are a matter of history are Christians themselves. Don't conflate your religious beliefs with history.
"I still don't think that's not very often, but that's not really the point."
1 resurrection every 121 years? Did you factor in the hundreds or thousands of saints raised at once in Matthew 27:51-53? That makes the ratio what? 1 resurrection per year? Seems pretty commonplace. Too bad they don't actually happen outside of your fictional, I mean "holy" book. Come on Aaron, are you going to tell me you believe in every single one of these resurrections? Did they all have witnesses too?
"Seeing something divine in a naturally explainable phenomenon is something that cannot be tested or seen. Apples and oranges."
ROTFLMAO! An empty tomb is the perfect description of "Seeing something divine in a naturally explainable phenomenon." That was the very point I made with the Joan of Arc clip.
"The other is a falsifiable, public experience that, if true, would only have a supernatural explanation."
Like seeing the leprechaun at the end of the rainbow. :)
"…if the singularity existed in an eternal state as the singularity, what caused it to explode into the current state of the universe?"
Unknown. But I know it wasn't a case of something coming from nothing.
"What if we found something on another planet, what would signal that it was intentionally designed versus naturally, randomly made?"
I don't know. But you said that you did know. You said, "It (a rock) bears no characteristics of design." I asked you first.
Please enlighten me as to exactly what characteristics of design you are referring to? How do you actually know it wasn't designed. How do you know snowflakes are not designed? They all have structures and they are all unique. You said that you know these things weren't designed. I just want to know how you know this?
"The issue of a rock being intentionally designed. It seems as if we are operating on the idea that I believe that to be the case."
You asked me, "I'm wondering why you are trying to attribute an opinion to me and cause me to defend it when I do not hold to it." Again, I asked if it was true that Christians believed everything is designed by god, from sunsets, to rocks, to snowflakes to people. You answered that only some things are designed by god. Other things are natural processes. I'm wondering how you can tell the difference. Then I asked if you've really thought this stuff through.
"Sin comes when we behave or think in ways that are contrary to the revealed will of God."
Like Louis when he acts upon his homosexuality?
"I believe that nihilism, an elimination of free will and a devaluation of human life to being on par with other life is the logical conclusion of atheistic naturalism."
[shrug] Again: That, my friend, is just sad. I laughed at first but then I thought to myself this might actually be what you think. When I think about that, it's depressing.
I don't recall making such a statement, but I'd agree with it: out of all the ways we have to assess reality, reason is the best in that class. If you think it is not, then what's better? (However, if you did have something better, you'd still have to use reason to demonstrate its superiority!)
I'm not sure what your incoherent question "can you rationally prove why you love someone?" means. If you mean "can you rationally prove that you love someone?", sure, one could back up such a proposition with various lines of evidence, such as your behavior, your physiological reactions, or oxytocin levels in your brain. We could even see love on an MRI.
Analyzing emotions isn't one of them.
Indeed it isn't, how fast legends grow is. Pay attention.
There is a man in India (if a man he can be said to be ;-) named Sathya Sai Baba, who claims to be a divine reincarnation of a saint, Sai Baba of Shirdi. Followers report that he has performed many miracles, such as healings, levitation, weather control, materializing rings and necklaces, appearing in two places at once, changing water into other drinks or gasoline, changing granite into rock candy, appearing in visions, and emitting brilliant light. Not to mention his miraculous conception. He has at least 6 million followers (though his devotees claim many more).
I shouldn't be at all surprised if, when he eventually does die, believers report him making postmortem visitations, and his legend lives on.
You're saying there are probably, but not actually, an infinite number of points between two points? You probably didn't think that through.
Hilbert's Hotel is a model used to demonstrate various counterintuitive (but true) properties of infinite sets. A hotel with an infinite number of rooms is absurd, but that doesn't mean infinite sets are absurd.
You could look at time like Hilbert's Hotel. Instead of rooms, take an infinity of seconds, extending from time 0 on into an infinite future. Would there be room to insert one second into that timeline? Sure, just bump every second forward by one, and stick that second in at time 0. Just like adding one guest to Hilbert's Hotel.
If the universe has had an infinite regress of events as part of its past, then it would have been impossible not to arrive at this present moment.
one could back up such a proposition with various lines of evidence, such as your behavior, your physiological reactions, or oxytocin levels in your brain. We could even see love on an MRI.
Typical answer of the soulless and bloodless rationalist, ignoring an entire universe of experience and thinking it can be "measured" and quantified down to "physioloical reactions or oxytocin levels." Pathetic.
Reading these answers I can kind of understand someone like Aaron and his motivations (though I profoundly disagree with him, especially when he reveals his ignorance about gay people).
Love is also not a way of knowing or investigating reality.
Another bloodless reaction from the rationalist camp. Please provide evidence for your assertion.
"Love is also not a way of knowing or investigating reality.
Another bloodless reaction from the rationalist camp. Please provide evidence for your assertion.
Well, I'd use logic and reason to investigate and know realities like physics, biology, mathematics, history, etc. I think that's a superior epistemology for exploring the world we live in. I wouldn't use love to know or investigate quantum mechanics, for example. It's not the way to do that.
You described my answer as "bloodless." I'm not sure what you were expecting or how I could have provided an answer you'd be happy with.
Interesting developments here. I'm off the computer for the weekend. I will respond soon. Thanks!
I deny your charge of bloodlessness, as I cannot ignore my direct experiences of my own blood.
How curious that you describe "measuring" and "quantifying" evidence of something as "ignoring" it. I can't do both at once.
Love isn't magic. It's not some vaguely magical newagey "energy", but a rather commonplace emotion, hence a product of brain chemistry like any other emotion. And it's bloody marvelous.
An illustration:
A woman is told that her husband was seen in town, when he had told her he was on a business trip. "You must be mistaken," she insists, "I know in my heart he wouldn't lie to me." Her friend tells her that her husband was seen in a hotel with another woman. "Oh no," she insists, "I know in my heart he would never cheat on me." Her friend had the foresight to grab the credit card carbon from the trash after her husband checked out. "That must be someone else with the same name," she insists, "I know in my heart he is faithful to me."
Love is not a way of knowing or of investigating reality. Following the evidence is a more reliable way of getting correct answers than 'following your heart'.
Define reality.
Btw: you guys are doing the same thing Aaron and other religionists do: you propose to use the very same methodology to prove that that very same methodology is superior. Why should I just accept your assertion that rational tools (like Cin enumerated) are the only means of discerning and having a relationship with reality? Why, in turn, should I just accept what religionists propose (ie, the Bible, the "will" of God, Natural Law, etc)? Your arguments chase their own tails. In Robin's stacked deck of a hypothetical, she maintains a different type of knowing from that I seek. Indeed, I do think you rationalists are bloodless: not literally, as you would assume, but poetically, metaphorically. There are other ways to investigate reality which don't conform to rationalist or religionist norms: love is one (I can "know" my beloved much better through love than by hooking him up to machines and measuring his physiological responses or dissecting him, or than by praying for God's will in the matter); art and poetry are other ways.
"Why should I just accept your assertion that rational tools (like Cin enumerated) are the only means of discerning and having a relationship with reality?"
You shouldn't. I just don't see how you can explain realities like physics, biology, mathematics, history, etc. better with love than with logic and reason. If one can investigate reality solely with an emotion like love, do you think one can do the same with other emotions like hate, angst, frustration, fear, etc.? I mean for me, love is a good way to describe how I feel about the people closest to. I'd not call it a good way to acquire knowledge. Louis, can you provide an example of using love as a way of exploring reality that doesn't involve another person? Or, does "reality" only involve other people? "Reality" is inclusive of a lot of things IMHO.
"Indeed, I do think you rationalists are bloodless: not literally, as you would assume, but poetically, metaphorically."
I think I'm as passionate as the next person. No one has ever described me as bloodless before, either poetically or metaphorically. Marcel Proust was a very rational person. Do you describe him the same way?
Since I've entertained philosophical wankery this far, I suppose I might as well go all the way.
A college student once asked Philip K. Dick for a one-sentence definition of reality. Philip told her, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
There is a real world, an objective reality, that none of us perceive directly. Our experience of it is filtered by our five senses, we only get sense impressions which our brain interprets as best it can.
For example, when I see the beige footstool in my living room, I don't actually perceive the footstool directly. Light bounces off of it to reach my retina, my retina transmits the pattern of light to my brain, and my brain analyzes the pattern and constructs a model of the footstool. My brain interprets the sensory input and constructs an internal virtual world to model what reality is like.
Sometimes this process can go wrong. Our senses can be fooled, and our brains can misinterpret the sensory data. When I mistook that footstool for my sister's dog, for a moment, my subjective virtual world did not correspond to objective reality.
Reality is the real world outside your mind, as it actually is, independent of the virtual worlds we construct in our minds.
Postmodernists reject the idea of an objective reality. They argue that reality is a social construct, that everyone has constructs a reality in their minds and they're all equally valid. It's a vapid, ridiculous idea.
Irrationalist: Just cause you reject the idea of telekinesis doesn't mean it's not real. Telekinesis is real to me. I could levitate right off this balcony if I wanted to.
Rationalist: Show me.
Irrationalist: All right, I will!
*crash*
Rationalist: Your arm looks broken. Shall I call a doctor?
Irrationalist: No! Bring me my healing crystal!
Rationalist: But…
Irrationalist: It's real to me!
As I argued above, you shouldn't "just accept" anything. Don't take anything on faith. Put it to the test.
Reason gets results. Reason is effective. Reason works. (If it didn't have any advantage, we shouldn't have evolved our capacity for it.)
If by "bloodless", you mean "devoid of emotion", if you imagine we rationalists are incapable of such feelings as love, then it is you who are lacking in empathy.
If you don't rely on any evidence and just love him from afar, passively admiring him and fantasizing about his wonderfulness, you'll never really know him at all, because love does not in any way investigate reality. You get to know your beloved by empirical evidence, by observing his behavior, his words, his body language, and certain physiological reactions of his too (if you know what I mean, and I think you do). (And if you dissect him, you might learn about human physiology, but there's not going to be a "him" left to get to know.)
If one can investigate reality solely with an emotion like love
Now you're distorting what I said. I only make the observation that there are other valid ways to explore and know reality than rationalism or revelationism. I do, indeed, think that reason is one extraordinarily powerful way to go, but not the only one. There are important areas of human experience which do not fall exclusively under its sway (Robin's ludicrous example of measuring love notwithstanding).
Since I've entertained philosophical wankery this far, I suppose I might as well go all the way.
Since your arrogance and bad manners are at least as bad as the religionists you deplore, I see no reason to engage you.
Since your arrogance and bad manners are at least as bad as the religionists you deplore, I see no reason to engage you.
That's one way to back out of a losing argument, I suppose.
Nowhere in this thread have I "deplored" religionists the way you have deplored "soulless and bloodless rationalists", Louis. If you wish people to treat you with courtesy, perhaps you should first work on your own.
No, it's no different. I can swap "perfection" for "greatest conceivable" too: The Perfect Butler is the butler greater than which no butler can be conceived. Whatever special pleading Anselm uses for his figment, can be applied to any other figment. (And by the way, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has been defined as the Being Greater Than Which Nothing Can Be Conceived.)
Nor should you use or defend it, because the ontological argument is stupid. You should know we'll easily tear it to pieces.
"I only make the observation that there are other valid ways to explore and know reality than rationalism or revelationism."
Fair enough. Can you provide a specific example that involves no reasoning at all? It just seems to me love is a description of an emotion. It is not a method to explore reality. That's my point.
Yet our senses and our mind do not always properly receive and interpret data. This flawed "design" (assumed without evidence), is clearly not entirely trustworthy.
On the other hand, it makes sense that blind, undirected natural selection favored our rational minds, flawed as they are. While mutations may be random, they get filtered through the sieve of natural selection. Natural selection is not random.
It just seems to me love is a description of an emotion. It is not a method to explore reality.
That's because you are so totally mired in rationalism that you literally can't see any other way. Thus, you demand I use the tools rationalism provides to "prove" my point: in effect, I must submit to your worldview in all respects or else. Well, I choose else.
Well, no. I'm just trying to figure out what you are talking about. If you can't provide an explanation fine, but then don't expect people to take you seriously when you say there are "other valid ways to explore and know reality." That's also the first time I've ever been accused of being "mired in rationalism." Did you mean that as a compliment? I suppose that's better than being mired in irrational-ism. Moving on then…
Louis probably intended to be more pejorative than it sounded. You and your ilk in the reality-based community, you.
I promise I am going to reply. I like the discussion, it's just things are crazy right now. I've got baseball & T-ball games going on all the time. I look forward to the continued back & forth. Also – Robin, I enjoyed your question in the other thread about God & the Bible. I look forward to discussing that one as well.
On June 4, Aaron wrote
On June 22, Aaron wrote
Summer passed. On September 2, wholereason.com moved to wholereason.com. Autumn passed.
Aaron, I won’t hold you to your promise. I don’t doubt that back in June you intended to keep it, but after checking this thread every few weeks for your reply, I do not anticipate one.
Incidentally, this aphorism Aaron cited was not original to Hitchens, it’s a translation of a Latin quote, “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.” (What is asserted without reason, may be denied without reason.)
Thanks for the reference