In this post, a student drops a class by a philosophy instructor who identifies himself as a theist, but says that God can neither be proven or disproven. The student assumes that the teacher was claiming that it follows from the fact that he believes in God but thinks it unprovable, that he believes in God because he considers the negative to be unprovable. But he said no such thing, or at least is not reported as saying any such thing.
I wrote in response:
Let's see, the professor believes A) that God exists, and B) one cannot either prove or disprove that God exists. He never said B therefore A, that I can see.
I take it that the professor does not accept strong rationalism, which is defined as follows:
"Lets start on one end of the spectrum, with strong rationalism. It proposes that "in order for a religious belief system to be properly and rationally accepted, it must be possible to prove that the belief system is true." By 'prove' it is meant that it is possible to show that a belief is true, in a way that is convincing to any intelligent person. "
- See more at: http://www.stpetersfireside.or...
But do we expect this level of proof with respect to other beliefs? It seems to me that I can be reasonable in thinking that a lot of things are true even if not everyone ought to believe it. I think that Hillary Clinton is more likely than not to win the 2016 Democratic nomination for President, but if someone assessed the evidence differently, I wouldn't necessarily think they were being irrational.
Actually the definition of strong rationalism should be altered a little, because what it actually says is that it ought to be convincing to all intelligent persons.
John W. Loftus said...
There are things we can know that cannot be proved, so I agree on that. Was that the professor's point? Was he trying to reach out to believers, saying they shouldn't think their faith can be proved? Or, was he trying to reach out to non-believers, saying they can't know for sure? Or was he doing something different?
My point was that no one should even talk this way at all. We should think exclusively in terms of the probabilities based on the available evidence. So that professor should have said he'll be talking about the evidence for and against the existence of God.
I think that's what a scientist would say at the start of a class on the multiverse. It would be redundant and superfluous to say that a multiverse cannot be proved or disproved. People who think scientifically would already know that.
Only people with faith say the kinds of things that professor did.
WMF said...
People who think scientifically don't need to be told that discussing the existence of God entails the arguments for and against the existence of God.
People who agree with Victor that Adam Collins is an obvious moron who doesn't know how to reason logically don't make blog posts endorsing the idea by giving the old fairy tale canard.
People who are the least bit rational see that Loftus remains a fulltime peddler of bullshit.
im-skeptical said...
So you reject Bayesian inference? Do you think Victor agrees with that?
Papalinton said...
"People who agree with Victor that Adam Collins is an obvious moron who doesn't know how to reason logically don't make blog posts endorsing the idea by giving the old fairy tale canard."
Those that believe a three-day old putrescent corpse revivified to full functioning health as fact has forfeited any prerogative to the claim they 'reason logically'.
As if that kind of tendentious description proves anything.
wrf3 said...
I agree that the existence and non-existence of God cannot be proven. Both positions must be taken on faith. The reason for this is that what we believe controls how we evaluate evidence. If we, a priori, believe that God does not exist then, of course, a "three day old putrescent corpse" would not rise from the dead and appear to his disciples. It's clearly a made up story and the people who believe it aren't rational.
On the other hand, if God does exist then, while it doesn't prove that the Resurrection happened, it does mean that it isn't out of the realm of possibility.
If you believe that God does not exist then you can end up with a consistent view of the world. And if you believe that God does exist, you can also end up with a consistent view of the world. Each person will see things some things the same, and other things very differently.
So, Loftus is wrong. He can talk about thinking "exclusively in terms of the probabilities based on the available evidence", but he can't escape that the probabilities change based on prior beliefs.
wrf3, if there is no evidence for God one way or another, then there aren't any relevant prior beliefs either, unless there is evidence for those prior beliefs. So you cannot escape from thinking exclusively in terms of the probabilities.
Loftus wrote: if there is no evidence for God one way or another, then there aren't any relevant prior beliefs either...
Again, I don't think you understand how things work.
Belief/disbelief in God is prior to the evidence, because this particular belief determines how evidence is evaluated.
Assume there is no God. Look at the universe around you, fill in the blanks and, if you've done the job right, you end up with a consistent system.
Now, assume there is a God. Look at the universe around you, fill in the blanks and, if you've done the job right, you end up with a consistent system.
Since you have two consistent systems, it does you no good to say that Pa(x) > Pt(x) therefore A, because there will be some Pt(y) > Pa(y).
For example, Pa(resurrection) = 0. 0 <= Pt(resurrection) <= 1. The probabilities don't help you choose which system is correct.
For example, since Pa(resurrection) = 0, the disciples lied, or made the story up, or it's a later legend that came into being, or Jesus "swooned", or the disciples stole the body, or Jesus had a twin, or...
Since 0 <= Pt(resurrection) <= 1, you have the exact same list, with the additional possibility that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead.
So the probability argument doesn't help you.
What you have to do is show that my consistency claim is wrong. That is, assume there is no God, look at the world around you, correctly fill in the blanks, and derive an inconsistency. Or, assume there is a God, and derive an inconsistency. And do so without making a logical mistake (one of the worst being using Pa(x) when Pt(x) should be used, and vice versa).
I don't think this can be done. It isn't about the evidence.
wrf3, which God are you presuming before examining the evidence? Why
Assume the existence of a different God. Look at the universe around you, fill in the blanks and, if you've done the job right, you end up with a consistent system.
I don't think you understand how things work. You apologetic is inconsistent at its core since you have no reason to assume your particular God exists over all the others (even those with just a slightly different theology) prior to examining the evidence.
Don't agree? Then take it up with Reppert, Craig, Moreland, Copan, and all of the other apologists for the existence of their Gods, not me.
wrf3, if we think exclusively in terms of the probabilities then what we think isn't based on deductive arguments. What we think is based on induction, which in turn depends on the evidence.
Even when it comes to deductive arguments about matters of fact there are premises that are true or false by degrees which are based on the evidence.
John Loftus asked, which God are you presuming before examining the evidence?
All of them. Fortunately, there don't appear to be that many fundamental variations, so the number is manageable. For example, Pa(resurrection) = Pd(resurrection) = Pi(resurrection) = 0, where Pa(x) is the probability of x under Atheism, Pd(x) is the probability of x under Deism, Pi(x) is the probability of x under Islam, and so on.
In principle, this is no different than, say, exploring different geometries. Most of us think that we live in a "flat" space, so that when we measure the angles of triangles, they sum to 180. The flatness of space is enshrined in Euclid's fifth postulate: that given a line, and a point not on the line, there is one -- and only one -- line that can be drawn through the point that is parallel to the initial line.
But another geometry assumes that there are no lines that can be drawn through the point that are parallel to the original line; yet another geometry says that there are many lines. All three geometries are consistent. If we lived near a black hole, space would be more curved than it is here, and our triangles would be different.
With geometry, we can measure the overall mass of the universe and, if this measurement is right, then overall space is flat and the universe is Euclidean.
Can we do the same thing with God? Personally, I don't think so. At least I've never seen any arguments that stand up to scrutiny. I'd love to be shown wrong.
I don't think you understand how things work.
Sure. You have to say that, because you and I don't agree on this particular issue. We may both be wrong; but we certainly can't both be right.
You apologetic is inconsistent at its core since you have no reason to assume your particular God...
But I also have no reason to assume no God at all, either.
I have claimed that theism and atheism are both consistent systems, and that there is no way to show that one maps to reality more than another -- but I haven't attempted to prove it.
So where is the inconsistency?
In any case, my only purpose is to show that your probability argument is wrong. That doesn't mean that theism wins. It just means you need to try something else.
Don't agree?
No, I don't. I hope I've satisfactorily explained why.
Then take it up with ... all of the other apologists for the existence of their Gods, not me.
The argument is not whether or not the existence of God can be proven. The argument is whether or not your probability argument is correct. It isn't.
But just because I think you're mistaken on this one particular point doesn't mean that Reppert, Craig, et. al. are right. They aren't (IMHO, YMMV, etc...). But they aren't here arguing their position.
Let me see if I can't take care of two birds with one stone. Consider Abbot's Flatland. A three dimensional sphere interacts with two dimensional Flatland. The sphere first appears as a dot, then a circle that increases in size until it begins to shrink back down to a dot, then disappears.
Neither your probabilities based on the available evidence, nor Craig's, et. al. arguments can prove what really happened one way or another.
wrf3, The story in Flatland is told from an outsider's perspective, one we don't have. From that perspective the reader knows there is a three dimensional world. But how would a flatlander know there was a three dimensional world? He wouldn't. He couldn't.
Until there is evidence a three dimensional world exists then a flatlander should not think one exists. Period.
Probabilities don't guarantee truth. But there isn't a better way to get at the truth about the nature of nature but to base it exclusively on the probabilities given the available evidence. If you think you have a better way then by all means share it.
John Loftus wrote: The story in Flatland is told from an outsider's perspective...
Actually, that's not true. It's told from the perspective of "A. Square" -- a flatlander who is visited by an object from a higher dimension.
But how would a flatlander know there was a three dimensional world? He wouldn't. He couldn't.
He might, if he had sufficient imagination. After all, some of our physicists think that reality contains more than the dimensions of spacetime; compactified dimensions that we can never directly access.
But, far more importantly, A. Square claims that the visitor communicated with him.
So it's your contention that A. Square incorrectly evaluated his experience? If you were a Flatlander, how would you know?
But there isn't a better way to get at the truth about the nature of nature but to base it exclusively on the probabilities given the available evidence.
The point you don't seem to want to accept is that you can't evaluate probabilities apart from a priori beliefs. As I've said before, Pa(resurrection) = 0. 0 <= Pt(resurrection) <= Pc(resurrection) = 1.
(And, again, the notation Pa(x) means the probability of x under Atheism, and Pt(x) means the probability of x under Theism, Pc(x) means the probability of x under Christianity).
Which of these three probabilities then obtains? How do you know?
Yours is a circular argument. You refuse to see it as such. Inductive arguments are not circular. And the problem of induction doesn't change this fact:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2013/02/on-solving-dreaded-problem-of-induction.html
"As if that kind of tendentious description proves anything."
That statement: "Those that believe a three-day old putrescent corpse revivified to full functioning health as fact has forfeited any prerogative to the claim they 'reason logically' " is far less a tendentious observation than a three day-old putrescent corpse revivified to full functioning health as a 'possibility. Indeed history has shown demonstrably only those that had been conditioned into the belief subscribed to it. (1) The jews and Judaism never for one moment in the two thousand years since its conception bought into the jesus myth. Jesus was not the messiah; nor Brian, he was just a very naughty boy, as Monty Python so eloquently satirised. (2) Even following six hundred years of christian hegemony throughout the Middle East, the fabricators of Islam never for one moment subscribed to the fable that the God of Abraham ever existed in the person of jesus let alone as a dead and rising Allah. They rejected it outright.
So, based on the probabilities of the evidence, Judaism and Islam never for one moment either granted or concluded the Christian narrative as epistemologically veridical, despite their common and shared heritage of the Abrahamic god.
John Loftus wrote: Yours is a circular argument. You refuse to see it as such.
I happen to be a mathematician by education and a software engineer by profession, so I'm quite familiar with circularity. Sometimes circularity is a bug, sometimes it's a feature.
Now, I have asked you several times how you use your method of probabilities to choose between competing worldviews. Specifically, I have asked you: "if Pa(x) = 0 and Pc(x) = 1" why anyone would choose a over c, or c over a". You've never answered. And that's because you can't. The probability method works when a worldview has already been chosen -- it doesn't help at all in making the initial choice.
So then you bring up the "problem" of induction. There are two forms of induction. There's mathematical induction, which gives certain results; and there's observational induction, which provides predictive results until the prediction fails. The sun came up yesterday, the sun came up today, the sun will come up tomorrow -- until one day it won't.
That's not a bug. That's a feature.
Stated another way, the "problem" with observational induction is that there is an element of uncertainty involved. But that's just the way life is.
Every mathematician knows that every system starts with statements that cannot be proven but that are "self-evidently" true. Sometimes one has to arbitrarily choose between several possible "self-evident" statements (e.g. Euclid's fifth postulate). It's no different with science, or philosophy, or anything else. Logic can only operate on pre-existing data; it cannot generate the starting points.
So if you think you've "solved" this problem of induction, you haven't.
But, feel free to prove me wrong. Tell me why, if Pa(x) = 0 and Pc(x) = 1, anyone should chose a over c.
Other than take it to be self-evidently true.
wrf3 you can't be helped, not by me. Using math doesn't help you. We're talking about any objective evidence that would convince people there was a virgin birth, a resurrection and an ascension in an ancient world where cell phones were non-existent nor were there any Dateline TV programs investigating them, and where mythical stories and beasts were believed and preached wide and far.
John Loftus wrote: wrf3 you can't be helped, not by me.
I wasn't asking for your help.
Using math doesn't help you.
It doesn't help you, either. That's the point you seem to have missed. All of your talk about "probabilities based on available evidence" is nothing more than a smokescreen. And this is clearly so, because you can't answer a simple question, namely, if Pa(x) = 0 and Pc(x) = 1, why should anyone choose a or c based on these probabilities? You have confused using probabilities within a single worldview to determine factualness, with using probabilities to choose between worldviews. That's not how logic works. You can't evaluate probabilities outside of the worldview.
We're talking about any objective evidence that would convince people there...
You're talking about objective evidence that would convince people. I'm claiming that it doesn't exist. There is no objective evidence for atheism. There is no objective evidence for Christianity. By this I mean that both atheism and Christianity are internally consistent. Since neither lead to a contradiction, that can't be used to select between them. Furthermore, both are congruent with the "external" world (whatever that eventually turns out to be). So that's no help, either.
I provided this link before; I'll do it again: it isn't about the evidence. There is also a follow-up post. The follow up post references work done by Caldwell-Harris on human cognition and it mentions how different people perceive this film about triangles. After watching it, it would be interesting to see which neurotypical class you fall into. Because that's the filter by which your brain processes so-called "objective" evidence.
Either "A. Square" was visited by something from a higher dimension (as were the council, since it was claimed to happen every thousand years), or "A. Square" was delusional, or it was just a dream. I'll note you never answered the question on whether or not A. Square correctly evaluated his experience based on the objective evidence. You can't, because your methods don't work.
wrf3, you need help alrighty. You cannot be taught. You cannot learn. You cannot see outside the box you've locked yourself in. No one can help you.
Try thinking for a change. If you cannot do that I'm done here.
"You can't evaluate probabilities outside of the worldview."
Everyone has a worldview and no two of them are exactly alike in every detail. If you think otherwise then you might try explaining what the difference is between two evangelicals who both adhere to all of the same doctrinal beliefs except that one person is a white man raised in the Ohio and the other person is a black woman raised in Alabama.
They do not see the world the same way, guaranteed! And what they see they usually believe is God ordained, all of it, or most of it.
According to you, neither one of these two people can evaluate the probabilities of the white/black divide and the male/female divide between them.
Really? Then how could they possibly change their minds on anything since, they would be looking at the probabilities outside their present worldview, which you say they cannot do.
Okay smarty pants. What are the odds that a ball will fall to earth if thrown upwards at less than escape velocity and no other force but gravity acting on it?
What are the odds of a coin toss when one side has a head and the other side has a tails on it?
There was a time when technically speaking, anything was on the boards in the ancient pre-scientific superstitious world. Men could fly up in space you see. What could possibly have taken place to change their minds if they could not assess the probabilities outside their present pre-scientific superstitious worldview?
Archeology, Science, Psychology, neuroscience are all based on properly assessing the probabilities irrespective of our total worldviews. And it has consistently changed our worldviews.
You act as if a person either has the correct worldview or not, and that there can be no change of one's worldview. You may try denying this but how could they if they incommensurable?
I have a worldview that is secular in orientation. I used to have one that was religious in orientation because the evidence wasn't there.
What you need to explain is how there can be so many different worldviews that are not based on good solid evidence, because they cannot all be true, and yet rationally held by people.
What you must do is 1) provide a definition of a worldview that is not arbitrarily created to suit your religious needs. 2) Explain why some people change their minds and their worldviews.
Plus so much more...
John Loftus wrote: Try thinking for a change. If you cannot do that I'm done here.
I note that I'm not the one who is avoiding answering questions. Shall I re-list the ones you haven't addressed?
That's not what I said. Both of these two evangelicals, one a black female southerner, the other a while male northerner, are operating under a theistic worldview. They are not operating under an atheistic worldview. So when they calculate probabilities they are doing so within that worldview.
Now, perhaps the black female southerner has a PhD in mathematics. Knowing that probabilities depend on worldview, she might calculate the probability of something happening under theism, and then calculate the probability of something happening under atheism. Depending on the event in question, she might come up with completely different probabilities.
Being an educated woman familiar with logic and axiomatic systems, what she won't do is say that the probability calculated under one set of assumptions has to be the same probability under another set of assumptions.
In other words, she won't say, "well, because the probability of the resurrection is zero under atheism, therefore theism must be false."
Then how could they possibly change their minds on anything since, they would be looking at the probabilities outside their present worldview, which you say they cannot do.
Again, I didn't say that they can't switch between worldviews. You say you used to be a theist who is now atheist. FWIW, I used to be an atheist who is now a Christian. So switching between worldviews is, of course, very possible.
What I am saying is that the switch doesn't happen because one correctly evaluates probabilities. As I have consistently said, Pa(resurrection) = 0. Pc(resurrection) = 1. It is only if one a priori assumes atheism true that the resurrection, or the existence of God, ... becomes impossible. It is only if one a priori assumes theism true that the resurrection becomes possible.
As for coin tosses and objects in motion in a gravity well, the probabilities for the theist and the atheist happen to be the same. As with many things, it's the boundary conditions where differences show up.
You act as if a person either has the correct worldview or not...
And you don't?
I used to have one that was religious in orientation because the evidence wasn't there.
Again, it isn't about the evidence, but how brains evaluate evidence. The evidence for/against atheism is the exact same for me as it is for you.
Some brains make mistakes when evaluating evidence and some brains don't make mistakes, yet come to different conclusions. Neuroscience is only beginning to understand why.
As I said earlier, it would really be interesting to know your assessment of this video. Do you see apparent meaning? Do you see apparent meaning, but you then suppress it? Or do you see no meaning at all?
wrf3,
There is so much I must correct with your misunderstandings I don't have the time. Someone you trust will have to do it, not me.
You might want to start with Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" or Victor Stenger's "God and the Folly of Faith" or Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" and his new book coming out in May.
Evidence based on the probabilities has indeed changed our perspectives, our individual worldviews. It wasn't something else.
B. Prokop said...
"The jews and Judaism never for one moment in the two thousand years since its conception bought into the [J]esus myth." (Linton)
Uhh... Actually, there were tens of thousands of Jewish converts in the first decades of Christendom, and a steady, nonstop stream of individual conversions ever since. Saint Edith Stein (martyred Aug 9, 1942) is just one of countless examples. Also, according to Linton, today's "Jews For Jesus" ought not to exist.
But Linton never did care for actual facts that might contradict whatever's in his already made up mind.
"You cannot be taught. You cannot learn. You cannot see outside the box you've locked yourself in. No one can help you.
Actually, those lines describe to a "T" most of the internet atheists I see on sites such as this one. Their minds are made up, and no possible evidence will ever get through the thought-tight barriers they have erected about their "conclusions" (which are anything but, if one goes strictly by definition).
"an ancient world where cell phones were non-existent nor were there any Dateline TV programs investigating them"
Wow. I had no idea that cell phones or TV programs were arguments in favor of a proposition's truth or falsity. I must now re-think everything I thought I knew about the Civil War.
"an ancient world"
Two thousand years in the future, today will be regarded as "an ancient world". Does that mean that everything we now know about what's happening about us must then be dis-believed? But heck, I thought our cell phones and TV shows guaranteed that we knew the Truth!?!
"Their minds are made up, and no possible evidence will ever get through the thought-tight barriers they have erected about their "conclusions""
You forget one important fact, Bob. Most atheists DID change their mind after hearing the evidence. Most theists did NOT, and never will.
im-skeptical wrote: Most atheists DID change their mind after hearing the evidence. Most theists did NOT, and never will.
The issue isn't whether or not a mind is changed after hearing evidence.
The issue is the role the evidence plays in the switch. Loftus claims that he went from theism to atheism because of the evidence. I went from atheism to Christianity because of the evidence.
That means that either some evidence was available to one of us that wasn't available to the other (doubtful); or that the evidence was wrongly evaluated by one (or both) of us; or that the evidence wasn't the direct cause of the change.
The problem with his particular claim is that the role he says the evidence played isn't how correctly evaluated evidence works.
If there are two internally consistent systems (as is the case with atheism and theism, IMO), evidence based on probabilities is only useful for evaluating within a particular worldview. I'm guessing that in Lofton's case, the evidence narrowed the gaps in the holes in atheism making atheism more comfortable to him. But that doesn't make it more true. It just makes that particular assumption more consistent. But it doesn't help decide between two equally consistent systems.
"I went from atheism to Christianity because of the evidence."
I hear that a lot. I have read many accounts of conversion and de-conversion, and it is interesting to compare the narratives. The stories told by Loftus and others are mostly about what makes logical sense and what doesn't make sense. The stories told by CS Lewis and others like him usually contain a strong emotional element. But they always swear it was the evidence that convinced them.
grodrigues said...
@im-skeptical:
"You forget one important fact, Bob. Most atheists DID change their mind after hearing the evidence. Most theists did NOT, and never will."
Because from where you are sitting, you know with certainty, with almost omniscient certainty, the minds of the majority of atheists and theists that have ever lived, and can confidently pronounce on their psychological states and claim with all the absolute certainty of the world as a true fact that most atheists are just following where the evidence leads and most theists do precisely the opposite.
Now what on earth could be wrong with this picture?
"you know with certainty, with almost omniscient certainty, the minds of the majority of atheists and theists that have ever lived"
And good day to you, too, sir. Actually, I was speaking mainly of people who became atheists of their own volition. That wouldn't apply to those who were raised under some ideology like Stalinist communism. I know you Christians love to saddle atheists with the guilt of the crimes other ideologies, but I don't accept that burden. My belief that people who leave behind their religious beliefs and become atheists is based on the experience I have and the evidence I see.
"Actually, I was speaking mainly of people who became atheists of their own volition. That wouldn't apply to those who were raised under some ideology like Stalinist communism. I know you Christians love to saddle atheists with the guilt of the crimes other ideologies, but I don't accept that burden."
You really must be nigh-omniscient! You are responding to something I did not say, surely in the certain expectation that I *would* say it. An expectation whose probability to fail is vanishingly low, since as we already established, you know the minds of most atheists and theists that have ever lived, or according to your latest qualification, pf those in the Western World, and therefore you know my own mind. And at any rate, us theists are nothing if predictable, right? After all, you already know that most of us, oh benighted us (and this means the majority of mankind, from a squalid superstitious peasant in medieval Europe to the current Democrat president of the US), "never will" change our minds upon hearing "the evidence" (cue ominous music).
"My belief that people who leave behind their religious beliefs and become atheists is based on the experience I have and the evidence I see."
Of course it is. And we here at DI are the beneficiaries of said experience and full knowledge. Of the evidence.
Whatever, dude. There have been theists who are willing to examine the evidence objectively. We call those people atheists.
im-skeptical wrote: There have been theists who are willing to examine the evidence objectively. We call those people atheists.
Ok. Let's try this. Let's see whether you can actually put together a cogent, coherent, consistent argument that doesn't violate the rules of logic.
First, what evidence have theists in general not looked at objectively? Give your, say, three best arguments why I should convert back to atheism.
Second, prove to us that you know what objectivity is and that your brain is capable of evaluating what it sees objectively. Look at this movie. What is the objective interpretation of this movie? Why?
"There have been theists who are willing to examine the evidence objectively. We call those people atheists."
Who is "we"? Since you are in that group, I suppose you mean "atheists". So atheists say of themselves that they are the ones that have "examine[d] the evidence objectively". And more, you stated (and continue to state) this as a "fact". And to further underline that this is indeed a fact as opposed to mere opinion, you went on and added that theists "never will" change their minds after hearing the evidence. Those that did changed their minds are, by virtue of having changed their mind, and not just changing their minds but changing their minds from theism to atheism as per the quote above, the ones that examined the evidence objectively. The ones that did not, that is all (or almost all, you always want to keep an exception or two in your pocket) theists, did not examined objectively the evidence. Or examined it at all. And you know all this for a fact.
"what evidence have theists in general not looked at objectively?"
The resurrection story. 'Nuff said.
"What is the objective interpretation of this movie?"
I'm sure there are many ways one could interpret the movie. Most people would probably see the objects as moving with purpose. That is caused in part by the fact that the movie was made to appear as if the objects were moving purposefully. But it also reflects the natural tendency that people have to see intention in things, which is a result of evolution. This tendency may provide an explanatory basis for religious beliefs.
im-skeptical wrote: The resurrection story.
So when Habermas and Flew debated this issue, (cf. The Resurrection Debate, the panel of judges awarded the debate to Habermas. Now, consensus isn't proof, but since you think the resurrection story is clearly false, apparently you know something those two gentlemen don't. What might that be?
Furthermore, Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach looks at the accounts of the resurrection from a historical, and not theological, perspective. The conclusion is that the resurrection actually happened.
So, again, what is this objective evidence you claim that theists have overlooked?
But it also reflects the natural tendency that people have to see intention in things, which is a result of evolution. This tendency may provide an explanatory basis for religious beliefs.
Very good. I blogged about this over three years ago.
Now, this hurts you as much as it helps you. We have evolved to sense real things: temperature, taste, moving objects, sounds, etc... We can experience optical illusions for example, so our sensory apparatus is not perfect. But what is your explanation for the falsity of the appearance of meaning in the universe?
This tendency may provide an explanatory basis for religious beliefs.
Just because you can explain something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Temperature is related to the average momentum of particles. That doesn't mean that we don't sense something real.
Furthermore, evolution typically (but not always) provides an evolutionary advantage. What is the objective reason for likening belief in God to that of the appendix, i.e. something produced by evolution, but largely unnecessary now? How do you know it's unnecessary? Can you demonstrate the wisdom behind jettisoning millions of years of specialized adaptations?
Finally, if our brains are wired to think theologically, some brains are wired to reject that explanation. That's why your atheism isn't based on the objective evaluation of evidence. It's based on a mis-wiring in your brain.
You cite other people's beliefs as evidence for what you believe. What difference does it make who was declared the winner of a debate? What if Flew was declared the winner? Would you change your mind?
You cite a book written by a theist and claim it has a non-theological perspective. Bullshit.
Loftus is correct. I think you should take his advice.
im-skeptical wrote: You cite other people's beliefs as evidence for what you believe.
I did? Where? What I did was provide two sources that laid out the objective historical evidence for the Resurrection. One of those sources (the debate with Flew) provided arguments against the Resurrection. The point being, your claim that there is no objective evidence for the Resurrection isn't as obvious as you seem to think that it is.
What difference does it make who was declared the winner of a debate?
One might think that if it really is true that the objective evidence leads to atheism, the result would have been 5-0 for Flew.
Have you read the book? If not, how do you know what the author did or did not accomplish? Are you projecting your inability to be objective onto someone else?
And why did you ignore the questions about the evaluation of evidence from an evolutionary point of view?
"your claim that there is no objective evidence"
Your comprehension is poor. It's not a question of what evidence exists. It's a question of how you view the evidence, and whether you can look at it objectively. You obviously don't.
"One might think that if it really is true that the objective evidence leads to atheism, the result would have been 5-0 for Flew."
The winner of a debate is usually the one who appeals to the audience better, not the one who makes the best logical case. The evidence for the resurrection is extremely weak at best, but Christians do not look at it objectively.
"Are you projecting your inability to be objective onto someone else?"
No, that author is a Christian presenting a Christian point of view. For you to claim otherwise is flat-out ridiculous.
"And why did you ignore the questions about the evaluation of evidence from an evolutionary point of view?"
I did not. I said you should take JWL's advice. Read up and learn about evolution. Then you can begin to ask questions from a more informed point of view. Belief in god was never necessary. It is simply a by-product of our evolutionary development. Perceiving intentionality in things was and is a vital survival mechanism for all kinds of critters. Perceiving intentionality where it doesn't exist is a by-product of that. It's not particularly harmful (especially for non-humans), but it does lead to false beliefs in humans.
im-skeptical wrote: It's not a question of what evidence exists. It's a question of how you view the evidence, and whether you can look at it objectively. You obviously don't.
It appears that you are equating "objectively" with "naturalistically". That is, if someone looks at something from a theistic point of view that it isn't "objective", but that if someone looks at something from an atheistic point of view that it is "objective."
Is that what you're saying? If not, please correct it.
Perceiving intentionality where it doesn't exist is a by-product of that
And how do you know it doesn't exist, except by the a priori assumption of the truth of atheism and evaluating the evidence based on that belief?
"It appears that you are equating "objectively" with "naturalistically"."
No, I equate 'objectively' with seeing things for what they are. If you think the biblical narratives constitute good evidence, in light of everything else we know, then you are looking at it from the perspective of a Christian, and not that of an objective observer. Christians are the only people in the world who are so blinkered as to believe those stories. Everyone else sees them for what they are.
"And how do you know it doesn't exist, except by the a priori assumption of the truth of atheism and evaluating the evidence based on that belief?"
That movie you linked is a perfect example. We see apparent intentionality in cartoon drawings of triangles and circles. Those things do not possess any such property. Or do you want to argue that they do?
im_skeptical wrote: I equate 'objectively' with seeing things for what they are.
And, yet, you can't escape the way your brain sees things in order to determine "what they are." In fact, we don't know "what they are." Even the atheist Betrand Russell wrote, "But Berkeley retains the merit of having shown that the existence of matter is capable of being denied without absurdity, and that if there are any things that exist independently of us they cannot be the immediate objects of our sensations." [The Problems of Philosophy, chapter 1].
... then you are looking at it from the perspective of a Christian, and not that of an objective observer.
Do you not yet understand that there aren't any objective observers? You can't escape your brain. Your brain is plastic, in that the wiring can change, and therefore your positions can change, but you're still stuck in a circle.
Christians are the only people in the world who are so blinkered...
Derision is not an argument. "I'm right and you're wrong" is not an argument. "I have an explanation" isn't necessarily an argument. For example, the argument "I can explain why seeing intentionality that isn't there is a product of evolution" has the counter-argument "I can explain why denying intentionality is a product of evolution". What you can't show is why one should be accepted and the other rejected, without the a priori appeal to one or the other.
We see apparent intentionality in cartoon drawings of triangles and circles. Those things do not possess any such property. Or do you want to argue that they do?
Is it your claim that the movie appeared randomly? That the intentionality it depicts is, in fact, false?
"No, that author is a Christian presenting a Christian point of view."
"I equate 'objectively' with seeing things for what they are."
By his own logic, Skep must admit that, if Christianity were indeed true, then to present an argument from a Christian point of view would be "seeing things the way they are" and therefore a Christian apologist would be 100% objective. There is no way to avoid that conclusion without abandoning all claims to thinking rationally.
"If you think the biblical narratives constitute good evidence, in light of everything else we know"
Just curious here. What is this "everything else we know" that disproves the Biblical narratives of the Resurrection? We've been over this before, Skep, on this very website, and you must be aware that every single alternative explanation to a literal, physical Resurrection has been shot full of more holes than a Swiss cheese, and is far less believable than accepting the Biblical narratives as truth.
"And, yet, you can't escape the way your brain sees things in order to determine "what they are.""
We can take a scientific approach to collecting and evaluating evidence. We need to be careful to separate this process from our beliefs and emotions if we want to be objective. Independent corroboration helps to achieve this objectivity.
"Do you not yet understand that there aren't any objective observers?"
I disagree. There may be no perfectly objective observers, but there are observers who are more objective and less objective.
"Derision is not an argument."
It's nor a matter of derision. It is simply the observation that you have very little objectivity. There is ample evidence of this. Out of all the ideologies that people may have, only those with one particular ideology interpret the evidence for the resurrection as being compelling. That is a sure sign that this ideology is the critical factor in determining your interpretation. You are not objective.
"Is it your claim that the movie appeared randomly? That the intentionality it depicts is, in fact, false? "
I already discussed this. Go back and read it.
"every single alternative explanation to a literal, physical Resurrection has been shot full of more holes than a Swiss cheese, and is far less believable than accepting the Biblical narratives as truth."
If you're blinkered.
im-skeptical wrote: We can take a scientific approach to collecting and evaluating evidence.
And, by "scientific", you mean "naturalistic", aka "atheistic."
We need to be careful to separate this process from our beliefs and emotions if we want to be objective.
Except you aren't being careful at all. You're trying to sneak in what you're trying to prove. You aren't separating the process from your beliefs and emotions -- you're enshrining your beliefs -- and then claiming objectivity.
It is simply the observation that you have very little objectivity.
And yet you're engaging in either willful blindness, or hypocrisy. Which is it?
Here's what you wrote:
I'm sure there are many ways one could interpret the movie. Most people would probably see the objects as moving with purpose. That is caused in part by the fact that the movie was made to appear as if the objects were moving purposefully. But it also reflects the natural tendency that people have to see intention in things, which is a result of evolution. This tendency may provide an explanatory basis for religious beliefs. We see apparent intentionality in cartoon drawings of triangles and circles. Those things do not possess any such property. Or do you want to argue that they do?
Yes, the movie can be interpreted in different ways. The question is whether or not there is a right way.
And while you claim that you have an evolutionary explanation for why people see intentionality in nature, there is also an evolutionary explanation for why people suppress the intentionality that they see.
So the question is which way is right -- and if there is an objective answer to this.
And, yes, triangles and circles don't, in and of themselves, have intentionality.
But the movie does. And we know that the movie does.
In this case, our intuition is right. So, again, why should we favor intentionality over purposelessness?
"And, by "scientific", you mean "naturalistic", aka "atheistic.""
No, I mean "objective". That's what I was discussing.
"You're trying to sneak in what you're trying to prove. You aren't separating the process from your beliefs and emotions -- you're enshrining your beliefs -- and then claiming objectivity."
What am I sneaking in? What claim do you think I am making? I was only talking about what it means to be objective.
"And yet you're engaging in either willful blindness, or hypocrisy. Which is it?"
Blindness to what? Hypocrisy how? Please elaborate. I described what it means to be objective, and how your view of the evidence is not objective.
"In this case, our intuition is right. So, again, why should we favor intentionality over purposelessness?"
I'm struggling to understand what point you're trying to make with this movie. What do you think we should make of it, and how does that relate to the rest of the discussion? Please elaborate.
The bible is taking a real beating in the reality stakes around the world. Both Egypt and Morocco have banned the movie: "The Exodus: Gods and Kings" because of what censors have described are 'historical inaccuracies'.
And banning the Exodus movie in the very place where the event aledgedly took place, on the basis of 'historical inaccuracies', surely does not speak nor bode well for the balance of the christian narrative.
As it is becoming painfully clear in contemporary society, you can't have your god and eat it too. The idea is simply too gauche.
Persiflage :)
im-skeptical wrote: What am I sneaking in? What claim do you think I am making? I was only talking about what it means to be objective.
Objective means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts" and "not dependent on the mind for existence."
Type T brains think teleologically.
Type Ts brains think teleologically, but suppress it.
Type Tn brains don't think teleologically at all.
Evidence E, evaluated by type T brains, can give one result.
The same evidence E, evaluated by type Ts and Tn brains, can give another result.
Same evidence --> different brains --> different result.
For example, the evidence for the Resurrection, when evaluated by a type T brain, may very well say that P(resurrection) > 0. However, type Ts and Tn brains will, a priori, say P(resurrection) = 0.
This means that probabilities are of no use in deciding between the two systems.
1) While you've claimed that you are objective, you haven't demonstrated it; nor how you could even possibly demonstrate it.
2) By claiming that you are "objective", and Christians are not, you've snuck in the way your brain evaluates evidence as the "objective" standard -- when it's anything but.
I'm struggling to understand what point you're trying to make with this movie.
It isn't hard. You can't escape how your brain evaluates evidence. Absent internal contradiction in a particular system, you haven't shown how an objective choice can be made between the two. "I'm objective and you're not" is simply claiming that your brain wiring is somehow "better" than someone else's brain wiring. A claim which is not backed up by proof.
"Evidence E, evaluated by type T brains, can give one result.
Same evidence --> different brains --> different result."
You are hopelessly confused. What does teleological thinking have to do with evidence for the resurrection? I fail to see any meaningful relationship at all. The argument I presented foes more like this:
Type C individuals are Christians.
Type W individuals are everyone else in the world.
Evidence E evaluated by type C individuals gives result R.
Evidence E evaluated by type W individuals gives a different result N.
Since the only difference between C and W is Christian belief, it is reasonable to conclude that Christians' evaluation of the evidence is affected by their beliefs. By the definition of 'objective' that you gave, this is not objective.
It has nothing to do with different "types of brains" or teleology. It has everything to do with what you believe. Christians view of the evidence is clearly colored by their beliefs.
You also accused me of making claims about my own objectivity. What claim did I make? Quote it please, because I don't think I was making any such claims. What I did say is that Christians who examine the evidence objectively become atheists.
"You can't escape how your brain evaluates evidence."
You are wrong. There are ways to overcome our biases. As I explained earlier, taking a more scientific approach to collecting and examining evidence is quite helpful. It's not about teleology. It's not about injecting atheistic views into the way you look at evidence. It's all about being objective.
For just one second, put away your animosity, and listen to what people are trying to tell you. And for Christ's sake, don't put words in my mouth.
In his own words, Skep has demonstrated (right here in this very thread) why it is impossible to hold a rational discussion with him. He divides the human race into those who are "objective" and those who are not - and he makes this division solely on the basis of whether or not people agree with him. If you don't, you're not being objective. If you do, then you are. Selah.
And this is why rational conversation with him is impossible. Skep has a priori binned all dissenting views into the "invalid and not worth my time" receptacle, so he hears only his own voice bouncing around within his thought-proof echo chamber.
All around, a sorry spectacle indeed. It must be very comforting for Skep to wrap himself in his (self-awarded) descriptives of "skeptical" and "objective". I have some news for you, Skep: these are terms that must be given to a person by others and not by yourself - like hero, honest, or good citizen. Labeling yourself "objective" is semantically null (and rather unseemly).
"He divides the human race into those who are "objective" and those who are not - and he makes this division solely on the basis of whether or not people agree with him."
It's a shame that you don't understand what I was saying. It isn't a question of whether you agree with me. It's a question of whether you can be objective in evaluating evidence. You have already proved conclusively to me that you can't.
"these are terms that must be given to a person by others and not by yourself"
Think about what you're saying, Bob. What do you think I meant by "the whole rest of the world"? I wasn't talking about whether you agree with me. I was talking about whether you can look at evidence the way the whole rest of the world sees it. That's exactly what The Outsider Test for faith" is all about. You know, that book you laugh about.
"It's a question of whether you can be objective in evaluating evidence."
"It isn't a question of whether you agree with me. It's a question of whether you can be objective in evaluating evidence."
As they used to say on Sesame Street (maybe they still do?), "One of those things does not belong with the others."
So which is it, Skep? Can theists (who disagree with you) be objective, or only atheists (who agree with you)? So unless you say that both atheists and theists are capable of being objective (without converting to the other camp), then yes, yes, yes - your definition of "objective" is someone who agrees with you.
Oh. And I've read the original "Outsider Test for Faith" - it's called The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton. You should too.
"your definition of "objective" is someone who agrees with you."
Bullshit. There's only one thing that all atheists agree on. And that is that the evidence doesn't support belief in God. Everything else is up for grabs. But I wasn't talking about atheism or atheistic belief at all, AND I SAID SO. I was talking about everybody in the world, regardless of their faith, who are not Christians. They see evidence for the resurrection as very weak at best. You have to be a Christian to be so blinkered as to believe it.
"Since the only difference between C and W is Christian belief, it is reasonable to conclude that Christians' evaluation of the evidence is affected by their beliefs. By the definition of 'objective' that you gave, this is not objective."
You do realize that the same conclusion holds mutatis mutandis for individuals W? You do realize that some of the individuals W were Christians before their "deconversion" and therefore, if what you say is true, they either could have never have "deconverted", or even if they were Christians they had enough wit about them to change their minds, from which it follows that Christians can change their minds and evaluate evidence objectively (according to your criteria)?
You do realize that you are begging the question against Christians?
Nah, you really don't...
Dumber than a bag of hammers.
"As I explained earlier, taking a more scientific approach to collecting and examining evidence is quite helpful."
Is it? And what would you know about that?
From here, at April 29, 2013 6:37 AM we find this (this is just an illustrative example, others could be found):
"I said you should expand your own horizon, because I think you really don't understand a lot of things outside the ancient Thomist view of things. Other metaphysical views are indeed more representative of the reality of our world.
Here's an example: http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Supernova.html
The whole Aristotelian bit with its act and potency, its essentialism, etc, just doesn't work as a way of understanding our world. It is completely out of touch with science, and therefore, not in harmony with modern ways of thinking. It needs to be refreshed with an injection of scientific thinking from the past few centuries, or it will remain forever an anachronism."
So this was one of your representative example of "other metaphysical views" that are "in harmony with modern ways of thinking". And you wish us to believe that you have the tiniest clue about anything, let alone Science (tm)?
"I was talking about whether you can look at evidence the way the whole rest of the world sees it."
By this criteria, and given that atheists are and have always been a minority (*), neither can you.
(*) Current numbers may get distorted by State Dictatorships. But im-skeptical already ruled those out as well.
If Skep is genuinely (and objectively) interested in such an approach, he'd do well to listen to This in its entirety. Here is a genuine (and universally respected) scientist taking a rigorously scientific approach, and coming to a theistic conclusion.
"I said you should expand your own horizon, because I think you really don't understand a lot of things outside the ancient Thomist view of things. Other metaphysical views are indeed more representative of the reality of our world."
Boy, Skep must really HATE contemporary trends such as THIS. Looks like Thomism is not some "ancient view" after all!
Well over an hour. I'll make a deal with you. I'll listen to it when you listen to what I say.
"when you listen to what I say"
But Skep, Skep, Skep. What you fail to understand is that I do listen to everything you say. I simply disagree with most of it. It's because I listen to you that I cannot agree with you. It's how I know you're making no sense!
I guess that throws me in the "non-objective" pile.
im-skeptical wrote: You are hopelessly confused. What does teleological thinking have to do with evidence for the resurrection? I fail to see any meaningful relationship at all.
That's actually quite apropos. But just because you fail to see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exit.
The connection is really simple. No teleology in Nature -> no God -> no Resurrection. Without teleology, the Resurrection is impossible.
The argument I presented foes more like this:
[... summarized to: ...]
Evidence -> Christian -> Resurrection.
Evidence -> ~Christian -> No resurrection.
Evidence -> Telological brains -> Theism -> Resurrection -> Christian.
Evidence -> Non-teological brains -> Atheism/Deism -> no resurrection.
There are ways to overcome our biases.
How would you overcome a bias toward naturalism? What evidence would convince you otherwise? Someone rising from the dead, perhaps?
As I explained earlier, taking a more scientific approach to collecting and examining evidence is quite helpful.
Science, by definition, is naturalistic. It cannot escape its roots. Were someone to rise from the dead, only naturalistic explanations would be permitted.
"What you fail to understand is that I do listen to everything you say."
Bullshit. If you did, you's show some hint of understanding, but you don't. It's like talking to a brick fucking wall. And it has nothing to do with whether you agree with me.
"Evidence -> Telological brains -> Theism -> Resurrection -> Christian."
Wrong. Teleological thinking does not equate to Christianity. there are plenty of other faiths that are not Christian. You have to be Christian to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Teleology has nothing to do with it.
"How would you overcome a bias toward naturalism? What evidence would convince you otherwise? Someone rising from the dead, perhaps?"
Yes. Show me evidence, and I'll believe what the evidence dictates.
"Science, by definition, is naturalistic. It cannot escape its roots. Were someone to rise from the dead, only naturalistic explanations would be permitted."
Bullshit. Science is based on evidence. It happens that the evidence points to naturalism. If the evidence showed the there are supernatural things, science would not disagree.
im-skeptical wrote: Wrong. Teleological thinking does not equate to Christianity.
I didn't say that it did. That's why the diagram had:
Evidence -> Teological brain -> Theism ...
Had this been a more pliant medium, I would have added additional arrows off of Theism.
there are plenty of other faiths that are not Christian.
Right. Hence the "Evidence -> Teological brain -> Theism ..."
You have to be Christian to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Teleology has nothing to do with it.
Is that why people who have brains that suppress teleology are, by and large, atheists?
The evidence is the Resurrection.
"The evidence is the Resurrection."
Show me. I don't believe it just because of what some old book says.
"just because of what some old book says"
This phrase shows a fundamental misunderstanding on Skep's part. Christians do not believe in the Resurrection because of what "some old book" says - we believe in it because of what the Apostles taught. Gigantic difference.
Now I'll grant you that the New Testament is the primary way we today know of the Apostles' teaching, but it is still not the source of that message - it is only a product of it.
Ultimately, we believe in the Resurrection because three women (and two men) witnessed the Empty Tomb, and then the Risen Lord Himself appeared to the disciples, who in turn were charged with "spreading the word". Among the many ways they spread the word was by writing the books that make up the New Testament (plus the non-canonical writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, and others).
To me personally, one of the most compelling evidences for the Resurrection's historical, literal, physical reality is the witness of Rufus, son of Simon. (Look him up to see why.)
So who saw Jesus get up from his tomb and walk out?
If an hour is too long for you, Skep, then spend 5 minutes HERE (just the first half of the recording).
Nothing more need be said.
"So who saw Jesus get up from his tomb and walk out?"
No one, except possibly the Roman soldiers on guard (but we do not know this). But Mary Magdalene did see Him just a few feet away (mistaking Him for the gardener, an obvious reference to His being the "New Adam").
Again, Skep, this phraseology betrays your total, utter, and complete misunderstanding of just what the Resurrection is. It is mot definitely not a simple revivification, a return to life of an executed man. It is the Eighth Day of Creation - the first fruits of a New Heaven and a New Earth. Jesus did not just "get up and walk out" - He initiated an event more significant than the Big Bang. Far more significant. Infinitely more significant. Until you realize this, you will forever be chasing after shadows, railing against something Christians do not even believe in.
im-skeptical wrote: Show me. I don't believe it just because of what some old book says.
The birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is not unlike the Tunguska event. A rare event, seen indirectly by a few people, but an event which left visible traces.
The "old book" is just one of those visible traces, where the oral teaching of the disciples was written down. Just as a rock thrown into a pond leaves ripples in water, Jesus left ripples in His people.
In any case, my primary interest here was to comment on Loftus' incorrect claim about the usefulness of probabilities. His methodology -- like your claims to objectivity -- are demonstrably false.
And historical evaluations of the evidence have been provided in forums much more conducive to thoroughness than here. I cited two: Lincona's work and the Habermas/Flew debate. There are many others.
I'm now going off-line while traveling.
Wrf3, if you are interested in a critique of Licona's book there isn't a better place to look but in my book, WIBA.
"He initiated an event more significant than the Big Bang. Far more significant. Infinitely more significant. Until you realize this, you will forever be chasing after shadows, railing against something Christians do not even believe in."
No Bob. Skep doesn't have to realize anything about the christian mythos. Indeed, the other 5.5 billion people on the planet couldn't give a toss about the jesus fable.
To brighten up things a bit, a joke: What do the 1.2.billion Muslims and 13.9 million Jews, the other two Abrahamic faiths, call December 25th? ..... Thursday!
No, Linton. You're not responding to what I wrote. Pay attention. Whenever Skep (or you) make infantile comments about some corpse coming back to life and walking away, you're not describing the Resurrection at all. So go ahead and punch at shadows if it makes you feel good.
But if you wish to genuinely engage with Christians over the Resurrection, then at least challenge what is actually being asserted by Christians - which is NOT that Jesus simply "came back to life" - but rather that Easter morning was the beginning of a New Creation. Otherwise, your comments are a complete non sequitur, and totally irrelevant.
You yourself have stated that you believe in the physical resurrection of the body of Jesus. Do you deny this?
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/bodily.html
"You yourself have stated that you believe in the physical resurrection of the body of Jesus. Do you deny this?"
I most certainly do affirm this, as strongly and emphatically as possible. But the point I am making here is that aspect of the Resurrection is its least important element. The (yes, literal, physical, and very real) resurrected body of Christ has about as much similarity with His pre-Crucifixion body as a fetus has with a newborn baby, or a caterpillar with a butterfly. It is a New Creation - more physical, more spiritual, a whole new order of reality.
And it is only the beginning. The entire universe is destined to be renewed in the fullness of time. (Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away ... "Behold, I make all things new.")
So to reduce such a cosmic event, an event greater than creation itself, to "Jesus got up from his tomb and walked out" is to argue about a single note while an entire symphony awaits your attention. Yes, the note exists, but the symphony is far more significant, far more meaningful. Yes, Jesus did (literally and physically) walked out of His tomb, but the New Creation, of which that event is merely the first fruits, is what Christians think about when considering the Resurrection.
"Yes, the note exists, but the symphony is far more significant, far more meaningful."
In this instance I was referring to one note that sounds particularly flat. And it's not the only one.
im-skeptical wrote: "In this instance I was referring to one note that sounds particularly flat. And it's not the only one."
Have you learned nothing from this exchange? Your brain doesn't process data correctly. And we know that this is the case because you can't comprehend that brains, like bodies, are different and that you can't escape brain function when evaluating data. Not only are you tone deaf, you don't seem to be able to learn new things.
Sorry Bob. A walk in la-la land simply doesn't cut it any more as an explanatory paradigm. I have no doubt your sentiments are genuine but all this tosh about 3-day-old dead bodies reconstituting to full physical health has taken a toll on your senses. Your beliefs reflect little more than a word salad of unsubstantiated apologetics. I know you mean well but your logic is seriously dysfunctional.
As someone recently noted, "Enter science, we now have a tool that can make sense of the world empirically and shunt religion into the realm of fantasy and expose it for what it is, a cognitive crèche."
Sir Karl Popper, wonderful intellectual and renowned philosopher best surmises the bind into which you have got yourself: "[Our] knowledge can be only finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite."
I wish I could help in opening your eyes to the intellectual and unmitigated blindness of faith. And if a hard-case like me was able to garner the strength to abjure the almost unremitting pull of the event horizon circumscribing the black hole of religion, I am pretty sure you too have the capacity, determination and will-power to pull oneself back from the abyss of excessively credulous and unjustified belief in supernatural causation.
"Not only are you tone deaf"
Thanks for that, wrf3. The analogy explains a lot when dealing with a particular type of atheist. It's very like they cannot even hear what you're telling them. Or if they do hear, all significance is missed. They cannot appreciate the melody, because each note sounds the same as the last.
It's also useful in reminding us of just how sad atheism is. Imagine living in a world where you may not be deaf, yet there is still no music. How horrible to contemplate.
And please, Linton et.al., don't even try to respond with "atheists can still appreciate the wonder of the universe or the beauty of a sunset" etc. What you are referring to, compared to the Evangelium, is like comparing Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star with Mahler's Second Symphony.
"It's also useful in reminding us of just how sad atheism is. Imagine living in a world where you may not be deaf, yet there is still no music. How horrible to contemplate."
This conversation has taken an interesting turn. When pinned down on identifying real evidence for their superstitious beliefs, the Christians turn to their fallback position: "You just don't hear the music."
That's right. I don't have Christian music playing in by head. I am much more willing to look realistically at the evidence, and not spin it into the same tired old tune that plays over and over in your head. The real world has so much more to offer. So much more diversity and complexity, and you have no idea what you're missing. It's sad that you can't see it, hear it, feel it, taste it. You just sit there humming that worn-out tune, flat notes and all.
@B. Prokop:
"The analogy explains a lot when dealing with a particular type of atheist. It's very like they cannot even hear what you're telling them. Or if they do hear, all significance is missed. They cannot appreciate the melody, because each note sounds the same as the last."
As predictably, im-skeptical misunderstood your point. But, to be completely honest, the blame cannot be put *all* on his side. The analogy is misleading because it suggests some mysterious faculty, when it is nothing of the sort. We are talking about a plain and simple *corruption* of the critical, rational ability. And given that the first commandment is to Love the Lord thy God, and that God is also Reason Itself, is it any wonder that the first thing going out the window with atheism is human reason? Pile up some shallow ideology and you have it made. Either way, whether we accept this entailment or not, just contemplate again the "argument" he has given in December 27, 2014 11:30 AM. Allow me to quote again his gem:
"Type C individuals are Christians.
Since the only difference between C and W is Christian belief, it is reasonable to conclude that Christians' evaluation of the evidence is affected by their beliefs. By the definition of 'objective' that you gave, this is not objective."
Lovely, freakin' lovely. He is simply incapable of either evaluating evidence or even of constructing a valid argument -- as I said, corruption of reason.
im-skeptical wrote: This conversation has taken an interesting turn.
If you find the next step in traversing the perimeter of a circle interesting. So let's go around the circle again. There's an off-ramp, but at this rate I don't know when we'll get to it.
When pinned down on identifying real evidence for their superstitious beliefs, the Christians turn to their fallback position: "You just don't hear the music."
Remember what you've been told (hence the circle):
1) You can't escape how your brain obtains evidence and,
2) Escaping how your brain evaluates evidence can be very difficult.
#2 is the reason I jumped into this thread. Loftus' "probabilities based on available evidence" is garbage. Probabilities are calculated within an a priori axiomatic system, You can't used the probabilities calculated under one set of axioms to say that another axiomatic system is false.
I don't have Christian music playing in by head.
We haven't determined that, yet. Go back to the triangle movie. It isn't clear whether you see no teleology in that film at all, or if you see it, but suppress it. IOW, it isn't clear if you are totally deaf, or if you hear the music, but stick your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you."
I am much more willing to look realistically at the evidence,...
Typical ignorant "I'm smarter than you idiot Christians" chest thumping. You haven't even established that you see the evidence. Why do you hate science and epistemology?
BTW, concerning the movie, you wrote: Those things [triangles] do not possess any such property [teleology] and We see apparent intentionality
So it may be that you do see teleology, but then suppress it. For, clearly, the teleology in that film was real.
So if you're going to say, "I am much more willing to look realistically at the evidence", are you going to do so with your fingers out of your ears and eyes?
Are you going to do so taking your brain's biases into account? Not only are you going to have to remove it's bias for/against teleology, you're also going to have to remove another of its biases. But we'll get to that, later. Maybe.
OK, grodrigues, let's hear your valid argument showing that Christians look objectively at the evidence. Hint: dragging out your degree and insisting that you're right is not a valid argument.
"Remember what you've been told (hence the circle):
2) Escaping how your brain evaluates evidence can be very difficult."
You don't remember (or more likely, you never heard) what I told you. There are ways to improve the way we collect and evaluate evidence. The reason science has been so successful is that they've developed methodologies that seek to eliminate individual biases and assure objectivity. By adopting a scientific approach, you start to look at ALL the evidence, not just the bits that appeal to you. You will try to arrive at the BEST explanation, not just the one to which you are predisposed. And you will seek corroboration, to help identify where you might have gone wrong.
"Probabilities are calculated within an a priori axiomatic system, You can't used the probabilities calculated under one set of axioms to say that another axiomatic system is false."
That's true if you are ideologically motivated. Don't pin your shortcomings on the rest of the world. There ARE people who can be much more objective than you.
"It isn't clear whether you see no teleology in that film at all, or if you see it, but suppress it. IOW, it isn't clear if you are totally deaf, or if you hear the music, but stick your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you.""
I see the same thing you do. I have no idea where you get this notion of "suppression". The difference between us is the way we understand what we see.
"Typical ignorant "I'm smarter than you idiot Christians" chest thumping. You haven't even established that you see the evidence. Why do you hate science and epistemology?"
Have you established that you have a grasp the evidence? If so, why do you reject most of it, and only see the flimsy bits that support your ideology?
"So it may be that you do see teleology, but then suppress it. For, clearly, the teleology in that film was real."
I still don't get what you think that movie proves. Yes, we see intention in things, but sometimes we see it when there is none. What do you imagine I'm suppressing? And what does this have to do with how you examine evidence for the resurrection?
"Are you going to do so taking your brain's biases into account? Not only are you going to have to remove it's bias for/against teleology, you're also going to have to remove another of its biases. But we'll get to that, later. Maybe."
I can't wait to hear your method for examining evidence without bias. But I can tell you before you start, it obviously doesn't work.
"OK, grodrigues, let's hear your valid argument showing that Christians look objectively at the evidence."
Typical im-skeptical: his "argument" is shown to be an invalid piece of question-begging crap, something that anyone without having had the cream of his brain shaved off, knows, as it is not like what I said is rocket science. His response: put the burden on me to show that the denial of what he claims is the truth. You cannot invent this stuff, I tell you.
Look, I know you are not going to understand what I am going to say, but I will say it anyway, since you are not only an obtuse dumbass but in the firm grip of a particularly debilitating shallow ideology, but *if* you start with the presumption that Christians cannot look objectively at the evidence, then it is *pointless* to discuss anything with them. In particular, it is the high mark of dumb-assery to ask an argument that they do indeed look objectively at the evidence, because your initial presumption has already invalidated any such would-be argument. The principle of charity is one of the pillars of rational debate -- you start out with the presumption that the opponent on the other side is equally committed to the truth and the evidence, and that his position is not to be discounted based on a-priori armchair psychologization. This presumption admits of defeaters, quite naturally, but then by the nature of the case there is not much point in rational argumentation to continue. But all of this is above you; and not because you are an atheist, a member of the group of Atheists, but because of who *you* are in particular, as you have amply shown to everybody's satisfaction.
"Hint: dragging out your degree and insisting that you're right is not a valid argument."
This is in opposition to you dragging out your vast and abyssal ignorance? And if I "dragged out" my degree was in questions where having the degree is *relevant* and not because it confers any certificate of correctness -- not that you would know the difference, of course.
"The principle of charity is one of the pillars of rational debate"
That's a real gem, coming from you.
im-skeptical wrote: You don't remember (or more likely, you never heard) what I told you.
In fact, I responded on why it's irrelevant. So we'll take another step on the circle.
There are ways to improve the way we collect and evaluate evidence.
Within a given framework, that's true. It doesn't help you to decide between two consistent frameworks.
Suppose you use a coarse protractor to measure the angles of a triangle and find that they sum to 182°. Then you get a better protractor and the measurement over a set of triangles is 181 degrees. Then you get an even better protractor and it's now 180.5°. Finally, you use the most accurate instrument available to you and you come up with 180.07 degrees.
If space is flat, you would expect the measurement to be 180 degrees. If curved, depending on the shape of the curve, it could be more than 180 degrees or less than 180 degrees.
Without a priori knowing the shape of space, you don't know if your measurements are right or not. Indeed, space could be ever so slightly curved locally, where the measurements are made, but flat globally.
Measurements don't help outside of an established worldview.
By adopting a scientific approach, you start to look at ALL the evidence, not just the bits that appeal to you.
Science assumes naturalism. Apply the scientific approach to the events in the story of Flatland. Does the scientific approach prove or disprove A. Square's story? What really happened?
And you will seek corroboration, to help identify where you might have gone wrong.
But you won't seek corroboration from Christians, right? We're a priori nuts.
Let's see what Bertrand Russell has to say about it:
"All knowledge, we find, must be built up upon our instinctive beliefs, and if these are rejected, nothing is left." -- "The Problems of Philosophy."
I have no idea where you get this notion of "suppression".
From the scientific studies that deal with how different people interpret the same data.
The difference between us is the way we understand what we see.
Which is what I've been saying to you all along. You said that the intentionality in that movie was "apparent" but then said, "Those things do not possess any such property."
Where did the intentionality come from?
Have you established that you have a grasp [of] the evidence?
Why, no. No I haven't. The only thing I can tell you is that I am more consistent than you are. At the moment, I am a consistent Christian and you are an inconsistent atheist. I would hope that, at the end of this, you would end up a consistent Christian, but the absolute best I can expect is that you end up a consistent Atheist.
If so, why do you reject most of it, and only see the flimsy bits that support your ideology?
I'm extremely interested in knowing what it is you think I'm rejecting. If you don't deal with anything else, please answer this.
but sometimes we see it when there is none.
How do you know that it isn't there?
I can't wait to hear your method for examining evidence without bias.
I don't have one. Nobody does.
But I can tell you before you start, it obviously doesn't work.
We may get to that off ramp yet.
"That's a real gem, coming from you."
Typical im-skeptical: when proven wrong, plug the ears and scrounge up some alleged fault in your opponent and claim they are no better, if not worse. Sad, really. Just sad.
"Typical im-skeptical: when proven wrong, plug the ears and scrounge up some alleged fault in your opponent and claim they are no better, if not worse. Sad, really. Just sad."
You didn't prove anything. You simply echoed my words and laughed at them. Go ahead and make an argument, if you have one. But regarding your little platitude about the principle of charity, when did you ever apply that principle to anything I have said? What a blowhard you are.
"It doesn't help you to decide between two consistent frameworks. ... If space is flat, you would expect the measurement to be 180 degrees. If curved, depending on the shape of the curve, it could be more than 180 degrees or less than 180 degrees."
- I disagree. If you take an objective view, you might be able to recognize or infer that you are working on a curved surface.
"Science assumes naturalism."
- No. Science concludes that a naturalist perspective is appropriate because that's where the evidence leads. Science certainly didn't start out with this perspective, but the conclusion was inevitable, based on the evidence.
"Apply the scientific approach to the events in the story of Flatland. Does the scientific approach prove or disprove A. Square's story? What really happened?"
- A scientific approach can explain what happened.
"But you won't seek corroboration from Christians, right? We're a priori nuts."
- I said you don't take an objective view of the evidence. And I believe that's true. You evaluate evidence from your own ideological perspective. You haven't even attempted to understand what I'm telling you. When I try to describe how we can be more objective, you accuse me of slipping in my own ideology. No. I was only talking about being objective. Why can't you see that?
"Let's see what Bertrand Russell has to say about it:"
- Oh, brother. Russell was talking about whether we should trust the evidence of our senses. He most definitely was not referring to belief in the supernatural.
"From the scientific studies that deal with how different people interpret the same data."
- What scientific study that describes how we suppress teleology?
"Where did the intentionality come from?"
- Cartoon triangles don't intend anything at all. The artist who produced them intended to make them move as if they were some king of live critter. He created an illusion. This doesn't prove anything except that we can see apparent intention where there is none.
"I am a consistent Christian and you are an inconsistent atheist."
- You rejected science as being inherently naturalistic, and then you accused me of hating science because I couldn't see your theistic "evidence". How consistent is that? And if you think this is inconsistency on my own part, all I say is evidence has to be something we can actually detect - not just feelings or beliefs we have.
"I'm extremely interested in knowing what it is you think I'm rejecting."
- Reality. Dead people don't get up and walk. Cartoon triangles have no intentions. It's just an illusion.
"How do you know that it isn't there?"
- Only living critters have intentions. That's what observation tells us. The rest is just illusion. A cartoon triangle is nothing more than a projection of light. It may look like a living critter in some respect, but it's not.
"I don't have one. Nobody does"
- I disagree. Scientific methods are remarkably effective at eliminating bias. You can choose to follow a more scientific approach. And that doesn't mean you must adopt an atheist ideology before looking at the evidence. It simply means you can use this approach to take a more objective view of the evidence.
"You didn't prove anything. You simply echoed my words and laughed at them. Go ahead and make an argument, if you have one."
And we are at the final stage: deny that the opponent even ever made an argument.
Reduced to little more than an MGonz clone. Sad.
What argument have you made? I must have missed it. Could you state it clearly so that an "obtuse dumbass" like me can recognize it?
im-skeptical wrote: I disagree. If you take an objective view, you might be able to recognize or infer that you are working on a curved surface.
The key word is "might". If you can't determine the curvature, then all you have are your axioms.
Science concludes that a naturalist perspective is appropriate because that's where the evidence leads. Science certainly didn't start out with this perspective, but the conclusion was inevitable, based on the evidence.
Let's put that to the test.
A scientific approach can explain what happened [in Flatland]
Ok. Do it. What is the scientific conclusion to A. Square's story? Why was he locked in prison? Did the other Flatlanders not apply the scientific approach? Or did they come to the wrong conclusion? If they came to the wrong conclusion, on what evidence do you base your statement?
You haven't even attempted to understand what I'm telling you.
Please don't take my complete disagreement with your epistemological biases as not understanding what you're trying to tell me. I do understand you. I used to use the exact same arguments against Christians. I used to believe exactly as you do.
When I try to describe how we can be more objective, you accuse me of slipping in my own ideology.
Of course I say this, because you are no different from any other human being on the planet. You haven't yet shown that you know how to think outside your ideology.
It's possible, but it takes a lot of practice.
No. I was only talking about being objective. Why can't you see that?
Because your particular expression of what it means to be "objective" is wrong.
A person who accepts the axiom that space is curved will develop a consistent geometry which is different from a person who accepts the axiom that space is flat. Both of these people are objective, but they will see the same world differently.
Now, suppose (for the sake of argument) that it's impossible to measure the mass of the universe and thereby determine it's exact curvature.
Is one of these individuals less objective than the other? If so, why?
Oh, brother. Russell was talking about whether we should trust the evidence of our senses. He most definitely was not referring to belief in the supernatural.
One of the evidences of your senses is teleology. If you a priori suppress the possibility of meaning in nature, then the only possible conclusion is atheism.
What scientific study that describes how we suppress teleology?
I've already provided several links. If you can't find them, then I'll supply them again. But there's a bowl game on I want to watch.
Cartoon triangles don't intend anything at all. The artist who produced them intended to make them move as if they were some king of live critter. He created an illusion. This doesn't prove anything except that we can see apparent intention where there is none.
That's so bizarre. The story told by the animator is certainly not an illusion. The message is there, even if the medium is triangles.
You rejected science as being inherently naturalistic, ...
I don't reject science. Being on a firm epistemological foundation, I happen to know its limits.
[... to be continued ...]
[... continued from previous post ...]
and then you accused me of hating science because I couldn't see your theistic "evidence".
And yet you don't see the connection between suppression of teleology and atheism.
And if you think this is inconsistency on my own part, all I say is evidence has to be something we can actually detect - not just feelings or beliefs we have.
As I've said several times, and as Russell confirms, you cannot separate the evaluation of evidence from the beliefs that you have.
Dead people don't get up and walk.
Not normally, no. Are miracles impossible?
Cartoon triangles have no intentions. It's just an illusion.
The story told by the animator is an illusion? The meaning really isn't there?
Scientific methods are remarkably effective at eliminating bias. You can choose to follow a more scientific approach. And that doesn't mean you must adopt an atheist ideology before looking at the evidence. It simply means you can use this approach to take a more objective view of the evidence.
Is it possible that an objective view of the evidence for the Resurrection leads to the conclusion that it actually happened?
And, btw, you might find Why History isn't Scientific... of interest.
I think it is pointless to carry on with this. You have shown beyond any doubt that you are unwilling to even listen. I shouldn't have to keep repeating what I said when you fail to recognize that I said it. And it's not just me. You don't understand what Loftus has said, and you definitely don't understand Bertrand Russell. So just carry on. This is a waste of time.
im-skeptical wrote: You have shown beyond any doubt that you are unwilling to even listen.
Repeating myself: you are confusing disagreement with desire to listen. I've heard everything you've said. Furthermore, when I was an atheist, I used the exact same arguments. Your arguments are wrong.
I shouldn't have to keep repeating what I said when you fail to recognize that I said it.
It's so much easier to blame the other person than recognize your own shortcomings, isn't it?
The alternate, scientific, objective explanation is that the last set of questions caused cognitive dissonance of such a magnitude that your brain gave up instead of continuing in discomfort.
This is a waste of time.
This is you admitting that you are unable to break out of your mental rut.
But that's expected. "Unless a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
I don't care what you believe, and it makes no difference to me whether you agree or not. I don't expect anyone here to agree with me, but some will at least understand what I say. This is about your steadfast refusal to listen and understand what people say.
"Furthermore, when I was an atheist, I used the exact same arguments."
I find that impossible to believe. You show no sign of understanding what my arguments are. If you ever used them, you did so without knowing what you were arguing.
"You have shown beyond any doubt that you are unwilling to even listen"
Don't worry, wrf3. Skep tried the same line on me, when I informed him that I did listen to everything he said. His response? " If you did [listen to me], you'd show some hint of understanding [i.e., you would agree with me]."
Classic, just classic. Every last "argument" that Skep has ever produced on either this or his own website can be boiled down to the following:
1. I am right.
2. If you disagree with me, you are either
a) not listening, or
b) not being objective.
By the way, this has become far more entertaining now that I no longer have internet access from my home. Reading all the comments just once or at most twice a day (at the coffee shop) is definitely the way to go!
For clarification, Skep posted his latest comment while I was writing mine, so I did not see it until publishing my own.
For clarification, I said that being objective is getting outside your own ideology and looking at something the way others see it.
wrf3: That's slipping your atheist ideology into it.
Bob: So it's if you don't agree with me, you're not being objective.
Both of you are 100% wrong about what I said. so you didn't listen and understand, or you're deliberately misrepresenting what I said. So which is it?
wrf3, I've been reading your comments with some interest. You represent the kind of person who intrigues me. Since I never know what spark can be ignited that will eventually start a fire of knowledge and understanding free of brainwashing, here goes.
Does is bother you that you come across as having the whole truth and nothing but the truth--that you have all the answers? It should. For the more a person knows the less s/he claims to know. Tell us what you don't know pertaining to religious truth, if you want to prove me wrong. I'll be curious to learn if you admit ignorance about several important basic details of your particular religious worldview, while at the same time claiming certainty about the whole worldview itself. That would be odd wouldn't you think, if you admit ignorant of the foundational details but certain of the whole?
Let me link to a few items for your reflection on this question.
Christians debate many doctrinal and foundational specifics, as seen in these books. Are you claiming to know the answers for every issue? Have you studied these issues out as much as the authors have done? When you speak of the Christian worldview do you know how many Christian worldviews there are given the different answers given to these issues?
In one of these above books, on apologetics, several authors argue against presuppostionalism. LINK. I suppose you are certain they are wrong too, correct?
See a trend here? You are correct. Every other Christian is wrong. Seriously?
The historical trend is also telling, From Conservative to Moderate to Liberal to Agnostic to Atheist. It's so pronounced that the new evangelicals don't even recognize they have changed LINK.
There are several former believers who no longer believe. They should know why, don't you think, like Hector Avalos, Dan Barker, Robert Price, Bart Ehrman, William Dever, myself and many others. Have you read these works?
Let's say that it's possible you are wrong. Wouldn't you want to know? No, seriously, wouldn't you want to know, yes or no?
You have Christians debunking themselves, where the trend is from conservatism to atheism, with several former intellectual believers several rejecting your faith and writing about it.
Wouldn't you want to know why this is the case? Satan is too easily an answer. You would not accept that as an answer if someone said YOUR theology was of Satan, would you?
My claim is that doubt should be the position of everyone until such time as the evidence shows otherwise.
im-skeptical wrote: For clarification, I said that being objective is getting outside your own ideology and looking at something the way others see it.
If that had been all that you said, then that would be better, but it would still be wrong.
But let's objectively look at what you actually said:
There have been theists who are willing to examine the evidence objectively. We call those people atheists.
The resurrection story [is evidence that theists aren't objective]. 'Nuff said.
It's a question of how you view the evidence, and whether you can look at it objectively. You obviously don't.
The evidence for the resurrection is extremely weak at best, but Christians do not look at it objectively.
No, I equate 'objectively' with seeing things for what they are.
That is a sure sign that this ideology is the critical factor in determining your interpretation. You are not objective.
[-- just a note to show how wrong im-skeptical is here. It wasn't pre-existing ideology that made me become a Christian. My pre-existing ideology was atheism. I most certainly did not want to become a Christian at the time.]
So, what are we to make of this?
Your definition of "objectivity" is more than just looking at things from different axiomatic systems (i.e. getting outside Russell's "instinctive beliefs"). You entwine "objectivity" with "agreement with atheism."
And when asked why evidence for the Resurrection isn't "objective" you reply that dead people don't get up and walk.
Well, of course they usually don't. It was an extremely improbable event. But you have decided that improbable events can't happen. And you can't have done this based on evidence -- because evidence for improbable events is few and far between. You've based it on the a priori belief in atheism. You haven't stepped outside of your ideology at all.
The fallacy of the false dilemma. We did listen, we do understand, and we see a problem with your statements that you, yourself, do not see.
Now, even when your inconsistency is demonstrated (yet again), your brain still has to process this evidence. Whether it does it correctly (which would be shown by actually understanding and admitting your mistake) or continues to do it incorrectly ("you aren't listening!!!"), you can't escape it.
John Loftus wrote: wrf3, I've been reading your comments with some interest. You represent the kind of person who intrigues me.
Thank you?
Since I never know what spark can be ignited that will eventually start a fire of knowledge and understanding free of brainwashing, here goes.
I just love it how you automatically poison the well by using emotive terms like "brainwashing." We poor dumb biased Christians have been brainwashed, while you objective rational clear-thinking atheists have broken free. Just pathetic.
Does is bother you that you come across as having the whole truth and nothing but the truth--that you have all the answers? It should.
It doesn't, for the simple reason that "how I come across" is based more on your incomplete perception of me, rather than how I actually am. We all know that, in these politically correct times, offense can be taken where none was either intended, nor given. In the same way, I suspect you're reading more into my responses than what I've actually written.
For the more a person knows the less s/he claims to know. Tell us what you don't know pertaining to religious truth, if you want to prove me wrong.
That would fill a book. Shall I write another book about what I don't know about mathematics, even though I have a degree in math? How about a book about what I don't know about science, even though my math degree is from an engineering school, so I've had to take physics, chemistry, biology, thermodynamics, circuit and devices, astronomy, materials science, ...
I'll be curious to learn if you admit ignorance about several important basic details of your particular religious worldview, while at the same time claiming certainty about the whole worldview itself. That would be odd wouldn't you think, if you admit ignorant of the foundational details but certain of the whole?
First, you tell me what the "foundational details" you think I'm ignorant of. Because we may disagree on what is foundational and what is derived.
Second, by your criteria, I should throw out the American Constitution and Quantum Mechanics. I should throw out the American Constitution because there is no universal agreement on what the 2nd amendment means. Even the Supreme Court was divided, 5-4, on whether or not the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to own firearms.
And we should throw out Quantum Mechanics, because while most everyone agrees on Schrödinger's equation, there is widespread disagreement on how to interpret it. Copenhagen, Many-worlds, De Broglie-Bohm, ... You might enjoy the articles Lubos Motl posts about idiot scientists who say idiotic things about science. This one is a recent one about a paper published in Nature. And this one about proponents of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Let me link to a few items for your reflection on this question. ... Christians debate many doctrinal and foundational specifics, as seen in these books. Are you claiming to know the answers for every issue?
Of course not. Ask me which eschatological view I hold. On Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays I prefer amillennialism. On Thursdays I like postmillennialism. On Fridays I reflect on partial preterism. On Saturdays, I consider historic dispensationalism.
So there are ambiguities. So what? That's true of anything, whether it is interpretation of Christian doctrine, interpretation of the American Constitution, or interpretation of nature.
It's how our neural nets work.
Shall we declare science wrong because scientists can't agree on how to interpret nature via quantum mechanics?
"Well, of course they usually don't. It was an extremely improbable event. But you have decided that improbable events can't happen. And you can't have done this based on evidence -- because evidence for improbable events is few and far between. You've based it on the a priori belief in atheism. You haven't stepped outside of your ideology at all."
If you want to claim that some extremely improbable event happened, you need extremely good evidence. You don't have it. You only have a story in an old book that was written for the purpose of convincing people to believe in a religious faith. That's all. No physical evidence, no eyewitness accounts, no historical accounts (other than this book), no corroborating information of any kind. That's not good evidence from any kind of objective perspective. And that's why only Christians believe it. You don't have to be an atheist to see how weak this is. You just have to be free of the Christian ideology.
[... continued ...]
John Loftus wrote: In one of these above books, on apologetics, several authors argue against presuppostionalism. I suppose you are certain they are wrong too, correct?
If by "presuppositionalism" you mean "Christian presuppositionalism" then, yes, they are wrong.
Go back and re-read what I wrote. As a mathematician, I will say that we cannot escape our axioms. What we believe controls how we evaluate evidence. Then I said that I think that Atheism is a consistent, complete worldview. I also said that Christianity is a consistent, complete worldview.
That doesn't mean that there aren't inconsistent Christians, or inconsistent Atheists. im-skeptical is an inconsistent Atheist. He could be a consistent atheist, but whether or not he has that eureka moment only time will tell.
Only in your imagination.
The historical trend is also telling, ...
Are you saying that truth is determined by numbers? Really? And 100, or 200, or 1,000 years from now, when the trend has changed, will your great-great-great grandchildren try to use the same argument?
There are several former believers who no longer believe. ... Have you read these works?
Some of them. On the other hand, there are former atheists who now believe. Me, for one. C. S. Lewis, for another.
So what? If I have to weigh intellect against intellect, I'd certainly put C. S. Lewis ahead of John Loftus, or Bart Ehrman.
But what you don't understand is that I'm not playing that game. Atheism vs. Christianity isn't about evidence. It never has been. It's about how brains process evidence.
Let's say that it's possible you are wrong.
I'm a software engineer. I'm also married. I'm wrong a thousand times a day.
Wouldn't you want to know? No, seriously, wouldn't you want to know, yes or no?
Of course I would.
Truth has never, ever been about numbers. That you even try this argument means that you don't know how epistemology works. You're exhibiting the "r" side of r/K selection traits (i.e. where group consensus is more important than anything else).
And that you commit the fallacy of "selective citing" only shows how bankrupt your argument is. Note that this doesn't prove that Christianity is right and Atheism is wrong. It just proves that you are an ignorant atheist, as opposed to an intelligent atheist.
Why don't you let me provide my own answers? Otherwise, you can just have a conversation with yourself and whatever straw-men you want to talk to.
A self-defeating philosophy if ever there was one because, if you really believed it, you would doubt it and enter into a vicious circle.
And, for the last time, you're trying to argue evidence with someone who says that it isn't about the evidence. After all, if both Christianity and Atheism are complete consistent systems, there isn't any evidence that can possibly exist to settle the argument one way or another.
im-skeptical wrote: If you want to claim that some extremely improbable event happened, you need extremely good evidence.
That reminded me of a song I haven't listened to in a long, long time:
Every time I look at you
I don't understand
Why you let the things you did
Get so out of hand
You'd have managed better
If you'd had it planned
Now why'd you choose such a backward time
And such a strange land?
If you'd come today
You could have reached a whole nation
Israel in 4 BC
Had no mass communication
"Israel in 4 BC Had no mass communication"
If he came today we could all see. I don't see him. None of us can see him. But many believe anyway.
This posting will have to be in two parts. Part One:
"If you want to claim that some extremely improbable event happened, you need extremely good evidence."
Sez hoo? I do not accept this adage. Kindly demonstrate why I should. However, we must move immediately to Part Two:
"You don't have it."
But I do, Skep, I do. Your dismissal of the rock solid evidence I have many times posted to this website as "an old book" is no argument at all. It is simply a bald assertion on your part, which happens to fall under the category of the logical fallacy "Poisoning the Well".
Oh, heck. I won't be back on the internet until tomorrow (at the earliest), so let's go ahead with Part Three:
"no eyewitness accounts"
Again, we are to accept this solely on your say-so? The New Testament is chock-a-block with eyewitness testimony. The Evangelist Mark was there at the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus was arrested. Matthew saw everything from practically Day One. John likewise. Peter goes out of his way to write "we were eyewitnesses", and John says "we have heard, we have seen with our eyes, we have touched with our hands". Dang, but that sounds like eyewitness testimony to me!
And please don't respond with that bunk about "anonymously written documents". On what grounds do you assert this? Because the writers do not identify themselves within the text? Heck, by that standard my copy of Moby Dick must be anonymously written. Nowhere inside the novel do I find the name Herman Melville - only on the cover. Damn, must be an anonymous work!
Why should I insist on a ridiculously different standard for the Gospels?
One more thing. Before you go on about the New Testament being an unreliable assemblage of untrustworthy documents, you must first explain how Rufus made his way into the text. Until you can do this, it is impossible to look upon the writings in the NT as anything but reliable and believable.
And no, I will NOT explain what I mean by this. The process of actually doing your own homework here would do you some good. Once you investigate the significance of Rufus's appearances in the NT, you will see how anything other than a scrupulously faithful adherence to facts by its authors is improbable in the extreme.
"Once you investigate the significance of Rufus's appearances in the NT, you will see how anything other than a scrupulously faithful adherence to facts by its authors is improbable in the extreme."
Oh Dear. It becomes even embarrassing for the general reader when comments of this nature are touted as fact, and characterises the christian belief system as all the more irrational and perverse. Contrast Bob's position to that this CHRISTIAN MINISTER views the Rufus tale. He prefaces his story [and that is all it is, a story]:
"Who on earth was Rufus?
Before we get into that, I need to acknowledge that what I am about to say to you this morning might be wrong. I am going to reconstruct a Bible story from the flimsiest of evidence. I am going to make a lot of assumptions; I am going to make shadowy connections. Why would I preach a sermon that might be wrong? Because it might be right. And if that's the case, then the story of Rufus needs to be told…especially on Father's Day."
Believe what you will, Bob, but don't trot out exegetical apologetics as fact. It simply confirms the christian narrative as a contrived artifice, a cultural invention, and you, all the more credulous. Please try not to embarrass yourself further. It is somewhat unbecoming.
Oh! That's right. I forgot. This christian does not have the imprimatur of the magisterium. So this Minister must be either lying or wrong about the 'flimsiest evidence' for the Rufus story, or even that he is not a 'real christian'. Right, Bob?
"Your dismissal of the rock solid evidence I have many times posted to this website as "an old book" is no argument at all. It is simply a bald assertion on your part, which happens to fall under the category of the logical fallacy "Poisoning the Well"."
- This is all about objectivity, Bob. You see it as rock solid because of your faith. It is only your faith that blinds you to just how weak the evidence is. Nobody but a Christian sees sees the evidence as convincing. Nobody but a Christian believes that Jesus rose from the dead. You are not objective. You are blinded by your faith. The evidence sucks.
"Again, we are to accept this solely on your say-so?"
- It isn't me. This is the position of the majority of humanity. As I said, you have to be a Christian to believe it.
"The New Testament is chock-a-block with eyewitness testimony."
- I don't think you know the definition of eye-witness testimony. There is not one single word in the NT that even purports to be eye-witness testimony of the resurrection. Nobody saw it. Nobody claims to have seen it.
"The Evangelist Mark was there at the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus was arrested."
- We were discussing the resurrection, but we can consider other accounts in the NT. What does Matthew say? "Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane ..." He does not say "Then Jesus went with us to a place called Gethsemane". This is not eye-witness testimony. This was written by someone who wasn't there.
"Peter goes out of his way to write "we were eyewitnesses""
- This is written in the first person, as is the author was actually present with Jesus. However, serious scholars don't buy it. It is a forgery.
"On what grounds do you assert this?"
- I defer to the experts. And by the way, there is no doubt about who wrote Moby Dick, because there is ample historical evidence. The same cannot be said of many of the books of the NT.
"Why should I insist on a ridiculously different standard for the Gospels?"
- Exactly. Why should you accept vastly different standards for the stories of the bible than you would for anything else?
"Before you go on about the New Testament being an unreliable assemblage of untrustworthy documents, you must first explain how Rufus made his way into the text."
- I fail to see why you see this as being so significant. Rufus is mentioned not as an eye-witness of anything, but as someone who could present hearsay testimony of certain events. Rufus didn't see anything himself. He presumably heard about these events from his father. If you think about it, the fact that he is mentioned by Mark is strong evidence that Mark wasn't there. Because instead of touting himself as an eyewitness to those events, he resorts to touting Rufus as someone who could testify that who heard it from someone else who was there.
... touting Rufus as someone who could testify that he heard it from someone else who was there.
I should be more careful in what I write I said Matthew when I should have said Mark: What does Mark say?
"You see it as rock solid because of your faith."
No, not at all - only in your totally subjective view of things. Any genuinely objective person would dispassionately examine the evidence for the Resurrection and conclude that it is "rock solid" in favor of its veracity. Sorry to pop your bubble.
"There is not one single word in the NT that even purports to be eye-witness testimony of the resurrection."
Depends on what you call a witness. I say that anyone who saw the Resurrected Christ (say, in the Upper Room or on the shore of the Sea of Galilee) is an eyewitness to the Resurrection. The Resurrection is not just a moment in time.
OK, so as expected, both Skep and Linton fail the due diligence in research test. Allow me to present the Readers' Digest version here:
1. Mark is the only Gospel that references Simon of Cyrene as "the father of Alexander and Rufus" (Mark 15:21). Just a casual aside, mind you - it adds nothing to the narrative.
2. Paul sends greetings to Rufus in Rome (Romans 16:13), who he calls "eminent in the Lord". So now we know where Rufus is in the Apostolic Age.
3. Peter passes on greetings from Mark, who he says is with him in "Babylon", a codeword for Rome (1 Peter 5:13).
4. So one can see how Mark, being in Rome would have personally known the "eminent" Rufus, and included him in his own account of the Crucifixion, while the other Evangelists did not.
5. It stretches the bounds of credibility that, were the New Testament somehow "made up" or a product of imagination, such a trivial detail would be so intricately woven into the narrative, covering as it does three different writers over a period of several years, who are in no way checking their work against each other. To believe that such a construct is a deliberate fraud is to be capable of believing anything. Such thinking is identical to the fevered conspiracy theories so beloved of moon landing hoaxers or 911 truthers. Rufus's presence in the narrative screams of its authenticity. It simultaneously is strong, if not decisive, evidence for Marcian authorship of the second Gospel.
The Rufus known to Mark was the son of Simon, who bore Jesus' cross. The Rufus known to Paul was one of the prominent early builders of the church. Many scholars feel that they were the same person. But either way, I don't see what all the fuss is all about. Rufus was not included in the account of the crucifixion, except that he was mentioned as the son of Simon, who was supposedly there. So Rufus was known to Mark and to Paul, who greeted him (as he did many of the church founders), but 1 Peter never mentions him at all. This is what you call being "intricately woven into the narrative"? Two brief mentions in the entire NT, and not a hint that this Rufus ever knew or saw Jesus, dead or alive? And we don't really know if they are the same Rufus. This proves something to you?
And you have the gall to compare me to a conspiracy theorist or a hoaxer? What a joke.