FEATURED ARTICLE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

[jpholding]

Running out of things to do, are you? Smarting from the repeated beatings you've been given there, SS? Maybe you can take up where he left off. Start with that bit about dating the Gospels compared to other works.

[Soundsurfr]

Running out of things to do, are you? Smarting from the repeated beatings you've been given there, SS?

Funny, I don't remember any beatings.

Maybe you can take up where he left off. Start with that bit about dating the Gospels compared to other works.

Not my cross to bear. I gave up believing in magically re-attached ears long ago. I'm just responding to Kyle's request for the opinion of us lurkers, and enjoying the ride as the water-into-wine crowd attempts to justify its irrationality.

Maybe you can take a shot at establishing an ounce of credibility in this thread by addressing the circular argument you presented.

[jpholding]

Funny, I don't remember any beatings.

Yep, that's how bad they were.

Not my cross to bear.

But obviously your one-liners to belch, at any rate.

Maybe you can take a shot at establishing an ounce of credibility in this thread by addressing the circular argument you presented.

I did -- there isn't one.

Live and learn.

[Soundsurfr]

Yep, that's how bad they were.



But obviously your one-liners to belch, at any rate.



I did -- there isn't one.

Live and learn.

Yeah, I figured you'd simply dismiss it. You're nothing if not predictable.

Seriously tho, I think one of the biggest weak spots in your argument is your contention that the credibility of an author can be assessed by virtue of their consistency with regard to verifyable statements and that this then transfers to non-verifyable statements made in the same work, no matter how implausible those statements are.

Example:

A hundred years from now, we find an author's account of an episode in NY City. He indicates that he was walking along the West Side Highway. It was the morning of September 11th, 2001. He witnesses an airplane impacting the side of one of the towers in the World Trade Center. He sees another airplane impact the other tower 20 minutes later. He runs toward the towers. He describes other things that are historically consistent with the date, time and location. Then he describes seeing a firefighter leap from the ground to the 100th floor of the building. He writes that the firefighter saved an unconscious man from death by leaping back to the ground with the man in his arms and depositing him safely on the pavement.

Questions:

1. Given that the description of the historically verifyable events was consistent, is it your contention that we have no reason to disbelieve the account of the supernatural firefighter? Or is there more evidence needed?

2. Is it your contention that there is no difference in veracity or plausibility between the claim "I was walking on the West Side Highway" and the claim "I saw a fireman jump 100 stories"?

3. Does it take an "anti-supernatural" bias to doubt the fireman story? If so, is it more reasonable or less reasonable to have such a bias?

[Kyle Williams]

... And you've done a fine job of it....

Thank you, Soundsurfr.

[jpholding]

Yeah, I figured you'd simply dismiss it. You're nothing if not predictable.

If that's all it takes, that's all it gets.

Seriously tho, I think one of the biggest weak spots in your argument is your contention that the credibility of an author can be assessed by virtue of their consistency with regard to verifyable statements and that this then transfers to non-verifyable statements made in the same work, no matter how implausible those statements are.

That's not what I said. I said that such credibility puts a burden on the critic to come up with a reason why the account should not be trusted otherwise.

Arbitrarily inserting materialistic presuppositions is not fulfilling the burden, and I say the same of the fireman story.

Of course, your fireman story doesn't match analogically, unless someone starts a movement around the fireman ("Firemanology"), complete with social implications, and the fireman himself has a record of doing such things, etc. Isolated events are not a match for a broad social and literary track record.

Which means, your questions don't address a comparable situation in the least. Nevertheless:

1. Given that the description of the historically verifyable events was consistent, is it your contention that we have no reason to disbelieve the account of the supernatural firefighter? Or is there more evidence needed?

The information level is nowhere near as comparable, as noted. But you do need a reason besides, "I don't believe in miracles."

2. Is it your contention that there is no difference in veracity or plausibility between the claim "I was walking on the West Side Highway" and the claim "I saw a fireman jump 100 stories"?

Yes. There is only a difference in terms of the nature of what is reported. Your question begs the question of "veracity" and "plausibility" in a way that Hume also failed. Only the words "experiential commonality" might suffice.

3. Does it take an "anti-supernatural" bias to doubt the fireman story? If so, is it more reasonable or less reasonable to have such a bias?

3a. Yes, perhaps, assuming there's no technology at work that is available. 3b. It is unreasonable and presumptive, period.

[Soundsurfr]

First, thank you for answering my questions.

I think the answers you provided offer clear insight into why you are a Christian apologist and I am a skeptic. We hold fundamental philosophical differences with regard to epistemology.

That's not what I said. I said that such credibility puts a burden on the critic to come up with a reason why the account should not be trusted otherwise.

And I disagree. We can look at our court system, among other models, to see that your philosophy has been long ago discarded in favor of a more pragmatic and effective approach to solving the practical issues that face us in life. A far different standard is generally applied when we consider philosophical, spiritual and religious issues. Your approach conflates the two, IMO.

Arbitrarily inserting materialistic presuppositions is not fulfilling the burden, and I say the same of the fireman story.

Envision a situation where the Reverend Sun Myung Moon is indicted for murder. Moon, who is in fact the subject of a considerable socio-religious movement, argues that the victim was an agent of the devil and that God had commanded him to perform the attack. Hundreds, if not thousands of his followers will testify to Moon's authority in this matter.

Holding's philosophy would label an outright dismissal of Moon's defense by the courts as an "arbitrary insertion of materialistic presupposition", as well as a bias against the existence of Moon's alleged god. Perhaps a thousand years ago there may have been courts in Western society willing to entertain the notion that God and devils should be taken into account when evaluating human affairs. But not any more.

Any entertainment of the "god" defense leaves the court in the impossible position of proving beyond reasonable doubt that a) god does not exist and b) Moon was not acting on god's behalf. The reductio ad absurdum of this stance would place us in a position where no criminal could ever be convicted without applying an equally unsupported bias in favor of some other supernatural belief.

This is equally true for the theist's attempts to empirically justify their own religious beliefs. They are forced to argue by biased speculation, and how could any of us say that anyone who argues this way about an interpretation of events is wrong, other than by speculation of a different bias?

Of course, your fireman story doesn't match analogically, unless someone starts a movement around the fireman ("Firemanology"), complete with social implications, and the fireman himself has a record of doing such things, etc. Isolated events are not a match for a broad social and literary track record.

I concede that the story does not match perfectly from the standpoint of analogy, however I don't see how the existence of a "movement" around the fireman in any way increases the veracity of the claim. Does the fact that a billion people believe Muhammed was the prophet of Allah somehow speak to the likelihood that Muhammed ascended into heaven on a winged horse? There are movements around all manner of things, many of which must be wrong by virtue of the fact that they are mutually exclusive.

Which means, your questions don't address a comparable situation in the least. Nevertheless:

The information level is nowhere near as comparable, as noted. But you do need a reason besides, "I don't believe in miracles."

That is a shift in the burden of proof. I am willing to allow that the fireman may have magically jumped 100 stories, but I have a responsibility to suspend that belief until it is empirically substantiated. To argue otherwise is absurd.

Yes. There is only a difference in terms of the nature of what is reported.

Please explain what you mean by "the nature of what is reported".

Your question begs the question of "veracity" and "plausibility" in a way that Hume also failed. Only the words "experiential commonality" might suffice.

Perhaps the inconclusiveness of Hume's methodology leaves you dissatisfied, however any other method places us in a position of pure speculation at all times, and leaves us open to wildly inappropriate actions and beliefs.

Is it better for us to reserve judgment as to the existence of ice until experience provides an unequivocal answer, or is it better to assign varying degrees of significance to all manner of suggestions based on some non-empirical judgment - the manner of which cannot even be qualified?

I believe that in the West, at least, we have answered this question on a social and academic level. On a religious level, we must apply a different standard to what we believe, whether we admit it or not.

3a. Yes, perhaps, assuming there's no technology at work that is available. 3b. It is unreasonable and presumptive, period.

Then our social framework is, in most respects, unreasonable and presumptive. Our historical analyses are unreasonable and presumptive. And with the exception of certain personal biases, we are all unreasonable and presumptive in the conduct of our daily lives. IMO, what you call "unreasonable and presumptive" behavior has ultimately led to a greater understanding of the world around us, and a state of health and well-being never before achieved by humanity. And as such it is not unreasonable or presumptive at all.

[jpholding]

And I disagree. We can look at our court system, among other models, to see that your philosophy has been long ago discarded in favor of a more pragmatic and effective approach to solving the practical issues that face us in life

I'm rather intimately familiar with the court system, actually, having worked both in a law library and for an "expert witness". I don't see that in any case has such a philosophy been discarded and don't see how you get to this.

Perhaps (given your Moon example) you mean that no one tries "God killed that person, not me" as a defense. If so, it would be rejected not on the grounds that God cannot kill a person (IOW miracles can't happen) but that it is impractical to suggest that God just happened to eg plant fingerprints on the murder weapon that matched the defendant's; just as it would be to suggest human X forged the fingerprints by some natural means. I do not see anything to indicate that divine causes are ruled a priori out of court; if anything, I recall that "acts of God" are/were set aside as a cause of certain effects (though in civil lawsuits, normally, as when wind causes a tree to fall on someone; and the phrase implies no specific religious content).

Envision a situation where the Reverend Sun Myung Moon is indicted for murder. Moon, who is in fact the subject of a considerable socio-religious movement, argues that the victim was an agent of the devil and that God had commanded him to perform the attack

This isn't a strict parallel either. Nothing in the murder is critical to Moon's identity or that of his movement. If there is any parallel, then it would be like this: In that case, Moon should be charged with murder and put in jail...and God can break him out (match with: Jesus was executed by the judicially authority, then resurrected).

Moreover, this only works as well if these thousands of people saw Moon eg, speaking to the devil. Which leans me to a question for you:

How many witnesses would need to see the fireman get to the ground as described for YOU to accept that it had happened (whatever the cause, whether unknown tech or a "supernatural" cause)?

Does the fact that a billion people believe Muhammed was the prophet of Allah somehow speak to the likelihood that Muhammed ascended into heaven on a winged horse?

As far as I know, there were no witnesses at all to the first and I know nothing about who or how many or when claimed to see the second. I'd have to ask my consultant on Islam, who I suspect would tell me that it appears very late and thus would match miracles of Jesus recorded in Gospels dated to the third century as authored by eg, Gnostics.

That is a shift in the burden of proof.

As far as I am concerned both sides in any debate have that burden because a positive claim lies behind each side -- even if it is not articulated.

I am willing to allow that the fireman may have magically jumped 100 stories, but I have a responsibility to suspend that belief until it is empirically substantiated. To argue otherwise is absurd.

For my part, I'd have no reason to care about it as a one-time event with no further connections. If someone says "God did it" I wonder why God didn't take credit somehow, which would be the expectation (also the same if it were Zeus, Hera, etc.).

Please explain what you mean by "the nature of what is reported".

Type of activity (walking versus falling).

however any other method places us in a position of pure speculation at all times, and leaves us open to wildly inappropriate actions and beliefs.

This sounds to me like a pressing of an epistemic panic button rather than something shown by evidence. Moreover, as any review of a place like snopes.com will reveal, the "supernatural" is hardly the determining factor in this.

Is it better for us to reserve judgement as to the existence of ice until experience provides an unequivocable answer, or is it better to assign varying degrees of significance to all manner of suggestions based on some non-empirical judgement - the manner of which cannot even be qualified?

If reserved judgment were all that were done, I certainly wouldn't be as active as I am. But that is precisely NOT what is done as a whole: Rather, judgments are executed and then propogated.

To put it as I have, if every Skeptic were Kyle Gerkin, I'd probably have another job.

Then our social framework is, in most respects, unreasonable and presumptive.

I have been the first to say that the West is flawed on that account in many ways...not just in this respect.

IMO, what you call "unreasonable and presumptive" behavior has ultimately led to a greater understanding of the world around us, and a state of health and well-being never before achieved by humanity.

If you mean what I think you do, then what of eg Stark's case that it is precisely the Christian worldview that has enabled this?

[Babaloo]

If you mean what I think you do, then what of eg Stark's case that it is precisely the Christian worldview that has enabled this?

I have read critical book reviews concerning Stark's work in a variety of publications (in other words, not just in "freethought" magazines). Even Stark acknowledges elements besides Christianity alone that were involved in the rise of reason, science, and democracy. He certainly mentions the debt of Islam in the case of the rise of science and reason, and the even earlier debt owed to pre-Christian philosophers and politicians of ancient Greece and Rome. (Another book, not written by Stark, but on the topic of the rise of western culture argues that crucial roles were also played by "Guns, Germs, and Steel"--see Jared Diamond's book with that title). Also, the historian, Francis Fukuyma [check my spelling] mentioned that religion had first to be "defanged" in the west before political liberalism and modern day liberal democracies could arise.

It would also appear that Christianity's contributions to art, science, and culture peaked some time in the past. Today anyone of any religion, or no religion, can study and perform research in science, history, art, architecture, write novels and plays, do philosophy, or study and teach the subject of "religion" in colleges and universities the world round. (And as such studies continue to flourish round the world regardless of one's religion or lack thereof, it would appear that human curiosity and a yearning to know and accumulate and share knowledge appear to be basic traits more universal than Christianity.)

(Speaking of "peaking"--it may be that computers and human minds will increasingly interact in future and we'll learn so much from continued study of the human brain and also from artificial intelligence, that machines might be developed that sense the environment and continue learn from it, absorbing more and more input, and becomingly strikingly more "human-like" in their knowledge, sensory distinctions, and ability to interact with the environment and even with human beings. In that case who knows what kind of human-machine hybrids, or artificially intelligent organisms (mostly machine with perhaps a bit of brain-like functioning in them, perhaps a bit of brain matter as well, grown from stem-cells) might arise? And in that case humanity might peak and new life forms take over, at first hybrids, later perhaps more totally machine-like, which isn't saying God doesn't exist, but perhaps humanity's belief in ITS centrality will once again be overthrown, as was the case of us believing we lay at the center of the cosmos, or the belief that we had no genetic nor psychological/sociological/behavioral relations to any of the species that preceded us on the planet.)

Lastly, if you find out more about Stark's current beliefs please share. His wife was very ill I seem to recall reading, which turned his mind more toward religion. But even after having been a believer in God (deist/monotheist?) for years before he became a Christian, he does not appear to have become an inerrantist. For instance, Stark was interviewed in a Baylor university magazine in 2004, and here's how it went:

"I never had any trouble believing in God; I had a lot of trouble with the New Testament, with the whole notion that somehow blood sacrifice is essential to make certain things happen. It seemed to me very pagan," he says, adding that he wondered why God wouldn't choose another way to convey the message of salvation. It was while he was researching the origins of science in Christianity that he came to an understanding and acceptance that made sense to him. "Christian commitment to reason is massive, and part of it is that one shall sit and reason about Scripture," he says. "Augustine says, ‘There are many things here we do not understand about God's revelations, but one day we will.' That suggests to me that the task is there for all of us." In that process of reasoning it out, Stark realized that God's choice of revelation had more to do with us, with his creatures, than it did with God. "It's about what's communicable and can be understood. The limiting factor here was us. What could first century people understand? That's the shape that that particular revelation, that particular great gift, would come in because that was the way it could be accepted and understood. There's a way in which the New Testament story - although timeless - is marked by its time and is thereby appropriate, necessary and true."

[jpholding]

I have read critical book reviews concerning Stark's work in a variety of publications

I didn't ask YOU, you simple-minded buffoon. Mind your own business and keep your long-winded speeches about nothing to yourself.

As if it were actually the argument that Christianity ALONE was the enabler; or that people today kept up with its phislophical implications. No one said this, not me, not Stark. Argue with the wall --you may as well, since you already do.

religion. But even after having been a believer in God (deist/monotheist?) for years before he became a Christian, he does not appear to have become an inerrantist. For instance, Stark was interviewed in a Baylor university magazine in 2004, and here's how it went:

Edski, when the heck are you going to learn that this kind of stupid statement doesn't mean a thing to me? I don't CARE who is an inerrantist!

They need to make a commercial with you in it saying:

"Help! I'm talking -- and I can't shut up!"

[Soundsurfr]

I'm rather intimately familiar with the court system, actually, having worked both in a law library and for an "expert witness". I don't see that in any case has such a philosophy been discarded and don't see how you get to this.

Perhaps (given your Moon example) you mean that no one tries "God killed that person, not me" as a defense. If so, it would be rejected not on the grounds that God cannot kill a person (IOW miracles can't happen) but that it is impractical to suggest that God just happened to eg plant fingerprints on the murder weapon that matched the defendant's; just as it would be to suggest human X forged the fingerprints by some natural means. I do not see anything to indicate that divine causes are ruled a priori out of court; if anything, I recall that "acts of God" are/were set aside as a cause of certain effects (though in civil lawsuits, normally, as when wind causes a tree to fall on someone; and the phrase implies no specific religious content).



This isn't a strict parallel either. Nothing in the murder is critical to Moon's identity or that of his movement. If there is any parallel, then it would be like this: In that case, Moon should be charged with murder and put in jail...and God can break him out (match with: Jesus was executed by the judicially authority, then resurrected).

Moreover, this only works as well if these thousands of people saw Moon eg, speaking to the devil. Which leans me to a question for you:

How many witnesses would need to see the fireman get to the ground as described for YOU to accept that it had happened (whatever the cause, whether unknown tech or a "supernatural" cause)?




As far as I know, there were no witnesses at all to the first and I know nothing about who or how many or when claimed to see the second. I'd have to ask my consultant on Islam, who I suspect would tell me that it appears very late and thus would match miracles of Jesus recorded in Gospels dated to the third century as authored by eg, Gnostics.



As far as I am concerned both sides in any debate have that burden because a positive claim lies behind each side -- even if it is not articulated.



For my part, I'd have no reason to care about it as a one-time event with no further connections. If someone says "God did it" I wonder why God didn't take credit somehow, which would be the expectation (also the same if it were Zeus, Hera, etc.).



Type of activity (walking versus falling).



This sounds to me like a pressing of an epistemic panic button rather than something shown by evidence. Moreover, as any review of a place like snopes.com will reveal, the "supernatural" is hardly the determining factor in this.



If reserved judgment were all that were done, I certainly wouldn't be as active as I am. But that is precisely NOT what is done as a whole: Rather, judgments are executed and then propogated.

To put it as I have, if every Skeptic were Kyle Gerkin, I'd probably have another job.



I have been the first to say that the West is flawed on that account in many ways...not just in this respect.




If you mean what I think you do, then what of eg Stark's case that it is precisely the Christian worldview that has enabled this?

JP - sorry for not getting back right away - I've been off with other things.

Will try to respond in detail today or tomorrow.


(Am I having a civil discussion with JPH? )

[jpholding]

JP - sorry for not getting back right away - I've been off with other things.

Will try to respond in detail today or tomorrow.

Actually....wait a week if you can. *I* will be travelling until the 25th, starting in about 16 hours. I have no idea if I'll even be able to log in here.

(Am I having a civil discussion with JPH? )

No...this is Sheila. How are you?

[Soundsurfr]

Actually....wait a week if you can. *I* will be travelling until the 25th, starting in about 16 hours. I have no idea if I'll even be able to log in here.



No...this is Sheila. How are you?

My response is ready, Sheila, but it's not a problem to wait another week.

Enjoy your travels, and please warn me in advance if they bring you anywhere near New York.

[Soundsurfr]

I'm rather intimately familiar with the court system, actually, having worked both in a law library and for an "expert witness". I don't see that in any case has such a philosophy been discarded and don't see how you get to this.

Perhaps (given your Moon example) you mean that no one tries "God killed that person, not me" as a defense. If so, it would be rejected not on the grounds that God cannot kill a person (IOW miracles can't happen) but that it is impractical to suggest that God just happened to eg plant fingerprints on the murder weapon that matched the defendant's;

Indeed. And if it is impractical to suggest, then it is, by the same token, impractical to believe. This is my point. If it happened, why would it be impractical to suggest that it happened? If the courts allow that it can happen, and the defendant claims that it happened, then unless we investigate further, how can we be sure beyond a “reasonable” doubt that it didn’t?

I can envision a great many criminals being sprung from jail through the application of… let’s call it…. a less naturalistic epistemic philosophy.

just as it would be to suggest human X forged the fingerprints by some natural means.

Ditto to the above. However, if it were able to be shown by demonstration that it is possible for human X to forge the defendant’s fingerprints by some natural means, then it would no longer be impractical to suggest or believe.

I do not see anything to indicate that divine causes are ruled a priori out of court;

You may be right on this – I was speaking based on a recollection I had of a case in which the judge was invoking his/her own appeal to divine guidance and was criticized for it, but I cannot find a reference to it, and I don’t remember the details.

if anything, I recall that "acts of God" are/were set aside as a cause of certain effects (though in civil lawsuits, normally, as when wind causes a tree to fall on someone; and the phrase implies no specific religious content).

Clearly that’s just a figure of speech. It’s ironic that it refers to natural events outside of the control of the concerned parties.

Envision a situation where the Reverend Sun Myung Moon is indicted for murder. Moon, who is in fact the subject of a considerable socio-religious movement, argues that the victim was an agent of the devil and that God had commanded him to perform the attack

This isn't a strict parallel either. Nothing in the murder is critical to Moon's identity or that of his movement. If there is any parallel, then it would be like this: In that case, Moon should be charged with murder and put in jail...and God can break him out (match with: Jesus was executed by the judicially authority, then resurrected).

So if Moon actually was acting on behalf of God, it would still be our responsibility to put him in jail?

Moreover, this only works as well if these thousands of people saw Moon eg, speaking to the devil.

Oh, I’m sure they did.

Which leans me to a question for you:

How many witnesses would need to see the fireman get to the ground as described for YOU to accept that it had happened (whatever the cause, whether unknown tech or a "supernatural" cause)?

None. I am an avid proponent of the Hume approach. I would see no advantage to accepting a supernatural explanation for anything, and I would reserve judgment as to whether the event actually did occur even by natural means until it was unequivocally shown that it could. Note that in the case of the Indian Prince, The Prince gains no advantage to believe that ice exists in a scenario where it cannot be shown to exist, so he reserves judgment unless or until there is means provided for him to experience it. If that happens, the question is settled. If it doesn’t, he is none the worse off. The alternative approach leaves the Prince vulnerable to any manner of outrageous suggestions, as there is no consistent method of determining the truth value of any of them.

Does the fact that a billion people believe Muhammed was the prophet of Allah somehow speak to the likelihood that Muhammed ascended into heaven on a winged horse?

As far as I know, there were no witnesses at all to the first and I know nothing about who or how many or when claimed to see the second. I'd have to ask my consultant on Islam, who I suspect would tell me that it appears very late and thus would match miracles of Jesus recorded in Gospels dated to the third century as authored by eg, Gnostics.

I’m not sure if there actually was an answer to my yes or no question in there somewhere, but I’ll extrapolate and take it as a “no”.

As far as I am concerned both sides in any debate have that burden because a positive claim lies behind each side -- even if it is not articulated.

We disagree.

For my part, I'd have no reason to care about it as a one-time event with no further connections. If someone says "God did it" I wonder why God didn't take credit somehow, which would be the expectation (also the same if it were Zeus, Hera, etc.).

So, we should expect God to conform to certain expectations?

however any other method places us in a position of pure speculation at all times, and leaves us open to wildly inappropriate actions and beliefs.

This sounds to me like a pressing of an epistemic panic button rather than something shown by evidence.

We disagree.

If reserved judgment were all that were done, I certainly wouldn't be as active as I am. But that is precisely NOT what is done as a whole: Rather, judgments are executed and then propogated.

Depends on how you look at it.

I have been the first to say that the West is flawed on that account in many ways...not just in this respect.

That’s fair and consistent, given your worldview.

IMO, what you call "unreasonable and presumptive" behavior has ultimately led to a greater understanding of the world around us, and a state of health and well-being never before achieved by humanity.

If you mean what I think you do, then what of eg Stark's case that it is precisely the Christian worldview that has enabled this?

Probably the topic of another discussion, but I see Stark’s case as the rooster taking credit for the sunrise.

[freethinker]

[QUOTE=jpholding]I found your work so poor that when someone asked me to respond to it, I turned it over to someone else. You can read the whole thing at http://www.tektonics.org/af/faithatheist.html

Kyle is not given enough credit for his inventive way of reviewing a book. I read the "faith" book myself and reviewed it concentrating more on scientific errors than religious errors. The mistakes are too many too list here, they can be viewed on my web site book review.
In my opinion someone who publishes obvious errors cannot be trusted to champion the truth.