Who's to blame?

John W. Loftus said:

“I ran through several different scenario's of why I doubt Christianity, this being just one hypothetical example. And my question was this: what if I am wrong....who's to blame?”

You are.

Next question.

“You say it's one's moral disposition which causes people like me to doubt. Does that answer apply to why you doubt the things you doubt? Does that answer explain why you doubt certain historical claims...or scientific claims...or anthropological claims...or psychological claims....

For instance, does your moral disposition cause you to think Chevy's are a better vehicle than Ford's (if you do), or that the Colts were a better football team (even though they didn't win)? Does your moral position cause you to believe that O.J. Simpson is a murderer?

What if I claimed that your moral disposition leads you to think we actually landed on the moon, and that's the whole reason why you believe this?”

An extended straw man argument. I never offered this as a multi-purpose explanation for all forms of doubt or disbelief.

But there are cases in which it’s applicable, such as holocaust-deniers.

“And have you ever seriously studied what makes us into the people we are today? What do you know about psychology, child raising, the effects of experiences upon ours beliefs, and the fact that much of what we believe is due to the accidents of birth (i.e., when and where we are born)?”

Every educated man or woman is conversant with the idea of social conditioning, and the putative mechanisms thereof. You’re not the first person who ever went to college, John.

“ I could just as well say that your moral disposition leads you to believe, such that YOU believe despite the evidence to the contrary. I could further argue that your moral disposition is barbaric and based upon a barbaric notion of a mythical God created in your own mind. Then I could conclude by arguing that whereas you base your beliefs on your own barbaric moral disposition, I believe basd upon evidence and reasons.”

Yes, you could “say” that. You could say anything.

The question is whether we have good reason to ascribe certain mental states to certain moral states.

In this instance, I attribute infidelity to a warped moral predisposition for several reasons:

i) I accept that attribution because it’s an attribution given in Scripture, and I have good reason to believe in Scripture.

ii) I also notice a very exacting correspondence between the way in which Scripture has analyzed the behavior of unbelievers, and the way I myself observe them to behave.

iii) There are some very intelligent unbelievers who go to desperate lengths to deny the obvious or silence dissent in order to justify their unbelief.

This evasiveness and irrationality is a telltale symptom of a guilty, haunted conscience.

iv) There are also unbelievers who are quite open about how their ethical or political agenda is driving their unbelief.

“ Like I said, I am not consciously rebelling against God at all, and I know the inner workings of my mind enough to know this is true--this is all have.”

I don’t have any opinion on the merits of this claim. It’s like a man accused of a crime. If he’s innocent, he will plead innocent—but if he’s guilty, he will also plead innocent.

I’m in no position to either confirm or deny your claim. It lies outside the sphere of public verification or falsification.

You could be lying. You could be telling the truth. Or you could be self-deceived.

There’s a trivial sense in which you’re not consciously rebelling against a God who, according to you, doesn’t even exist.

The question is whether your disbelief is a case of conscious or subconscious rebellion.

And it really matters not which is true.

Subliminal rebellion against the light is just as culpable as conscious rebellion.

Once again, I’m not imputing that to you. I can’t render an informed judgment on that matter, and it’s quite beside the point even if I could.