At any rate, we're not here to talk about John's fortitude, nor his surgery. The sickos only concerned with John's surgery can stop reading now. We're here to comment on his latest post. Of course, Steve Hays already weighed in on it below. What my post lacks in intelligence, it will be made up in its brevity. Basically, we'll see the untouchable position John has maneuvered his atheology into. Like a child on who is 50 yards away from a bigger kid who's trying to chase him yells, "Nee ner nee ner nee ner, you can't get me," John has his version of this. And it's a smash hit with atheists 'round the world. You Can't Touch This.
Notice that John can't be touched by any historical argument for Christianity. Says Loftus,
"A foreknowing and omniscient God should've easily known that history is a poor medium to reveal himself in, especially if he did so in an ancient superstitious era. If he did so, he's not too bright, for there is every reason for us to disbelieve today."
Heads John wins, tails God looses. If God is all knowing he wouldn't reveal himself in history, especially ancient history, when all the morons lived. And, if we could show that God did reveal himself, then God is stupid, and hence not omniscient, and therefore not the God of Christianity.
So far so good... for Loftus. His next maneuver is this:
"I'll go with logic over history everytime, especially a miraculous history which can be attibuted [sic] to visions."
Loftus gives the impression that he's open minded. Willing to look at arguments. As long as we can prove these metaphysical truths from logic, John will listen. One could go off on a brief detour, talking about that ancient superstitious Aristotle - who believed God made the world move by thinking about himself, or, rather, thought thinking itself - and that silly thing called "logic" that he formalized and believed in. In the words of Loftus, "Why should I believe what they did? Why? We reject many ideas that the ancients believed. There are many ancient philosophical, theological, historical and psychological ideas which we reject today." But, such a digression would make this post longer than it needs to be. So, back to my post. Loftus is willing to listen, not to history, but to logic. The search for God is a metaphysical truth, and Loftus will listen to logic here.
But, in a stroke of genius, Loftus has an ace up his sleeve! Check this maneuver out. Says Loftus,
"I am finding that logic doesn't help us much at all in the quest for metaphysical truths."
So, to avoid any historical argument, Loftus consigns it all (well, all of it that the ancient stupid people said) to the flames. But, since he has put much stock into his appearance as an "open minded, intellectually honest skeptic," he didn't want to give the impression that he has his eyes closed to any argument for God's existence, and so says that he'll accept logical arguments for these metaphysical truths. But, and this is the great part, he banks on the fact that hardly anyone remembers what he has posted about in his inane ramblings of days gone by, and so if ever confronted by a logical argument he can dismiss that as well since it "doesn't help us much at all in the quest for metaphysical truths."
Hence, we can't touch Loftus, stop, stammer time.
My point about history is that I should not have to believe anything the ancients believed just because they believed it. I think the same goes for the beliefs of any era. Just because people believe something does not give me a good reason to believe the same thing. I must be able to test what I believe based upon good evidence and reasoning.
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as logic and metaphysical truths go, logic is used in the service of metaphysical beliefs to a very large extent. Logic does not give us our beliefs. Logic merely helps us to see the consistency of that which we believe. It's not that logic cannot help at all; it's that it doesn't help us that much.
Logic in the abstract is something that could help us quite a bit, but the problem is that we never find logic in the abstract. None of us are logic machines. Our passional nature gets in the way. We hold to mutually inconsistent propositions and don't realize it, or won't admit it.
If logic is helpful in coming to the true religious and metaphysical beliefs, then why is it that we all disagree with each other? I don't think people who disagree with me have a lower I.Q., do you?
Keep this clarification around the next time you quote me, Paul. And thanks again for being charitable with me. I think I know why you cannot do that with me.
You can't touch this
ReplyDeleteJL: My point about history is that I should not have to believe anything the ancients believed just because they believed it.
ReplyDeletePM: Wow, big point, John! Where would we be without you telling us that we shouldn't believe things *just because* people believed them? Where has anyone told you to believe in the claims of the Bible *just because* ancients believed them? Anyway, since no apologetic historical argument asks you to believe the Bible *just because* ancient people believed it, your post was pretty much a "waste of time," right?
JL: I think the same goes for the beliefs of any era. Just because people believe something does not give me a good reason to believe the same thing. I must be able to test what I believe based upon good evidence and reasoning.
PM: But surely your entire argument doesn't rest on the fact that you don't believe the Bible *just because* other people believed it.
If so, here's my argument against atheism: I won't believe it *just because* other people (including ancients) believed it.
JL: I must be able to test what I believe based upon good evidence and reasoning.
PM: Do you believe this claim? Have you, and how do you, test it.
JL: If logic is helpful in coming to the true religious and metaphysical beliefs, then why is it that we all disagree with each other?
PM: So why did you say you'd "go with logic over history anytime?" What does that mean? it can't be "logic in the abstract" because "we never find logic in the abstract." And so with respect to the "metaphysical truths" of the Bible, why do you say you'd "go with logic anytime?" It "doesn't help us....that much," right?
Anyway, let's apply this to atheists as well. Sinced there's many disagreements amongst you, logic must not help, "that much."
JL: Our passional nature gets in the way.
PM: Look at John, importing those categories used by those ancient, and stupid people Plato and Aristotle. Btw, as a materialist, you don't have "a nature."
Anyway, glad you're back, John!
Thanks Paul. I couldn't stay away. I missed ya! I even blogged about you just now!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, solve for me the problem of the incarnation, and how a being can truly create an equal being "eternally" if you want to continue to believe. While there is no such thing as logic in the abstract, which means we will still disagree, I think I'm on to something here, since I don't believe you can solve these problems sufficiently even if logic doesn't exist in the abstract. You'll just have to punt to mystery and to faith, and you will. But that's different than solving these two problems, correct?
Does Paul M. really think of himself as a great philosophical thinker following in the example of Jesus?
ReplyDeleteDoes he think his vapid comments about John Loftus' manhood are witty?
Does he have anything original or interesting to say on any subject?
Is this what passes for 21st century Christianity? Some pride-filled, ignorant thug with a blogsite spewing insults at some hated atheist?
How sad.
Anonymous, that's just Paul. This is an example of him on a particularly gracious day, so keep that in mind! If he stopped saying such things I'd think he no longer likes me. ;-)
ReplyDeleteWell John...I suppose if it provides a release for egotistical, 'regenerated' thugs like Manata, and keeps him from beating up people in real life, we should thank God for the service you provide him and society.
ReplyDeleteAh... the witty banter of atheists.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteIt is John Loftus who said he'd rather be "treated like ma dog," and so your argument is with him, not me. Why is it "mean" to say that someone who "would rather be treated like a dog" was neutered? Apparently you think John was lying?
John,
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid your words come back to bite you, again. If you think that my having "mysterys" means that my belief isn't rational, then what of your beliefs? Aftewrall, you did say:
"If this universe took place by chance, then the fact that reason cannot figure it all out is exactly what we would expect. We would not be able to ultimately justify our use of reason..."
Source
So, why does Loftus hold Christians to a double standard? Is this what he's pushing as "open minded skepticism?"
Lastly, you never answered the question. Why would you "go with logic over history anytime?"
Let's look at some statements Loftus has made about logic and reason:
* "...logic and reason may have no ultimate foundation, much like morals do not have an ultimate foundation."
* "Maybe reason has merely shown itself trustworthy by pragmatic verification based in the anthropic principle evidenced in the universe--it just works."
* "... it may be that reason doesn't work as well as the presuppositionalist proclaims."
* "If this universe took place by chance, then the fact that reason cannot figure it all out is exactly what we would expect. We would not be able to ultimately justify our use of reason..."
* ..."reason is impotent to help decide between ultimacies..."
* "I am finding that logic doesn't help us in the quest for metaphysical truths, anyway."
* "Tell me again about the usefulness of logic when it comes to metaphysical beliefs. Go ahead. Tell me."
And so we're all wondering what Loftus means by "accepting logic over history?"