Earlier today, John Loftus posted two segments of video footage of a discussion involving Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett. The discussion is about two hours long. There are a lot of problems with the assertions and arguments made by the four participants, but I want to focus on one point made by Daniel Dennett, a point that the other three men seemed to agree with.
Around 35 minutes into the first hour, there was an exchange about competition among scientists. Supposedly, the fact that scientists compete with one another, have motives for arguing against the theories of other scientists, etc. gives science a significant advantage over religion. Daniel Dennett claimed, with emphasis, that there's "nothing like that" in religion, and the other three men indicated that they agreed, either by saying so or by gesture.
Surely they would want to revise the argument, though, upon further reflection. Not only do religions like Christianity and Islam compete with one another in the modern world, but they also competed with each other in more significant contexts in which the evidential foundations of a religion were at stake. One of the reasons why most scholars, Christian or not, accept the historicity of the empty tomb, for example, is because the evidence indicates that the earliest Jewish opponents of Christianity acknowledged the fact. Jesus was executed, and the earliest church leaders were persecuted and put to death, by competitors. As I've noted in previous discussions concerning issues like New Testament authorship and the historicity of the infancy narratives, some of the most significant evidence we have is hostile corroboration. It's not just that many ancient Jews or Romans, for example, would have been interested in arguing against Christianity, but also that many within professing Christianity - Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebionites, etc. - had reasons for wanting to dispute popular Christian beliefs. Claims such as that Jesus was a descendant of David, that His tomb was empty, or that a document was written by the apostle John, for example, were made and maintained in contexts in which people would have had the desire and means to argue effectively against such beliefs if they were false.
In the modern world, scholars working in religious fields often go through the same sort of process of competition that scientists practice. When the large majority of relevant scholars affirm the historicity of the empty tomb or the early Christians' belief that they saw the risen Christ, for example, those are conclusions that scholars have reached in an atmosphere of competition. Christianity didn't originate as a state religion that disallowed competition or as a religion that was unchallenged or uninterested in competition, and it isn't such a religion in today's world.
Problem is, science will always operate according to the Gamaliel principle, whereas religion rarely does.
ReplyDeleteOne religious point of view on this or that matter might be more accurate than others, but at the end of the day, you have no emirically verifiable fact that rewards your exegeting and philosophizing - just a lengthy, non-necessary chain of reasoning.
This causes religion to always slowly go off the rails, like a deaf man whose speech slowly deteriorates, because there is no empirical corrective. And because people (like Servetus) are lazy and foolish, they are able to embrace false viewpoints with no automatic consequences. So religion does eventually tend towards intolerant, unthinking suppression of alternate ideas.
In the modern world, scholars working in religious fields often go through the same sort of process of competition that scientists practice.
ReplyDeleteWhat Dawkins said was, in so many words, that he's be interested in how they are similar and how they are dissimilar. That's a worth question.
When the large majority of relevant scholars affirm the historicity of the empty tomb or the early Christians' belief that they saw the risen Christ, for example, those are conclusions that scholars have reached in an atmosphere of competition.
But when we consider that the vast numbber of Biblical scholars entered their respective fields as believers in the first place, this "poll" is diminished considerably in force. I remember someone say that for every book I can list that argues against Christianity or some aspect of it, he can list a 100 books coming to the opposite conclusion. Well, bully for him, and for you. There are many more believers than non-believers, and of the non-believers there are fewer of us who have studied these issues out in any depth to be able to write about them.
Christianity didn't originate as a state religion that disallowed competition or as a religion that was unchallenged or uninterested in competition, and it isn't such a religion in today's world.
It used to be, and it did ban books and burn heretics, and yet it lost these types of debates even while they persecuted those who didn't believe.
So what's your point?
What best explains why both science and religion have changed their views on a various number of topics down through the years? Science gradually learns and grows. Religion adapts and regroups. Science has learn humility. Religion still claims to represent the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Oh yes, the humility of folks like Dawkins who claim that if you disagree with evolution you're stupid, ignorant, insane, or wicked. If only the whole world was that humble, why we'd be cured of all those icky blights religion causes!
ReplyDeleteAn anonymous poster wrote:
ReplyDelete“Problem is, science will always operate according to the Gamaliel principle, whereas religion rarely does.”
I don’t know what you mean by “the Gamaliel principle”, and I don’t know how you would justify your use of the word “always”. If you’re excluding all instances that you don’t consider representative of true science, then I could do the same with regard to religion. And Daniel Dennett’s claim is about whether there’s “nothing like that” in religion, not whether there is such a thing “rarely”. Since I’m a Christian, I shouldn’t be expected to defend Islam, Buddhism, or other non-Christian religions. I’ve given examples of how Christianity has benefited from the sort of competition Dennett describes.
You write:
“One religious point of view on this or that matter might be more accurate than others, but at the end of the day, you have no emirically verifiable fact that rewards your exegeting and philosophizing - just a lengthy, non-necessary chain of reasoning.”
It’s not as though every conclusion commonly accepted as scientific is “necessary”. And why should necessity be our objective? All of us make judgments of major significance in our lives based on probability rather than certainty. Many of the claims of Christianity are historical, and historical research is a matter of probability. Objecting that our historical conclusions are “non-necessary” would be insignificant.
You write:
“This causes religion to always slowly go off the rails, like a deaf man whose speech slowly deteriorates, because there is no empirical corrective.”
That’s an assertion, not an argument. What’s your “empirical corrective”? You do realize, don’t you, that concepts such as the reliability of our reasoning faculties and the regularity of nature can’t just be gratuitously asserted? How does your concept of science even get off the ground in your non-religious worldview? And why should we agree with your assertion that religion “always slowly goes off the rails”?
You write:
“And because people (like Servetus) are lazy and foolish, they are able to embrace false viewpoints with no automatic consequences.”
What do you mean by “automatic consequences”, why should that be our standard, and why should we think that your notion of science meets that standard?
John Loftus said:
ReplyDelete“What Dawkins said was, in so many words, that he's be interested in how they are similar and how they are dissimilar.”
I was addressing a comment made by Dennett, not Dawkins. And Dennett didn’t say what you’re describing. I quoted him and cited the approximate time in the video in which he said what I quoted. You aren’t giving us any comparable documentation.
You write:
“But when we consider that the vast numbber of Biblical scholars entered their respective fields as believers in the first place, this ‘poll’ is diminished considerably in force.”
You’re not giving us any reason to agree with your claim about “the vast number of Biblical scholars”. You’re just asserting it.
And I address the issue of whether these scholars are believers in the article I linked to. Did you read it? In that article, I wrote:
“Habermas and Licona explain that even ‘the majority of nonbelieving scholars’ (p. 149) accept such facts, not just Christian scholars. And even many professing Christian scholars are Christian in name, but reject much of what Christians have traditionally believed.” (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/04/recent-trends-in-resurrection.html)
I think that Habermas and Licona are in a better position to judge the issue than you are. We know that Habermas has researched thousands of publications relevant to this issue in multiple languages. What research have you done?
Besides, even if you were correct about “the vast number of Biblical scholars”, the fact would remain that there’s some competition involved. Arguing that there’s not as much competition as some people might think doesn’t address my argument regarding whether there is competition.
You write:
“It used to be, and it did ban books and burn heretics, and yet it lost these types of debates even while they persecuted those who didn't believe.”
Again, if Christianity didn’t originate in the form of a religion that was banning books and burning heretics, and it doesn’t exist in that manner today, then how much significance is there in the fact that it did sometimes exist in such forms in the years between? And why are we supposed to believe that Christianity “lost these types of debates”?
You write:
“What best explains why both science and religion have changed their views on a various number of topics down through the years? Science gradually learns and grows. Religion adapts and regroups. Science has learn humility. Religion still claims to represent the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
I’ve already addressed some of the relevant issues in my response to the anonymous poster above. I don’t have to defend everything that can be considered “religion”. I’m a Christian, not a believer in all religions that have ever existed. And while Christianity claims to have a revelation from God, it also acknowledges that its people sometimes err, that there are truths that exist outside of its revelation, etc. We don’t claim that everything you would want to know about your car or about baking a ham can be found in the Bible. Are we supposed to think that a belief in a revelation from God can’t be accompanied by humility? If so, why?
“But when we consider that the vast numbber of Biblical scholars entered their respective fields as believers in the first place, this ‘poll’ is diminished considerably in force.”
ReplyDelete“But when we consider that the vast numbber of Darwinist scholars entered their respective fields as Darwinists in the first place, this ‘poll’ is diminished considerably in force.”
Do you not see the absurdity of your argument, John? According to you:
1. Those who enter as believers but become unbelievers would carry more weight. Why?
2. If (1) then the convese would also be true, those who enter as unbelievers and become believers would carry more weight too.
Your reasoning, as usual, is patently absurd. How do you walk and chew gum at the same time?
It used to be, and it did ban books and burn heretics, and yet it lost these types of debates even while they persecuted those who didn't believe.
Christianity was hardly a state religion that disallowed competition in the 1st or 2nd century was it? What nonbelievers did the subapostolic church "persecute?" Which books did they burn? As usual, your arguments don't touch what was actually stated. You really are incompetent.
An anonymous poster wrote:
ReplyDelete“Problem is, science will always operate according to the Gamaliel principle, whereas religion rarely does.”
I don’t know what you mean by “the Gamaliel principle”, and I don’t know how you would justify your use of the word “always”.
I was referring to Acts 5:39: "Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought". Science can truly follow this with a calm mind. If the principle is wrong, people will die. If it is correct, (as when Pasteur proposed hygiene for surgery) people will live. Religion rarely takes this tolerant tack, and it is easy to see why: Gamaliel's empirical test isn't immediately, or necessarily true. Mormonism, Scientology, etc. have bogus elements in their makeup, yet they may continue to flourish for decades.
And Daniel Dennett’s claim is about whether there’s “nothing like that” in religion, not whether there is such a thing “rarely”. Since I’m a Christian, I shouldn’t be expected to defend Islam, Buddhism, or other non-Christian religions.
Fair enough.
[slow deterioration is] an assertion, not an argument. What’s your “empirical corrective”?
My argument would be inductive, not deductive. What does history show us? Arianism, gnosticism, 16th century Catholicism, Liberalism, bizarre dispensationalism, tongues/holy laughter, liberalism destroying mainline denominations. Wouldn't the SBC agree with me? Didn't they prevent happening in their seminaries what happened to the UCC and the Episcopal church? (and what is now happening to ELCA and UMC?). Why weren't they tolerant of opposing viewpoints?
What do you mean by “automatic consequences”, why should that be our standard, and why should we think that your notion of science meets that standard?
I'm thinking of the automatic evidence that's available in many OT stories that doesn't exist in the NT ("a wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign" "Blessed are those who have not seen and believed.") You see how science has the upper hand here? It provides immediate tangible, universally observable evidence that either proves or disproves a particular claim (I'm not talking about evolution - please don't bring that lone area up). If King Uzziah was some kind of postmodern Brian McLaren (I picture him as thinking "The Divine Spark lives equally in all of us... therefore why can't I perform the Levitical functions?"), then his theories about what scripture said were disproved by immediate empirical evidence. Same with the sabbath breaker in numbers 15, etc., etc. That kind of religion is on a par with science, but not historic Christianity.
But to get back to the subject of allowing dissent: this is why disagreement will always be tolerated in science, because it really will be futile and everyone knows it. In religion, everyone (including orthodox Christians) knows that a real theological error can be allowed to continue until the end of the world and produce no visible consequences.
And I do feel sorry for you, btw that you have to deal with postmoderns, and there is no good way to get them to stop applying idiotic methods of interpretation to religion they do not use in any other area of life.
An anonymous poster wrote:
ReplyDelete"Science can truly follow this with a calm mind. If the principle is wrong, people will die. If it is correct, (as when Pasteur proposed hygiene for surgery) people will live. Religion rarely takes this tolerant tack, and it is easy to see why: Gamaliel's empirical test isn't immediately, or necessarily true. Mormonism, Scientology, etc. have bogus elements in their makeup, yet they may continue to flourish for decades."
How is that relevant to what I wrote?
And how would your hygiene example justify your reference to what science "always" does? When people refer to science, they're often including theories about the past, such as how the universe began or evolution in the fossil record, or theories about what might be causing some phenomenon that involves some unknown factors. People don't always die as a result of misjudging such issues.
You write:
"What does history show us? Arianism, gnosticism, 16th century Catholicism, Liberalism, bizarre dispensationalism, tongues/holy laughter, liberalism destroying mainline denominations. Wouldn't the SBC agree with me? Didn't they prevent happening in their seminaries what happened to the UCC and the Episcopal church? (and what is now happening to ELCA and UMC?). Why weren't they tolerant of opposing viewpoints?"
How is that relevant to what I wrote?
You write:
"I'm thinking of the automatic evidence that's available in many OT stories that doesn't exist in the NT ('a wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign' 'Blessed are those who have not seen and believed.') You see how science has the upper hand here? It provides immediate tangible, universally observable evidence that either proves or disproves a particular claim (I'm not talking about evolution - please don't bring that lone area up)."
Again, how is that relevant to what I wrote? You seem to be addressing some issues I wasn't discussing.
Regarding the issue you've brought up, why would you object to a citation of evolution? Earlier, you referred to how science "always" operates, so a "lone area" would be sufficient to refute your reference to what "always" occurs. And why think that evolution would be the only exception? A lot of what's commonly considered science doesn't produce "automatic consequences" like those in the hygiene example you cited. That's why scientists so often disagree with each other and produce so many differing and sometimes inconsistent theories.
You write:
"In religion, everyone (including orthodox Christians) knows that a real theological error can be allowed to continue until the end of the world and produce no visible consequences."
That's not the issue I was addressing, but since you've brought it up, what's the significance of "visible consequences"? If somebody argues that Jesus rose from the dead in a non-physical manner, for example, then that error won't produce "visible consequences" in the sense of a chemical reaction in a test tube or causing the person holding that view to die. But people will be able to discern inconsistencies between what that person believes and what's indicated by the text of scripture and other relevant evidence. Or, to use an example I cited earlier, if a person living in the second century denies that the fourth gospel was written by John, then people who knew John or had access to relevant information in some other manner could respond to that denial. Or when the early Christians claim that Jesus' tomb was empty, the Jewish opponents of Christianity can affirm or deny that claim. Similarly, Christian philosophers in our day can produce arguments that will be examined by other philosophers. Christian historians work in an environment in which their arguments are examined by other historians. That's the sort of competition I was referring to, and it doesn't require something like a chemical reaction in a test tube.
If we ignore evolution....
ReplyDelete...can we bring up global warming instead? Think about all the scientific consensus we have there! Global Warming Causes EVERYTHING!!!!
It makes the Earth's rotation slower while also making the Earth's rotation faster; it makes more ice in Antarctica even while the Antarctic loses ice. It makes the Atlantic less salty and also saltier. It makes worse hurricans by sapping them of their strength. It even makes pale trees in the Fall and more brilliant trees in the Fall!
So tell me that story again about how science always operates wonderfully and how it will always bring us to empirical truth in the end and all that.
Atheists claim judeo-christianity is anti-scientific, yet the judeo-christian west is far and away the winner in the science race,as compared to eastern and far eastern and asian cultures. And atheists seem amazed at the incredible number of peer reviewed and published science PhDs in western civilization who are strong theists. And given that about 95%of hominids in the historic curve are theists, one has to wonder if theism/religiosity isnt a very useful and evolutionarily adape ted survival trait.
ReplyDeletePike said...Oh yes, the humility of folks like Dawkins who claim that if you disagree with evolution you're stupid, ignorant, insane, or wicked. If only the whole world was that humble, why we'd be cured of all those icky blights religion causes!
ReplyDeleteThere is a huge difference between affirming something and rejecting something.
Christians and I reject all other religions. I simply reject their Christian religion with the same confidence they have when rejecting all other religions. The rejection of a religious viewpoint is the easy part. We all do it. And we're all confident when doing so. The hard part after the rejection is to affirm a religious viewpoint. That's where a person must argue that he has the correct one. And from what I see, Christians are just as confident that they are right as that the others are wrong, unlike me. I think the default position is soft-agnosticism, which simply says, "I don't know." That's right, I don't know what to believe after rejecting all religious viewpoints. But if God exists then he's a distant God, and a distant god is no different than none at all. That's why I've chosen to be an atheist, since it makes no difference to me even if a god does exist. But I could be wrong, and I admit it.
Christians on the other hand seem absolutely confident that they are correct in what they affirm, and that's a huge difference between us. Given the proliferation of religious viewpoints separated by geographical location around the globe, the fact that believers have a strong tendency to rationally support what they were taught to believe (before they had the knowledge or capability to properly evaluate it), along with the lack of compelling evidence to convince people who are outsiders to the Christian faith, mine is the reasonable viewpoint to affirm, that's all.
Contrast this with scientific knowledge. Karl Popper argues that scientific knowledge progresses by conjectures (or guesses) which are in turn refuted for better conjectures (or guesses). He claims science progresses because we learn from our mistakes. In fact he claims all knowledge progresses in the same way, and I agree. We have learned from our mistakes. That's why our morals have developed into that which makes for a safer, more productive, and less barbaric people than in ancient times, which is reflected in the Bible.
Jason Engwer asked...Are we supposed to think that a belief in a revelation from God can’t be accompanied by humility?
ReplyDeleteGeneMBridges said to me...Your reasoning, as usual, is patently absurd. How do you walk and chew gum at the same time?
As usual, your arguments don't touch what was actually stated. You really are incompetent.
-------------
I suppose in answer to Engwer that he is theoretically correct. I just don't see it coming from this Blog at all, that's all.
You are not worth responding to. I don't know why I even try. You never actually seek to understand what I'm saying. You repond to strawmen arguments and gerrymander around anything I say.
Such things as that would not go over very well within a knowledgeable scientific community at all, that's all.
What scientist, for instance, would claim that his competitor disagrees with him because she is blinded by Satan? Which scientist would argue before an audience that anyone who disagrees is going to be dammned to hell? Which one will treat other scientists with complete and utter disrespect if she tries to get people to agree with her view of things?
That's not what I'd call competition. I's got an arrogance to it that is beyond description and beyond reasoning with.
Loftus said:
ReplyDelete---
Christians and I reject all other religions. I simply reject their Christian religion with the same confidence they have when rejecting all other religions.
---
Mathematicians and I reject all other answers for 2 + 2 = x. I simply reject their x = 4 idea with the same confidence they have when rejecting all other answers.
Hmmm, doesn't look like that good of an argument in that light.
Loftus said:
---
The hard part after the rejection is to affirm a religious viewpoint.
---
Unless you're going to admit that Darwinism is a religion, I fail to see how this addresses my Dawkins quote.
Loftus said:
---
I think the default position is soft-agnosticism, which simply says, "I don't know."
---
For someone who claims not to know, you assert an awful lot. The fact is that I agree that if you regect God you are left with utter incoherence and the inability to know anything. The fact that you continue to know things demonstrates that your rejection of God is self-defeating.
Loftus said:
---
if God exists then he's a distant God, and a distant god is no different than none at all.
---
This argument would be like me saying, "I don't believe Loftus's wife exists because she's distant to me. I've never met her. Therefore, she doesn't exist."
In fact, your assertion ignores the fact that God can be distant to you and not to me. And a God that is distant to you but not to me is vastly different from no God at all.
Frankly, for someone who claims to "not know" you seem fairly dogmatic that if God isn't close to you He isn't close to anyone.
Loftus said:
---
Christians on the other hand seem absolutely confident that they are correct in what they affirm, and that's a huge difference between us.
---
I'm absolutely confident in many things. Why is certainty bad and uncertainty good? Indeed, if you're uncertain about certain things that would certainly make you unstable at the very least... (yes, I tried to use the word "certain" there with as much ambiguity as possible just to mess with you).
Loftus said:
---
Given the proliferation of religious viewpoints separated by geographical location around the globe, the fact that believers have a strong tendency to rationally support what they were taught to believe (before they had the knowledge or capability to properly evaluate it), along with the lack of compelling evidence to convince people who are outsiders to the Christian faith, mine is the reasonable viewpoint to affirm, that's all.
---
That's not a reasonable argument at all. Just because there can be many wrong answers to a problem doesn't mean you're reasonable to say that one must reject all answers as false. Again, I refer you to the math problem I referenced at the beginning of this post.
Loftus said:
---
He claims science progresses because we learn from our mistakes. In fact he claims all knowledge progresses in the same way, and I agree. We have learned from our mistakes. That's why our morals have developed into that which makes for a safer, more productive, and less barbaric people than in ancient times, which is reflected in the Bible.
---
Except science is amoral. You cannot determine morality for science, since science is, at root, only observation. It cannot make value judgements. For instance, science will not claim that it is evil for a lion to eat a zebra. It's just what happens. So, too, science cannot say it is evil for a man to kill another man. Again, it is just something that happens.
Science has no moral structure to it. Philosophies (religions included) contain morality, but science is not a philosophy. Science must be wedded to another philosophy since, at most, all it can be is an epistemological method. Science has no methapysics; it is not a full philosophy.
That said, you must argue for why you think Biblical morality is "barbaric." This is something you've consistently failed to do. When you've tried to engage in an internal critique, you never let the Bible define terms; when you engage in your external critique, you never prove your own morality consistent with its own system. This is what we've been waiting for you to do for quite some time.
puhleez! will Loftus ever stop being more light than heat? until you can answer our tough q's you are just spinning your philosophical wheels, just like every other atheist out there.And no matter how much perfume and makeup you put on it you still cant make your pig into a prom queen.
ReplyDeleteYou repond to strawmen arguments and gerrymander around anything I say.
ReplyDeleteSo you claim but fail to demonstrate. I merely quoted your own argument back at you. That's no strawman. If you don't like it, it's because I let you set the terms. I'm sorry you can't follow your own argument.
Such things as that would not go over very well within a knowledgeable scientific community at all, that's all.
Note how Loftus derides religion in the name of science and thereby elevates science to the New Orthodoxy. If this was the Middle Ages, he'd be a member of the Catholic Inquisition. He's just traded in one master for another.
What scientist, for instance, would claim that his competitor disagrees with him because she is blinded by Satan?
A Christian?
Which scientist would argue before an audience that anyone who disagrees is going to be dammned to hell?
Which Christian scientists have made that argument? Which of us on this blog have said that all evolutionists are hellbound?
Which one will treat other scientists with complete and utter disrespect if she tries to get people to agree with her view of things?
Shall we check the archives of your blog to see how many disrespectful bombs you've lobbed our way. You operate with a double standard regularly. So much for your forked tongued rhetoric.
I suppose in answer to Engwer that he is theoretically correct. I just don't see it coming from this Blog at all, that's all.
As usual, you make no effort to consult the Bible. The Bible draws a distinction between ordinary everyday unbelievers and apostates and direct enemies of the faith like yourself. We've been over this with you before.
I'm obligated to mock and deride you, sir. You are, you will recall, an admitted adulterer, a liar, and an apostate - and you have made it your business to try and take others down with you. You have trodden upon the blood of the covenant and are due the treatment you have gotten. I am not to blame for it, nor Steve, nor Pete, nor Paul. Rather, we wouldn't be doing so if you hadn't comported yourself the way you have done and continued to do. You're entitled to the treatment given to such men by Scripture. Sorry you dislike that, but that's not our problem.
And why should anybody treat anybody with "humility" at all? Science is amoral, and you have no non-arbitrary epistemic warrant to pass judgment upon anybody, sir. According to you, we're just bags of water and chemicals that, when we die, will simply cease to be and be recycled material. So, why bother?
john w. loftus said...
ReplyDelete“There is a huge difference between affirming something and rejecting something.”
Fine. I reject John Loftus.
“Christians and I reject all other religions.”
i) This is ambiguous. For a Christian to reject other religions doesn’t mean there’s nothing to them. Other religious adherents may have numinous experiences.
Muhammad says an angel appeared to him. A Christian doesn’t have to deny that Muhammad was subject of visions and apparitions. The question, rather, concerns the origin of his experience. Was it divine or occultic?
We deny that other religions are true. But we don’t deny that other religions may have a basis in fact. The devil is a fact. Witchcraft is a fact.
ii) Put another way, Christianity can explain the existence of rival religions. That’s not a problem for Christianity. That’s not a form of counterevidence.
Yahwism is explicitly set over against paganism. So is NT Christianity. Religious pluralism is nothing new. The Bible presents a theological analysis of idolatry.
“I think the default position is soft-agnosticism, which simply says, ‘I don't know’.”
Loftus takes this position for tactical reasons since it seems to involve a lower burden of proof—although that’s deceptive. So he is being evasive.
“Christians on the other hand seem absolutely confident that they are correct in what they affirm.”
That’s an obvious overstatement. Different Christians have different theories of knowledge. Some theories admit degrees of uncertainty. Different Christians have different levels of spiritual experience.
I think it’s good for a Christian to be absolutely confident, but that is hardly an accurate description of Christian experience in general.
“Given the proliferation of religious viewpoints separated by geographical location around the globe, the fact that believers have a strong tendency to rationally support what they were taught to believe (before they had the knowledge or capability to properly evaluate it), along with the lack of compelling evidence to convince people who are outsiders to the Christian faith, mine is the reasonable viewpoint to affirm, that's all.”
Loftus has been correct on this many times before. Loftus is paradigmatic of the irrational unbeliever. No matter how often his faulty reasoning is corrected, he continues to retail the same disreputable arguments.
i) Social conditioning cuts both ways. If it undercuts religion, it undercuts his own position. He is not exempt from the forces of social conditioning.
ii) He refuses to distinguish between open societies and closed societies.
iii) What about the lack of compelling evidence to convince people who are outsiders to agnosticism or atheism?
iv) He also confuses persuasion with proof.
“Contrast this with scientific knowledge. Karl Popper argues that scientific knowledge progresses by conjectures (or guesses) which are in turn refuted for better conjectures (or guesses).”
*Knowledge* is irrefutable. So, if scientific theories are refutable, then they don’t count as knowledge in the first place.
Popper is not the only philosopher of science. Equally distinguished philosophers of science deny that scientific theories are progressive.
“He claims science progresses because we learn from our mistakes. In fact he claims all knowledge progresses in the same way, and I agree. We have learned from our mistakes.”
You can only learn from your mistakes if you have a standard of truth.
“That's why our morals have developed into that which makes for a safer, more productive, and less barbaric people than in ancient times, which is reflected in the Bible.”
i) But Loftus doesn’t believe that anything is intrinsically good or evil.
ii) What’s the relation between morality and productivity? Is Loftus a productive individual?
Isn’t Loftus just a consumer? A drag on the system? Wouldn’t society be more productive if it weeded out the parasitic runts like Loftus?
john w. loftus said...
ReplyDelete“Such things as that would not go over very well within a knowledgeable scientific community at all, that's all.__What scientist, for instance, would claim that his competitor disagrees with him because she is blinded by Satan? Which scientist would argue before an audience that anyone who disagrees is going to be dammned to hell? Which one will treat other scientists with complete and utter disrespect if she tries to get people to agree with her view of things?”
Now Loftus is being obtuse. By definition, a secular scientist will not resort to *religious* pressure. But he will use other forms of pressure.
We have Darwinians running to the courts to suppress scientific dissent. Look at the attempt of global warmists to blacklist scientific dissent. Look at the internecine warfare over sociobiology.
If it's 2008 it must be time for another runaround with John Loftus! I've been reading this blog for about 3 years and the same stuff keeps coming up over and over! Mr. Loftus please repent and beg for mercy and forgiveness!! How many more times do we have to watch you go over the same ground only to be refuted and corrected and defeated?!
ReplyDeleteFirst Peter Pike.
ReplyDeleteMathematicians and I reject all other answers for 2 + 2 = x. I simply reject their x = 4 idea with the same confidence they have when rejecting all other answers.
And your point is what? There is no parity here whatsoever, otherwise everyone would become Van Tillian Christians just like everyone accepts 2+2 =4.
For someone who claims not to know, you assert an awful lot.
I deny a lot, I don’t assert a lot. That’s the difference.
This argument would be like me saying, "I don't believe Loftus's wife exists because she's distant to me. I've never met her. Therefore, she doesn't exist."
This is both nonanalogous and disengenuous, but that’s par for the course here.
In fact, your assertion ignores the fact that God can be distant to you and not to me. And a God that is distant to you but not to me is vastly different from no God at all.
I was speaking about concepts of God, for the record.
That's not a reasonable argument at all. Just because there can be many wrong answers to a problem doesn't mean you're reasonable to say that one must reject all answers as false.
No, but the presence of contradictory witnesses in court does indeed call into question the probability the judge can decide which one is telling the truth.
Science has no methapysics; it is not a full philosophy.
Good, I’ll hold you to this statement.
That said, you must argue for why you think Biblical morality is "barbaric." This is something you've consistently failed to do. When you've tried to engage in an internal critique, you never let the Bible define terms; when you engage in your external critique, you never prove your own morality consistent with its own system. This is what we've been waiting for you to do for quite some time.
An internal critique according to you is to begin by first believing the Bible, and as such you make it impossible for someone to provide one. So unless you are willing to allow somone to offer a critique without such a demand you will always say its not internal. I’ve asked you what such a critique would look like and someone there said he cannot think of what it would look like. You offer the keys to a door and then switch the locks in one swift gerrymandering gesture.
GENEMBRIDGES.
Note how Loftus derides religion in the name of science and thereby elevates science to the New Orthodoxy. If this was the Middle Ages, he'd be a member of the Catholic Inquisition. He's just traded in one master for another.
Who said anything about science being the new orthodoxy? But it does test hypotheses and asks for evidence for a claim. Besides, this is a pure joke, is it not? Given the fact that you say what you do later it is YOU who would participate in burning heretics if you had the political power.
Shall we check the archives of your blog to see how many disrespectful bombs you've lobbed our way. You operate with a double standard regularly. So much for your forked tongued rhetoric.
Let’s add them up shall we, beginning right here in your comments below.
The Bible draws a distinction between ordinary everyday unbelievers and apostates and direct enemies of the faith like yourself. I'm obligated to mock and deride you, sir….you have made it your business to try and take others down with you. You have trodden upon the blood of the covenant and are due the treatment you have gotten….You're entitled to the treatment given to such men by Scripture.
STEVE SAID:
Fine. I reject John Loftus.
As a person? Why make it personal?
Loftus is paradigmatic of the irrational unbeliever. No matter how often his faulty reasoning is correct[ed], he continues to retail the same disreputable arguments.
Hays is paradigmatic of the irrational believer. No matter how often his faulty reasoning is correct[ed], he continues to retail the same disreputable arguments.
We deny that other religions are true. But we don’t deny that other religions may have a basis in fact. That’s an obvious overstatement. Different Christians have different theories of knowledge. Some theories admit degrees of uncertainty. Different Christians have different levels of spiritual experience.
Here is Hays stating the obvious as if it’s something new or something to make a point to people who don’t know any better.
i) Social conditioning cuts both ways. If it undercuts religion, it undercuts his own position. He is not exempt from the forces of social conditioning.
Okay, then with this information, which I glady accept, agnosticism should be the default position. Do you deny what you’ve just said with regard to socisl conditionaing? Upon what basis do you do so?
ii) He refuses to distinguish between open societies and closed societies.
I didn’t think I needed to. All I wrote was a brief comment. Do you expect me to make it into a long treatise?
iii) What about the lack of compelling evidence to convince people who are outsiders to agnosticism or atheism?
The evidence abounds given the geographical separation of the various religions around the globe.
iv) He also confuses persuasion with proof.
Are you asking me to prove something here such that if I cannot do it you may go one your delusionary way simply because there is a possibility your are correct? What we’re talking about are probabilities.
*Knowledge* is irrefutable. So, if scientific theories are refutable, then they don’t count as knowledge in the first place.
But since theologians have changed their minds about so many ideas then all we have to go on is what we think is knowledge since we can never have access to the uninterpreted truth.
Popper is not the only philosopher of science. Equally distinguished philosophers of science deny that scientific theories are progressive.
Here is Hays stating the obvious again.
You can only learn from your mistakes if you have a standard of truth.
Then how do Buddhists, Hindu’s and Skeptics ever learn anything? My claim is that with so many different religious and ethical views there is no evidence that a standard even exists. See here.
Isn’t Loftus just a consumer? A drag on the system? Wouldn’t society be more productive if it weeded out the parasitic runts like Loftus?
Didn’t someone just say that it would be ME who would be involved in the Inquisition? Naw. It would definitely you guys following the way you interpret the Bible in loving obedience to a good God.
We have Darwinians running to the courts to suppress scientific dissent. Look at the attempt of global warmists to blacklist scientific dissent. Look at the internecine warfare over sociobiology.
These are the areas where science is in conflict with religious doctrines. In other areas we see science being accepted by believers, so why not here as well?
Have you read a summary of my case against Christianity? Here 'tis.
ReplyDeleteCheers.
Loftus said:
ReplyDelete---
And your point is what? There is no parity here whatsoever, otherwise everyone would become Van Tillian Christians just like everyone accepts 2+2 =4.
---
Note that all I did was use your own logic against you. I quoted you verbatim, switching only the object of your sentence to something else. Instead of God, we looked at a math problem. I'm surprised you cannot grasp this. If the logic of your argument is valid, it ought not matter what subject you put in there because the relationships ought to remain constant. If different objects cause different results in your logical framework, then your logical framework is flawed.
But since you have admitted you do not grasp this point, allow me to demonstrate it for you. Putting your argument into logical format, we have:
1) Person A disbelieves X.
2) Person B disbelieves X - Y.
3) Person A is more reasonable than Person B.
We see that this is your argument because we can plug in the values:
4) Let Person A = John Loftus
5) Let Person B = Peter Pike
6) Let X = the set of all religious beliefs.
7) Let Y = the set of all Christian beliefs.
Therefore we have:
8) John Loftus disbelieves the set of all religious beliefs.
9) Peter Pike disbelieves the set of all religious beliefs with the set of all Christian beliefs removed.
10) Therefore, John Loftus is more reasonable than Peter Pike.
If this logic is valid then it would remain true if we substituted:
11) Let x = the set of all possible answers to 2 + 2 = ?
12) Let y = the set of 2 + 2 = 4
13) John Loftus disbelieves the set of all possible answers to 2 + 2 = ?
14) Peter Pike disbelieves the set of all possible answers to 2 + 2 = ? except for the set of 2 + 2 = 4.
15) John Loftus is more reasonable than Peter Pike.
But since 15 is clearly absurd, we know immediately that the logic Loftus is using is flawed, and as a result 10 does not follow.
It is therefore the logical structure that Loftus has chosen to frame his argument that is flawed. And it does not matter whether or not you accept VanTillian argumentation for you to grasp this. The logic itself is flawed; you can plug in whatever you want for x and y and the logic will always be flawed.
Loftus said:
---
I deny a lot, I don’t assert a lot. That’s the difference.
---
Denials require assertions, however. For instance, if you were to deny the existence of a bus coming toward you (or more accurately, if you were to deny that it were possible to know whether or not a bus was actually coming toward you) you are making an assertion about the nature of reality; namely, that reality exists in such a manner that it is impossible for John Loftus to determine whether or not a bus is coming toward him.
Denial of something can only come from the assertion of a worldview. If you say that it is impossible to know God exists, you must assert that the nature of reality is something that could actually exist apart from the existence of God, that existence does not require a supernatural explanation, etc. There are a whole host of smuggled concepts that you do not even spend the time to think about, let alone understand. You can pretend to deny, but the basis of your denials rests on your hidden assertions of metaphysics and epistemology.
Loftus said:
---
This is both nonanalogous and disengenuous, but that’s par for the course here.
---
An assertion in place of an argument, but that's par for the course here.
Loftus said:
---
I was speaking about concepts of God, for the record.
---
And that matters because...?
Loftus said:
---
No, but the presence of contradictory witnesses in court does indeed call into question the probability the judge can decide which one is telling the truth.
---
As if witness statements are the only way to gain knowledge. If your claims here were actually true, it would be impossible for anyone to know anything at all. You'd end up with pure skepticism.
Loftus said:
---
An internal critique according to you is to begin by first believing the Bible, and as such you make it impossible for someone to provide one.
---
How many times do you need to be corrected on this? An internal critique of Christianity merely assumes for the sake of arguement that the Bible is true. From there, the critique follwed. It goes like this: "If the Bible is true, then we are left with this contradiction within Christianity."
Your problem, Loftus, is that you say this: "If the Bible is true, then we are left with this contradiction between Christian beliefs and secular beliefs." Which isn't an internal critique.
An internal critique is not that difficult to do...unless the position is internally sound.
BTW, we've constantly used internal critiques against your own position. For example, if materialism is true then there is no basis for objective morals; John Loftus asserts that he is really morally right and we are really morally wrong; Loftus's claims require there to be an objective standard of morality; therefore Loftus cannot be a materialist if he is to use this argument.
See how this starts with the assumption that materialism is true and then argues to the internal contradiction found in materialism? If you could do that with Christianity, you would have yourself an internal critique. But you cannot. At every point you seek to bring in the contradiction, we have demonstrated that you are smuggling secular definitions into the argument. You are resorting to an external critique and pretending it is an internal one.
We've clued you in on this every time it happens. One day, you'll get it.
Loftus said:
---
I’ve asked you what such a critique would look like and someone there said he cannot think of what it would look like. You offer the keys to a door and then switch the locks in one swift gerrymandering gesture.
---
I've already shown you how one would look by using it against you. It isn't that difficult. Again, the basic format:
1) Assume the Bible is true.
2) The Bible claims X.
3) If X, then the Bible is false.
4) Therefore, there is an internal contradiction in Christian beliefs.
But here's what you do, Loftus:
1) Assume the Bible is true.
2) The Bible says X.
3) Secularists say ~X.
4) Therefore, the Bible is false.
This isn't an internal critique.
Again, we've pointed this out to you each time you've done it. If you simply paid attention to it, it would sink in. Honest.
I have watched folk debate with loftus for years, Loftus has no soul, there is no real passion to his core beleifs,he is just trying to stoke his ego, and only cares about winning an argument, and ironically, he loses almost all his arguments. go figure! William Lane Craig wins almost all his arguments, I do not know how loftus justifies continuing on defeat after defeat, its almost as if he hates his former belief...how can one hate their former beleief, especially if it was untrue? and unsupportable! doesnt make a lick of sense!
ReplyDeletePeter Pike.
ReplyDelete8) John Loftus disbelieves the set of all religious beliefs.
9) Peter Pike disbelieves the set of all religious beliefs with the set of all Christian beliefs removed.
10) Therefore, John Loftus is more reasonable than Peter Pike.
You seem to think a rhetorical use of premises in a logical structure can substitute for substance. I’ve seen it all too often.
But you fail to understand my argument. I think it’s because you are too blinded to do so, or you’re disingenuously trying to argue against something you can’t do because as an apostate I’m not worthy of anything more.
My case is much more powerful than that straw man version. I’m talking about probabilities based upon contradictory historical testimonies to religious truths on matters of crucial importance to the truth of those separate religions.
8a) There are 45,000 different witnesses to mutually exclusive religious truth claims.
9a) There is no other evidence apart from these witnesses that can tip the balance in favor of any one of them over the others.
10a) Therefore even if one of the witnesses is correct I have no way to know which one is doing so.
Now you could show me the evidence that defeats 9a or accept conclusion (10a). It’s that simple. The evidence you think proves your case is historical evidence, but as I’ve argued history is a poor medium to reveal anything of importance. There is no scientific evidence that leads specifically to your conclusion. And present day religious experience is trumped by the other religious witnesses.
Denials require assertions, however.
The specific type of denial that I’m doing is a denial that something exists, like unicorns, fairies, Leprechauns, Zeus, Hathor, Ra, and Yaweh.
Denial of something can only come from the assertion of a worldview. There are a whole host of smuggled concepts that you do not even spend the time to think about, let alone understand. You can pretend to deny, but the basis of your denials rests on your hidden assertions of metaphysics and epistemology.
If you have read the summary of my case, linked to earlier, then you wouldn’t have said what you just did. And I never have asserted such a thing as that it’s impossible for God to exist.
As if witness statements are the only way to gain knowledge. If your claims here were actually true, it would be impossible for anyone to know anything at all. You'd end up with pure skepticism.
This is a non-sequitur.
How many times do you need to be corrected on this? An internal critique of Christianity merely assumes for the sake of arguement that the Bible is true. From there, the critique follwed. It goes like this: "If the Bible is true, then we are left with this contradiction within Christianity."
I do this. You deny that I do because you offer the keys to the lock and then switch locks, as I’ve said. I have indeed offered an internal argument concerning what you believe, not me, that the problem of evil renders your belief improbable. And you continue to respond with a completely asinine argument
An internal critique is not that difficult to do...unless the position is internally sound.
You can have a valid argument even though it’s not sound. Besides, you participate in a yeomen’s effort to gerrymander your intellectual terrain so that it confirms what you have come to believe for less than adequate reasons. And if your cadre of bloggers would actually civily discuss these issues without the increasing ad hominems that comes as I am making my points, I would do so. But as I've found your ad hominems increase the longer I stay here.
BTW, we've constantly used internal critiques against your own position. For example, if materialism is true then there is no basis for objective morals; John Loftus asserts that he is really morally right and we are really morally wrong; Loftus's claims require there to be an objective standard of morality; therefore Loftus cannot be a materialist if he is to use this argument.
I’ve answered this problem, here , and here.
JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:
ReplyDelete“Here is Hays stating the obvious as if it’s something new or something to make a point to people who don’t know any better.”
I state the obvious when Loftus ignores the obvious. I’m introducing a qualification which he neglected to introduce.
“Okay, then with this information, which I glady accept, agnosticism should be the default position.”
Defaulting to agnosticism is not an alternative to socially conditioned beliefs. For agnosticism is just another socially-conditioned option. There are cultures in which agnosticism is an option, and cultures in which it is not.
Loftus is currently conditioned by the Enlightenment. His outlook remains ethnocentric.
Anyway, agnosticism is just a ruse. It pretends to have a lower burden of proof, but that is illusory. An agnostic either believes that there is insufficient evidence of God, or contrary evidence, or both.
So he is making an evidentiary claim. As such, he has the same burden of proof as anyone else.
“I didn’t think I needed to. All I wrote was a brief comment. Do you expect me to make it into a long treatise?
You never fail to rise to my low expectations.
And by not taking into account the difference between open and closed societies, you undercut your appeal to the force of social conditioning. I’ve been over this ground with you on more than one occasion.
In a closed society, people either tow the party line because they don’t know anything else, or they privately dissent from the party line, but keep up appearances.
In open societies there’s a certain amount of traffic from one religious position to another, or from irreligion to religion, or from religion to irreligion.
You’re simpleminded appeal to the geographical distribution of religious affiliation disregards some elementary distinctions.
“The evidence abounds given the geographical separation of the various religions around the globe.”
Notice that Loftus can’t stick to his own argument. He refuses to apply the same standard (“lack of compelling evidence to convince outsiders”) to religion and irreligion alike. Both sides can make the same claim with respect to the other. So it’s a wash.
“Are you asking me to prove something here such that if I cannot do it you may go one your delusionary way simply because there is a possibility your are correct? What we’re talking about are probabilities.”
Once again, you can’t stick to your own argument. You made the ability or inability to convince an outsider one of your criteria. That cuts both ways. If it undercuts religion, then it also undercuts irreligion.
“But since theologians have changed their minds about so many ideas then all we have to go on is what we think is knowledge since we can never have access to the uninterpreted truth.”
i) Once more, you can’t stick to your own argument. You set up a “contrast” between religious belief and “scientific knowledge.”
Now, however, you’re retreating into scepticism. In that event, you erase your former contrast.
ii) Which theologians? Liberal theologians? Who cares?
“Here is Hays stating the obvious again.”
Because Loftus continues to ignore the obvious.
“Then how do Buddhists, Hindu’s and Skeptics ever learn anything? My claim is that with so many different religious and ethical views there is no evidence that a standard even exists. See here.”
Due to natural revelation and common grace, they do have a standard, although they tend to suppress their standard.
There is also a diversity of viewpoints in philosophy. If you think that undermines the existence of a standard, then why are you attempting to *argue* for atheism or agnosticism, or *argue* against Christianity?
Absent a standard of truth, you can’t argue for your own position or argue against an opposing position.
“These are the areas where science is in conflict with religious doctrines.”
Wrong. Not in sociobiology. Not in global warming.
“In other areas we see science being accepted by believers, so why not here as well?”
What areas of science by what believers?
Steve Hays.
ReplyDeleteI state the obvious when Loftus ignores the obvious. I’m introducing a qualification which he neglected to introduce.
Hmm. Do you now claim that all qualifications have been introduced, or not?
Loftus is currently conditioned by the Enlightenment. His outlook remains ethnocentric.
Hays is currently conditioned by ancient superstitious beliefs. His outlook remains superstitious.
An agnostic either believes that there is insufficient evidence of God, or contrary evidence, or both.
An agnostic either believes that there is insufficient evidence for Zeus, or contrary evidence, or both.
So he is making an evidentiary claim. As such, he has the same burden of proof as anyone else.
The burden of proof is on the person who makes a knowledge claim. When I say agnosticism is the default position (“I don’t know” or soft-agnosticism) it’s because the agnostic is not making a knowledge claim, silly.
You never fail to rise to my low expectations.
You never fail to go lower than my lowest expectations.
And by not taking into account the difference between open and closed societies, you undercut your appeal to the force of social conditioning. I’ve been over this ground with you on more than one occasion.
And by not taking into account social conditioning at all your claim to believe the one true religion undercuts your appeal to the truth of what you believe. But I’ve been over this ground with you on more than one occasion.
You’re simpleminded appeal to the geographical distribution of religious affiliation disregards some elementary distinctions.
Your simpleminded appeal to the truth of what you believe regardless of the fact of geographical distribution of religious affiliation, disregards some elementary distinctions.
“The evidence abounds given the geographical separation of the various religions around the globe.”
Notice that Loftus can’t stick to his own argument. He refuses to apply the same standard (“lack of compelling evidence to convince outsiders”) to religion and irreligion alike. Both sides can make the same claim with respect to the other. So it’s a wash.
I don’t refuse to apply the same standard to what I believe. My knowledge claim is atheism, but the default claim is agnosticism. When it comes to affirming atheism it’s a small claim compared to your full blown Calvinism. Since smaller claims are easier to defend than larger ones I’m in a better position to argue for it. But even when I do so I also admit I might be wrong. You don’t, even though yours is a much larger knowledge claim.
You made the ability or inability to convince an outsider one of your criteria. That cuts both ways. If it undercuts religion, then it also undercuts irreligion.
Why is a test for ascertaining the truth of something subject to the same criticisms that the conclusion we reach when using the test is? How can you dispute that the sociological facts alone show that your faith is not probable? It’s about odds. When one seeks to determine the truth of something the odds factor into what we claim because what we claim must be shown to be probable. Now how exactly can you say that an outsider cannot be convinced of this criteria? Oh, but we’ve gone over this before. You keep asserting the same responses even though I have defeated them.
Once more, you can’t stick to your own argument. You set up a “contrast” between religious belief and “scientific knowledge.”
There is a difference, and it does apply as an illustration, because scientists ask the same question a prosecutor asks before indicting someone, even if his hunch is that the guy did the crime. He asks the detectives, “where’s the evidence?”
“Here is Hays stating the obvious again.”
Because Loftus continues to ignore the obvious.
Because all Hays can do is repeat the obvious as if he’s advancing this debate. He’s not. He’s merely offering tired and often repeated arguments with little or no substance.
“Then how do Buddhists, Hindu’s and Skeptics ever learn anything?
Due to natural revelation and common grace, they do have a standard, although they tend to suppress their standard.
Where’s the evidence for this claim of yours?
There is also a diversity of viewpoints in philosophy. Absent a standard of truth, you can’t argue for your own position or argue against an opposing position.
Absent of you providing me such a standard that has any evidence for it and one which can be defended against the Euthyphro, we are in the same boat.
“These are the areas where science is in conflict with religious doctrines.”
Wrong. Not in sociobiology. Not in global warming.
Yeah, right.
“In other areas we see science being accepted by believers, so why not here as well?”
What areas of science by what believers?
Let me state the obvious for the first time here, since it was asked of me by Hays (and rather than list them all let me state in advance that I’ll only list three, just in case he comes back with a whole long list and act like I didn’t list them because I’m ignorant): Medicine, Rocket Science, Technology.
Cheers.
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about science being the new orthodoxy? But it does test hypotheses and asks for evidence for a claim. Besides, this is a pure joke, is it not? Given the fact that you say what you do later it is YOU who would participate in burning heretics if you had the political power.
I'm merely taking your words at face value. You're a fideist, plain and simple. You'll affirm a naturalistic explanation over any and all others. Evidence doesn't prove anything without a framework via which to interpret it. We've been over this with you before. "Science," namely naturalism, is your Orthodoxy.
Given the fact that you say what you do later it is YOU who would participate in burning heretics if you had the political power.
You mean like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens? Can you quote me on advocating the removal of atheists from political power, denying that atheists are "real" scientists, or advocating anything close to the burning of heretics.
Let’s add them up shall we, beginning right here in your comments below.
How is reminding you of what you have done, apostatize, commit adultery, and try to take others with you at all "disrespectful?" If you'd like to see "disrespectful," I'll be happy to sift through some of the emotional jeremiads and screeds you've left on this blog alone. The problem here is that you don't like the what the Bible has to say about people like you, not my lack of respect for you. In point of fact, I tell you that because I do have some respect for you, but I'm entitled to mock and ridicule you, because you've earned it. I treat you like a six year old who complains about his parents being "mean." We wouldn't be having this conversation if you hadn't chosen to act the way you do. Your problem is a sin problem. Your problem is that you hate God, Jesus, and His people. Your problem is that you would rather commit adultery than be faithful to your wife.Your problem is that you want to go your own way, make your own righteousness, and live life with you as your own god. You, sir, are an apostate and God-hater, and you need to throw yourself on God's mercy, not try to tear down the Christian faith.
And you nicely sidestepped the question that followed, John. Why bother with respect at all? According to you, how can you know what is disrespectful and not, since you have no basis for objectively making that evaluation. We're just bags of water that will cease to exist one day. Why bother? Bags of water are bags of water, not people, right?
Bananadidit! Banana than which no greater can be conceived.
ReplyDeleteGeneMBridges
ReplyDeleteYou're a fideist, plain and simple.
I’ve given you some reasons. Did you not read them?
You'll affirm a naturalistic explanation over any and all others.
And so do you in every other area except for the things that are specifically Christian. You have a selective supernaturalism. Why the double standard? At least I’m being consistent.
Evidence doesn't prove anything without a framework via which to interpret it.
Agreed, and if you read a summary of my case linked earlier you would stop stating the obvious too.
We've been over this with you before. "Science," namely naturalism, is your Orthodoxy.
Yes we have gone over this before. Superstitious thinking using a double standard is your Orthodoxy.
Given the fact that you say what you do later it is YOU who would participate in burning heretics if you had the political power.
Can you quote me on advocating the removal of atheists from political power, denying that atheists are "real" scientists, or advocating anything close to the burning of heretics.
What does this have to do with ME? There is a cultural war going on. Haven’t you noticed? Are you saying you wouldn’t want to remove atheists from universities if you had the political power? I just read comments here that indicated you and Hays would personally do away with me if you could in the name of your God to bring him glory. Sounds like militant Islam to me.
How is reminding you of what you have done, apostatize, commit adultery, and try to take others with you at all "disrespectful?" If you'd like to see "disrespectful," I'll be happy to sift through some of the emotional jeremiads and screeds you've left on this blog alone.
Go ahead, please do. But notice also who threw the first stone. Sure I get riled, but you rile me. You guys rile everyone who disagrees saying some of the most putrid things that can be said short of being absolutely crass and vulgar. I challenge you to find those things, and find those things said that provoked me. And find the things you guys have said about others you disagree with even when I am not around. Then take a look at how I treat respectful intelligent people on my blog. THERE IS NO PARITY! And many people have noticed this difference. Those big bad atheists at DC are much more polite, civil, and respectful than those good loving kind Christians at Triablogue.
The problem here is that you don't like the what the Bible has to say about people like you, not my lack of respect for you. In point of fact, I tell you that because I do have some respect for you, but I'm entitled to mock and ridicule you, because you've earned it. I treat you like a six year old who complains about his parents being "mean." We wouldn't be having this conversation if you hadn't chosen to act the way you do. Your problem is a sin problem. Your problem is that you hate God, Jesus, and His people.
Your problem is that you hate Zeus, Hathor and their people.
Your problem is that you would rather commit adultery than be faithful to your wife.
Ahhhhh, the flaming. Something I expect when here very long. You too continually perform lower than my lowest expectations. What’s next? Why bring this up? You do realize it was something I did 18 years ago. Again, that’s 18 years ago. Once more, eighteen years ago.
How old are you? Do you treat everyone who falls into sin with such disrespect? Tsk Tsk. Such a judgmentalism coming from someone holier than others. I hang my head in shame before such a righteous person who has never sinned (I’m not talking about you being “forgiven” here, but someone who has never sinned). Such a fine witness before the watching world. Yeah, continue on with this. Never let it drop. Let other Christians read how you treat others. Deep down inside you’re just making them feel that they need to hide their true selves from the Christian community. And forget about mitigating factors. There are none. A lie is a lie is a lie. An affair is an affair in an affair. Murder is murder is murder. There is nothing but black and whites for you. There is no such thing as manslaughter or 2nd degree murder for you. It’s either 1st degree premeditated or nothing. Such idiocies I don’t know where to begin. Do you believe it was utterly remarkable that Joseph did not have sex with Potipher’s wife, or not? If so, then cut the rest of us some slack. If not, then stop putting Joseph on a pedestal.
I have been a counselor in the churches I served and I know that leaders in every church I’ve been a part of have some serious problems. Behind the veil of secrecy you can claim to be better than they, but I seriously doubt it. One of the reasons I shared my story is that I could predict Christians would jump on it and discount my arguments. As they do they will discredit themselves, for anyone who knows anything about critical thinking knows that attacking a man who is honest enough to share his own flawed nature is both uncaring and ad hominem. It shows you are not being that critical thinker you claim to be. And it shows to other Christians just exactly what happens when a Christian falls into sin. Other Christians will attack you. Yep. You really ought to consider what you say and how it affects those who read what you say. The more you attack those who sin the more this strategy will backfire on you. That’s my prediction. And as a nonbeliever people will see my honesty in comparison with yo0ur hypocrisy. I can openly share my flaws. YOU cannot. I shared my story to prove this point too. You’ll dig your own grave the more you bring it up out of the blue. So just keep digging.
We're just bags of water that will cease to exist one day. Why bother? Bags of water are bags of water, not people, right?
How many times must I explain this to you before you at least understand our position? Let me briefly try again. Let’s say you woke up tomorrow morning and were given overwhelming evidence that your faith is a delusion. What would you do? That's right, what would you do ya "bag of water?"
Let’s say you woke up tomorrow morning and were given overwhelming evidence that your faith is a delusion.
ReplyDeleteSo you think the only alternatives are materialism or Christianity?
"Then take a look at how I treat respectful intelligent people on my blog."
ReplyDeleteI couldn't find any.
"The burden of proof is on the person who makes a knowledge claim. When I say agnosticism is the default position (“I don’t know” or soft-agnosticism) it’s because the agnostic is not making a knowledge claim, silly."
ReplyDeleteBut the Bible claism that you *do* know God. Thus, to claim that you *know* that you're an agnostic is to *know* that the Bible is false. (For example, to *know* that there is *really* a desk in front of you is to *know* that you are not dreaming).
So, I just showed that you're making a knowledge claim.
Can I buy myself a burden, Vanna?
(I haven't spoken to Loftus in quite some time. He's just as easy to debunk as always.)
"Hays is currently conditioned by Hays is currently conditioned by ancient superstitious beliefs. His outlook remains superstitious.
ReplyDelete"
Plato and Aristotle believed in logic. So, John, for you to believe in the validity of logic is for you to be conditioned by ancient superstitious beliefs? Your outlook remains superstitious.
So, either (a) you'll accept my reductio and show that your "argument" rests on an uninteresting point. One superfluous to getting anywhere in this debate, or (b) you'll admit that a belief can be old, even be believed by ancient and superstitious peoples, without the belief itself being hindered by age or superstition. Thus it isn't necessarily a bad thing that a belief was believed long ago, even by superstitious people, and so you'll need *another* argument if you want to get anywhere with your sophisms.
Anyway, nice use of chronological snobbery, Loftus.
JL: "Christians and I reject all other religions. I simply reject their Christian religion with the same confidence they have when rejecting all other religions."
ReplyDeleteSay there is a tree in my front yard.
Both (a) and (b) and (c) see the tree. (a) says that the tree was put there by the tree fairy. (b) says that it was put there by ACME movie studio. (c) says it was put there by the seed that was planted a while back. (a) rejects (b)'s story and (c)'s story, and vice versa.
Then another guy comes into the picture. Mr. (d). He says that there is no tree. Nothing there at all. (c) laughs at him. (d) says, "What? I've only done what you've done to (a) and (b)? You reject (a) and (b)'s story, I reject (c)'s. I just deny your story like you deny theirs."
This little parable is the essence of Loftus sophistic reply. Looks pretty stupid 'bout now, huh? It appears that he isn't doing *anything like* what we do when we deny other religions. His claim is disanalogous.
I’ve given you some reasons. Did you not read them?
ReplyDeleteYes, I've read them and many things you have written, and they cash out precisely at scientific fideism by way of methodological naturalism, which is, of course, codespeak for materialism, physicalism, etc. So, we're back at your fideism.
And so do you in every other area except for the things that are specifically Christian. You have a selective supernaturalism. Why the double standard? At least I’m being consistent.
As a Christian and a Calvinist, I have a healthy doctrine of ordinary providence. Try again. We've been over this ground with you before, so now you're just repeating yourself.
Agreed, and if you read a summary of my case linked earlier you would stop stating the obvious too.
Actually, I read it, and it doesn't overturn my objections. It just repeats them same stock and well worn objections you've used before. We've answered them many times, and, like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target.
Superstitious thinking using a double standard is your Orthodoxy.
Nice to see that when pressed you retreat into nothing more that an invidious term. Now you're simply begging the question, yet again. If we talk about God, you call it superstition. When you revert to naturalism, its being grown up and rational. It is not we who invoke the double standard.
Are you saying you wouldn’t want to remove atheists from universities if you had the political power?
I've never advocated such a position. You seem to forget that I'm Southern Baptist. Our state Baptist colleges and universities employ many atheists, even in the most conservative state conventions. FYI, I don't support the idea that state Baptist colleges and universities should have to adhere to strict confessional guidelines. In fact,I am wholly behind the current efforts of several of them to break with those conventions.
I just read comments here that indicated you and Hays would personally do away with me if you could in the name of your God to bring him glory.
Really, what comments are these? Please quote them.
Go ahead, please do. Actually, as I look through our archives, I see Manata has done so already. Patrick Chan has mentioned a few as well.
But notice also who threw the first stone
I see you're now employing the argument of a three year old. "He started it!" What do we tell 3 year olds who make that argument?
But notice also who threw the first stone.You guys rile everyone who disagrees saying some of the most putrid things that can be said short of being absolutely crass and vulgar.
You don't believe in objective morality, so what's the problem here exactly?
Those big bad atheists at DC are much more polite, civil, and respectful than those good loving kind Christians at Triablogue.
Of course, we don't subscribe to your highly sanitized version of Christian ethics where Christians have to be nice, quiet, humble, and "respectful" while you have a free license.
Your problem is that you hate Zeus, Hathor and their people.
Another two year old reply.
Ahhhhh, the flaming. No, I'm pointing out a sin for which you stand guilty and unrepentant, for a reason.
What’s next? Why bring this up? You do realize it was something I did 18 years ago. Again, that’s 18 years ago. Once more, eighteen years ago.How old are you? Do you treat everyone who falls into sin with such disrespect?
Since you deny objective morality, what's the problem? You say "Tomayto" I say "Tomahto."
Sin knows no statute of limitations.
Such a judgmentalism coming from someone holier than others.
One of these days, you'll let your eyes drop down from Matthew 8:1 - 5 to the rest of the statement:
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces
If we aren't to make any judgments at all, then how do we know what is swine?
And while we're at it,
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Acts 8 (New International Version)
20Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin."
Jude 1 (New International Version)
3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
8In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" 10Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.
11Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.
12These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. 13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.
14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." 16These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.
I hang my head in shame before such a righteous person who has never sinned (I’m not talking about you being “forgiven” here, but someone who has never sinned). Such a fine witness before the watching world.
I don't blame everybody for my sins but me, unlike you.
Yeah, continue on with this. Never let it drop. Let other Christians read how you treat others.
Yeah, continue on with this. Never let it drop. Let other Christians read how you treat others.
You're the one that makes it an issue in your book. You’re the one who chose to publicize your sex life.
And forget about mitigating factors. There are none. A lie is a lie is a lie. An affair is an affair in an affair. Murder is murder is murder.
1. "Mitigating factors." That's a weasel word in your case. That’s why you remain impenitent.
2.. But to your credite, you did accept a little bit of the blame, but then you chose to water down your admission by spreading the blame around. And that’s why, by your own admission, this is relevant, when I point out you need the Gospel and remind you of the treatment Scripture licenses for apostates. You are using your deconversion story to justify your apostasy. And you are using this incident as a key step in the process of deconversion and from there help others along the way.
There is nothing but black and whites for you.
But there isn't any color for you, black, white, or gray, for you deny objective morality altogether.
There is no such thing as manslaughter or 2nd degree murder for you.
On the contrary, the Bible draws that distinction, so I do as well.
Do you believe it was utterly remarkable that Joseph did not have sex with Potipher’s wife, or not? If so, then cut the rest of us some slack. If not, then stop putting Joseph on a pedestal.
I've never discussed Joseph, but I see I've struck a cord with you. "Methinks thou dost protest too much." Of course, the narrative is not centered on Joseph, but the Providence of God. Perhaps your interpretation of it has something to do with your Arminian upbringing.
As they do they will discredit themselves, for anyone who knows anything about critical thinking knows that attacking a man who is honest enough to share his own flawed nature is both uncaring and ad hominem.
When you''re done emoting, go back and read what I actually wrote. I point your sins and your apostasy to point out that you need the gospel, not discredit everything you have to say. In response you do what? You go out of your way to deny objective morality. You choose to reject the gospel. You choose to deny Christ. You choose to deny the very existence of God. You mount an open campaign against Christ and the covenant from which you apostatized. I point this out and urge you to repent. You reply by saying this is "disrespectful." And I repeat, you're the one that makes it relevant by using it as a justification for your deconversion. Once again, we wouldn't be having this conversation if you hadn't decided to bring it up.
Welcome to the true face of apostasy. When we unmask the apostate, when we wipe away the make-up, it’s personal and emotional.
And it shows to other Christians just exactly what happens when a Christian falls into sin. Other Christians will attack you.
1. Leaving aside the fact that by going out from us, you proved you were not of us, this objection is inapplicable since we're talking to an admitted apostate and non-Christian, and I'm bringing it up *that* John Loftus, not the John Loftus of 18 years ago.
2. Actually, I believe in the disciplinary process of the church as laid out in Scripture. I seek restoration first.
3. But you're an apostate, John, you've presumably been through that process and it failed, if it was followed at all, or you just left altogether. There's a sense in which I respect the latter choice more than I would somebody who was a "hanger on" (the former choice). However, the fact that you choose to use your adultery as a tool to justify your deconversion, tried to spread the blame for it around, and then put it in a book that is designed to help others along the way in their deconversion means it's fair game to point out a glaring example of your sin problem, for it demonstrates, John that you need Christ, you need the gospel, and you are condemned in yours sins, not only as an adulterer, but an apostate; the latter of which will, on the day of judgment compound the former (so, you see I do, in fact, honor biblical distinctions between kinds and types of error and sin, and that, John, is such a distinction.) I'm not saying this to "disrespect" you, but to appeal to you to repent, admit that you and you alone are to blame, and turn to God through Christ alone and cast yourself on his mercy.
And as a nonbeliever people will see my honesty in comparison with yo0ur hypocrisy.
It would only be "hypocrisy" if I pretended I am without sin, incapable of being tempted, or did one thing while saying it is okay for me, while saying it is not right for another. Where have I done so?
I'm glad you're honest about what you did, but you're dishonest in casting the blame on others. You have stated on this very blog that "This temptation was simply beyond me," and your book, you infer that your ex-wife was a frigid woman. When you choose to write a kiss-and-tell story in lurid detail, you immediately violate the privacy of everyone else concerned. For example, it never occurs to you that it might be a breach of confidence to inform the world that your ex-wife, whom you specify by name, was no fun in bed—which is why you turned to a stripper. You have a twisted, perverted sense of "honesty."
You say you've repented, but if you had, you wouldn't have apostatized. You cried crocodile tears of regret, like Esau.
And do you really want to know why this bothers me, John? Because you're using the same excuses my Dad used to justify leaving my Mom. You want honesty, John. Okay, let's have some honestly. My Dad did the same thing to his wife you did to yours. He used the same tired excuses you use. What's more, he had the temerity to marry her six years later. She left him. It took him nearly 15 years to quit making excuses and spreading blame around. Eventually, unlike you, he did repent, truly and completely. Today, he's a Christian, married to a Christian woman, and is quite happy. I hope the same for you, and that, John, gets us back to your need for the Gospel - the same Gospel you deny.
. I can openly share my flaws. YOU cannot
You know, you really should do your homework. I'm very open about the fact that I'm HIV positive, John. You don't get HIV by being a goodie two shoes these days. I just don't talk about it much, because unlike you, I don't publish books that trace my sexual history or my drug use in times past in lurid detail, and, unlike you, I don't accept part of the blame and then try to shift it onto others. If you'll also recall, Manata has shared his testimony as well, and in much more detail than I. So, John, in point of fact, I was being honest about my flaws long before you came on the scene.
How many times must I explain this to you before you at least understand our position?
Given the rotating door on your blog, it's hard to keep track of the referent for "our."
Let me briefly try again. Let’s say you woke up tomorrow morning and were given overwhelming evidence that your faith is a delusion. What would you do? That's right, what would you do ya "bag of water?"
This doesn't answer my question, John. Your objections to your treatment are not congruent with your denial of moral certitude and your denial of objective morality. So, why bother being respectful at all?
Loftus said:
ReplyDelete---
You seem to think a rhetorical use of premises in a logical structure can substitute for substance.
---
Well, you got me there. It is rather difficult to think any of your premises have substance.
Loftus said:
---
But you fail to understand my argument. I think it’s because you are too blinded to do so, or you’re disingenuously trying to argue against something you can’t do because as an apostate I’m not worthy of anything more.
---
That doesn't even make sense.
Loftus said:
---
My case is much more powerful than that straw man version. I’m talking about probabilities based upon contradictory historical testimonies to religious truths on matters of crucial importance to the truth of those separate religions.
---
A) You haven't said anything at all about "probabilities based upon contradictory historical testimonies" until now. Am I supposed to divine the future and know what red herring you're going to pull out next?
B) This still distills to the same basic format that I gave in the premises, and it still remains the fact that I have offered a counter argument that renders your logic invalid.
Loftus said:
---
8a) There are 45,000 different witnesses to mutually exclusive religious truth claims.
9a) There is no other evidence apart from these witnesses that can tip the balance in favor of any one of them over the others.
10a) Therefore even if one of the witnesses is correct I have no way to know which one is doing so.
---
I'll assume 8a, but 9a is false and 10a doesn't follow anyway. 10a could only be true if every single witness is always given the same weight.
Imagine if that were so in court! Witness 1: "I knew Johnny as a child, and he'd never do such a thing." Witness 2: "I saw Johnny kill this person in cold blood." Jury: "Darn, Witness 1 and Witness 2 cancel each other out. How in the world will we ever figure out if Johnny did it?"
Furthermore, we have the fact that many religions are self-contradictory. Indeed, I have yet to come across one other than Christianity that does not refute itself at some point. (Since you do not seem to follow logic very well, note that this does not mean I'm claiming another such religion does not exist; merely that I have yet to find one.) If a witness to a religious view is self-contradictory, we can dismiss those claims and need not take them as seriously as a claim that is not self-contradictory.
You'll find, Loftus, that if you spent two minutes thinking on the subject, all religions are not the same, and therefore the "witnesses" of those religions need not be given the same epistemical weight.
Loftus said:
---
The evidence you think proves your case is historical evidence, but as I’ve argued history is a poor medium to reveal anything of importance.
---
Unfortunately, Loftus, this is a historical claim and that's a poor medium to reveal anything of importance. Since you wrote this in the past, it's obviously flawed.
Loftus said:
---
There is no scientific evidence that leads specifically to your conclusion.
---
1) Science isn't the determiner of truth. Science requires a pre-existing framework. I mentioned this earlier, and you said you'd hold it to me, but apparently you cannot remember historical events that occured yesterday.
2) Science is perfectly consistent with a Christian worldview. It is the naturalistic philosophy of many scientists that is inconsistent, not the Scientific Method itself.
Loftus said:
---
And present day religious experience is trumped by the other religious witnesses.
---
I've already shown this to be flawed. First, they don't trump anything (at best, they could only "tie"). Secondly, the existence of false religions is predicted by Christianity. Third, you've yet to come to any specifics at all, preferring to let hasty generalizations serve as argumentation. When you stop committing so many logical fallacies, perhaps people will take you more seriously.
Loftus said:
---
The specific type of denial that I’m doing is a denial that something exists, like unicorns, fairies, Leprechauns, Zeus, Hathor, Ra, and Yaweh.
---
Yes, and those specific types of denials mean you are asserting truths about reality. This isn't as difficult as you're making it out to be. If you say unicorns do not exist, you are asserting that reality works just fine without unicorns. For the record: I agree on that point.
But you have a burden of proof when you say that existence can occur without some type of God. I've written several arguments on this subject before. Search the archives and bone up on them.
Loftus said:
---
You deny that I do because you offer the keys to the lock and then switch locks, as I’ve said.
---
Demonstrate it. Show just one time where this has happened.
Every time you've claimed you're doing an internal critique, I've shown how you've smuggled an external claim into the argument. I've proven that it was NOT an internal argument. I cannot help that you cannot grasp what an internal argument is, despite being given many examples of one, and despite the fact that I've outlined it for you. Show how any one of your arguments fits the outline I gave you earlier and yet I still claimed it wasn't an internal critique. Do that and you'll be correct; otherwise, just admit you haven't yet given an internal critique and then spend the next fifty years of your life trying to get one. It'll save us all the hassle.
Loftus said:
---
And if your cadre of bloggers would actually civily discuss these issues without the increasing ad hominems that comes as I am making my points, I would do so.
---
The "I would do so" clause proves you have not yet done this. Thanks for admitting it.
As to increasing ad hominems when you make your points, since you've never made any points this doesn't follow.
And I'm not the one who said "I don’t make it a point to debate stupid people like you." Or "This is why I banned you, because you’re stupid..." (Source: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/07/answer-fool-according-to-his-folly.html ) So get off your high horse before you get a splinter up your hind end.
The idea that we somehow need a theological framework to justify the scientific method is ridiculous. Science is nothing more than the rational analysis of the natural world that we perceive by our senses. "Philosophy of science" can rely on our immediate, tangible sensible experiences and observations. The idea that nature follows consistent laws and regularities is not based on the conception of an omnipotent designer, but on rational inferences we can make based on observations of the world around us.
ReplyDeleteLyosha07 said:
ReplyDelete---
The idea that we somehow need a theological framework to justify the scientific method is ridiculous. Science is nothing more than the rational analysis of the natural world that we perceive by our senses. "Philosophy of science" can rely on our immediate, tangible sensible experiences and observations. The idea that nature follows consistent laws and regularities is not based on the conception of an omnipotent designer, but on rational inferences we can make based on observations of the world around us.
---
1) It would be great if you actually read what was written before you responded. You'd be able to actually make a germane response if you did so.
2) Nice begging the question throughout the above. You say we can make rational inferences based on observations of the world--yet that means you've imported a whole slew of metaphysical presuppositions into the mix already. Basic philosophers of science understand this, regardless of whether they are atheists or theists.
3) Care to explain how the laws of nature came about? Do they "just happen" or is there a reason for them? Uh-oh, can't use science to answer that question. Must use a...*GASP* philosophy.
JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:
ReplyDelete“There are 45,000 different witnesses to mutually exclusive religious truth claims.”
You’re resorting to fact-free abstractions. This is simpleminded. To begin with, you need to compare the comparable. Religions like Hinduism and Buddhism don’t even claim to be revealed religions. And their concept of the divine is inadequate to even support a doctrine of revelation.
So the question is how they could be in a position to know the things they assert.
The contenders that claim to be revealed religions generally center on the Bible as a source of information. So it comes down to a question of whether they are consistent with their stated source of information.
I’d add that atheists also interpret the Bible. So you can’t treat all interpretations as equally valid, since that would also undercut the atheistic attack on Scripture as “immoral,” “unhistorical,” “unscientific,” &c.
“There is no other evidence apart from these witnesses that can tip the balance in favor of any one of them over the others.”
This is another fact-free abstraction. What did they witness? What did a Hindu witness? What did a Mormon witness?
You’re trying to level out all religious claims by operating at such a high level of abstraction that you leave out all of the relevant details.
“The evidence you think proves your case is historical evidence, but as I’ve argued history is a poor medium to reveal anything of importance.”
Except that you’re building your case on conflicting testimony. That’s a historical claim.
“There is no scientific evidence that leads specifically to your conclusion.”
You’re retreating into vagaries. You’d have to defend scientific realism. And you’d have to show that the object of knowledge falls within the domain of science. Many truths do not fall within the domain of science.
“And present day religious experience is trumped by the other religious witnesses.”
Once again, this is very vague. You’d have to spell out what sort of religious experience contradicts another religious experience. And you’d also have to evaluate the evidence for the religious experience.
“The specific type of denial that I’m doing is a denial that something exists, like unicorns, fairies, Leprechauns, Zeus, Hathor, Ra, and Yaweh.”
And in so doing you’re lodging a noetic claim about the lack of evidence or counterevidence for the existence of these entities. So your denial is a disguised assertion about the state of the evidence.
Moreover, you’d need to mount an argument from analogy in order to demonstrate that the existence of Yahweh is evidentially equivalent to the existence of unicorns, &c. That is not a bare denial, by any means.
“And you continue to respond with a completely asinine argument “
We’ve responded to your incompetent post.
“Do you now claim that all qualifications have been introduced, or not?”
Given your regular resort to fact-free assertions, it will be necessary to keep introducing the necessary qualifications.
“Hays is currently conditioned by ancient superstitious beliefs. His outlook remains superstitious.”
The problem with this tit-for-tat response is that it, if valid, it would only mean that Loftus and I are in the same boat. We’ve equally subject to cultural conditioning.
But Loftus wants to claim that his position is superior. The tit-for-tat rhetoric won’t show that his position is an improvement over mine.
“An agnostic either believes that there is insufficient evidence for Zeus, or contrary evidence, or both.”
This is an argument from analogy minus the argument. Loftus needs to actually show that the evidence for the existence of God is not better than the evidence for the existence of Zeus.
“The burden of proof is on the person who makes a knowledge claim. When I say agnosticism is the default position (“I don’t know” or soft-agnosticism) it’s because the agnostic is not making a knowledge claim, silly.”
This is a transparent rhetorical trick that merely disguises a noetic claim. You are simply recasting a positive claim in the form of a linguistic negation. But that’s a verbal rather than substantive distinction.
In your *denial* you are *affirming* that the evidence for God’s existence is either insufficient or else at odds with the evidence.
“And by not taking into account social conditioning at all your claim to believe the one true religion undercuts your appeal to the truth of what you believe. But I’ve been over this ground with you on more than one occasion.”
i) Tit-for-tat doesn’t nothing to demonstrate the superiority of Loftus’ position.
ii) In the past I’ve offered a detailed critique of Loftus’ appeal to social conditioning. His response is to repeat his original claim rather than interact with the counterargument.
“Your simpleminded appeal to the truth of what you believe regardless of the fact of geographical distribution of religious affiliation, disregards some elementary distinctions.”
Loftus thinks it’s cute to reword what I said, but I spelled out the distinctions. He has done nothing to address my distinctions. And he has failed to introduce any distinctions of his own which would contravene my distinctions. So he’s not helping himself with this rhetorical ploy.
“When it comes to affirming atheism it’s a small claim compared to your full blown Calvinism. Since smaller claims are easier to defend than larger ones I’m in a better position to argue for it.”
This is illusory. If you deny everything that Calvinism affirms, then your claim is commensurate with what it denies since there’s a one-to-one correspondence between what the opposing position affirms, and what you deny.
“Why is a test for ascertaining the truth of something subject to the same criticisms that the conclusion we reach when using the test is?”
I didn’t say if it was or wasn’t. I merely measure you by your own yardstick. The problem with your insider/outsider contrast is that your reasoning is reversible, for everyone is an insider relative to something as well as an outsider relative to something else, so we can keep rotating this contrast for every adherent of every position and opposing position. There is no privileged “outsider” test.
“How can you dispute that the sociological facts alone show that your faith is not probable?”
Sounds like you’re making a noetic claim.
“It’s about odds.”
Another empty abstraction. No, it’s not about odds—it’s about specific evidence for specific claims, or specific counterevidence.
“When one seeks to determine the truth of something the odds factor into what we claim because what we claim must be shown to be probable.”
i) The concept of probability is theory-laden. Remove it from the Christian worldview and you’re at sea.
ii) Speaking in the abstract about the “odds” is not an intelligent form of analysis. Get specific.
“Now how exactly can you say that an outsider cannot be convinced of this criteria?”
I didn’t affirm or deny this. I merely drew attention to your double-standard.
Sometimes an outsider becomes an insider. Sometimes an insider becomes an outsider. Happens everyday. Which undercuts your appeal to social conditioning.
“There is a difference, and it does apply as an illustration, because scientists ask the same question a prosecutor asks before indicting someone, even if his hunch is that the guy did the crime. He asks the detectives, ‘where’s the evidence?’”
Reconstructing a crime involves the use of historical evidence. But you think that history is a poor medium. So you’ve forfeited the right appeal to a historical reconstruction as a premise for you argument from analogy.
“Where’s the evidence for this claim of yours?”
It takes various forms. At the most specific level, the intellectually evasive behavior of someone like Loftus evinces his effort to suppress a standard of truth.
[Loftus said] “These are the areas where science is in conflict with religious doctrines.”
[I said] Wrong. Not in sociobiology. Not in global warming.
[Loftus said] Yeah, right.
Loftus is trying to bluff his way through this argument. He pays lipservice to science, but he’s very ignorant of science. The vicious debate over sociobiology pitted one group of secular scientists (e.g. E. O. Wilson) against another group (e.g. Gould, Lewontin).
Same thing with global warming.
“Let me state the obvious for the first time here, since it was asked of me by Hays (and rather than list them all let me state in advance that I’ll only list three, just in case he comes back with a whole long list and act like I didn’t list them because I’m ignorant): Medicine, Rocket Science, Technology.”
Several problems:
i) For every potentially correct diagnosis in medicine, there’s an infinite number of potential misdiagnoses. Applying Loftus probabilities to medical science, the default position should be an agnostic position since the odds are overwhelmingly against a correct diagnosis in any particular case.
ii) Technology is applied science, not theoretical science. Something can work without being true. Loftus cast the issue in terms of progressive scientific *knowledge*. “Knowledge” involves true belief.
Loftus needs to show that technological progress is equivalent to alethic progress. Otherwise, scientific advances in medicine, &c., do not furnish any evidence for his thesis.
iii) Different sciences involve different potential objects of knowledge and different lines of evidence. In medical science you’re dealing with real-time evidence.
That’s quite different than attempting to reconstruct the distant past based on scanty evidence, where you must fill in the gaps with a slew of hypothetical interpolations.
“And so do you in every other area except for the things that are specifically Christian. You have a selective supernaturalism. Why the double standard?”
Statements like this betray Loftus’ ignorance of Christian theology. The Bible doesn’t treat every event as a miracle. Seedtime and harvest aren’t miraculous.
We select for a natural explanation when that fits the evidence, and we select for a supernatural explanation when that fits the evidence. God can work through means or apart from means.
Sometimes prayer is a much better explanation for a cure than conventional medicine.
“I just read comments here that indicated you and Hays would personally do away with me if you could in the name of your God to bring him glory. Sounds like militant Islam to me.”
I see that Loftus is paranoid. This is what he originally said:
“That's why our morals have developed into that which makes for a safer, more productive, and less barbaric people than in ancient times, which is reflected in the Bible.”
And this is what I said in reply:
“Isn’t Loftus just a consumer? A drag on the system? Wouldn’t society be more productive if it weeded out the parasitic runts like Loftus?”
Now compare what I actually said with his paranoid restatement. Did I say anything about doing away with Loftus to glorify God? No. If Loftus is that unhinged, then he needs to check himself into a mental institution.
I was picking up on something he said. I was measuring him by his own ethical yardstick—in which he equated morality with productivity.
By that standard, Loftus is leeching off of society. He is a consumer, not a producer.
But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that I do believe in burning heretics at the stake. Since Loftus denies that anything is intrinsically good or evil, why does he think it would be wrong to reinstitute the Inquisition? How does he ground his belief in human rights or civil rights in objective moral norms?
“Let’s say you woke up tomorrow morning and were given overwhelming evidence that your faith is a delusion. What would you do? That's right, what would you do ya "bag of water?’"
Under that scenario I’d regard myself as…a bag of water.
LYOSHA07 SAID:
The idea that we somehow need a theological framework to justify the scientific method is ridiculous. Science is nothing more than the rational analysis of the natural world that we perceive by our senses. ‘Philosophy of science’ can rely on our immediate, tangible sensible experiences and observations. The idea that nature follows consistent laws and regularities is not based on the conception of an omnipotent designer, but on rational inferences we can make based on observations of the world around us.”
This is philosophically juvenile. Spend some time thumbing through the Blackwell Companion to the Philosophy of Science. Read Moreland’s Christianity and the Nature of Science. Read Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch. Or read some of his online articles:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/del-ratzsch-on-science.html
I don’t have the time to respond to everything said here, so let me choose a few of the most important things to comment on.
ReplyDeleteManata, Steve, et al, does your God create logic or must he abide by it? If it’s just part of his nature then did he choose his nature or not? Furthermore, where is the evidence that people have an objective morality, and where is the evidence they follow the rules of logic? To state that there is this thing called objective morality without evidence is mere assertion. And to state there is a metaphysical grounding to logic when people do not think logically is mere assertion. Human beings are not logic machines.
Gene, thanks for sharing you are HIV positive. Did you do something wrong as a Christian to get it?
Pike, what is your honest explanation for religious diversity separated into geographical locations? Oh, never mind, I already know. How plausible is your scenario when compared to the plausibility that the Bible is the word of God? Something must give. I wonder what you'll choose?
Well, I guess that covers all bases.
Cheers.
Haha, Loftus, that was approximately the lamest comment I've ever seen. I'm sad b/c the resistance is so pitiful.
ReplyDeleteLooks like the only thing that DC has going for them is the number of words they type.
Loftus said:
ReplyDelete---
I don’t have the time to respond to everything said here...
---
And by "everything" he means "anything."
Loftus said:
---
Pike, what is your honest explanation for religious diversity separated into geographical locations? Oh, never mind, I already know.
---
HEY! I thought your default was soft-agnosticism. How do you know stuff now?
In any case, I'm curious. What is my answer?
Loftus said:
---
How plausible is your scenario when compared to the plausibility that the Bible is the word of God?
---
How can you use the term "plausibility"? In order to tell if something is plausible, isn't it necessary that you first understand enough about reality to know what things ought to be so? But since your worldview reverts to pure skepticism, you can't know anything, Loftus. And since you cannot know anything, you cannot determine the plausibility of anything.
FWIW, when you say "X is more plausible than Y" you are making an assertion. But I thought Loftus doesn't make assertions.
DARN THESE SELF-REFUTING CONTRADICTIONS!!!!
I am going to take some time out of my busy day to answer some of your replies:
ReplyDelete----
"You say we can make rational inferences based on observations of the world--yet that means you've imported a whole slew of metaphysical presuppositions into the mix already."
My view does not import any metaphysical presuppositions, other than the fact that I am a conscious organism that receives sensory information through the senses. The idea that the world follows intelligible and rational laws is not a necessary presupposition; it is an observable phenomenon.
----
"Care to explain how the laws of nature came about? Do they "just happen" or is there a reason for them? "
The fact is that we don't know the answer to this question. Nobody can define the cause(s) of the laws of nature (there may be more than one). God is one possibility, but there is no means of verifation.
-----
"This is philosophically juvenile. Spend some time thumbing through the Blackwell Companion to the Philosophy of Science. Read Moreland’s Christianity and the Nature of Science. Read Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch."
I unfortunately cannot do your reading assignment, being as I have a life outside of online debates. But I will note that your idea that I ought to read every crackpot theologian you suggest before I can understand the issue is similar to the way FARMS and other apologetic groups try to intimidate people from making rational judgments about their respective beliefs. I could just as well say that your opinion doesn't count because you may not have read all the works of secular philosophers of science, like Karl Popper.
I object to the claim that the science somehow needs a theological underpinning. It is an instance of people inserting their own theology into a place where it doesn't need to be. The fact that natural science can proceed without theology at all seems pretty self-evident. If you have such a convincing case that science needs God, then surely you can come up with a better response than merely calling it "philosophically juvenile."
Lyosha07 said:
ReplyDelete---
I am going to take some time out of my busy day to answer some of your replies
---
Based on your replies, I think you need to read some philosophy books.
You said:
---
My view does not import any metaphysical presuppositions, other than the fact that I am a conscious organism that receives sensory information through the senses.
---
No, you also import the metaphysical presupposition that what your senses experience is actually real, that the world actually exists and isn't a subjective hallucination, etc. This is seen because you continue:
---
The idea that the world follows intelligible and rational laws is not a necessary presupposition; it is an observable phenomenon.
---
This falls immediately to the brain-in-a-vat argument (or the more modern concept: the Matrix problem). Just because you observe something doesn't make what you observe real.
Furthermore, to interpret what you observe requires more presuppositions. How does your mind filter and sort the sensory input it receives? It requires a preset kind of "programming" that already exists.
Again, this is basic philosophy.
You said:
---
The fact is that we don't know the answer to this question. Nobody can define the cause(s) of the laws of nature (there may be more than one). God is one possibility, but there is no means of verifation.
---
A) Why is it the case the no one can define the cause(s) of the laws of nature? How do you know this? (Do you see the presuppositions you are smuggling into this arena?)
B) So we say that God works as an answer. Do you have a non-theistic counter proposal? If you do not, then why should the theist jettison something that answers the problem simply because you hope there may be another explanation that someone might find in the future?
You said:
---
But I will note that your idea that I ought to read every crackpot theologian you suggest before I can understand the issue is similar to the way FARMS and other apologetic groups try to intimidate people from making rational judgments about their respective beliefs.
---
To answer for Steve,
A) You have an interesting definition of "theologian" there.
B) Nice try with the guilt-by-association technique. Have you considered running for President?
You said:
---
I object to the claim that the science somehow needs a theological underpinning.
---
I already responded to this argumnent when Loftus brought it up:
---
1) Science isn't the determiner of truth. Science requires a pre-existing framework. I mentioned this earlier, and you said you'd hold it to me, but apparently you cannot remember historical events that occured yesterday.
2) Science is perfectly consistent with a Christian worldview. It is the naturalistic philosophy of many scientists that is inconsistent, not the Scientific Method itself.
---
In theory, science may not need a theological underpinning if there is a sufficient alternate philosophy that can actually work instead of a relgious view. But the onus is on you to provide the philosophical underpinnings of science.
You said:
---
It is an instance of people inserting their own theology into a place where it doesn't need to be.
---
An assertion, not an argument. If you demonstrate how science works perfectly well without a control philosophy then you will have made a valid point. But simply saying it can without demonstrating this is nothing but hubris on your part.
You said:
---
The fact that natural science can proceed without theology at all seems pretty self-evident.
---
You can make things work by accident due to inconsistencies. There aren't any secular philosophers who are consistent, save perhaps nihilists who kill themselves. Just because someone can make something work doesn't mean their false or unjustified reasoning was the cause of it working.
lyosha07: I am going to take some time out of my busy day to answer some of your replies:
ReplyDeleteAnd I am going to take some time out of my busy day to chuckle at this.
For future reference, giving a confused, unsubstantive reply an air of having been birthed from self-sacrafice doesn't add to its cogency, nor your nobility.
JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:
ReplyDelete“Manata, Steve, et al, does your God create logic or must he abide by it?”
Manata and I have already discussed God’s relation to logic. Loftus presents us with two false choices.
Logic is constituted by the mind of God. This doesn’t mean, on the one hand, that God creates it, or, on the other hand, that he abides by it—as if it’s something anterior to himself.
“If it’s just part of his nature then did he choose his nature or not?”
This is like asking if a perfect being chooses to be a perfect being. What’s the alternative? Can a perfect being can choose to be an imperfect being?
“Furthermore, where is the evidence that people have an objective morality… To state that there is this thing called objective morality without evidence is mere assertion.”
Loftus is so obtuse. In responding to his assertions, I don’t have to prove that people have an objective morality.
My point, to the contrary, is that according to his secular outlook, Loftus does not have an objective morality. So why does he continue to moralize?
“And where is the evidence they follow the rules of logic? And to state there is a metaphysical grounding to logic when people do not think logically is mere assertion. Human beings are not logic machines.”
i) I freely concede that atheists and agnostics frequently violate the rules of logic. Dawkins is very illogical. Hitchens is very illogical.
I freely concede that Loftus is not a logic machine. Rather, Loftus is an illogic machine.
ii) Once again, I’ve already argued for the metaphysical grounding of logic in the past. Philosophers like Robert Adams, Greg Welty, Alexander Pruss, Brian Leftow, and Richard Brian Davies have laid the groundwork for this claim. I’ve quoted or cited their work. And there’s more in the pipeline.
It’s not my fault that Loftus is out to lunch on theistic modal metaphysics.
LYOSHA07 SAID:_
ReplyDelete“The idea that we somehow need a theological framework to justify the scientific method is ridiculous.”
An assertion bereft of an argument.
“Science is nothing more than the rational analysis of the natural world that we perceive by our senses.”
i) This assumes that human beings have minds. Eliminative materialism denies that assumption.
ii) Even if human beings have minds, this assumes that human beings have reliable minds. That assumption is undercut by evolutionary psychology.
iii) This assumes there is an external world to perceive. That’s a metaphysical assumption. It cannot be proven by science since that’s a metascientific presupposition.
iv) This assumes that your senses are reliable. You can’t prove that scientifically since that’s a metascientific presupposition.
“‘Philosophy of science’ can rely on our immediate, tangible sensible experiences and observations.”
Rely on them for what? What about the gap between appearance and reality?
“The idea that nature follows consistent laws and regularities is not based on the conception of an omnipotent designer, but on rational inferences we can make based on observations of the world around us.”
You cannot infer laws and regularities from observation, for such an inference presupposes laws and regularities. Even Hume knew that.
“I unfortunately cannot do your reading assignment, being as I have a life outside of online debates. But I will note that your idea that I ought to read every crackpot theologian you suggest.”
Do you include the contributors to the Blackwell Companion to the Philosophy of Science under the rubric of crackpot theologians?
Since you haven’t read Moreland or Del Ratzsch, you’re in no position to know if they are crackpot theologians. All you’ve done is to put your prejudice on public display.
“Before I can understand the issue is similar to the way FARMS”
That’s an argument from analogy minus the argument. You need to show that Triablogue is analogous to FARMS.
“And other apologetic groups try to intimidate people from making rational judgments about their respective beliefs.”
You haven’t offered any rational judgments about your beliefs. Instead, you take refuge in question-begging assertions.
“I could just as well say that your opinion doesn't count because you may not have read all the works of secular philosophers of science, like Karl Popper.”
I’m quite conversant with the position of many secular philosophers of science. More so than you.
“I object to the claim that the science somehow needs a theological underpinning. It is an instance of people inserting their own theology into a place where it doesn't need to be.”
Another tendentious assertion.
“The fact that natural science can proceed without theology at all seems pretty self-evident.”
Which is irrelevant. A two-year old can use a light switch without knowing anything about electrical engineering.
The point at issue is not whether an atheist can operate in a theistic universe, but whether an atheist can justify his operative assumptions.
“If you have such a convincing case that science needs God, then surely you can come up with a better response than merely calling it ‘philosophically juvenile”."
But you don’t want a better response. For example, I referred you to some online articles by Del Ratzsch which you refuse to read. You’re welcome to your impregnable bubble of ignorance.
"John W. Loftus said:
ReplyDeleteI don’t have the time to respond to everything said here, so let me choose a few of the most important things to comment on.
Actually, you didn't respond to anything I said. So, why'd you include my name in the below?
"Manata, Steve, et al, does your God create logic or must he abide by it?"
I deny your alternatives.
"If it’s just part of his nature then did he choose his nature or not?"
How does one "chose" a nature? Having a rational nature may very well be a *pre*condition to making a choice.
No, he didn't chose his nature.
I mean, you don't think that Gay people "choose" their gay natures. You think they were born that way. So, even you don't think that it is problematic for someone not to "choose" their nature. Thus your arguments are inconsistent with other beliefs in your ken.
"Furthermore, where is the evidence that people have an objective morality,"
I don’t even understand this. Are you confusing metaphysical and epistemological issues? Anyway, one evidence might be the fact that hundreds of philosophers claim that they do, and offer arguments for this. Secondly, the phenomenology of ethical disagreements seems to imply that people at least think that they are arguing over something objective. Third, the very idea of our talk about moral progress seems to imply that we all treat ethics as objection.
Now, are you asking for arguments which seek to prove the general metaphysical claim that there are ethical principles that are not dependant on subjects? Well have you read the library of works on this subject? If you have, why not come here with an argument critiquing those arguments so we can at least start somewhere. Otherwise, why shouldn't I just point you to the relevant literature? That is, are your serious about looking into the arguments for objective ethics? Then go read the multiply books and articles on the subject. One would think that much was obvious.
"and where is the evidence they follow the rules of logic?"
Where is the evidence that "people" follow the rules of logic? I don't even understand you. What people? All of them? One person? Anyway, one would think that since most people look both ways before they cross the street, because they assume that there is either a bus heading their way, or their isn't, but it isn't that there is and there isn't, would suffice to show that people at least attempt to reason according to some logical basics. But, let's say that people didn't follow the rules of logic. Where does that get you?
"To state that there is this thing called objective morality without evidence is mere assertion."
People may not "have" an objective morality, though there still could be one. Again, you confuse epistemological and metaphysical issues. Anyway, why the charade? Surely you know that there are hundreds of books on this subject. And, furthermore, when you speak of moral progress, moral saints, and moral disagreement, you act as if there are objective ethics. So, why do you have beliefs inconsistent with your actions?
"And to state there is a metaphysical grounding to logic when people do not think logically is mere assertion. Human beings are not logic machines."
That's a non-sequitur. How are you moving to the non-existence of a metaphysical grounding for logic from the premise that people do not think logically? How about if I argued that there is no metaphysical grounding for the natural sciences because people do not think scientifically? You may say, *some* do think so. In that case, you know very well that *some* people do think logically. Or, you might say that *all* people do. Okay, but this is false. And, if it were true, then what of your claims about Christians being anti-scientific people who base beliefs on superstition and positions held by ancient people?
Gene, thanks for sharing you are HIV positive. Did you do something wrong as a Christian to get it?
ReplyDeleteUnlike you, John, I have repented of my wrongs. Unlike you, I don't blame anybody but myself, and,for the record, I don't feel it necessary to hide my HIV status from other Christians or anybody else, but I don't broadcast it either, because, for me, it's not any different than having any other chronic illness.
Unlike you, I don't use my past mistakes as a means for discussing my present aims. In other words, you're an adulterer and apostate who takes part of the blame but then seeks to justify yourself by spreading the blame to others. Sorry, John, I won't take the bait to discuss my HIV status, because the analogy between you and me with relation to the way we deal with the mistakes of the past is utterly disanalogous. The only commonality is that I, like you, need the Gospel, but, unlike you, I embrace it.
Gene said...Unlike you, John, I have repented of my wrongs.
ReplyDeleteNow doesn't the Bible say somewhere about judging others? Remember, I was a Christian when this happened and I did "change my mind" (metanoia) or repent of it.
Oh, now let's talk about whether or not I was a Christian, eh? Let me put it to you this way, I was never a Christian in the sense that Christianity is a delusion. There is no Christ to follow and no heaven to go to. And in that same sense you are not Christians either.
You all remind me of followers of Zeus who swore by the prophecies that purportedly came from him through the priests. There would be nothing I could say to change their minds...nothing.
You will not even entertain that such a thing is possible with your faith. Like Manata you are so sure your faith has an object that it's like seeing a tree in front of you, and that's absurd! No one can be that sure of their religious beliefs and be sane!
Once again I think I covered everything that needed a comment from me. Except to say you guys are so much fun to reasonably discuss these issues with. Thank you. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteIt'll be interesting to see what you say in a few months.
You guys act and talk like you are so superior and intelligent than the rest of the world that only a buffoon would not believe what you argue for everyday.
I've said from the beginning that it's not about intelligence, it's not even about being educated or smart. It's about seeing things differently. It's about control beliefs. I'm arguing for mine.
Just like Anselm's Ontological argument proceeded out of a desire to make sense of a faith he already had, so you argue from the same desire. All of your arguments are nothing more than rationally defending something you came to believe initially for leass than adequate reasons. You learned to believe before you even heard of TAG or the ontological argument. But when you heard them they confirmed what you needed to believe.
Now it's time to grow up and realize that the initial reasons you had for believing in the first place were inadequate. But with the control beliefs you adopted from that initial conversion experience led you to see all available arguments and evidence through the lens of those glasses.
You would be arguing for Mormonism to this day if you were raised to be a Mormon. Admit it. Be honest.
Cheers.
Loftus said:
ReplyDelete---
You guys act and talk like you are so superior and intelligent than the rest of the world that only a buffoon would not believe what you argue for everyday.
---
Well, buffoonary does explain you...
And I love the "My responses are being destroyed and I cannot answer back, therefore I must insult those destroying my arguments by saying they're intellectual elitists instead of admitting I'm an idiot" approach. Bonus points!!!
Lofty said:
---
I've said from the beginning that it's not about intelligence, it's not even about being educated or smart. It's about seeing things differently. It's about control beliefs. I'm arguing for mine.
---
If it's not about intelligence, why argue for anything?
That aside, I'm still waiting for you to present an argument.
Loftus said:
---
You would be arguing for Mormonism to this day if you were raised to be a Mormon. Admit it. Be honest.
---
Why, then, are there ex-Mormons.
And frankly, coming from someone who runs a blog full of people who are FORMER Christians, your own blog refutes you here.
But then again you are the one who admitted that it wasn't about intelligence...