Pages

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Why some people hate Calvinism

Many react quite strongly against the Calvinist doctrine of election. Arminians think the notion is morally reprehensible. When we turn our thoughts to heaven and hell, some have been indigent that a loving God might show "favoritism" when they put their own parents up as exemplars; parents who, according to them, have never shown favoritism among their children. Calvinists are painfully aware of the strongly worded responses to what we feel the Bible teaches. Our God is called a moral monster, and we are called morally insensitive or defective for not being able to see how our teaching is morally and rationally repugnant. I think we can see some interesting analogies between this and reactions toward Jesus' raising of Lazarus from the dead in John 11.

We can note several things from the text,

1. The family knew that Lazarus would rise again, at the general resurrection. This hope didn't solve the psychological problem of evil. They were still deeply affected, saddened by their loss, and they would have liked to have Lazarus back then, not just at the general resurrection.

1a. It's safe to assume other families who lost loved ones also would have liked to have their loved ones back. They wanted this even they also knew that they would see their own loved ones again at the general resurrection.

1b. So there's a set S of people that will be raised at the general resurrection, but families who have lost loved ones are saddened by this loss and desire to see members of this set restored to them before the general resurrection.

2. Jesus tells the family that he will raise Lazarus from the dead.

2a. Jesus raises Lazarus so that God may be glorified, so the people may see the power of God, the glory of God.

2b. Jesus brings to life a member of S, someone chosen out of S, for God's purposes.

2c. Other families were just as sad as Lazarus' family, just as pious, just as faithful, just as whatever. According to human intuitions, this might appear to show partiality or favoritism. If any mere Jew had the power to raise from the dead, he would raise his own children, and the children of his neighbor too. Jesus didn't.

2d. There's several similarities with Romans 9 here. Ultimately, this "favoritism"was to glorify God, to put him on display. Jesus elects to save Lazarus. Chooses him out of the mass of people he could have raised from the dead. To others this appears unfair, unjust, partial, unloving, and self-promoting (done for God's glory, for God's purposes, to magnify God before the people).

3. Here was one reaction to that kind of Jesus, a Jesus who chooses to have mercy on some, not all (N.B. the fact of a future general resurrection did nothing to take away the sadness or dull the pain of the loss, and other families who lost their own loved ones — just as important to them as Lazarus was to his family, they didn't love their deceased less than Mary loved Lazarus):

"So from that day they plotted to take his life."

The kind of Jesus seen here is the kind to be killed. If Jesus went around healing everyone, raising everyone, and making no distinctions and divisions, he would probably not have been in danger. Or, if he at least gave everyone the choice to have their loved ones raised, their infirmities healed, and entrance into his circle granted, ready and willing to heal and save all without exception, he wouldn't have been in danger. The Jesus presented in this text is not the Jesus of Arminianism or Universalism. He's a Jesus who choses to bring certain people to life and leave others in their death. He's a Jesus who shows "favoritism." If, say, Thomas Talbott had lived back then and had the power to raise people from the dead, he'd raise everyone from the dead. If Thomas Talbott heard that Jesu raised Lazarus, and his own child had recently died, Thomas Talbott would ask Jesus to do the same for his own child. If Jesus refused, Thomas Talbott would claim that Jesus was a moral monster. Thomas Talbott would tell Jesus that his own parents would never show this kind of favoritism, and so this Jesus could not be the messiah, could not be God.

57 comments:

  1. Unique argument for Calvinism! I like it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We condemn humans who act this way, but if God does it, that makes it okay? This is another argument for Calvinism, but it does nothing to make Calvinism any more palatable. In fact, it looks like worshiping a bully to me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Byron,

    I don't condemn humans who are selective in what they hand out. I also believe God has good reasons for what he does. Do you have an argument for the idea that God doesn't have good reasons for what appears condemnatory to you? Indeed, do you have some sort of story you can tell for how we condemn actions as not living up to some normative standard such that they can be *really* right or *really* wrong?

    What is palatable to you is alethically irrelevant.

    I struggle to see how this looks like "worshiping a bully." How does a God who choses to have mercy of some undeserving people out of an entire mass of undeserving people imply that he is a "bully?" That just doesn't seem to follow when we consider the definition of a "bully." Is God emotionally, physically, or verbally *abusing* people through methods of intimidation or coercion? I just don't get your point, it seems like an emotional reaction rather than calm, reasoned interaction.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, for one, humans are limited, and therefore their interactions are limited, but God is not limited, so any limit to His interactions is purposeful. Two, God does not satisfactorily explain (in my opinion, if He exists) the reasons for purposefully limiting his interactions. This piece sounded more like worshiping God's ability to limit His interactions, and doing so in His own self-interest, than praising the underlying reasons for limiting those interactions, which are unknown (but we can assume are to glorify Himself). That looked like worshiping a bully to me.

    We don't criticize limited humans for being limited, but when it comes to God, anything He does is limited only by His purpose. And questioning God's motives then, not His power or His ability to limit His interactions, becomes my focus. But then it seems I run up against the theological explanations that basically boil down to, God does not have to explain Himself. So, I just wanted to state this this post is not a satisfactory explanation to me personally, though it would have been as a believer, because I accepted the presuppositions behind the idea of the Christian God, whereas I do not now.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Byron,

    1. Right, any limitation on God's action is purposeful, and? That's a reason for thinking he's *immoral*?

    2. God doesn't satisfactorily explain the good reasons he has for what he does to you? Well, I don't explain all the good reasons I have for what I do to my own children. Am I immoral? For starters, there's several answers I could give that they wouldn't understand. On what basis do you think you could understand any God-justifying reason there is? Why think this thesis about Byron's Understanding is true

    [BU] For all x, if x is a God-Justifying-Reason for some evil E, Byron could understand X.

    I see no reason to suppose that [BU] is true.

    Also, why think the justifying reasons you have surveyed are remotely representative of the total God-justofying reasons there are? You would be correct t assume that there was no elephant in your bedroom after looking at your bedroom, but would you be justified in concluding that there was no garden slug in central park after you stood there and looked around? I'd say that the amount of God-justifying reasons there are and that are available to God far outstrips your ken.

    3. Again, I fail to see the bully point. I see nothing relevantly similar, perhaps you can get more rigorous on the point?

    4. I understand that it may not be satisfactory to you that God doesn't explain himself to Byron and get your permission for everything, making sure you fully understand it and agree that it measures up to your sense of what is acceptable. No offense here, but that's exactly how my three year-old reasons. And some times I have given him reasons, and they are not satisfactory to him. Good thing he hasn't become an a-daddyist! Is there any reason you assume that, compared to God, you're not, and this is extremely charitable, like a three year-old compared to him?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Byron, to make a qualification: it is not the case that any limitation of God's actions are purposeful. For example, he couldn't make a square circles, and not because he refrains on purpose. So, some limitations on God's actions are not purposeful. While that doesn't affect whether Jesus could have raised more than just Lazarus, I just wanted to make that distinction since I was sloppy above.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Byron said:
    ---
    Well, for one, humans are limited, and therefore their interactions are limited, but God is not limited, so any limit to His interactions is purposeful.
    ---

    Bill Gates has billion of dollars. He has given me $0. Therefore, he's a moral monster.

    Q.E.D.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jesus himself plainly teaches this very thing in Matt 20:1-16 in the parable of Laborers in the Vineyard

    1"For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4and to them he said, 'You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.' 5So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. 6And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?' 7They said to him, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You go into the vineyard too.' 8And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.' 9And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12saying, 'These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.' 13But he replied to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' 16So the last will be first, and the first last."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Two parents see their toddlers run out into the street into oncoming traffic. The first one stands at the curb and calls out to the toddler to use his will to get out of the way, but will do nothing more for fear that he will violate his will. The second parent, alarmed, runs out into the street at the risk of their life, scoops up the child and makes certain the child is safe. He will of the child at the time was not considered because the parent knew better than the child.

    Which parent is the moral monster? In everyday life we would have thought the first parent was being both uncompassionate and unreasonable - how much more so with God. Yet this is what the Arminian believes.

    God is not obligated to save anyone cause none are his children by nature, but he mercifully adopts them into his family. The others are rebelling against him and reject him, so he leaves them to their own boasted free will.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just as an aside, there are several guys and gals I wish to talk with after I die and get a chance to ask them questions.

    We know of two who did not die.

    We know of several others who did die and then were brought back to life again.

    Of all these, there is one among them that intrigues me most. To him it is to ask to know, "who" are you, "what" is it about you that ranks such a resurrection and "how" much longer was it before you died again?

    2Ki 13:20 So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year.
    2Ki 13:21 And as a man was being buried, behold, a marauding band was seen and the man was thrown into the grave of Elisha, and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet.

    ReplyDelete
  11. OK, thanks, I do see some errors in my logic. But it seems to me like a scientist with a petri dish of bacteria. The scientist ("he" for convenience's sake) chooses to wipe out 90% and save 10% when he could have done vice versa, saved all of them, destroyed them all, or something else entirely. He has the right to do with it as he pleases, as he is intrinsically superior to the bacteria living in the petri dish and claims full ownership over them (let's say they're genetically engineered, so they're creations of his). Great.

    I suppose that doesn't make him a bully necessarily. It just is. But why worship such a being? I mean, sure you could, but why would it matter (assuming you're a bacteria, and could worship such a being). Why would sparing some from some horrible fate (burning?) qualify as "mercy"? Isn't it just one giant experiment in the end?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bryon,

    Do you really think you're honestly dealing with the God of the Bible? Do you think you're properly presenting the entire story so as not to attack a straw man or waste thinking time? For example, are the bacteria violators of the scientists holy, moral, and good moral law? Have they sinned against the scientist? Do they hate him and all he stands for? Would sparring some of *that kind* of bacteria count as mercy? Suppose in order to spare them the scientist sends his own son into the world of the petri-dish, producing a scientist-bacteria, fully both. His own son, which you admit is someone "intrinsically superior" to the bacteria, takes on a lowly station, confining himself to the world of the petri dish. The bacteria then kill the scientists own son, because they hate the scientist and his son. But the scientist does this to save some of the bacteria, those who believe on him. This scientist is unworthy or worship? I could go on, but I just don't think you're honestly representing that which you seek to criticize. As a Christian, I don't marvel at and worship God because he saves all, I marvel at him and worship him because he would save *any*.

    ReplyDelete
  13. To me the whole thing is just absurd. It would be like asking, how can bacteria in a petri dish "sin" against a scientist? When I consider how immeasurably vast just this galaxy is in a universe of possibly unlimited numbers of galaxies, it seems awfully petty to think that a God sufficient to create such a universe would be personally concerned with every minute detail that goes on here on one little speck of dirt in a vast ocean of material, much less embody Himself somehow into a creaturely body and jump down into a society of less than ants and pay them a visit. I'm sorry. I know that's my opinion, but I can't get past it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Byron,

    What was absurd was your analogy, then. Bacteria cannot sin, people can. Bacteria cannot think, people can. Bacteria are not proper subjects of ascriptions of praise and blame, people are. I was just going with your analogy. You tried to argue that the scientist/petri dish example was *analogous* to the Christian story, such that if the former was flawed then the latter was. I pointed out that you left out several relevant factors. Your move is now to scratch the whole project, throw your hands in the air, and declare, without argument, that "the whole thing is absurd." You don't even bother to try to put together the argument. You make some half-hearted attempt at something, but it's utterly unconvincing, and should be so to you too. Why on earth someone concerned with "rationality" and "rigor" and "science" and "reason" would approach this subject in the way you have is perplexing. For example, why don't you try spelling out your attempt at an argument:

    [1] This universe is really, really, really big.

    _________________

    [C] Therefore, God wouldn't be concerned to save rational agents he created and whose purpose is to spend life in a proper relationship with their creator.


    I'm not seeing how you get from the premise to the conclusion, can you spell it out for us?

    If you don't want to, but admit all you have are hunches, gut feelings, opinions, conjecture, pontifications, etc., then that's fine, I just wonder why you bother spending time commenting at places like this making the kind of comments you do. No offense, but do you really think the world must be graced with your unargued for, subjective, shoot-from-the-hip proclamations regarding your hunches and gut-feelings? Is this where your rejection of Christianity has led you to?

    ReplyDelete
  15. No, not really. It just seems absurd to me, and every attempt of mine to point that out is criticized as a failure unless it meets some formal philosophical declaration along the lines of a proof. (Shrug). Oh well, I give up. Have a good one!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Byron, actually, that's not why your attempts have been rejected, and I think you know better. In fact, you even admit that you had "errors in logic." From there you gave the petri dish example. That was criticized for being highly disanalogous, attacking a complete and utter straw man — not, as you say, for "not being philosophically rigorous." You then responded to my criticism of your scientist/petri dish example with your "really, really, really big universe" argument. At this point I simply asked you to spell out the reasoning from how you got from your premise to your conclusion, as I suspect that if you tried you'd see that the argument was poor, and if it could be made valid would rest on several highly contentious and implausible premises. You then respond to this by misrepresenting what has happened here, offered a passive-agressive "shrug" and "poor me" response, and then said goodbye.

    I see a pattern. In order to "give up" (here, on the faith, wherever), you concoct a bunch of straw men and misrepresent the situation and buy yourself some phony peace of mind. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

    ReplyDelete
  17. BTW, Paul, why isn't your profile public? What have you got to hide? Why should anyone speak to you as an anonymous person?

    ReplyDelete
  18. BYRON SAID:

    "BTW, Paul, why isn't your profile public? What have you got to hide?"

    He's in Special Ops. Part of the team that took out UBL.

    "Why should anyone speak to you as an anonymous person?"

    Then why are you speaking to him?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Byron said...

    "When I consider how immeasurably vast just this galaxy is in a universe of possibly unlimited numbers of galaxies, it seems awfully petty to think that a God sufficient to create such a universe would be personally concerned with every minute detail that goes on here on one little speck of dirt in a vast ocean of material..."

    To our knowledge, the universe is full of uninhabited/uninhabitable rocks in space. So what's counterintuitive about God taking a personal interest in a planet with intelligent lifeforms which he himself made?

    Likewise, attention to details is a mark of good craftsmanship.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Why should anyone speak to you as an anonymous person?"

    Why even use the Internet to talk to people, if you're that worried about who you are talking to?

    ReplyDelete
  21. PAUL SAID:

    [You] offered a passive-agressive "shrug" and "poor me" response, and then said goodbye.

    And your complaint here is, what exactly?

    BTW, your supposed conclusion was not even the same as mine, as it was based on different presuppositions than mine.

    STEVE SAID:

    He's in Special Ops. Part of the team that took out UBL.

    If that's the case, then my hat's off to him. Kudos to you, Paul, and I truly mean that. UBL was a piece of slime whose very life represents the waste of a perfectly good condom or the failure of one to work as advertised, nine months before his birth. Good riddance to bad trash.

    I SAID:

    Why should anyone speak to you as an anonymous person?

    STEVE SAID:

    Then why are you speaking to him?

    That is the question I'm asking myself, retroactively.

    ReplyDelete
  22. STEVE SAID:

    To our knowledge, the universe is full of uninhabited/uninhabitable rocks in space. So what's counterintuitive about God taking a personal interest in a planet with intelligent lifeforms which he himself made? Likewise, attention to details is a mark of good craftsmanship.

    True enough. What evidence shows us that God pays attention to details? What evidence shows us a god of some sort even exists?

    It's just that we started out with a geocentric model of the universe, moved to a heliocentric model of the solar system, and the more science discovers, the less important Earth itself is compared to the Universe as a whole. We're not the Center of the Universe, or even measurably important in the grand scheme of things, except religiously. To posit the existence of a specific deity in a huge universe who is intimately focused on one small planet in an ocean of "other stuff", without sufficient evidence of such a deity (in my opinion), seems a bit of a stretch (again, in my opinion).

    ReplyDelete
  23. TURRETINFAN SAID:

    Why even use the Internet to talk to people, if you're that worried about who you are talking to?

    That's a good question. Actually, I don't mind people remaining anonymous if I feel they have sufficient reason to do so (whether or not they actually do). I can certainly understand anonymity in Paul's situation if what Steve Hays told me is true (or was he joking? I'm taking him seriously for the purpose of this comment), or for missionaries, or undercover government agents, and so on. I don't automatically assume that when someone is anonymous that they have good reasons for doing so. They actually might, but I will not agree with the anonymity (not that my opinion matters) unless I am convinced they actually have good reasons for doing so (so in the case they cannot tell me their reasons, I would have to reserve the right for disagreeing with their anonymity). Being anonymous is a personal dislike though I do accept it if I am persuaded that valid reasons exist for that anonymity, and anonymity does not necessarily preclude me from communicating with a person, but if I believe there are invalid or insufficient reasons for that anonymity I may become disinclined to communicate with them.

    You are one of the few people whose anonymity I can tolerate. But I feel like even you should reveal your identity publicly. When and if that ever occurs is up to your right to choose in the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  24. BYRON SAID:

    “What evidence shows us that God pays attention to details.”

    So a God who’s too attentive to the details is unbelievable, but a God who’s too inattentive to the details is unbelievable. In other words, you’re making up your objections on the fly, with no attempt to be logically consistent.

    “What evidence shows us a god of some sort even exists?”

    What evidence is there that you’ve made any sincere effort to study the relevant literature?

    “It's just that we started out with a geocentric model of the universe…”

    Is that how we started out? That presupposes Ptolemaic astronomy. But Ptolemy is not where we started out.

    “We're not the Center of the Universe, or even measurably important in the grand scheme of things, except religiously. To posit the existence of a specific deity in a huge universe who is intimately focused on one small planet in an ocean of ‘other stuff’, without sufficient evidence of such a deity (in my opinion), seems a bit of a stretch (again, in my opinion).”

    You might as well say that since everybody has a mother, since there are hundreds of millions of mothers in the world, then it’s a stretch to think your own mother would be special to you. Aren’t mothers a dime a dozen?

    Do you ever stop to consider the really obvious counterexamples to your many impetuous objections? It would be good intellectual practice for you, before you raise an objection, to anticipate possible counterexamples to your objection.

    ReplyDelete
  25. STEVE SAID:

    So a God who’s too attentive to the details is unbelievable, but a God who’s too inattentive to the details is unbelievable. In other words, you’re making up your objections on the fly, with no attempt to be logically consistent.

    The first sentence of that is right. And I need some evidence of god beyond Romans 1 to be able to figure out how to talk about his/her/its being attentive to details or not. I'm not making up objections on the fly that I am aware of here. I'm just asking, "where's the evidence?"

    STEVE SAID:

    Is that how we started out? That presupposes Ptolemaic astronomy. But Ptolemy is not where we started out.

    I was thinking of Genesis, actually.

    STEVE SAID:

    You might as well say that since everybody has a mother, since there are hundreds of millions of mothers in the world, then it’s a stretch to think your own mother would be special to you. Aren’t mothers a dime a dozen?

    But, I'm not talking about moms. I'm talking about gods, the lack of evidence thereof (of which I am aware, at least), and the possibility of a very specific god existing. I can see evidence of mothers, others and my own, and determine how special they are to particular individuals. I can't do that with a god, especially the Christian one.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Byron said...

    "The first sentence of that is right. And I need some evidence of god beyond Romans 1 to be able to figure out how to talk about his/her/its being attentive to details or not. I'm not making up objections on the fly that I am aware of here. I'm just asking, 'where's the evidence?'"

    You seem to think we exist to spoonfeed you information you can find out for yourself. What reading have you done on theistic proofs?

    "I was thinking of Genesis, actually."

    Genesis is geocentric? Where does Genesis say the sun, moon, stars, and planets revolve around the earth?

    "But, I'm not talking about moms. I'm talking about gods, the lack of evidence thereof (of which I am aware, at least)..."

    Is there some reason you can't follow your own argument? You were talking about more than one thing. You also suggested that given the vast and varied nature of the universe, it's unlikely that God would take a particular interest in life on earth. Hence, the analogy with many mothers.

    I shouldn't have to walk you through your own argument. Make a minimal effort to be consistent. That's not asking too much.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Regarding the post, I read this verse this morning and this post came to mind:


    Psalm 50:19–21 “You give your mouth free rein for evil, and your tongue frames deceit. You sit and speak against your brother; you slander your own mother’s son. These things you have done, and I have been silent; you thought that I was one like yourself. But now I rebuke you and lay the charge before you.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Byron,

    "And your complaint here is, what exactly?

    It wasn't a complaint. It was an alternate story to the straw man you told, i.e., your arguments were rejected solely because they were not philosophically rigorous. So, it was a report. You would do well to tell the difference between complaints, reports, explanations, arguments, etc.

    "BTW, your supposed conclusion was not even the same as mine, as it was based on different presuppositions than mine."

    Apart from the fact I'm not really sure what your conclusion was, as you didn't make it explicit, I am aware that the conclusion wasn't a proposition you wrote; however, it was an attempt to show you the silliness of your argument and all the tendentious and questionable and contentious premises you'd need to support it. If you disagree and think you have something like a good argument, why don't you spell it out and make your premises and conclusions explicit. This will make it easier for all of us to evaluate and force you clarify your thoughts and tie them together in a logical fashion, which I assume you'll be bound to agree would be good for both sides.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Byron,

    STEVE SAID:

    "To our knowledge, the universe is full of uninhabited/uninhabitable rocks in space. So what's counterintuitive about God taking a personal interest in a planet with intelligent lifeforms which he himself made? Likewise, attention to details is a mark of good craftsmanship."

    BYRON SAID

    "True enough. What evidence shows us that God pays attention to details? What evidence shows us a god of some sort even exists?"

    ---------

    This is part of what makes it difficult to discuss in this way with you. You moved goal posts. Your initial argument was something about "bigness" implying "the creator of the bigness wouldn't care about some of the things within the bigness."

    Steve addresses your argument, you reply, "true enough," and then go on to ask for evidence that God exists. But note your initial argument assumed God's existence. That is, it introduced a conditional that "If God existed, then given how big the universe is, I can't see why he'd be interested in us." So it appears your "that's right" admitted that your inference from bigness to caring was just one more failed attempt at an argument here. You've given it up and moved on to asking for evidence for God's existence. Am I right? If not, then your request for evidence was out of step with your own argument, which introduced God into the discussion.

    At any rate, you should just give up the argument, because it basically has this form:

    [1] Quantitative assertion about the whole.

    [C] Qualitative assertion about things normative parts of the whole.

    I just see no successful way an argument of that sort could be made that is remotely plausible.

    So, where are you at? Are you still trying to defend your "bigness to uncaring" inference, are have you ditched that argument and are now asking for evidence that God exists?

    ReplyDelete
  30. We also need to distinguish between evidence and perception. Someone who’s never seen a photograph before doesn’t know what to make of it. He doesn’t register the flat surface as a visual representation of people and places. He doesn’t recognize 3D objects from the photograph. He lacks the mental framework to infer the 3-point perspective implicit in the photograph. All he perceives is a swirl of light and shade or varied color, but he fails to perceive a pattern in the image.

    Two observers can look at the same photograph, but they don’t see the same photograph. One has a frame of reference while the other does not.

    Byron keeps asking, “Where’s the evidence?” but is his problem deficient evidence...or deficient perception?

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Two observers can look at the same photograph, but they don’t see the same photograph. One has a frame of reference while the other does not."

    Similar to Quine's example of the naive missionary who sees a bend in the grass while the aboigene sees the signs of a dingo in the vacinity.

    Or the reversal with a T.V.. The missionary sees evidence of a T.V., the aborigene doesn't. Exact same things are seen, but what they're seen as is entirely different.

    ReplyDelete
  32. To vary the illustration, you can have two observers who see a photograph of the same person or place, but one observer knows what he’s looking at while the other does not. One observer has sufficient background knowledge to recognize the person or place depicted in the photograph while the other lacks that necessary frame of reference.

    I see Marlene Dietrich while all you see is a strange woman.

    So you have objective photographic evidence that a person or place exists (or used to exist). But whether or not that counts as evidence depends on the subjective state of the observer. They see the same evidence, but they don’t perceive the same evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  33. STEVE SAID:

    You seem to think we exist to spoonfeed you information you can find out for yourself. What reading have you done on theistic proofs?

    And why should I have to read a bunch of theistic proofs in order to ascertain the reality of God's existence if in fact He does exist? I was naturally born an agnostic as far as I can remember. Why cannot God simply tell me He exists and be done with it?

    STEVE SAID:

    Genesis is geocentric? Where does Genesis say the sun, moon, stars, and planets revolve around the earth?

    I'm sure you've heard this before, but Genesis implies a geocentric universe, simply by presenting an earth-bound view without further clarification. The theistic explanations I read always seem to explain that as a matter of perspective, but it seems very difficult to make a case from the Scriptures for the universe we observe today, such as a heliocentric Solar System. In fact, Genesis even mentions a solid firmament, and a division between waters below and waters above, so a three-tiered universe (and thus a geocentric one) would be what is taught.

    STEVE SAID:

    I shouldn't have to walk you through your own argument. Make a minimal effort to be consistent. That's not asking too much.

    Well, I admit my argument is more subjective than what you desire it to be. There is no way I can make you or anyone else see it. And of course, I cannot expect you to take my word for it; you'll just have to see it for yourself if possible.

    ReplyDelete
  34. STEVE SAID:

    "To our knowledge, the universe is full of uninhabited/uninhabitable rocks in space. So what's counterintuitive about God taking a personal interest in a planet with intelligent lifeforms which he himself made? Likewise, attention to details is a mark of good craftsmanship."

    BYRON SAID:

    "True enough. What evidence shows us that God pays attention to details? What evidence shows us a god of some sort even exists?"

    PAUL SAID:

    This is part of what makes it difficult to discuss in this way with you. You moved goal posts. Your initial argument was something about "bigness" implying "the creator of the bigness wouldn't care about some of the things within the bigness."

    That was sloppiness on my part. I meant only that the part "Likewise, attention to details is a mark of good craftsmanship" was true enough and did not say so explicitly. And there's nothing wrong with the idea of a personal God taking intimate interest in what he has created. I just see no evidence for it. And, BTW, Steve saying that as far as we know the universe is filled with lifeless/uninhabited rocks does not really change much. We really do not know much about the Universe, so it is no surprise the very little bit we have seen so far has been lifeless/uninhabited. Very likely, we will never be able to tell by pure scientific observation in my lifetime whether life exists elsewhere in the Universe or not, and I do not think that is even unreasonable, considering the vastness of scale and the finiteness of our instruments and perception.

    Anyways, I withdraw from commenting on my argument for now.

    ReplyDelete
  35. BYRON SAID:

    “And why should I have to read a bunch of theistic proofs in order to ascertain the reality of God's existence if in fact He does exist?”

    No one said you had to. But you have this odd notion that we should do for you what you’re unwilling to do for yourself.

    You’re like a guy in a lounge chair with his TV remote and his 500 cable stations who expects the world to come to him at the push of a button. As if you shouldn’t have to make any effort, while we do it all for you.

    That’s not what we’re here for, Byron. You’re a grown man.

    Take the relationship between a coach and a jock. It can’t mean more to the coach than it does to the jock. The jock needs to be self-motivated. He has to show up for practice, diet, pump iron, and get enough sleep if he’s going to succeed at footfall (or whatever).

    If you want some tips on what to read, fine. But we’re not going to push you around in a wheelchair when you’re an able-bodied guy who’s quite capable of standing on his own two feet. Don’t demand from others what you refuse to demand from yourself.

    Keep in mind that if we’re right and your wrong, it’s your loss, not ours.

    “I was naturally born an agnostic as far as I can remember. Why cannot God simply tell me He exists and be done with it?”

    That begs the question of whether God’s existence is inevident. And that was my point of my analogy about photographic evidence.

    “I'm sure you've heard this before, but Genesis implies a geocentric universe, simply by presenting an earth-bound view without further clarification. The theistic explanations I read always seem to explain that as a matter of perspective, but it seems very difficult to make a case from the Scriptures for the universe we observe today, such as a heliocentric Solar System. In fact, Genesis even mentions a solid firmament, and a division between waters below and waters above, so a three-tiered universe (and thus a geocentric one) would be what is taught.”

    I’ve been over that ground many times before, so I don’t need to repeat myself for your benefit.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Byron,

    there's nothing wrong with the idea of a personal God taking intimate interest in what he has created. I just see no evidence for it.

    But that's not what you originally claim, Byron. You originally said,

    "When I consider how immeasurably vast just this galaxy is in a universe of possibly unlimited numbers of galaxies, it seems awfully petty to think that a God sufficient to create such a universe would be personally concerned with every minute detail that goes on here on one little speck of dirt in a vast ocean of material. It just seems absurd to me.".

    The first claim is:

    [1] It is perfectly legitimate that, if there were a God, he would take intimate interest in his creation. However, I just so no evidence that God exists.

    Your second claim is:

    [2] I find the very idea that a God who created everything being intimately involved with his creation to be "petty." The very idea is "absurd."

    Notice that [1] and [2] are entirely different claims. [1] allows for the intelligibility and legitimacy of the view, [2] does not. You make zero indication that you're switching horses mid-stream and making entirely different claims. Either (a) you noticed the weakness of the first and tried to duplicitously change it to the logically weaker claim, or (b) you're not even tracking your original claim, unaware that you're making different claims and claiming they're one and the same.

    Anyways, I withdraw from commenting on my argument for now.

    Well, I don't know which "argument" you're talking about, but I can certainly appreciate why you'd want to shelve it until you can better explain, and defend, it/them.

    ReplyDelete
  37. STEVE SAID:

    If you want some tips on what to read, fine. But we’re not going to push you around in a wheelchair when you’re an able-bodied guy who’s quite capable of standing on his own two feet. Don’t demand from others what you refuse to demand from yourself.

    So, the answer for me is to refer to theological books and online resources? Okay. That was not my expectation out of this discussion, but I see your point of view.

    STEVE SAID:

    Keep in mind that if we’re right and your wrong, it’s your loss, not ours.

    This almost sounds like a variation of Pascal's wager to me, and I am not sure why you bring it up. I think you mean that I need to be adequately informed before rejecting something that is possibly true. If that is what you mean, I agree with that sentiment. But I do not need all the theological resources referred to me here on this blog to make that judgment. Besides, all sorts of possibilities could exist with a potentially negative outcome for someone who disbelieves in some required set of beliefs. My position is one of the few positions I know of where if I am right, no one loses anything fundamentally except false precepts and hopes. After all, you cannot really lose something that never existed in the first place, even though emotional suffering from loss is certainly possible.

    I’ve been over that ground many times before, so I don’t need to repeat myself for your benefit.

    I'm not sure how you determine "need" here as opposed to "want", but out of curiosity I just might look up what you have written on the subject. I'm thankful as a non-believer I personally no longer have to defend the Bible from an apparent perspective of geocentrism, as judged by both believers and non-believers. I only wished as a believer that the Bible included much more scientific material which could appear at the least to be unusually perceptive for the time periods of composition.

    ReplyDelete
  38. PAUL SAID:

    But that's not what you originally claim, Byron. You originally said,

    ...

    Notice that [1] and [2] are entirely different claims. [1] allows for the intelligibility and legitimacy of the view, [2] does not. You make zero indication that you're switching horses mid-stream and making entirely different claims. Either (a) you noticed the weakness of the first and tried to duplicitously change it to the logically weaker claim, or (b) you're not even tracking your original claim, unaware that you're making different claims and claiming they're one and the same.

    OK, I did not keep track of changing my views. You correctly point out that I am in error here. The second view (omitting your quote here) is probably impossible for me to defend, and I am not prepared to defend the first view.

    PAUL SAID:

    Well, I don't know which "argument" you're talking about, but I can certainly appreciate why you'd want to shelve it until you can better explain, and defend, it/them.

    I would need to clarify claim #2 at the very least, and possibly abandon it, perhaps both of them.

    STEVE SAID:

    He's in Special Ops. Part of the team that took out UBL.

    Paul, I'm surprised that you didn't comment on this one way or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Paul, I'm surprised that you didn't comment on this one way or the other."

    Byron, I could comment on it, but then I'd have to kill you.

    ReplyDelete
  40. OK. In that case, I'm glad you didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Byron said:

    So, the answer for me is to refer to theological books and online resources? Okay. That was not my expectation out of this discussion, but I see your point of view.

    Well, this isn't the first time you've commented on Triablogue and expected others to do the hard spadework for you. As you will recall, we recently had a discussion about some of this stuff too. See here.

    My position is one of the few positions I know of where if I am right, no one loses anything fundamentally except false precepts and hopes.

    Wait, really? Aren't you a former Christian turned agnostic if not atheist, Byron? If so, then you would stand to lose much indeed if the God of the Bible exists (especially in light of what the Bible says about those who once professed Christ but turned away from him to go their own way i.e. apostates)!

    I only wished as a believer that the Bible included much more scientific material which could appear at the least to be unusually perceptive for the time periods of composition.

    1. For one thing, you're looking at the Bible primarily through your socioculturally conditioned 21st century Western eyes. You're not trying to look at it on its own terms.

    2. Why do you expect the Bible to be "unusually perceptive" insofar as "scientific material" is concerned?

    3. Are these "perceptive" enough for you?

    * "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). This meshes with the big bang theory.

    * "He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7). Many ancient peoples didn't know the earth "hangs...on nothing."

    * "And he [God] brought him [Abraham] outside and said, 'Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them'" (Gen 15:5) and "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured" (Jer 33:22). However, many ancient peoples thought the stars could indeed be numbered.

    * "The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north; around and around goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns" (Ecc 1:6). This meshes with our understanding of atmospheric circulation.

    * "All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again" (Ecc 1:7). This meshes with our understanding of the hydrologic cycle.

    * "Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end" (Psa 102:25-27). This meshes with entropy.

    * "When a person has on the skin of his body a swelling or an eruption or a spot, and it turns into a case of leprous disease on the skin of his body..." (Lev 13:2ff). There's much to say here but I'll just say this meshes with various aspects of modern medicine like germ theory. It also displays considerable clinical insight.

    * "When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean. And this is the law of his uncleanness for a discharge: whether his body runs with his discharge, or his body is blocked up by his discharge, it is his uncleanness. Every bed on which the one with the discharge lies shall be unclean, and everything on which he sits shall be unclean. And anyone who touches his bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening..." (Lev 15:2ff). This meshes with modern antiseptic procedures like hand-washing, which by and large didn't occur until Ignaz Semmelweis in the mid-1800s.

    * "For the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev 17:11). This meshes with the oxygen-carrying properties of the hemoglobin protein in erythrocytes.

    ReplyDelete
  42. 4. If the above isn't perceptive enough for you, how "unusually perceptive" do you expect the Bible to be?

    I wonder, were you expecting God to explain the mathematics and physics behind unifying gravitation as described by the theory of general relativity, etc., with electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces as presumably described by quantum mechanics into quantum gravity or somesuch, while concurrently detailing how we might come to establish experimental proof for the whole shebang?

    Or that DNA is a double helical structure consisting of two anti-parallel (running 5'-3' and opposite) sugar-phosphate backbones held together by ester bonds on the outside and nitrogenous base-pairs held together by hydrogen bonds on the inside? That the base-pairs are in the keto tautomeric form? The base-pairs are adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine, where adenine and guanine are purines whereas cytosine and thymine are pyrimidines? The base-pairs lie flat like plates and are spaced .34nm apart, with 10 base-pairs per turn and each turn 3.4nm long and the diameter is 2nm? That the double-helix unzips with each strand serving as a template for the replication of a complementary strand, where adenine always binds with thymine and vice versa, while cytosine always binds with guanine and vice versa? That the particular base-pair sequence carries the genetic code, that DNA self-replicates, that genetic information is transmitted unidirectionally from DNA > RNA > protein, that DNA bases are read in triplets called codons which translate into specific amino acids and subsequent proteins? That DNA contains approximately 3 billion base-pairs and 20,000-30,000 genes? That DNA consists of exons which encode genes and introns and other regions such as repetitive segments which do not? That DNA is packed with proteins called histones into chromatins when not replicating?

    ReplyDelete
  43. OK. In that case, I'm glad you didn't.

    I think Paul would also have to undertake interrogative techniques for enemy intel prior to termination.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Also:

    * "And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place..." (Acts 17:26). Many ancient peoples thought the gods originally fashioned more than one human couple when they created the human race. Not that I necessarily subscribe to their theories, but many geneticists believe we all descended from a Y-chromosomal Adam and/or Mitochondrial Eve.

    * Some could read God bringing forth "kinds" in Gen 1 as standing in contrast to the spontaneous generation of life from non-life that many Medieval peoples (as well as Stanley Miller and his ilk) apparently believed.

    ReplyDelete
  45. PATRICK CHAN SAID:

    Well, this isn't the first time you've commented on Triablogue and expected others to do the hard spadework for you. As you will recall, we recently had a discussion about some of this stuff too. See here.

    That was never my expectation, though that seems to be the overall assessment of what several here think I expected. All I wanted was simply to have a discussion, nothing more, nothing less. I do appreciate the links to information, however, and the helpful advice.

    BYRON SAID:

    My position is one of the few positions I know of where if I am right, no one loses anything fundamentally except false precepts and hopes.

    PATRICK CHAN SAID:

    Wait, really? Aren't you a former Christian turned agnostic if not atheist, Byron? If so, then you would stand to lose much indeed if the God of the Bible exists (especially in light of what the Bible says about those who once professed Christ but turned away from him to go their own way i.e. apostates)!

    That still doesn't negate what I said, but in fact reinforces it. That's the problem with things like Pascal's Wager, which assumes a very specific God and a very specific penalty for disobedience. I also don't deny the truth of what you just said, if your version of Christianity is true, of course, but it doesn't contradict what I said in the slightest that I can see. What if we're both wrong, and the Mormons are right? Or the Jehovah's Witnesses? Or the Hindus? Or God forbid, Harold Camping? You're already an atheist with respect to every other religion besides your own, and all their threats of punishment and the wrath of deities. I'm simply an atheist with respect to your religion, and I'm not particularly worried about being an apostate.

    PATRICK CHAN SAID:

    1. For one thing, you're looking at the Bible primarily through your socioculturally conditioned 21st century Western eyes. You're not trying to look at it on its own terms.

    Why should this matter, except to understand cultural references? The problem with the Bible in my opinion is that it is a product of its authors and their times of life and culture, and seems to be little more.

    PATRICK CHAN SAID:

    2. Why do you expect the Bible to be "unusually perceptive" insofar as "scientific material" is concerned?

    Well, why not? That's not asking too much of an omnipotent, omniscient God. I admit I don't have any reasons for desiring this beyond personal ones, but my desires are not unreasonable even if they are improbable according to Christian perspectives (such as yours). But I don't want to get into Christian versus non-Christian expectations of a Supreme Being based on divine possibilities. I can see how subjective that is, and my own desires accordingly, but I do not think that makes my desires inherently invalid.

    ReplyDelete
  46. PATRICK CHAN SAID:

    3. Are these "perceptive" enough for you?

    Those are interesting facts about the Biblical text (though they could be coincidences). Personally, I find the "scientific miracles of the Quran" more impressive. And that whole book, and the religion behind it, are just baloney.

    PATRICK CHAN SAID:

    4. If the above isn't perceptive enough for you, how "unusually perceptive" do you expect the Bible to be?

    I wonder, were you expecting God to explain the mathematics and physics behind unifying gravitation as described by the theory of general relativity, etc., with electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces as presumably described by quantum mechanics into quantum gravity or somesuch, while concurrently detailing how we might come to establish experimental proof for the whole shebang?


    Again, sure, why not? Why not stop there? What if Bible codes were actually real? What if God mechanically dictated part of the Bible in a future as-of-yet unknown language? What if God had caused the Bible to be ordered topically as opposed to consisting of different types of literature? What if God chose to reveal emphatically whether or not life exists outside the Earth?

    I admit, I'm being subjective here, not objective, but the possibilities are truly endless as to what God could have done, and the Bible seems very ordinary and a product of its time(s). God could have given a divine seal as it were somewhere that was unmistakeably supernatural in origin. And there are Scriptures which, if true, explain why God doesn't do that. Fine, and again I'm being subjective, but that seems awfully convenient and religiously conditioned to me.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Byron said:

    You're already an atheist with respect to every other religion besides your own, and all their threats of punishment and the wrath of deities. I'm simply an atheist with respect to your religion, and I'm not particularly worried about being an apostate.

    BTW, see here and here.

    Why should this matter, except to understand cultural references? The problem with the Bible in my opinion is that it is a product of its authors and their times of life and culture, and seems to be little more.

    It matters because you keep repeating this and similar assertions ad nauseum without so much as lifting a finger to acquaint yourself with scholarship to the contrary. And, yes, without so much as a single reasoanble argument to the contrary, assertions is all they are.

    Well, why not? That's not asking too much of an omnipotent, omniscient God. I admit I don't have any reasons for desiring this beyond personal ones, but my desires are not unreasonable even if they are improbable according to Christian perspectives (such as yours). But I don't want to get into Christian versus non-Christian expectations of a Supreme Being based on divine possibilities. I can see how subjective that is, and my own desires accordingly, but I do not think that makes my desires inherently invalid.

    So you expect the Bible to be "unusually perceptive" with science simply because you desire it? Perhaps you'd also like for God to give you several billion dollars, your own tropical island or two, your dream wife, etc.?

    Those are interesting facts about the Biblical text (though they could be coincidences). Personally, I find the "scientific miracles of the Quran" more impressive. And that whole book, and the religion behind it, are just baloney.

    At the risk of stating the obvious, I was responding to you on your own terms.

    I admit, I'm being subjective here, not objective, but the possibilities are truly endless as to what God could have done, and the Bible seems very ordinary and a product of its time(s). God could have given a divine seal as it were somewhere that was unmistakeably supernatural in origin. And there are Scriptures which, if true, explain why God doesn't do that. Fine, and again I'm being subjective, but that seems awfully convenient and religiously conditioned to me.

    Yes, sadly, as we discussed in a previous thread, the fact that you are often subjective when you should be objective does seem to be a part of the problem with you, Byron.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Byron:

    Thanks for your response to my question. I think I better understand your concern now.

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  49. Patrick Chan,

    Concerning your link to the "we are all atheists" I think the reasoning there is faulty, because it seems to assume that the situation with the Christian God (or any other god) is comparable to the examples given, and I do not believe that is the case. In the examples given, one could determine with his or her five senses sufficient reason to NOT reject the final one. But what evidence do we really have to not reject the Christian God, over and above any other deity? And yes, I suppose I will have to research the opposing side on this one, too.

    Also, for the part about being subjective, Christianity to me seems to be a very subjective religion, as all religions ultimately are, because its foundations rest on the supernatural. The best that believers can do is argue rationally and objectively for certain parts of the religion, and show the religion to be possible, perhaps even probable in the perspective of some, but religions cannot be ultimately proven except subjectively to the believer. I can and should be more objective about several of the particulars of Christianity, that is true, but it is ultimately impossible to be completely objective about it, isn't it? If it is, then I do not understand how currently.

    Anyways, I just wanted to express that.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I meant if it is possible for Christianity to be completely and objectively true then I do not currently understand how (for it or any other religion). Though to be fair, I'm not entirely objective with my atheism either. It's just that based on the evidence I have so far my unbelief followed naturally. Perhaps with further study I would change my mind, but I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Byron: "It's just that based on the evidence I have so far my unbelief followed naturally. Perhaps with further study I would change my mind, but I doubt it."

    Byron, please consider the following arguments regarding your objection about the sufficiency and/or nature of the evidence for the triune God of Christianity:

    "Major Premise: If an all good, all powerful, and all knowing God exists, then He will provide sufficient evidential grounds for placing one’s faith in Him.

    Minor Premise: However, sufficient evidential grounds for belief in God do not exist.

    Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

    This argument is a variation of the argument from evil against the existence of God, as it attempts to show that (a)if God is good then He will desire the salvation of all men, and if He desires their salvation and He is all good, then (b)He will provide sufficient evidential grounds for belief in His existence, and if He does (a) and (b) it is because He has (c) omniscient comprehension of what constitutes sufficient evidential grounds for belief in Him.

    There are two big problems with this argument: (i.)Induction never leads to certainty; therefore, the accumulation of data regarding the existence of God can never establish with 100% certainty that God exists, let alone that the sun will rise tomorrow morning and/or set tomorrow evening;[1] and (ii.)Even if “sufficient evidence” could be appealed to as the basis for one’s belief in God, then the question that lingers is: Who decides what counts as evidence? Problem (i.) is one that I agreed with, even as an atheist, and which I used to justify my general skepticism, as well as my atheism. Claiming to be a skeptic is very helpful, as it leaves you with a veneer of nobility and provides an excuse for one’s immoral behavior (whether in the form of unbelief or complete hedonism), because if all one is doing is waiting for “sufficient evidence” to come in order to make a “rational decision” about whether or not God exists, then how can one be held morally accountable for not believing? After all, isn’t it God’s job to provide sufficient evidential grounds for belief in Him?

    It is because induction never leads to certainty that one can always claim that sufficient evidence is lacking and feel completely justified in one’s unbelief. This was my justification for not believing and for feeling morally superior to those who tried to get me to believe in God. I considered myself more noble, more moral for not believing in God without “sufficient evidence” (which I never defined, by the way), and I considered my friends to be immoral for trying to get people to believe in God without having “sufficient evidence.” Thus, I was morally justified and morally superior for holding to skepticism and unbelief in God."

    (cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  52. "But, you see, the problem is: In order to be a skeptic, one has to be more certain of some things than one is of the matter of which one is skeptical. Otherwise, one wouldn’t even be able to raise the first question regarding the existence of God. Therefore, it was incumbent upon me to prove the certainty of those things which I was assuming were certain, and which were necessary to the formulation of any meaningful questions/doubts that I could have raised. So, for instance, I had to ask myself: Am I certain that my senses (i.)have the capacity to mediate facts about the external world to me, let alone (ii.)mediate that knowledge accurately?

    Did I have sufficient evidence to support my belief in the mediatorial function of my senses? No. Did I have sufficient evidence to support my belief that my senses accurately mediated facts about the external world to me? No. Then how could I honestly demand that “sufficient evidence” regarding the existence of God be given to me? I couldn’t, but I still demanded it. And that is where the moral accusation comes in: “If God is good,” I reasoned, “He would certainly provide me with what I consider to be ‘sufficient evidence.’ Therefore, God is not good.” Note that my denial of God’s existence really had no relation to whether or not He had provided me with sufficient evidence. I was, as all atheists who seek to deny God’s existence using an argument like this are, simply trying to indict God of immoral behavior.

    Problem (ii.) is where things really get sticky. This is the problem of who determines what counts as “evidence” for the existence of God. What is to be counted as evidence? Says who? If there is no universal standard that determines what counts as “evidence,” then any standard set forth by the unbeliever will always be (a.)provisional and (b.)subject to change via an indeterminable number of subtle qualifications. Again, this sort of “argument” is very helpful if one wishes to completely duck out of an argument altogether while making it appear that one is still engaged in that argument. Here’s what I mean: If an atheist’s standard for evidence is always provisional (i.e. serving his own purposes) and always subject to change via innumerable qualifications, then the atheist can appear to be seriously seeking evidence for God’s existence, when in reality he’s just refusing to accept any evidence given to him."

    Excerpted from HERE.

    ReplyDelete
  53. All we have to determine truth about the external world in a naturalistic perspective are the five physical senses and our ability to reason. Our five senses along with our reason cannot operate perfectly, or without limitation, yet this does not invalidate their use in ordinary life, and for the pursuit of science. And this is where group accountability comes in, because on more important matters, we make reference not only to our own ability to gather and analyze data, but also to others collectively, whose agreement in oversight lends our own views some additional authority. It is not a mistake, therefore to ask for some material proof or evidence to consider objectively, especially such as can be reviewed analytically and critiqued by multiple observers.

    Because God is by the definition I learned omniscient and omnipotent, God is also fully knowledgeable and capable of presenting sufficient and overwhelming evidence to convince all those He targets to do so, at least in the material world. It is not an unreasonable expectation, at least in the context of naturalism, to expect such a divine response if God truly wishes for one to believe. Although God is also by definition supernatural, then the reasonable expectation of believers is that God would prefer supernatural as opposed to natural means to reveal Himself.

    If God operates in the supernatural realm alone, then I cannot place any limits or bound His operation by any desires I have, especially in seeking revelation of Himself. So unless God chooses to reveal Himself supernaturally or naturally (I suspect you could say the Scriptural revelations are combinations of both) to the believer, then God cannot be known. I also cannot deny the charge of Romans 1 if that is the case, because God has left behind some evidence in nature of His supernatural existence and operation. But the problem with that is, I cannot be shown by the material senses and reason that a supernatural realm even exists in the first place, let alone constitutes a superior reality as a frame of reference. So I feel that any accusation of moral failure for failing to perceive such is ultimately unjustified.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Byron,

    Here's another very recent article for you to consider as you continue to harp about the evidence (or lack of it) for Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior:

    Evidence for the Death of My Sister vs. Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Truth,

    This is wrong on several levels. Perhaps we could continue this discussion on the blog? The blog article fails to convince me, for several reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  56. FWIW, if anything, I've replied to you here, Byron.

    ReplyDelete