Utterly Disappointed, Or, My Response To DD’s Evidence Against Christianity, Pt. 1
Posted in Bible, Blogosphere, Religion, Responses, Skepticism, Thinking Critically on | 14 minutes | 90 Comments →
Beginning here, Deacon Duncan of Evangelical Realism (DD) offers a series titled Evidence Against Christianity which compares the predicted consequences of two hypotheses against real-world evidence to determine which hypothesis seems more likely to be correct. The first hypothesis represents how the world should look if God existed and is called the Gospel Hypothesis (GH). The second represents how the world should look if God did not exist, and is accordingly called the Myth Hypothesis (MH).
I see absolutely nothing wrong with DD's approach, and no believer I'm aware of has voiced a problem with DD's methodology. For example, DD says,
One advantage of comparing two hypotheses by measuring their consequences against real-world fact is that this approach allows us to make a clear, functional distinction between honest, unbiased inquiry and mere rationalization. (DD)
I agree. That's all fine and dandy – but there's a catch: When they assume pre-existing premises, hypotheses must be accurate, and I'm not the only one to claim that DD's so-called Gospel Hypothesis is no gospel hypothesis at all.
Hence, my first and primary claim is that DD attacks a strawman, piecemeal god of his own making – and I submit that I'm not the only one making that claim. I also submit that I've read DD's concerns over criticisms of inaccuracy and found them wanting: I agree that concerns of accuracy are irrelevant when we're creating an hypothesis from scratch, because when we're starting from scratch, there is no standard to inaccurately represent. That DD's positive hypothesis is titled the Gospel Hypothesis entails commitment to specific presuppositions. Further, if DD feels accuracy is irrelevant, why would DD defend the predictions of his so-called Gospel Hypothesis as accurate?
For the past three weeks, I've been methodically undertaking the laborious task of pouring through each of DD's 20+ posts in the series and their according threads. The latter is not nearly as impressive a feat as it seems, as roughly 70% of the comments in DD's threads focus on personal attacks and irrelevant side issues like why it was taking so long for me to respond to a complex post series during finals week.
To those who persevered, I offer my week-by-week, post-by-post analysis of Deacon Duncan's Evidence Against Christianity.
Week One: I purposely sat the first two posts out for no other reason than simply to listen. Listening is often an overlooked virtue, and through simple listening, it became evident in DD's Introduction that Jayman, Facilis and myself all agreed DD's methodology seemed sound. We also all agreed concerning the flaws in DD's so-called Gospel Hypothesis:
Your methodology seems fine. The problem is that your Gospel hypothesis has only a tangential relationship to Christianity… If this Gospel hypothesis of yours were proven false it would be of no consequence to Christians. (Jayman, to DD)
I for one applaud DD for trying to set out a consistent rubric to evaluate claims… One part where I feel he attacks a strawman is "that He could enjoy an intimate, personal relationship"…[and]…"enjoying personal time with them." I’m not sure what he means by "personal relationship" but I’m not aware of which part in the bible says that. (Facilis, to DD)
These complaints continued in DD's second post, Sources, and here is DD's initial response to Jayman and Facilis' strawman charges:
My approach to the "straw man" rebuttal is to point out the implications of what they are actually saying. I’m proposing, as the Gospel hypothesis, a God Who loves us enough to die for our sins so that we can be together for all eternity. In order to call that a "straw man," you have to point out what it is that I’m saying that’s not true. Does God not love us? Is He not willing to die on our behalf to save us from our sins? Is it not His goal to gather His children to Himself to fellowship in Heaven with Him forever? Are these matters insignificant and irrelevant to the Gospel? Where’s the “straw” in this so-called straw man? (DD, to 5keptical)
Before we continue: Do any of DD's questions remind you at all of Christianity? Yes or no? When DD asks whether these matters are irrelevant to the Gospel, is that not reasonably considered an implication that he's concerned about accurately representing the Gospel? Doesn't the Gospel inescapably entail Christianity? Yes or no? Remember your answers, as we'll return to the question later. To answer DD's questions – arguing from the Gospel as revealed in the Bible – yes, God loves us. Yes, God was willing to die on our behalf to save us from our sins. Yes, one of God's stated goals is to gather His children into eternal fellowship with Himself. Those are all valid, perfunctory Gospel inferences – but among other inferences DD makes – Jayman, Facilis and myself submit that the following is not a valid Gospel inference:
..what God wants is an eternal, loving relationship with each of us, therefore, we ought to expect that He would be participating in that relationship here and now. (DD, bold mine)
DD asked where the straw was, and Jayman returned, hay bale in hand:
Claiming God should physically appear and spend time with everyone; (Jayman, to DD)
Again, to clarify, that God would want to participate in a relationship with beings He created is all fine and dandy, and I do not dispute the validity of DD's inference in that respect. I do dispute the "here and now" part of DD's inference, which is unjustifiable and contrary to what the Gospel actually implies. DD uses distinctly Gospel descriptions of God to formulate his so-called Gospel Hypothesis, but omits other necessary Gospel descriptions of God that would drastically change the predicted consequences if considered. In effect, Jayman, Facilis and myself all supported our claims that if we're talking about Christianity, DD disproved a strawman god.
DD's second response to this charge was to flatly deny that his Gospel Hypothesis is Christianity. As we'll see shortly, this puts DD between a rock and a hard place, creating many more questions than answers.
So, to recap: In our first week, DD introduced his so-called Gospel Hypothesis, Jayman and Facilis accused DD of attacking a strawman, DD asked where the straw was, and Jayman delivered. I submit that of the 60+ comments which ensued in that thread, not one consisted of DD responding to Jayman's rebuttal, and thus ended our first week of discussion.
Week Two: In the first paragraph of DD's third post, Scriptural Predictions, he summarizes thusly:
The Myth Hypothesis says that the Christian God does not exist in real life, and thus the Christian faith originated and is maintained via a variety of complex and resilient psychosocial mechanisms we might broadly categorize as “myth.” The Gospel Hypothesis, by contrast, proposes that the Christian Creator God does exist, and further, that the Christian faith originated as a result of God loving mankind enough to become human Himself, and to die for us as a cleansing sacrifice so that He could enjoy fellowship with us (and vice versa) for all eternity, as is His (alleged) desire.
Again, sounds quite a bit like Christianity, right? Remember your answer, as we'll return to the question soon. Moving along,
We started by looking at the primary source of information available to us concerning God. (DD)
Here's a side question for DD should he stop acting like the God he criticizes and actually show up here: What is that source?
As far as the rest of the post goes, DD examines the consequences we might expect from scriptures under each hypothesis. If the MH is correct, DD claims that scriptures about God will manifest weakness, cultural and personal bias, ignorance and other failings; that they will necessarily account for God's current absence; and that they will assume unmerited authority leading to exaggerated importance, possibly even the assertion of inspiration and infallibility. On the other hand, if the GH is correct, DD claims that God would be present to oversee the proper dictation of scriptures; that prophecies should be clear and time-stamped; and that scriptures should be dynamic, adapting with cultural evolution along with each age.
Questioning DD's predicted consequences of what we would expect from scripture were the Myth Hypothesis correct, Jayman continued,
According to DD’s myth hypothesis, Scripture will try to explain why God does not show up in an attempt to address the problem of God’s consistent and universal absence. In Galatians 3:1-5, Paul uses God’s presence as part of his argument. This passage directly contradicts DD’s "prediction" about Scripture. The myth hypothesis, as DD has told it, must be modified or rejected. (Jayman)
Unfortunately, DD cannot refute what Jayman says here without the a priori assumption that the Bible stories about God's action in the world were conceived to make up for God's absence (as you'll see, that's exactly what we get). We can say what we may of Paul or the Bible, but one thing we can't say is that either made excuses for God's failure to appear.
Besides, there's an elephant in the room: According to DD – per the GH – God would be present to ensure the proper dictation of scripture; but if God is present, of what use are scriptures in the first place? Aren't scriptures only necessary in God's absence? To me at least, DD's particular sub-argument here does not make sense. In fact, none of DD's argument makes sense.
Keeping in line with my original concerns, my first comment in Evidence Against Christianity builds on Jayman and Facilis' comments from the previous week:
Where do [the scriptures] say God does show up in this life? Not to be overly fussy, but this really is a strawman argument. Unless you can show that the Bible says, "God will show his face and tangibly touch any person who repents once every few years," or something similar, you might have an argument. As it is, this whole thing about God not showing up – which forms a major part of your unapologetic – has never been justified scripturally, as Jayman continually points out. (cl, to DD)
In his fourth post, Scriptural Fulfillments, DD makes his second attempt at addressing our strawman claims:
Some of the commenters seem to have slightly misunderstood the Gospel Hypothesis. I am not claiming that the Gospel Hypothesis is Christianity (we'll get to the relationship between Christianity and the Gospel Hypothesis later on). The point of the Gospel Hypothesis is to take the basic premise of an omni-X deity Who loves us enough to become human and die for us so that He and we can enjoy an eternal personal relationship together. It's a premise that implies some substantial and specific consequences, so it’s a good alternative candidate for comparison to the Myth Hypothesis. (DD)
Really? Can anyone really blame us for thinking the Gospel Hypothesis was Christianity when 1) he purports to refute biblical arguments as we'll see in the next post; 2) the name of his hypothesis contains the word Gospel; 3) his series is named Evidence Against Christianity; 4) his stated reasoning is to piece together a reasonable picture of what the world should look like were "the Christian God" to exist in actuality; and, 5) every single alternative to the Myth Hypothesis DD has proposed thus far is distinctly Christian?
Remember earlier when I asked twice if DD's various descriptions of the Gospel Hypothesis sounded at all like Christianity? What did you say? If I may further press the issue, how does DD's claim that his Gospel Hypothesis isn't Christianity parse against his following statements:
..omni-X deity Who loves us enough to become human and die for us so that He and we can enjoy an eternal personal relationship together..
..evidence against the Christian God..
..God wants [is] an eternal, loving relationship with each of us..
..Gospel Hypothesis, by contrast, proposes that the Christian Creator God does exist, and further, that the Christian faith originated as a result of God loving mankind enough to become human Himself, and to die for us as a cleansing sacrifice so that He could enjoy fellowship with us (and vice versa) for all eternity..
..willing to die on our behalf to save us from our sins..
..salvation and eternal personal relationship..
Don’t these sound distinctly Christian? If DD’s Gospel Hypothesis is not Christianity, don’t you think he’s misnamed the entire series and his hypothesis? Don’t you think he should rename it as I suggested? If DD’s Gospel Hypothesis is not Christianity, why doesn’t it include descriptions of God that aren’t Christian? We hear no mention of Shiva and Vishnu. No mention of Allah. No mention of Kali. No mention of anything but a so-called Gospel Hypothesis which entails distinctly Christian pre-conceptions of God, followed by denial that said hypothesis is Christianity.
Now, we're going to jump ahead to a transaction that occurred this afternoon, where commenter Dominic said,
Since the Gospel Hypothesis assumes a particular kind of God, is it not plausible that Christians are arguing that the God of your hypothesis simply isn’t the one revealed in the Bible, and that the consequences of your Gospel Hypothesis is an exercise in futility?
..and DD replied,
That’s an excellent point, and one that I have been waiting some time for someone to make.
WTF??? I don't know about Jayman and Facilis, but I am personally insulted. DD's above claim is patently false, and unless he wishes to claim Dominic's criticism was not identical to Jayman's, Facilis', or my own, his responses to our identical concerns above prove that he was aware of similar claims before Dominic echoed them. Jayman, Facilis and myself have consistently claimed that the God of DD's Gospel Hypothesis is a piecemeal god, and not the one revealed in the Bible – our initial strawman claims from weeks 1 & 2 which DD denied by denying that his Gospel Hypothesis was Christianity. If that's the case, then how do any of DD's conclusions retain any import to Christianity as the title of his series would lead us to believe?
I have a hard time believing that somebody as intelligent and articulate as DD is simply unaware of how poorly his singular hypothesis reeks of Christianity. Yet because I must continue to assume that DD argues in good faith, at this point it's difficult to tell what's really going on. The only thing I can currently conceive is that DD might actually be so biased against Christianity that he cannot recognize the truth when spoken and converged upon by three people arguing Christianity.
Hence, I can no longer take DD's writings seriously unless he either completely strips the Christian pre-conceptions from his alternative to the Myth Hypothesis; recants his denial that the Gospel Hypothesis is Christianity; addresses all of the Christian pre-conceptions an accurate Gospel Hypothesis entails; changes the name of his post series; changes the name of his positive hypothesis; or introduces some other hypotheses (like the one I’m currently working on).
My challenge to a controlled, one-on-one, real-time discussion with DD still stands, but I consider this discussion resolved until one or more of the above criticisms are met. I had just gotten through DD’s eighteenth post and thread in the series when I saw this last transaction where DD effectively , and I’m a bit pissed I did all that work now. Then again, I learned much, and for that I thank everyone, even my detractors.
Dominic Saltarelli
says...Our discussion regarding regarding epistemology seems to be drifting away from the whole GH vs. MH issue at hand over at Evangelical Realism. I was only bringing them up because I see it becoming an issue further down the road once a modified GH gets thrown into the mix. DD did after all say from day 1 that the original GH was going to be grossly simplified on purpose.
One thing I feel that is more immediately pertinent though, is the portion of the existing GH regarding God being both willing and able to show up in person.
I see there are two unspoken assumptions that are preventing people from seeing eye to eye. To us atheists and skeptics, this portion of the GH is obviously referring to the story of Jesus. God showing up as a person who can perform miracles. However, I’m getting the feeling that you and the other theists are taking a different approach. The clue was DD’s own comparison to the reality of God being like the reality of the Sun, undeniable. I’m thinking that you’re taking the idea of God showing up in person to be more of a mind-scorching undeniable presence very similar to the actual Sun itself.
Am I getting warm?
cl
says...DD said the entire motivation for his Evidence Against Christianity was to support his so-called “Undeniable Fact” that God does not show up in real life. When forced to explain exactly what he meant by show up, DD responded with his sun analogy: God’s presence should be as undeniable and real as the sun’s.
So, when DD’s GH entails an 0^3 God who should “show up” right here, right now, in person, on the evening news, and on magazine covers – which are all literal predictions DD claims logically entail from his GH – it seems to me “show up” means a la the sun, especially when DD claims his Evidence Against Christianity supports his so-called “Undeniable Fact” that God does not show up in real life. So yes, you’re quite warm there. DD is the one who can really clear this up, and that’s just another reason I want to get him in a one-on-one, real-time discussion.
Dominic Saltarelli
says...He’s not done making his case, so I’m still waiting to see how he wraps this up. I’m girded for disappointment, but we’ll see.
Karla
says...I am coming into this rather late and not quiet sure the fullness of what is being discussed. But I did notice something regarding Week One I wish to address. Maybe you could clarify, but I agree that relationship with Jesus starts in the here and now and matures into eternity. This is what the Bible attest to and this is what I experience. Are you saying something different?
Karla
says...I think that the atheists ought to contest that if the Bible is true and valid it ought to be livable and the reality of it ought not be some thing that happened 2000 years ago, but is happening still. That the truth transcends cultures and generations and is just as experiential today as it was then. If God is real, He ought to be a real to us to day as He was in Bible times. I, however, contend that He is not absent, and He is very much real and moving in the earth today and many people testify to this through miracles, dreams, signs, wonders, visitations, personal revelation, personal relationship with God, prophetic knowledge etc.
cl
says...Karla,
Thanks for checking it out. Yes, the argument has been going on a while, and there’s quite a bit about it both here and on DD’s blog. DD defines his Gospel Hypothesis (GH) as follows: “..mankind has an almighty, all-wise, objectively real Creator God Who loves us enough to become one of us and to die for us so that He could enjoy an intimate, personal relationship with each and every one of us for all eternity, as is His desire.”
I feel safe saying that we can both agree that DD’s GH as stated covers the vast majority of Protestant and Catholic denominations, correct? IOW, although we certainly can and should add to it (for example, DD’s GH doesn’t mention things like sin or Satan), DD’s GH supplies a baseline starting definition of God that Catholics and Protestants are likely to agree on, correct?
Where I feel DD is wrong is in the primary prediction he makes from his GH: DD claims that if this God exists, then this God should be “right here, right now, in person, on the evening news, and on magazine covers.” This is distinctly different than God’s presence as experienced by Christians today and in Bible times. In the Bible, God never appeared to all people simultaneously and unambiguously like the sun, because such is typically reserved for the final revelation, correct?
So, do you feel that a reasoned interpretation of scripture permits DD’s claim that God should be “right here, right now, in person, like the sun”? Note that when DD says “in person,” he means to say that God’s presence should be as undeniable as the sun (IOW, neither disparate manifestations to select groups nor the Holy Spirit’s presence would count, because neither can be undeniably experienced by everyone like the sun). DD then claims that since we don’t see God “right here, right now, in person, like the sun” that such constitutes “Evidence Against Christianity.” Myself and three other believers have all disagreed, telling DD that his claim God should be “right here, right now, in person, like the sun” is not a Christian claim, hence the fact that the entire world doesn’t see God “right here, right now, in person, like the sun” is no evidence against Christianity.
As a Christian, what do you think? Does the Bible support the idea that God should be “right here, right now, in person, like the sun?”
Karla
says...Thanks for the clarification. I see now the differentiation. In that definition, no, the Bible doesn’t speak of God being that blatantly obvious and undeniable as to be absolutely without question apparent to every human. I think even if He was, there would be those who still refuse His reality. However, God is hidden because it is better for us to journey to seek Him then to have all of Him immediately before us (if it were even possible for us to survive such an encounter). When John saw the glorified Christ he fell at His feet as though dead. For God to be the God of the Bible He would necessarily be greater than anything we could experience in the natural. And yet from that He did come to earth as Jesus fully man and fully God and history validates this reality. What many atheists are asking for, has already happened and its reality is continuing even today.
I have heard from a diversity of sources that Muslims in Arab nations are having dreams and visions of Jesus telling them He is the way to life. They are learning from Him about His truth before ever encountering a missionary.
But I also think there are those who would reject Jesus even if He stood in the flesh before them in full splendor and radiance of glory. And there will be a day when He will appear thus and all doubt will be removed.
John Morales
says...Karla,
I’m an atheist, and though I personally am not asking for that, I am confused by your statement.
“It has happened” (in reality) presumably means you think Jesus was God, and he was on Earth, and at that point one could presumably physically meet him, shake his hand, have a conversation with him etc; this whether one was a believer or not. I get that.
What I don’t get is how this reality is “continuing today”. How can I physically (as an unbeliever) physically meet him, shake his hand, have a conversation with him etc?
I find that confusing. Have you an answer that might make sense to me?
Karla
says...Hi John,
I mean Jesus is still alive today. He is not walking the earth in bodily form visible to all, but you can know Him today and experience His Truth. The presence of His Spirit is a tangible reality and I have felt it strongly at times.
You can ask God to show Himself to you in a way that you will know He’s real. He may not show Himself in the way you expect, but you will know. I’ve heard of atheists who have gone into a church service not believing in God and have God show up tangibly upon them (not visibly, but physically feeling the weight of His presence) that they came out a believer. I’m not saying you have to go to church, God can manifest His presence in your room or car or any other place just as meaningfully.
Essentially what I am saying is that miracles and God showing up didn’t stop with Bible times.
I know you may not accept any of this as true, but do you understand more of where I am coming from now?
cl
says...Karla,
Not to butt in on you and John as I fully encourage your dialog – but as real as they are to you, DD won’t accept the Paraclete’s feelings or presence as God being “right here, right now, in person, like the sun, to all.” Nothing short of tangible, in-person presence that all people can acknowledge will satisfy DD.
These would be what I referred to on DD’s blog as “disparate manifestations” of God (DM). So, when DD says, “It is an undeniable fact that God does not show up in real life,” DD cannot possibly mean that God has never manifested Himself to some disparate group of people at some point in history. Logic simply cannot support such a claim. However, if by “show up in real life” DD means God’s “in person, tangible, sun-like presence for all people to see,” then of course it becomes self-evident that God does not show up in real life. Would you agree to any or all of that?
John Morales
says...Karla, I appreciate your response.
You’re clearly telling me Jesus is real, and that I could in principle perceive him. Is that not so?
I’ll respond in some depth, but attempt to avoid unsightly blocks of quoting; I will quote only the first part of each of your points to indicate to what I respond, but know it’s the whole of it until the next quotation. A represents an assertion/argument, Q represents questions that are necessary for me to undertand you clearly.
Here we go:
A0: I mean Jesus is still alive today.
OK. That is a very clear assertion.
A1: He is not walking the earth in bodily form visible to all
OK. Jesus is incorporeal. I have questions.
Q1: Is Jesus substantial, that is, detectable by our senses or our technology?
As you qualify it, Jesus is visible to some. I take it you do not mean actually visible, as in light that can enter eyes or cameras and be recorded, but in some sense metaphorically so.
Q2: In what sense is Jesus visible to some?
A3: The presence of His Spirit is a tangible reality
Q3: Please define ‘tangible’. Because I think it means ‘perceptible by the senses’ (touch in particular); I find this contradictory (pending your response) to A1.
A4.He may not show Himself in the way you expect, but you will know.
Interesting. I was raised Catholic in Spain in the 1960’s. During that time I was a believer (in my inculcated but childish way). I spent years in Jesuit boarding schools and went to mass daily for some of that time. I prayed before going to sleep. Etc.
Never, to my recollection, was any such presence manifest to me.
Q4: If it didn’t work when I was a believer, why do you think it will work now, when what gives me pride is my intellectual self-honesty?
A6: Essentially what I am saying is that miracles and God showing up didn’t stop with Bible times.
I get that.
I note you were speaking of Jesus, and now you’re speaking of God.
Those are two different terms, and linguistically have different connotations.
Q6: Can you confirm you’re saying Jesus is God, and God is Jesus, but Jesus and God are different?
John Morales
says...Sure. It’s a little hyperbolic, as after numerous restatements and rephrasings DD ended up putting it as strongly as he could.
I’m with him (clearly) on this issue.
PS I’m not going to bother to check, but it was something along the lines of “like the Sun, which no-one disputes is there”, not “sun-like presence”. The two mean different things.
John Morales
says...PS, I feel I should clarify I undertand you asked Karla, cl.
I too would be interested in your answer to cl, Karla.
(Yes, I butted in).
cl
says...John Morales,
As for “sun-like presence” and “like the sun…” I think if you’re not splitting hairs you’ve at least got your lasers out, and note “clearly with [DD]” also means “clearly with cl” as I’ve agreed with DD on this point since he first clarified it. Feel free to butt in on any conversation here. I’m not one of those bloggers that judges people’s behavior much, until they start name-calling. But I don’t care about things like multiple comments or “derailing” threads (heaven forbid our minds wander).
Here are my responses to your questions for Karla:
Q1: Have you ever heard of a book called Grand Illusions by Gregory Little? In it I found a very plausible hypothesis for how what we call “spirit beings” can enter into and exit from material existence, and I feel it’s at least the beginning of an address to your question. Without going too much into it, the author suggests vibrational shifts as mechanism.
Q3: I agree that tangible is not the best word to denote Spirit, because most people associate tangibility with something empirical, that they can touch.
Q4: I believe that you were honest and sincere in your belief, so when I ask the following question, be aware that I’m not accusing you of “not being a true believer.” I’m familiar with Catholicism, and one of my complaints against it is that on so many points, the Church seems perfectly willing to enact dogma starkly contrary to scripture. As just one example, the Bible says we should “call no man father.” (Matt 23:9) I’m aware of Catholic replies and don’t wish to discuss them, as they don’t relate to the larger point, which is this: Are you familiar with the Biblical depiction of “belief” – more specifically – salvation? If so, were those steps ever taken? Because I think a great many people “are true believers” – meaning they really do believe what they believe – but have not received the Spirit, else why would Jesus say many who call Him Lord won’t make the cut?
John Morales
says...Karla, I’d respond to cl but I don’t wish to muddy the waters, pending your response.
I’ll give it a few more days, but now I’m wondering if somehow I’ve been too ‘aggressive’ asking for clarification from you.
Say so, if I have – I really don’t wish to pressure you – or if you’ve been too busy to respond. I don’t wish to make you upset.
I do apologise if you consider I’ve come across as antagonistic; that was not my intent. It’s just that I got the impression that you considered God’s presence as real, but your expression of that sentiment was (in my perception) rather ambiguous. I consider it (in a sense) relates to the claim that “God is present here and now”, a claim that cl holds is not Biblically justified, but that I think many practicing Christians (as exemplified by you) hold.
Perhaps, should you choose not to respond, cl can mediate here. Again, I wish to emphasise I don’t wish to be antagonistic.
(PS. for what it’s worth, I’m (and have been for over 30 years) married to a church-going, practicing Catholic.)
Karla
says...Hey John and CL, I see your post. I will get back to you very soon.
John Morales
says...No worries, Karla. Thanks for the reassurance, too!
Karla
says...Responding to John Morales’s questions. Good questions by the way.
“Q1: Is Jesus substantial, that is, detectable by our senses or our technology?”
I don’t know. I know of people who have said they have seen him and I would really need to ask a lot more questions of them to answer that. I haven’t had this kind of experience of him.
“As you qualify it, Jesus is visible to some. I take it you do not mean actually visible, as in light that can enter eyes or cameras and be recorded, but in some sense metaphorically so.
Q2: In what sense is Jesus visible to some?”
From what I have been told it was like an angel appearing to them, but they knew it was Jesus. I’ve never seen an angel, or had such an experience with Jesus, so I really cannot attest further about this without further seeking out their testimony of what happened.
A3: The presence of His Spirit is a tangible reality
“Q3: Please define ‘tangible’. Because I think it means ‘perceptible by the senses’ (touch in particular); I find this contradictory (pending your response) to A1.”
This I have experienced and can speak from experience. For example, consider a hug. One can feel the physical embrace and feel it emotionally. I’ve felt the presence of God like a physical weight upon me as well as feeling a power like a soft electrical current (the best analogy I can come up with) course through me, pulsating. It’s something I physically felt, not just something emotional or euphoric. To clarify further, which may clear up what you think may be a contradiction; I am speaking of experiencing God’s Spirit (The Holy Spirit).
“Q4: If it didn’t work when I was a believer, why do you think it will work now, when what gives me pride is my intellectual self-honesty?”
I appreciate you sharing a little of your story with me. I have been a Christian since I was a very young child, but it was not until the last 3-4 years that I have had the tangible experiences I am speaking of. I didn’t know it was possible before then. I didn’t know that God’s presence was available that way for me. I was in circles where I heard a few testimonies from time to time, but I didn’t know what they meant really because I hadn’t experienced it. You could even say I had some skepticism about it all, until I started experiencing God for myself in this manner. I’ve seen miracles, I’ve personally experienced a miracle, and I’ve experienced physically the power of God on numerous occasions. There is much that I could share with you about all this, but I’m not sure I have the space in the comments here. I can give you links to post I have written recounting some of my experiences, or you can e-mail me and I can share more.
“Q6: Can you confirm you’re saying Jesus is God, and God is Jesus, but Jesus and God are different?”
Yes. God is a triune being, consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All are equally God and united as one, but also have diversity (they are different). (not enough space to explain this further, but I could refer you to a post I made on the topic in the past.
Karla
says...Hey John, regarding your second post, I hadn’t responded because I hadn’t had a chance to visit over here to see you responded. I didn’t see an option to subscribe to this thread. CL told me you responded and I came here immediately and posted the I’ll get back to you soon post.
Just so you know I am always more than happy to answer questions and I will never be offended by any that you ask. You did not come across antagonistic at all and even if you did I would still answer your questions. I am available to discuss any of this at whatever length you are comfortable with. I’ve been talking with some on my blog for about a year or more now.
Karla
says...CL, I haven’t been following DD’s post, but I don’t see His definition of God failing to show up in real life as fair. Jesus did walk the earth and we do have historical records of Jesus life and resurrection.
On the other hand, presently we don’t see Him the same way we see the sun in the sky, but because the sun is in the sky, we can see everything else. In the same way, God’s existence is the light by which the world is seen more clearly than a world where He does not exist.
John Morales
says...Thanks for the answers, Karla. To recap, I asked those questions because you’d written:
“God is hidden because it is better for us to journey to seek Him then to have all of Him immediately before us (if it were even possible for us to survive such an encounter). […] What many atheists are asking for, has already happened and its reality is continuing even today.”
and, having asked you what you meant, you made a response which was not specific enough for me to pin down your contention.
You probably shan’t be surprised to learn that I remain skeptical and unconvinced, given you’ve written that:
(a) God is hidden, yet perceptible, but only subjectively.
(b) God is three separate entities and simultaneously one entity.
(c) Your assertion that Jesus is alive is based only on hearsay (others claim to have seen him) and subjective feeling (you’ve felt his presence); and the nature of his being is unclear (you don’t know whether he’s substantial).
(d) You contend I could also believe, on the basis that you came to do so.
As a skeptic (not just about religion), I require evidence other than hearsay and subjective intuitions before believing truth-claims. I don’t find (a)..(d) compelling, nor do I see how any reasonable person would except based on wishful thinking and the abandonment of intellectual honesty.
Specifically, (a) seems contradictory, (b) is logically untenable, (c) is an unevidenced and inchoate belief and (d) is a hasty inductive generalisation that assumes we have similar standards for the acceptance of truth-claims.
I appreciate your effort, Karla, and I don’t dispute your right to an arbitrary and subjective belief; however, I consider you have not sustained your claim about either the reality of this phenomenon called God, nor of the rationality of the basis for believing such.
In short, I judge your claim as to the reality of this god as not evidentially or rationally sustainable.
I also applaud your honesty and your willingness to engage, and will happily respond to any further comments you may address to me in the spirit of honesty and mutual respect.
You have offered to link to posts supporting your contentions/conclusions, please do so and I shall examine them, though I don’t expect they will be more rational or convincing than those you have here professed.
—
Addendum – These are your responses, as I understand them, and upon which I have based my evaluation:
A0: I mean Jesus is still alive today.
A1: He is not walking the earth in bodily form visible to all
Q1: Is Jesus substantial, that is, detectable by our senses or our technology?
A10: I don’t know.
–
Q2: In what sense is Jesus visible to some?”
A20: From what I have been told it was like an angel appearing to them. I’ve never seen an angel, or had such an experience with Jesus […].
–
A3: The presence of His Spirit is a tangible reality
Q3: Please define ‘tangible’.
A30: I’ve felt the presence of God like a physical weight upon me as well as feeling a power like a soft electrical current (the best analogy I can come up with) course through me, pulsating. It’s something I physically felt, not just something emotional or euphoric.
–
A4: He may not show Himself in the way you expect, but you will know.
Q4: If it didn’t work when I was a believer, why do you think it will work now […]?
A40: [I have had such an experience]
–
Q6: Can you confirm you’re saying Jesus is God, and God is Jesus, but Jesus and God are different?
A60: Yes. God is a triune being, consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All are equally God and united as one […].
John Morales
says...Karla,
DD, in essence, says what I do. God shows up in the imagination of his believers, but not in the sense that objects (rocks, planets, apples) or phenomena (magnetism, gravity, radioactivity) do.
Certainly, your God shows up no less in reality than do other gods. I don’t believe in their true existence, either, and for the same reasons. You, apparently (and for your own idiosyncratic reasons and cultural conditioning), do believe in that god, but not in any of the others.
You’re slightly less atheistic than I. :)
Karla
says...Okay, we are covering a lot of things in one thread. Maybe we should break it down a little. (CL, do we need to move this conversation from this thread?, I don’t want to hijack it.)
Let’s start with the part that is congruent with the OP.
P1(a) God is hidden, yet perceptible, but only subjectively.
What I meant is that God will veil Himself for us to find Him. God doesn’t hide Himself from us, but for us. There’s a difference. It’s like when a parent hides Easter eggs for their children, they don’t hide them so the children won’t find them, but so that the children take joy in finding them. They hide them for them to be found, not so that they won’t be discovered.
Thus it isn’t contradictory to say that we can experience Him. Some of the experiences are subjective (no less real, but personal). Some are not. Would you say an arm growing out before someone’s eyes in response to prayer is subjective? Or would you say it is something that can be measured and verified by the senses of all onlookers as well as, if necessary, verified by medical instrumentation?
see this post for the story: http://answerbearer.blogspot.com/2008/11/testimony-of-two-miracles.html
Here is another testimony of a miracle I experienced. http://answerbearer.blogspot.com/2008/09/healing-miracle.html
I’ll have to reply more later, I ran out of time at the moment.
Karla
says...(b) God is three separate entities and simultaneously one entity.
The Trinity is a huge subject and even with all that can be said about it there will still be mystery. But here is a link to something I once wrote on the subject of why it is important that God is a Triune being.
http://answerbearer.blogspot.com/2008/06/triune-god.html
(c) Your assertion that Jesus is alive is based only on hearsay (others claim to have seen him) and subjective feeling (you’ve felt his presence);
Eye witness testimony is not considered hearsay. Secular Historical records are also not considered hearsay. There is plenty of both. I can refer you to several books on the topic if it interest you.
My feelings are subjective, but not all my experiences that I am talking about are subjective (ie the miracles I listed). Nor is seeing people physically react to the Presence of God coming upon them, a subjective experience. I saw a girl one time who had little to no church experience and no experience with feeling God’s presence. She was also very much into wiccan things. She received prayer and fell out under the gentle weight of the power of God upon her and she was completely taken aback (literally and figuratively.) She had so many questions about what happened. It was no programed response, something physically happened to her when she received prayer. Last year I saw a grown man, a big dude, who is a Christian and is used to seeing this sort of thing, who had told me the day before he thought that the reaction was over the top and unnecessary, double over when prayed for with a shocked look on his face. He didn’t double over from pain, or from being pushed or any such thing, I was standing right next to him. He felt the power of God hitting his physical body to such a level he doubled over to keep on his feet. Is this subjective?
“and the nature of his being is unclear (you don’t know whether he’s substantial).”
I know He is bodily alive, He didn’t just arise as a Spirit. I don’t know how He appears now when He shows up to someone on the earth. I’ve read from numerous sources and have spoken to a man who has interviewed several sources where Muslims are having dreams and visions of Jesus appearing to them and telling them that He is the true way. These Muslims are coming to the Lord without ever having someone preach the Gospel to them. So in those cases, from what I have heard, He wasn’t appearing in physical bodily form, but as a vision or in their dreams. But I have heard two or three other people who have attested to Him appearing before them, I think they mean bodily, but I don’t know for sure.
(d) You contend I could also believe, on the basis that you came to do so.
I’m sorry I didn’t mean to leave it at that. I didn’t fully address your question. I would suggest asking Him to show you He is real in a way that you can experience His reality. Thomas, one of the disciples, often dubbed doubting Thomas, didn’t believe Jesus had risen from the dead until he could touch his wounds with his hands and experience the reality of this miracle. Jesus went to him to provide him with this evidence.
Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell both tell of their journeys of skepticism to investigate the claims of the Gospels to find out for themselves if they are reliable. McDowell traveled the globe and went to old libraries and churches to personally examine original documents. All his research from those years he compiled into a large book. Strobel traveled around to the top authorities in their fields to ask hard questions regarding the validity of Scripture, the Resurrection, the Existence of God, etc. He also compiled his research into a book. Both, as you probably know, are Christians today. So I would recommend digging in and researching. If you don’t trust the research of others, research it yourself like they did. At the same time take the risk of faith to ask God to illuminate His reality to you. I don’t expect anyone just to believe something because someone tells them to.
“You’re slightly less atheistic than I. :)”
Christians were once called atheists because they did not subscribe to the polytheism of Rome.
I don’t believe in the “other gods” because of their finiteness. However, in about every mythology, religion, culture, there emerges the idea of a Supreme Being/Creator greater than the finite gods. I think this is something consistent in all cultures and I would say that the God I am speaking of is the God these people throughout time were alluding to. Atheism is a very new modern concept, not found in the ancient world and not found in most cultures. It’s predominately found in Europe, America, Canada and very small British areas of Africa. Otherwise the rest of the world welcomes the spiritual part of our nature and believes in some form of deity. This is just an observation.
Okay, I hope that clarifies better. Please feel free to ask any further questions this may bring up. I probably will not be back to check for responses until Monday. But I will get back with you. Have a great holiday weekend!
Karla
says...Just checking back to see if there has been a response. You still around John?
John Morales
says...Karla, yes, I’m still here.
I’ve spent most of my time elsewhere, and frankly I don’t know how to respond to you without causing offense.
I mean,
What does one say to that? ;)
The Trinity, well… it’s a mystery because it’s contradictory yet held as true. See the thread elsewhere beginning here, where I recently addressed it.
Sigh. You may want to do some research.
Karla
says...John, you won’t offend me. You can ask or say anything you like, but if you want to stop here that’s fine too. Whatever you are comfortable with.
John Morales
says...Thanks, Karla.
I would be interested as to whether you stand by your contention regarding atheism being a “very new modern concept” after perusing the Wikipedia article I linked to above, and perhaps examining some of its references.
Karla
says...I was referring to the use of it in it’s modern sense rather than when it meant not believing in polytheism. Christians were once called atheists because of their monotheism. But atheism as a philosophical position, I have read, began during the Enlightenment (which I would consider a modern development rather than an ancient one). And today atheism as such is only found in western worldview cultures.
I guess I am defining atheism as that which entails no divine or supernatural world or mysticism of any kind, not just those who don’t believe in an Omni-max God.
My source was an Oxford professor’s book Twilight of Atheism by Alister McGrath.
If “atheism” as a philosophy predated the days when Christians were termed atheists, I was not aware of it. I would need primary documents for that, or really good secondary sources, rather than Wikipedia as I think just anyone can write an Wikipedia article just as anyone can be a blogger.
That would be an interesting study though, so I would have to say that I don’t know of earlier accounts, but I am not opposed to them existing, history will speak for itself.
Again as I said before it was an observational comment and not an argument for theism. Whether atheism is old or new I don’t wish to make arguments based on time or popularity of an idea. C.S. Lewis says watches are to tell time not to reason out arguments regarding truth.
cl
says...Karla,
Not at all. I enjoy seeing where conversations spontaneously meander. I don’t believe in these made-up blogger offenses I’d rather your thoughts be free. Besides, none of DD’s readers that claimed to be interested in rebuttals to DD’s series have continued the conversation here, save for John.
Interesting conversation between you and John, BTW. I don’t have much to add right now, other than that I appreciate the distinction you made about conventional atheism vs. its more historic counterparts, and I appreciate John’s assertion about atheism’s original foundations. I’ve heard one person claim atheism extends as far back as 8,000 years. I don’t know whether that’s correct or not.
I’ve got a question for you, though. You say:
I don’t know what you have in mind when you say “other gods” but say for example the gods of the Greek pantheon – do you believe they exist or existed in reality?
John,
I’ve not heard a persuasive argument showing the trinity concept to be contradictory, but if maybe you’ve heard something I haven’t, by all means, elaborate.
John Morales
says...Karla, atheism is a reactive stance; it says “I don’t believe in gods”. Monotheism is a johnny-come-lately, first there was animism, then polytheism, then monotheism.
It’s not a philosophical position, any more than not believing in Santa Claus (you know, knows all you do, presents when you’re good, coal when you’re not) is one.
Um, in the days of Christendom, as in ancient Greece and most other places, atheism was punishable by death. In Saudi Arabia, for example, it still is even today.
When stating one’s disbelief in other’s magical thinking invokes dire or fatal repercussions, one keeps silent or else becomes a martyr.
Consider aunicornism – those who do not believe in the actual, real existence of Unicorns. Is aunicornism a worldview? I think not, it’s merely not engaging in a delusion.
I suspect you and I are both aunicornists; that we share a disbelief in something others may believe in says nothing about our respective worldviews. This is analogous to the case with deities; I just can’t take them seriously, and certainly I’ve seen no convincing evidence that I should, either.
Well, nice to see some skepticism. Did you follow any of the references at the end?
John Morales
says...cl, see the link I posted in response to Karla, above, re the Trinity. If you think you can fault my logic or reasoning there, then I shall address your objections.
Karla
says...John wrote “Karla, atheism is a reactive stance; it says “I don’t believe in gods”. Monotheism is a johnny-come-lately, first there was animism, then polytheism, then monotheism.”
Well you can’t really be so sure about that. If God exist then, He has always existed. Have you studied the Jewish faith? That reaches way back. Polytheism crops up when people were rejecting the God of Abraham and worshiping nature gods instead.
John wrote: “Um, in the days of Christendom, as in ancient Greece and most other places, atheism was punishable by death. In Saudi Arabia, for example, it still is even today.”
So your saying it couldn’t develop until later because there wasn’t the freedom for it?
John asked “Is aunicornism a worldview? I think not, it’s merely not engaging in a delusion.”
The belief or non-belief in unicorns would not be a worldview regardless for it does nothing to explain the world. It isn’t a lens by which we can see the world. It’s simply the belief that a thing exist or does not exist. Like, the lochness monster or bigfoot. The existence or non-existence of such things doesn’t change the way someone sees the world. It doesn’t provide a framework for ethics, purpose, meaning, life, or anything else.
The existence of God is a whole different ball game from evoking Santa Clause and Unicorns. For if He does exist and if Jesus did resurrect from the dead then that is a worldview that changes everything.
John said:
“This is analogous to the case with deities; I just can’t take them seriously, and certainly I’ve seen no convincing evidence that I should, either.”
When God is likened to Santa or unicorns or such things, I could see why you couldn’t take Him seriously. What difference would His existence make if He were as of little relevance as the jolly old St. Nick or unicorns.
But if He holds the answers to the good life and to our purpose and value in life then there is inestimable value that cannot be compared to such things.
John “Well, nice to see some skepticism. Did you follow any of the references at the end?”
I followed the Wikipedia one. I haven’t had time to do more yet. I believe critical thinking and skepticism are two different things, and I think the former more profitable to life than the latter.
Karla
says...CL asked “I don’t know what you have in mind when you say “other gods” but say for example the gods of the Greek pantheon – do you believe they exist or existed in reality?”
I have to preface my answer. I think in all ancient pantheons there existed an idea of a God that was greater than the many finite gods in the bunch. Sometimes it’s just an allusion to such a one, sometimes there is distinctly such a God in their pantheon. This is something I really want to study more. I’ve read some intriguing things by G.K. Chesterton on the topic and I want to study it more.
But, no, I don’t believe there existed a pantheon of gods. Logically there can only be one all powerful perfect eternal God. Any others would have to be created, for they would be finite if the one existed. And if the One didn’t exist, neither could they for they would have a beginning and need a Beginner.
I think some of the mythologies were shadows of reality, just like I think religions aren’t all wrong, they have parts of truth some clear, some distorted, some corrupted.
This is certainly a topic I aim to study more.
Karla
says...John, I just followed the Trinity link. It appeared you were trying to plug it into a mathematical equation of some sort? I really wasn’t able to follow you on that. . .
Have you read my post on the Trinity that I gave a link to a few comments back?
John Morales
says...Karla,
Only a little; it’s a syncretism of ancient semitic deities and faiths; the deities El and Yahweh became conflated as monotheism developed.
(The word El was found at the top of a list of gods as the Ancient of Gods or the Father of all Gods, in the ruins of the Royal Library of the Ebla civilization, in the archaeological site of Tell Mardikh in Syria dated to 2300 BC).
Quite a number of gods (Baal, Moloch, Dagon, Yahweh etc) were also worshipped around that time, by the various semitic peoples.
Yahweh was the god of the Israelites; should you read the Bible you’ll find he was attributed primacy (Exodus 20:3) (cf. 1 Kings 18).
In their cultural epic (the Tanakh) it was held that Yahweh was the true god, and others were false.
They did some conquering and subjugating, as it was done unto them (cf. Judges 1:19), and each of the cultures involved invoked their own gods.
Like the Bible, once codified by a general assembly (completed in 450 BCE), the Tanakh has since remained unchanged. Many of its stories are cribbed from earlier traditions (Caananite, Sumerian, Babylonian etc). (cf. Epic of Gilgamesh)
In short, Judaism is old, but nowhere near the oldest; much like Christianity is derived from it (and Islam is derived from Judeo-Christianism), it is derived from older traditions.
No, I’m saying smart people shut up about their disbelief, because such disbelief in their culture was harshly punished.
I respectfully submit that it explains the world no less than theism.
(c.f. IPU).
Pray tell, why would a singular entity be gendered. Does God have a penis, rather than a vagina? ;)
(I fear you’ve been inculcated into the misogynism of the Abrahamic traditions)
I fail to see how one can be a critical thinker without employing skepticism.
Were I to tell you: “If I post you my BSB, I guarantee you that when you deposit US$10,000 into my bank account you will receive whatever you wish for.”, would you be skeptical, or not?
If Bill Gates were to tell you the same, would you be skeptical, or not?
John Morales
says...Karla, since you’re engaging me in good faith, I’ll make some time for you.
Basically, the doctrine of Trinitarianism says there’s only one Father, only one Son, only one Holy Ghost, only one God.
The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father, but the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God, the Son is God.
This is what logicians call a contradiction; it is necessarily false.
It’s no different from saying, in effect, A=B, B=C, but A ≠ C.
John Morales
says...Karla, I did read your entry, I here quote the relevant part:
1. Infinities are mathematical abstractions, not real entities.
2. OK, God’s identity is self-referential. It is defined in relation to itself. (In logic, we call this circular reasoning).
3. Um. The Father is defined by relation to His Son? You just said it’s defined self-referentially; this can only be true if the Father is the Son – i.e. you are using two words for one entity, rather than two words for two entities.
4. True – but you are not your husband, and your husband is not you. This is not self-reference, it’s other-reference.
5. Yes, but that’s not the only reason.
Not just Muslims; there were and are non-Trinitarian Christian sects. (cf. the Arian heresy)
6. see 3. Either Jesus and God are two entities, or they’re one; if they’re one, why use two names as if they were two? If they’re two, why say there’s only one God?
7. Clearly, it’s not (see 5).
How does it make any sense to speak of a Father, or a Son, without a corresponding Mother?
The whole thing is incoherent; the best theologians through the ages have come up with is that it’s an “ineffable mystery” beyond human understanding (it’s got the advantage of being unarguable). The alternative is that it’s just made-up stuff, then it’s perfectly understandable (like Athena bursting forth from Zeus’s forehead after He’d swallowed pregnant Metis)!.
Karla
says...Hey John, I see your post, I don’t have the time needed to respond in detail so I will get back to you in the next couple days.
Karla
says...Hey John, I looked through some books on the history of atheism last night at the bookstore. And I was reading that there are two schools of thought regarding the history of it. One was that it is as old as ancient Greek mythology and the other is that it is a product of late Enlightenment. The book gave supporting evidence for both, but said it basically came down to what one meant by atheism.
As for God’s gender. . . I’ll address it as if you were really asking a sincere question. . . God is referred to in the masculine because of his identity as our Father and as the Father of Jesus. Man is made in his image, both male and female. God is Spirit and is thus not either gender as we are familiar with the genders. It is like when one says God’s right hand, or with his hand he did such and such. He has no hand, but it is ways of which we can articulate an understanding of him. The imagery helps to do that, but when used it isn’t that literal in that one could really sit on the right hand of God, for God would not have a right or a left for there isn’t an end or a beginning to him.
I have a question for you. What is the three biggest obstacles you see that would need to be overcome to allow for the existence of God? To put it another way, can you articulate three obstacles that the theists needs to address, that if overcome you would have reason to think God’s existence of greater probability?
cl
says...John Morales,
Regarding comment #31, I think your arguments are essentially semantic. This does not entail that I believe you’re engaging in sophistry, obfuscation or equivocation, either. Sure, not believing in something isn’t a philosophical position per se, but it’s what we don’t believe in that defines our philosophical position. Every negative entails a positive and vice-verca, so, while lack of God-belief may not be a philosophical position, metaphysical naturalism is most certainly the philosophical position the atheist espouses. It seems to me some atheists wish to insulate their beliefs simply by stating them negatively, then claiming one can’t prove a negative, then challenging the theist to prove their own positive claim. The theist could do the same by simply stating disbelief in metaphysical naturalism and asking its proponent to provide the necessary evidence.
When you tell Karla,
I disagree. If we share a disbelief in God or gods, doesn’t this demand that our respective worldviews at least begin on a common axis of metaphysical naturalism?
Regarding comment #32, I’ll certainly take you up on that. Stay tuned.
Karla,
Regarding comment #33,
Well said. Critical thinking does not necessarily entail skepticism.
Regarding comment #34, what I was getting at is if you believe the gods of the Greek pantheon walked the Earth the way Jesus did? Or do you think those gods were mere figments of imagination that represented nothing real?
Although I could certainly quibble with that, let’s say I agreed. Still, such would not entail that there could not be lesser gods that were present on Earth, correct?
This is just an aside, but regarding your final question to John in comment #40, I’m expecting him to make the “no evidence for God” argument at a bare minimum. That seems to be one of the stock atheist arguments these days.
John Morales
says...Karla,
Coherency of the concept; necessity for the concept; testability of the concept. The Christian deity fails on all those counts.
Basically, the same criteria science uses in its methodological ontology to determine the reality of concrete entities (whether material, as in mass-energy, or immaterial, as in forces).
For example, look up phlogiston. It met all the criteria, so science allowed for the possible concrete (i.e. not abstract) existence of the concept. When it finally was able to be tested, it failed – and the concept was discarded.
(Note my answer may well differ from that of other atheists.)
John Morales
says...Yes, it is semantic; I consider that the set of all people can be divided into two subsets: those who believe in one or more deities (theists) and those who don’t (atheists).
Clearly, each of those subsets can be broken down into further subsets (e.g. the former into monotheists and polytheists, the latter into atheists and agnostics), and each of those subsets broken down again.
I keep things simple, though: god-believers and non-god-believers are the two top-level categories; i.e. theists and atheists.
Regarding metaphysical naturalism, I consider it a justified belief, but not knowledge as I don’t consider it is an empirically-testable proposition. Be aware many atheists hold to metaphysical supernaturalism, where such entities as souls, spirits, other planes of existence etc are believed in.
Deities are supernatural entities, but the concept of the supernatural includes far more than merely such denizens.
John Morales
says...No, as I’ve said earlier. Most Buddhists, for example, hold to metaphysical supernaturalism (souls, and their reincarnation) but are atheistic.
Consider a specific example: we both don’t believe in the reality of Cthulhu; I suspect the vast majority of Earth’s populace lack this belief too. How useful is that fact in determining what other beliefs are held in common?
Karla
says...John replied “Coherency of the concept; necessity for the concept; testability of the concept.”
Nice clear answer. I like that.
Follow up question:
What method would you use to test a historical event? To see if it happened or not. What evidence would be needed for plausibility?
Karla
says...CL “Well said. Critical thinking does not necessarily entail skepticism.”
Thank you. I would take it further to say that one has to suspend ardent skepticism to truly test out a thing. If one is already of the ultimate skeptical opinion that it’s not possible until one proves it’s viability then one may never be able to see any evidence as evidence because the first position is it isn’t possible. (ie if someone believes miracles don’t happen, then any testimony of one would be greeted with dismissal no matter how much evidence there is — because they simply don’t happen so another explanation that has not yet come to light must be the reason for it.
I think to be a critical thinker one needs to step out from the comforts of skepticism and apply a little risk to test out the truthfulness of a theory or idea.
Karla
says...John, also I would say that the criteria that I believe anyone needs to examine their worldview is that
1) it makes sense philosophically (logical)
2) it’s livable practically (livable)
3) it’s transferable via communication (coherent)
John Morales
says...Karla,
This is rather vague.
Do you mean events such as the meteor strike that caused Meteor Crater, or events such as the Massacre at Béziers in 22 July 1209, or events such as the Bible’s Matthew 27:50-53?
John Morales
says...Karla,
Without skepticism, critical thinking would not be grounded in empiricism.
NB: To be skeptical is to require evidence, not to be close-minded.
This video by QualiaSoup puts it very clearly.
John Morales
says...Karla, regarding worldview, mine is simple: one’s beliefs should be justified, and intellectual self-honesty is the best policy.
cl
says...John Morales,
I can admit that MN wasn’t the best example. In comment #31, you claimed the fact that two people share a disbelief in something others may believe in says nothing about their respective worldviews, but I submit that you need to refine your argument, because when two people tell me that they disbelieve in deities, that says quite a bit about their baseline beliefs. Your Cthulhu example is more specific, so of course we can infer less from two “Cthulhu deniers” than two atheists.
Your criteria given to Karla in comment #42 equally fall atheism, which also lacks coherency, necessity and testability.
In comment #50, you tell Karla “one’s beliefs should be justified,” but who’s the arbiter of justification?
Karla,
That’s exactly the argument I’m making here and here. Folks like John Evo like to say that lack of evidence is good grounds to consider an idea imaginary. Yet, the minute we assign the negative stigma of imaginary to an idea, we’ve hypocritically passed judgment on the idea without evidence (by calling it imaginary).
If there’s no evidence for an idea, the conclusion that the idea is imaginary lacks evidence and remains irrational. Problem is, many so-called “skeptics” and “freethinkers” actually believe they are so intellectually superior to their religious counterparts that they fail to realize they frequently commit the same errors.
John Morales
says...cl,
I tire of endlessly repeating this point: my atheism* is not a belief, so it doesn’t need justification. It’s a lack of belief*.
Theism is belief in deities, atheism is lack of theism.
I don’t need to justify my lack of belief; it’s not a positive claim. The theist is the one with the positive claim: that one or more gods exist.
I don’t know how much clearer than that I can get!
It is not a philosophy, it is not a worldview, it is not an ideology, it is not even a hobby. It’s a lack of belief in deities.
As for the three criteria Karla asked for and I provided, they were in response to the question “What is the three biggest obstacles you see that would need to be overcome to allow for the existence of [the Christian] God?”
—
* It has been proposed to me that a lack of belief is itself a belief; I hope you don’t try to employ that vacous contention.
John Morales
says...cl,
One’s own self is the arbiter.
A belief can be considered justified when you have honestly and critically examined it, and you are satisfied that it is proper for you to hold that belief.
John Morales
says...cl,
Do you seriously contend that I and, say, a Raëlian share baseline beliefs?
Please.
cl
says...My belief that God exists meets these condition. Is it justified?
cl
says...You’ve responded to a claim I haven’t made. I didn’t say two people who disbelieve in deities “share baseline beliefs.” I said when two people tell me that they disbelieve in deities, that says quite a bit about their baseline beliefs.
cl
says...Not at all.
That’s where you’re wrong, and that’s what I meant when I said “It seems to me some atheists wish to insulate their beliefs simply by stating them negatively, then claiming one can’t prove a negative, then challenging the theist to prove their own positive claim.”
Similarly, I could say that my amaterialism is not a belief, but a lack of belief, hence not needing justification. But this completely ignores the fact that every negative claim entails a positive claim.
So I politely suggest that any atheist who argues thusly grow some and state the positive claims their negative claims logically entail.
John Morales
says...cl,
If you really have honestly and critically tested your belief that God exists, and find no flaw in your evidentiary base or your logic, then yes, you have a justified belief.
John Morales
says...That’s a strong claim; I have a good friend who is a Scientologist. He too claims to be an atheist (Thetans aren’t gods, but spirits which transcend MEST).
What does it say abour our baseline beliefs?
I presume you will exclude baseline beliefs that most people (including theists) share, inasmuch as such aren’t deducible from our lack of god-belief.
John Morales
says...1 & 3. You agree that a lack of belief is not a belief, but then say that it logically entails a negative claim!
I suspect you misunderstand what a positive claim is – a positive claim is the contention that some proposition is true. The only sense in which a positive claim “entails” a negative claim is that it also claims that the negation of the proposition is false.
Yes, I make a positively truth-claim that I lack belief in deities; that does not entail I positively claim they do not exist. I am making a positive claim, but the claim relates to my lack of belief, rather to the existence or otherwise of this putative entity.
2. You claim to be an amaterialist; you don’t believe in the existence of a material realm? What an odd claim.
Or did you mean something else by it?
—
PS You politely suggest that your misapprehension of simple reasoning represents cowardice on atheists’ part, eh?
Karla
says...John said “Without skepticism, critical thinking would not be grounded in empiricism.
NB: To be skeptical is to require evidence, not to be close-minded.”
I would say to stretch your mind beyond what can be seen to explore the possibilities of something being true rather than resting in rejection of it until it is proven true is to be open minded.
As far as the historical event, what methods would seem to you to be good to discover if an event really happened in our history such as discovering the story of the battle at Gettysburg.
John “Karla, regarding worldview, mine is simple: one’s beliefs should be justified, and intellectual self-honesty is the best policy.”
That is a proposition of the criteria for a good worldview, not a statement of your worldview, (ie naturalism).
A closed mind does not explore beyond what it already accepts as true. It is confident in it’s current understanding of the world and rejects anything until proven and I would say that mind misses a lot of reality in doing this.
John Morales
says...Karla, did you watch the video on open-mindedness and skepticism?
It basically says what I hold, and your comment indicates to me that you have not watched it.
What professional historians use: the historical method.
cl
says...You added the “find no flaw” criteria. Technically, that’s called moving the goalposts, but I’m really more happy than anything, because by your own definition it seems my beliefs are justified and by my own definition it seems yours are too. Maybe one day we’ll find out who was wrong; maybe we won’t.
Then, where’s the “shared belief” which was a preconditional? How about an example of someone you know who believes consciousness ends at death, and that there are no such things as spirits? Pair up with him or her and I’m sure I can tell you a thing or two that you both believe.
Correct, because those two statements are not mutually exclusive. What something entails is different than what something is, no?
And again I’ll note that you’re often quick to assume error on behalf of your interlocutor. It is your misunderstanding of the argument causing your misperception here, as evidenced by the following:
John, that’s not the argument I’m making. That I say negatives entail positives and vice-versa doesn’t mean I say your negative claim is actually a positive claim. It’s not. You’re responding to an argument I’ve not made, again.
To the person who says “God exists,” the atheist says “prove it.” Well, some of the people who say “God exists” don’t really keep up on science as we know, and so they mistakenly attempt to flip the argument and ask the atheist to prove God doesn’t exist. Without fail, the atheist retreats behind the burden of proof, but anybody can play that game, and role reversal is often interesting if not illuminating.
So, I’m an ametaphysical naturalist. I reject your positive claim of metaphysical naturalism, and would like to see you support your claim that either something came from nothing, or something always existed. Surely it’s only fair, right? Don’t atheists ask believers to support their claims that God created the universe, or that God always existed?
You’ve not demonstrated any “misapprehension of simple reasoning” on my part, and the assumption is noted, but isn’t responding to an argument your interlocutor hasn’t made the real evidence of misapprehension?
John Morales
says...cl, (my bold added now)
So you don’t consider my qualification “you are satisfied that it is proper for you to hold that belief” implies that it’s not flawed?
Do you think it is proper to hold beliefs that upon examination you realise are flawed?
If not, I did not move any goalposts; if so, you are irrational.
Which is it?
John Morales
says...cl,
Both he and I are atheists, you claim you can say a lot about our baseline beliefs, I ask you to substanciate it, and you have evaded the question.
My question was a follow-up to my contention that atheism is just a lack of belief in deities; I keep contending that it implies nothing about consciousness ending at death or substance dualism.
You don’t need to substantiate your claim that it tells you a lot about atheists’ “baseline beliefs”, but your evasion is noted.
John Morales
says...cl,
But I have not made such a claim.
I challenge you to substantiate this contention, by either citing my making it or quoting me.
John Morales
says...Sigh.
I do not care to repeat, or blockquote what I’ve already written.
cf. Dunning-Kruger effect.
John Morales
says...Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context by John H. Walton.
karla
says...Just checking back on this conversation, but think I’m just going to observe for now.
cl
says...Karla,
There’s nothing to observe. John’s just spinning my wheels. Nothing he’s saying relates an ounce to our discussion at DD’s. Ironically, when that happens over there, it’s all my fault and I’m blamed for trolling and thread derailing.
John Morales,
Of course, you’re always free to comment here with Karla or anyone, but if all you’re going to do is make accusations of “evasion” while none of your last 20 something comments relate anything to the OP, would you just leave me alone?
That the answer you seek is not present at the exact moment you seek it doesn’t mean anyone is evading anything, and your constant accusations get really tiring, really fast. If I don’t understand you, or something you said doesn’t make sense, I don’t assume your some douchebag out to “obfuscate” and “evade” to score points.
I don’t have anything to prove to you, I care not for your opinion of me, and if you’re not in this to reach any sort of common ground with me on a genuine, human level, I’d really rather not talk to you at all. Life’s too short for internet bullshit.
Not at all. That one thinks it “proper” for them to hold a particular belief just means they approve of it, not that it’s 100% without flaw. However, now I see what you meant, and if that is indeed what you meant – then no, you didn’t move the goalposts. You just wrote your criteria two different ways that happen to mean the same thing to you.
I haven’t evaded it at all. You just didn’t like the answer. If both you and your friend disbelieve in deities, then both you and your friend believe what we have in front of us today arose without deities. I’ll bet you both believe miracle claims and creationism are bunk, too.
The reason I said that is because if you’re not some type of theist, then you’re some type of metaphysical naturalist or metaphysical “supernaturalist” as you said, right? Then, are you a metaphysical supernaturalist? If not, what are you? Phrase your beliefs positively so they can be criticized instead of hiding behind the “I don’t need to justify my lack of belief” nonsense. If that’s the case, I don’t need to justify my lack of belief in metaphysical naturalism, either.
You misapprehended my argument, John. I showed that in comment # 63. Pointing to a Wikipedia link of some fallacy you think I’m making isn’t anything. There was no “misapprehension of reasoning” except where you said:
Yes, because the two statements aren’t mutually exclusive. If you don’t believe God created the universe, you do believe some other process did. If you don’t think negatives entail positives and vice-versa, argue with Carrier. At least you’ll probably respect him, and maybe you two could make some ground.
John Morales
says...cl,
I see.
OK, I can take a hint.
Karla
says...CL, I thought you said earlier when I asked for permission to go off topic that you had no problem with diversion from topic and expected that sort of thing to happen freely.
I was interested in the exchange between you and John and think that sometimes by observation one can learn more than by participation because it allows one to not get involved emotionally and really see what is being said.
I know I still have a lot to learn to really know the questions on the hearts and minds of skeptics. . . And I hope that they will take just as much time to learn about the hope in my heart and mind.
cl
says...John Morales,
If that is a concession that “all you’re going to do is make accusations of “evasion” while none of your last 20 something comments relate anything to the OP,” then good riddance and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
OTOH, if you do want “reach any sort of common ground with me on a genuine, human level,” by all means, please carry on, and don’t ever assume bad faith on my behalf again. Am I going to make an argument or claim that doesn’t sound right from time to time? Of course. We all do. I’m not a liar, I’m not dishonest, and I don’t evade questions. Next time there’s confusion, just ask – don’t assume I’m the one in the wrong because after all, it can’t be you – and you and I will be okay. We started out pretty good the first three weeks here. There’s no reason it can’t continue that way.
Still, if you’re going to leave, thanks while it lasted. Just know that I was able to learn from you when you weren’t following the flock in accusing me. You can test this claim by proceeding without accusing me, and seeing if I learn from you. I like you John, I really do. I just don’t see any positive benefit in the accusational behavior, whatsoever.
Karla,
I did say that, and I don’t have a problem with tangential discussion, at all. What I do have a problem with is people who are so quick to judge their opponent as dishonest, evading, obfuscating, etc. when that’s really just their projection of the person. I made my comment to John because he’s doing exactly that which he (and many others) criticized me for on DD’s blog (not accusing, but tangential comments).
I completely welcome tangential comments. You guys can discuss whatever you want. I just don’t want to talk to John unless he has something worthwhile to say, and accusations just aren’t that worthwhile. They get tiring. I’m tired of them.
Of course. IMO, accusations are a tell-tale sign of emotional motives. When it comes to discussions with atheists, I’m here for logic, not to prove I have a bigger penis than some guy online I’ve never met.
BTW, if you haven’t read it yet, I’m really interested in your response to this post.
John Morales
says...cl,
cl, you can accuse me of “moving the goalposts”, but I can’t accuse you of evading the question?
Fine, I can respond in the interrogative.
I believe that metaphysical naturalism provides a sufficient ontological basis to account for the reality I perceive and that it is empirically justifiable but not
epistemically so. I believe that belief in a supernatural component to reality is otiose and subjectively but not empirically justifiable.
Both beliefs are, of course, subject to revision.
cl
says...John,
Yes, and you can do the same with no griping from me. If you believe I’ve made an incorrect argument, I need to know. I don’t need to know people’s personal emotions and opinions, and note that an accusation of “moving the goalposts” says nothing about you or what I think your motives might be.
Why do you think MN provides sufficient ontological basis for the reality you perceive? How would you articulate the differences between that which is empirically justifiable and that which is epistemically justifiable?
Did you say ..not empirically justifiable because we can’t “prove” God to others? Couldn’t God “prove” Himself to us? Wouldn’t that be an instance of empirical justification?
Karla
says...CL, the link isn’t active or isn’t working at the moment. Can you try to give it to me again.
Understanding another’s worldview is hard work especially since we all have our own individual way of looking at things even when we belong to a larger worldview grouping. It’s a big job for each of us to find that commonality and to effectuate understanding even when there is disagreement. I am of the optimistic opinion that we can come to understand each other even when disagreements remain. And I don’t think I can say I’ve understood someone until they feel and agree that I have attained understanding. So my job isn’t done until they feel that regardless of my thoughts on the matter.
cl
says...I completely agree, and say “cheers” to your patience and thoroughness.
John Morales
says...cl,
1. Because its categories account for all observed phenomena.
2. For a belief, empirical justification denotes that it parsimoniously accounts for what is observed, whilst epistemic justification denotes that it’s empirically justifiable and that it’s also inferentially justified.
I recall addressing this issue over on ER, for example in this comment:
“VeridicusX, it seems to me you are basically espousing metaphysical naturalism, whereas I accept methodological naturalism but consider I have no basis (other than Occam’s razor, which is not in itself definitive) to support metaphysical naturalism.
There are two basic issues at hand, one epistemological and the other ontological.
The epistemological issue is that, logically, only analytic or a-priori propositions can be assigned a definitive truth-value without empirical support; synthetic/a-posteriori propositions rely on empiricism for determination of their truth-value. But, since empirical knowledge ultimately relies on sense-impressions, we can only know and evaluate empirical claims on what we can perceive – we cannot rigorously rule out the possibility of imperceptible (or even causally-disconnected) phenomena.
The ontological issue is that, unless the full set of classes of entity that can exist is known, certain classes of as yet-undefined or undetermined entities can not be ruled out. If you (as I think) are claiming that there is no possible non-contradictory (both logically and empirically) entity that can fulfil any of all the possible deity definitions, then so proving will astound philosophers world-wide.”
(Note I use exactly the same argument towards a “strong” atheist as I do towards you.)
John Morales
says...cl,
Rephrasing that quote: I am not aware of any observations that justify changing the classification of the supernatural from abstract to concrete in my ontology.
The Christian god is just one of many putative supernatural entities, but I was speaking much more generally (e.g. pyramid power, precognition, reiki, magic, ghosts, reincarnation, demons etc).
cl
says...Whenever I hear all-inclusive quantifiers I get suspicious, and I disagree. MN is at a complete loss to explain several observed phenomena.
I like all of that, but…
Instead of assume I hear what you intended, can I ask you to re-articulate the challenge?
cl
says...So, would you say that is your evidence for MN?
I understand. While I agree I can’t empirically demonstrate any of these entities to you or anyone else, certainly any of these entities – if they existed and possessed the means – could empirically demonstrate themselves to us, correct? So, in that sense, these entities would be > subjectively justifiable, right?
John Morales
says...cl,
What phenomena are unaccountable by MN’s ontology?
That was addressed to VeridicusX as response to a previous comment by me.
If you look at the context (I provided a link), the contention was against my agnosticism, where VeridicusX in effect claimed deities were ontologically impossible, and my response was to say that this is yet unproven.
In short, I’m saying I cannot rule out all possible deity-concepts.
I can, however, rule out the Christian O3 god, due to the incoherence of its claimed attributes – I agree with VeridicusX on that.
John Morales
says...cl,
It would be perverse to deny that the material realm exists, and I’ve already stated that I consider metaphysical naturalism’s ontology is sufficient to account for all observed phenomena*.
All the progress in science and technology since science emerged from natural philosophy
is based on methodological naturalism (not metaphysical naturalism), and that’s very strong evidence that it works; which is not to say that metaphysical supernaturalism is falsified – only that it remains speculative and unnecessary in an utilitarian sense.
1. I don’t know. Possibly so.
People have claimed evidence for all sort of supernatural beings and phenomena, and none have held up intersubjectively or empirically, so far.
2. I suppose so. I personally have not encountered such subjective validation, though I was not consciously a rationalist until my early 20’s.
As a teenager, I recall building pyramids and testing their putative properties of preservation (failed), as well as calculating my “biorhythms” and noting no correlation with my circumstances or moods (this is in the late 70’s/early 80’s).
—
* I know, you dispute this above; I have asked for a specific example.
NB I use the term ‘phenomena’ deliberately, cf. noumena.
cl
says...I believe many strange phenomena fall in that category: astral projection, precognition. the certain aspects of the UFO phenomena, etc.
That’s a reasonable position, I think.
Sounds interesting. Care to summarize the case?
John Morales
says...cl, “astral projection, precognition. the certain aspects of the UFO phenomena, etc.” are putative, not established phenomena, and accounted for as imaginary entities.
Note that parapsychology seemed a promising discipline at the beginning of the 20th century, as did physics. Compare the progress of physics (and associated technologies (e.g. the internet)) with the progress of parapsychology (still arguing whether there’s anything there).
[re: O3 God incoherent]
Sure. Here’s one of my youthful musings, which is still applicable:
If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then God knew every outcome for the entirety of creation’s existence before creating it, rendering such a creation moot. If a final state was required (telos), such a state could be created ab initio.
cl
says...I acknowledge your dismissal.
So? Where’s the argument?
John Morales
says...cl,
I provided a basis for it, it’s not arbitrary.
That was it; the very concept is otiose.
cl
says...What basis did you provide? If I might paraphrase, you simply said, “That stuff’s not proven, so I get to discount it as imaginary and basically not address it at all.”
I respect your opinion, but where’s the argument?
John Morales
says...cl,
Parapsychology (see link above).
“Many scientists regard the discipline as pseudoscience because parapsychologists continue investigation although no one has demonstrated conclusive evidence of psychic abilities in more than a century of research.”
cl
says...So still, “That stuff’s not proven, so I get to discount it as imaginary and basically not address it at all.”
As far as the other thing, that you think a concept is otiose is not a cogent argument against said concept.