Hey Atheists, It’s Right Here
Posted in Atheism, Religion, Responses on | 8 minutes | 10 Comments →
As we mentioned yesterday, Greta Christina – an atheist blogger whom I actually admire – has written another post garnering strong support from the aetheosphere. The post is titled, "Hey Religious Believers, Where's Your Evidence?" As you might expect, it's both a challenge to believers to "show Greta the money" as well as an armchair psychoanalysis of the subset of believers who fail to rise to her challenge.
The Chaplain has taken me to task for what she feels is an incomplete critique of Greta's post, so today I intend to discuss it more thoroughly.
Greta begins by stating that she's "game” for hearing believer's evidence, then laments over believers who wouldn't “show her the money.”
She'll get no sympathy from me here: let the record reflect that I've personally offered to "show Greta my money" both before and after she banned me from her blog, so the first argument I'd like to make is that unfortunately, her willingness to hear evidence is selective: Like any other atheist, Greta is more than welcomed to critique the various arguments and evidences offered on this blog. Nobody twisted her arm to ban me.
Greta states that when asking believers for evidence,
What I typically get is a startling assortment of conversational gambits deflecting the question. I get excuses for why believers shouldn't have to provide evidence. Vague references to other people who supposedly have evidence, without actually pointing to said evidence. Irrelevant tirades about mean atheists. Venomous anger at how disrespectful and intolerant I am to even ask the question.
I don't know what to say. I don't give excuses for why I can't provide evidence. I don't make "vague references" to other theists who supposedly have evidence. Though I'm more than happy to point it out when my detractors descend into ad hominem nonsense, I don't go on irrelevant tirades about mean atheists. Nor do I have venomous anger or think that atheists who ask for evidence are disrespectful or intolerant. To the contrary, I disdain all of those things, and because I believe valid ideas can and should withstand criticism, I continually and systematically present my evidence both here and in other threads. So, I'm more than happy to discuss the evidence for my worldviews – anywhere, anytime – which means Greta's critique is not applicable.
Next, Greta begins her assault on these "conversational gambits" she's accustomed to hearing from believers. The first – that the spiritual world is beyond the physical – she attacks via appeal to an analogy from Newton's work on gravity:
The problem is that religion makes claims about this world. The physical one, the one we live in. It claims that God sets events into motion; that guardian angels protect us; that our consciousness is animated by an immaterial soul; etc. So if there really were a non-physical world affecting this physical one, we should be able to observe those effects. Even if we can't observe the causes directly. My favorite analogy for this is gravity. When Isaac Newton developed his laws of motion, he had no clue what gravity was. For all he knew, gravity was caused by demons inside every physical object, all pulling at each other by magic. He tried for years to figure it out, and eventually gave up. But even though he had no idea what gravity was, he was able to observe its effects. He was able to describe the laws of motion that govern those effects: laws that to this day make startlingly accurate predictions about the behavior of objects. He wasn't able to see or even understand the cause — but he was able to observe and describe the effects.
I wholeheartedly agree, and further submit that the effects are there. These "effects" are exactly what I'm getting at when I talk about the video game incident, A and L's non-existent upstairs neighbor, Steve's similar occurences in Los Angeles, the strange case of Ingo Swann, my own precognitive experience, Kayla Knight, my comparison of the cerebro-centric consciousness hypothesis and the tripartite model, or Marianne George and her experiences with the Barok tribe. That was no less than NINE posts I've written here, each of which constitutes a piece of the puzzle that Greta and other atheists are asking for, and that just off the top of my head. We haven't even begun to discuss the Hyman-Honorton situation, or Charles Laughlin's work, or lots of other things. So Greta, whenever you're ready, I'm here. No more complaining about how believers prefer gambits over the presentation of evidence.
Moving on to the second gambit – that religion is beyond reason or evidence – Greta continues:
Religion is a hypothesis about the world. It's not a subjective personal experience, like, "I passionately love this woman and want to marry her." It's not a personal instinct or judgment call, like, "I think my life will be better if I quit my job and move to San Francisco." It's not a personal aesthetic opinion, like, "Radiohead is the greatest band of this decade." It's a hypothesis about the world — the real, external, non-subjective world. It's an attempt to explain how the world works, and why it is the way it is. So why should it be beyond reason or evidence?
Religion – or more accurately, that which religion purports to describe – is not beyond either reason or evidence. Here Greta responds to believers who attempt to protect their beliefs by proclaiming them not open to reason or evidence, but as I just explained, my beliefs *are* open to reason and evidence, and I'm willing to discuss them anytime. So again, her critique doesn't apply. Lastly, religion is not an attempt to explain how the world works – that is the domain of science. Religion (and philosophy) purport[s] to explain why the world works the way it does.
Moving on to her third gambit, Greta attacks the "100% certainty trope," saying,
Only religion gets the "If you can't disprove it with 100 percent certainty, it's reasonable to believe it" standard.
This is the position that jim at RvA has consistently tarred me with, only he calls it the "appeal to non-omnisience." By no means will I argue that one's inability to disprove my beliefs with 100% certainty gives me reason to believe them. So again, her critique doesn't apply.
The next two gambits Greta criticizes – that it's disrespectful and intolerant to tell people their religious beliefs are wrong, and that there are wonderful advanced modern theological arguments for God, we just can't tell you what they are – are again, not gambits I use to shield my beliefs from criticism. There's nothing disrespectful or wrong about disagreement, and I don't need "wonderful advanced modern theological arguments" to justify my beliefs in God or the supernatural.
I'd like to actually spend a moment addressing the final gambit Greta addresses: that atheists close themselves off to realms of experience beyond this one. Now, I actually do make this claim from time to time, but always in the context of particular atheists, and never as a blanket statement about atheists in general. This is because I understand that many atheists are former theists, which makes accusing them of closed-mindedness difficult to defend.
Still, vehement denial and closed-mindedness are traits I find in fundamentalists of any stripe, and atheists are no exception. Don't believe the hype, folks: there are such a thing as fundamentalist atheists. This makes sense, because as Greta notes, many atheists used to be believers – fundamentalists in particular. The underlying character traits that attracted those people towards fundamentalism in the first place don't just evaporate once they trade their crosses for Scarlet A's.
So when I say certain atheists are closed-minded, it's not because I can't come up with an argument or evidence for my position. It's because time and time again, when I make some argument or present some evidence for theism, I get personally attacked, or banned, or censored, or denigrated, or the arguments get blindly dismissed. Quite literally, those people are closing their minds to what I have to say. In that regard, most of the atheists I meet are closed-minded; like Newtonians amidst the undeniable evidence for a quantum model of consciousness.
In fact, I'll take that a step further: Greta has closed her own mind to me. As I said, I've offered to discuss my evidence with her, and for whatever reason(s) she banned me, just like the rest of the finnicky atheists who apparently *do* believe that there ideas should be immune from criticism. So, what's more important? The pursuit of truth? Or respect for some imagined decorum?
Defense mechanisms? Conversational gambits? Hardly. I'm here every day, ready and willing to discuss why I believe what I believe.
the chaplain
says...What your post boils down to is your claim that you are not like those other theists about whom Greta complains. Well, there are always exceptions to generalizations.
I’ve read some of your posts, and the ones that I recall offhand are basically anecdotal evidence. You know the weaknesses inherent with anecdotal evidence, so I won’t go into them here. In the past, many things that were inexplicable at the time they happened – and therefore credited to supernatural sources – have turned out to have natural explanations. I’ll go with the odds that the same thing will happen with the events you’ve described. As for your stuff about consciousness, I’ll wait and see how things shake out with more scientific study. Until then, I’ll side with explanations that fit in best with the rest of the vast body of scientific knowledge that has served humans so well in recent centuries. Religious ideas and scientific theories just don’t have comparable track records.
I’ll be honest with you. Given the large claims that many believers make about their gods (I’ll stick with Christianity just to keep it simple) – he created everything, his son’s hideous death atoned for the “sins” of all humankind, that he actually loves all humankind – not just select individuals and groups, that people who believe in Jesus will resurrect from the dead somehow and live in heaven somewhere forever – I’m not impressed with spirits who toss video games around a living room, or angels who allegedly sing to a small group of shepherds in the middle of nowhere to announce the most important birth in history (if it were true), or deities who reveal themselves via garbled holy writings. At the very least, God is a lousy communicator. I’ve already written what it would take for me to believe in a deity, and anomalous bits of information scattered here and there don’t make the cut. If God is all that many believers say he is, his existence should be more readily apparent than it is. Gods who play parlor tricks when living beings around the world are suffering and dying everyday, often in hideious manners, do not deserve respect, let alone worship.
nedsfaith.blogspot.com
says...Hi Chaplain,
I read your post, and I am curious about your statement “Moreover, many of them contradict each other and there are no standardized criteria by which humanity can separate the wheat from the chaff.”
I think we can come up with criteria. Things like internal consistency, and support from historical sources. Examinations of motives. Have you read Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus”?
the chaplain
says...Nedsfaith:
Yes, I’ve read several of Ehrman’s books, including Misquoting Jesus, which is one of my favorite books by him. I haven’t seen much in the way of internal consistency in the Bible and I’ve seen even less support from historical sources. For example, many of the “historical sources” that apologists cite regarding the life and ministry of Jesus have either been discredited or simply confirm that Christianity existed in the first century, not that Jesus actually did any or all of the things credited to him in the Bible. Many other claims of historical confirmation simply confirm that the people who wrote the Bible were situated in particular historical times and geographical places. They don’t confirm the truth of the tales recorded in the Bible. I have no doubt that some of the stuff recorded in the Bible actually happened, such as the missionary journeys of Paul. I don’t have any reason, however, to believe that all of it happened, such as the earthquake that allegedly occurred at Jesus’ death.
The way I see it, Christians have to accomplish at least three tasks before I’ll consider their claims:
a) provide evidence that any deities exist,
b) provide evidence that their claims about the nature of deities are correct and that all other competing deity claims, i.e., Islam, Hindu, etc., are wrong
c) provide evidence that one particular understanding of Christianity is correct and the other 34,000+ versions of Christianity are mistaken.
It doesn’t help the Christian case that people who purportedly believe in the same deity have wildly different ideas about that being. Until Christians can uniformly apply standardized criteria to sort out their claims (criteria such as those you mentioned) and present a coherent message about their deity, I’m not going to waste my time trying to solve their puzzle. It’s their puzzle, not mine.
Dominic Saltarelli
says...I feel your pain, cl. Sometimes I wish I could take a more Pavlovian approach to debate. When people start to spiral into their own little world like this, I’d like to cattleprod them. That way, their brain associates self-righteous obliviousness with “holyshitthathurtslikeamotherfucker”, keep things on track, ya know?
debt help
says...haha i liked what you have said in this post it got to me. i feel ur pain
cl
says...Chaplain,
Your original complaint – which prompted this post – was that I’d overlooked Greta’s “actual arguments.” Yet, here, that doesn’t seem a concern anymore, and you’ve not answered my question as to which of Greta’s “actual arguments” I’ve insufficiently addressed. Would you care to answer that question? Or, can we now agree that Greta’s post doesn’t contain any “actual arguments” to rebut??
cl
says...Dominic,
Ouch, but boy do I concur.
Chaplain,
I find atheists and skeptics who attempt to marginalize anecdotal evidence interesting. Most of them seem to have no problem believing the anecdote that the Gettysburg Address was *actually* delivered, for example. Denial via appeal to the anecdotal nature of a data point simply postpones the acquisition of knowlegde. It’s like a convenient little gris-gris that intellectually cowardly people often use to ward off that which blatantly contradicts their worldviews.
Well, I hope that keeps you nice and comfortable, but I’m interested in explanations and knowledge, so I can’t be content to just sit back and “go with the odds.”
No offense, but do you even realize how intellectually lazy that statement is? Do tell: what explanations “fit in best with the rest of the vast body of scientific knowledge?” Define “fit in best,” if you’ll allow me to play the Exterminator’s game for a moment. Give me knowledge and logic, not opinions and rhetoric.
So? I’m not impressed with people who simply eschew data points that require an explanation. Truth is truth whether we’re impressed or not, and “Oh, it’s an anecdote, I don’t have to explain it,” doesn’t do anything for the pursuit of knowledge.
Further, you seem to imply that the things I discuss are insufficient in proving my larger beliefs. Yet, could we ever achieve a grand unified theory without the prerequisite knowledge uncovered by Newton, Slipher, Hubble, Einstein, et al.? No. This is because implicit in the trustworthiness of science is the obligation that it proceed in painstakingly small, methodical steps.
The video game thing was just one of many, many data points that each do their part in establishing the plausibility of the Biblical claims. Further – as the weak attempts at rational explanations revealed – it’s a data point that your worldview is completely dumbfounded to explain. Yet, for reasons not understood by me, you seem content to just look the other way, and not attempt any explanation whatsoever.
[Sigh…] Who cares about your opinions, though? I think certain things of Philly; do they matter? No.
Again, who cares about your opinions? I don’t. I really, really don’t. Believe me Chaplain,
I have absolutely no confidence in my ability to change your mind. I simply try my best to plant seeds; the rest is out of my hands. Still, come with something besides emotionally-charged rhetoric, and level the playing field:
Ah, I see: though we have arguably less than 10% certainty about the ultimate nature of consciousness, you hold the provisional beliefs that it is an emergent property of biology that ceases upon death – and that contrary to all evidence suggesting otherwise.
Yet nothing less than 100% certainty will do the trick when it comes to God. In your own post you linked to, you said the only thing that can possibly convince you is “a direct, unequivocal, simultaneous revelation of him/her/itself to all humankind.” IOW, 100% certainty.
Yet, God’s unequivocal presence is not purported to be obtainable in this age, so by your own standard, then, that which you demand is both unfalsifiable and impossible. So, without leveling the playing field, there’s absolutely nothing I can do here, because I can’t yank God down from the Heavens for every single person on this planet to see right at this very moment. Your inconsistency of standards is ridiculous.
Can you not see how, through the inconsistent application of standards, you’ve literally precluded belief in God from anything less than 100% certainty? In that, you show yourself to be exactly the type of “believer” Greta criticized in her post: the person who hides behind the 100% certainty trope. Think about it.
nedsfaith.blogspot.com
says...Hi Chaplain,
“a) provide evidence that any deities exist”
I would argue that our best evidence is in the Bible.
“I haven’t seen much in the way of internal consistency in the Bible”
Could you provide your best example of an internal contradiction?
“b) provide evidence that their claims about the nature of deities are correct and that all other competing deity claims, i.e., Islam, Hindu, etc., are wrong”
I’m not aware of any major Hindu teaching that takes the Vedas as divinely inspired writings, suitable for interpretation for doctrine – like we do with the Bible. Hinduism also tends to be syncretistic (all roads lead to Vishnu).
Similarly for animism, ancestor worship, shamanism, etc. They don’t make the same sorts of claims about divine inspiration and specific attributes of God, or commands. They tend more towards “we are all god” sort of thinking.
We’re pretty much left with the Abrahamics, agree?
“c) provide evidence that one particular understanding of Christianity is correct and the other 34,000+ versions of Christianity are mistaken.”
The 34,000 number is always an exaggeration (counting every independent local church). There are pretty much two camps, plus the outliers. You have your Catholics, and Protestants – then the cults, like Jehovah’s Witness, and Mormons.
Basically, you have a big list of doctrines. Some will put you beyond the pale (the Trinity). Others will keep you from meeting together (or even agreeing on many issues) with differently minded Christians (the continuation of apostolic authority). Then things will cause splits between local groups (plus petty individual rivalries).
cl
says...Ned,
You’re a pretty ambitious guy, I see. As for me, I know inconsistent standards when I see them. Scientists disagree all the time, yet, Chaplain doesn’t require them to meet such stringent criteria at all.
nedsfaith.blogspot.com
says...“Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” Acts 4:13 ;)