God as an Explanation vs. a God Who Acts in the World

This is a distinction that makes a difference. It also makes a great deal of sense. Believers think that if their concept of God can explain the cosmos then automatically ipso facto they have arrived at the God they believe in, who acted in the world. Nope. Not by a long shot. For a god might explain the cosmos and yet not be Yahweh. And even if Yahweh is that god, he might not have raised Jesus from the dead. And even if Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead, he might not be the classical theistic God of Anselm.

Skeptics do not think believers have shown that a God explanation is needed for the cosmos. We think it is an unnecessary hypothesis at best. So we need to see a God who acts in the world. We want evidence that he does. We want to see it. We want to see him do something verifiable, anything.

Christians will retort that their God did act by raising Jesus from the dead. But that was so long ago, in a superstitious pre-scientific era of the past. There is no way such an event can be verified with the historical tools available to us, as I wrote about here. Even if God did act in the historical past there is no way we can know that he did.

In any case, why doesn't God act now in any objective verifiable manner? I don't even have to say in advance what it would take for me to believe. God should already know. But he just doesn't do it. He supposedly knew what it took to convince Abraham, Moses, Gideon, Mary the mother of Jesus, John the Baptist's father, doubting Thomas, and Saul on the Damascus Road. He acted on their behalf. Doing so apparently did not abrogate their freedom. So why doesn't he act today?

The best explanation is that God is a figment of the imagination. He doesn't act because he doesn't exist. He is no different in this respect then the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Christians bristle at these comparisons, I know. But given that God is not a good explanation of the cosmos they are apt and well-deserved ones.

111 comments:

Unknown said...

Well said John. I agree wholeheartedly. It always amazes me the extent to which the religious come up with mealy mouthed explanations for valid points like you just raised. Why is it that God only chooses people in antiquity to show himself to but not everyone (in the personal way that he did with people like Moses). He's god for crying out loud! It's nothing compared to creating creation is it? Just a little word here and there (other than the bible which is an obviously man made book/writings)...

Oh well. I'm sure DM or some other nut has a "viable" explanation.

Anonymous said...

One of the first things that got me suspicious of Christianity, was the fact that in the Bible, we see all kinds of amazing things-healings, water being parted, manna from heaven, people being raised from the dead and more.

But today, it seems like we have nothing. Why is it that God regularly acted in and intervened in the world during Bible times, but has now become silent?

shane said...

I agree, this is one of the questions I have offered up many times before.
Of course I got the usual explanations such as-
"God only reveals Himself to those who seek Him", or, -
"God has revealed Himself in His creation".
But these explanations are clearly copouts. Like the post said- even if this is the result of a supernatural creator, it in no way signifies the biblical God rather then any other (or one we no nothing of)!

The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvka said...

We want evidence that he does. We want to see it. We want to see him do something verifiable, anything.


No. You don't. That's the problem. If you would, you and your buddies here would've embarked for an expedition to Jerusalem already. Instead, you sit comfortable in your psychological armchairs, and tell me that you don't need to see or investigate anything, 'cuz you already "know". Fine. Just drop the act, then, and quit pretending to be something you're obviously not (ie, an Indiana Jones kind of atheist, as the hat you wear in your avatar seems to deceptively suggest..)


he might not be the classical theistic God of Anselm.

He is not the classical theistic God of Anselm.

Unknown said...

Lvka said
(Quoting John)We want evidence that he does. We want to see it. We want to see him do something verifiable, anything.

Saying
No. You don't. That's the problem. If you would, you and your buddies here would've embarked for an expedition to Jerusalem already.


Lvka, do you think that visiting Jerusalem would really show that god was real, or I should say that Yahweh was real? All that would prove was that that area of the world believes in a god name Yahweh. That isn't evidence brother. That's a form of argumentum ad populum.

Visiting sites of supposed miracles and events in history doesn't prove that a god exists. Experiencing the feeling of being in these places doesn't make the belief that a god named Yahweh exists is true.

Rhacodactylus said...

Great Post John,

This is the type of God I'm willing to make some room for the possibility of (don't bristle too much fellow atheists, it's the way I make some room for the possibility that the standard model of physics will be overturned).

The idea that there might be some organizing force behind the universe which has no interest in the human race whatsoever, I might be willing to toy with that concept. . . if people want to call that force or idea or structure God, fine. That is usually about as far down the fanciful deity path as I'm willing to travel.

Lvka, since you are the ones proposing an entity it is your responsibility to provide the evidence for it, that is how science and logic work. Also, why is your all powerful deity only capable of providing proof in Jerusalem? I mean, I guess if he lives there, there could be line of site problems with enacting miracles on the other side of the planet.

John, since you liked the Candiru video I posted a while back, I thought this one about the Kakapo might hit a nerve as well =)


~Rhaco

Thesauros said...

"It's nothing compared to creating creation is it? Just a little word here and there"

That's funny. The existence of the universe (creation) isn't good enough but "a word" would be enough.

Hell's gates are most definitely locked from the inside.

If you really were the investigative type you'd know that the same demonstrations of God's presence and power (as took place in Acts) are occurring within the same context as they did in the New Testament i.e., where the Church is going for the first time.

Of course if you read about such accounts you'd discount this kind of evidence that you'd been demanding and say, "I demand a different kind of evidence!"

Unknown said...

Thesauros... ugh. What part of anecdotal evidence not being sufficient evidence do you not get? Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence when it comes to god. People's characterizations of events that happened in their lives isn't the kind of proof one needs when searching for answers in regards to god. There SHOULD be a much higher standard of evidence than that when you're trying to prove a god. All it does is show that there are people who believe that they have some inside "channel" to god that I or others don't.

Drop the ego dude. You don't have some inside channel to god that the rest of us lowly atheists don't.

Unknown said...

I know your answer though...

i'm not "doing" it right...

Look, I was a Christian for 40 of my 42 years on this planet. I was a tried and true believer and was "born again" three times in my life. Once early on in my youth, once more in my 20's, and then in my late 30's after my mother passed away.

Don't you dare tell me I wasn't Christian enough or I'll reach through the monitor and throttle your neck... ;-)

Beautiful Feet said...

Why don't you accept the testimony of ppl who claim God's work in their lives? From firsthand experience I have known that cynicism allowed me to view evidence but disabled me from embracing and responding to it with trust.

I used to place more trust in science, thinking it perfect, but in fact, it is not. The history of science is riddled with error and with some grievous inhumane results. I used to have a double standard for judging what I felt should be perfection - looking for something to have perfect power. I never knew or understood the perfection of God's grace.

Unknown said...

Beautiful Feet

All throughout history we have thousands of examples of people claiming that god worked in their lives to do something. We even have people claiming that they are the son of god. Some recent examples are David koresh, Jim Jones, Wayne Bent in New Mexico is still alive...

People make all sorts of claims about god in their life. Making the claim doesn't prove the claim. Interpreting events in your life as god doing them adds nothing to the telling of it.

Throughout history, science has pulled back the curtain on the wizard of oz and much that we used to believe was best explained as god has been shown to have more natural explanations.

Science is infallible, but once science finds sufficient proof for a theory and establishes it as fact, no amount of emotion or feelings are going to change it because facts aren't changed by our feelings about them

Unknown said...

science ISN'T infallible is what I meant to say in my final paragraph.

Rhacodactylus said...

I hate it when magical thinkers bring out the "look at all the stuff science was wrong about" card.

That is the beauty of science, it adapts, grows and changes in the face of new evidence, it is not a weakness, it is in fact science's greatest strength.

As far as personal testimony is concerned, skeptic and scientists are just far to familiar with the methods of self deception to accept that as evidence. That is the point of science, to help eliminate the human biases that lead us to the wrong conclusions, it is a whole system designed around keeping us from fooling ourselves . . . beautiful feet, you have sadly missed the point.

~Rhaco

Ken Browning said...

I've been to Jerusalem. Big deal. I've done more than my share of questing. Either those who received overwhelming personal evidence are going to be damned for a lack of faith or the rest of us are damned unfairly.

bob said...

Thesauros - "That's funny. The existence of the universe (creation) isn't good enough but "a word" would be enough."

I wasn't there to witness the beginning. I need a "this years" miracle, thank you.

David J. Houston said...

My comment was too long so I posted it on my blog: http://davidhouston.blogspot.com/2010/10/loftus.html

Jim said...

Beautiful,

Why don't you accept the testimony of ppl who claim God's work in their lives?

Because they're lying (e.g. Peter Popoff).

Perhaps an exaggeration--I should say the probability of them lying is higher than the probability that they are telling the truth.

The other option is that they are not properly attributing or assigning causation.

People who believe homeopathy works, for example, assign the reduction of symptoms to the homeopathic remedy rather than the placebo response, or the fact that a lot of maladies just go away on their own after a time (i.e. a cold, flu, or ear infection).

The same thing happens with the belief that "God has acted in my life." It's simply attributing causation in the wrong place.

We "know" this is true because every religion claims the same things from very different (and incompatible) gods and they can't all be right.

Therefore, I lack any evidence of a God acting in my life, but I have plenty of evidence that people think that some god is acting in their life. The evidence points solidly towards lying or mistaken attribution.

I have no doubt, however, that the belief in God can give one a sense of hope or certain other emotions--similar to viewing a beautiful piece of art, watching talented human beings perform, viewing breathtaking scenery, or more scientifically, experiencing temporal lobe epilepsy.

matt the magnificient said...

just remember what is says in songs of solomon 6;8 "8.There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number." and also leviticus 9;19 "And the fat of the bullock and of the ram, the rump, and that which covereth the inwards, and the kidneys, and the caul above the liver" this is obvious proof of gods existence. I don't see how you could read it any other way.

Walter said...

I copied this from David Houston's response to Loftus from the above link:

God is not obligated to provide evidence acceptable to every single skeptic. In fact, according to Romans 1 you cannot, in a non-culpable way, deny the existence of God because his existence is evident from the things he has created. According to Scripture, skeptics are not skeptics for lack of evidence but rather for a lack in character. Thus, I say, you are lying in saying that you want to see evidence. You see evidence all around you. You simply hate what the evidence points and so suppress the truth.

Well there you have it. We aren't skeptics for lack of sufficient evidence; we're skeptics because we are reprobate trash that hates all things of God.

Since most skeptics don't consider Paul's letters to be divine scripture, then why should we care one whit whether Paul believed we have sufficient evidence to make us morally culpable in our disbelief? Also, even if nature is proof of divine creation, it still in no wise proves that the Christian mythology represents any special revelation from the creator.

Thesauros said...

"That is the point of science, to help eliminate the human biases that lead us to the wrong conclusions"

You mean conclusions like:

There is life on a billion planets.
(zero evidence for this - just personal bias)

Inanimate and inorganic gases evolved into life.
(zero evidence for this - just personal bias)

There exists an infinite number of universes.
(zero evidence for this - just personal bias)

All this and more from the man who said, "I am sceptical of strongly held beliefs in the absence of evidence."

matt the magnificient said...

theosaurous you seem to be confusing "personal bias" with "Statistical likelyhood". don't forget what is says in revelations12;13 " when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child." which clearly demontrates that there are dragons living somewhere in space, and will be cast down to earth to chase women.

John said...

The evidence for a Creator-Designer of the universe is clear to me in the Big Bang and fine tuning found thoughout the universe.

The fact that some scientists have tried to get arround the scientific facts with things like M-theory and multiverses (which have no scientific evidence whatsover) shows how strong the evidence must be. Of course we must look at the TOTAL evidence from both sides of the scales. When we do I think the evidence clearly points towards some form of Theism.

In the Bible they witnessed miracles. Today through scientific astrophics we get to directly witness the miracle of creation along with the Design miracles of the Cosmos.

Unknown said...

There is life on a billion planets.
(zero evidence for this - just personal bias)


Hey, don't you think of our own existence as proof of life in this universe? If you do then why is it so hard to imagine life on other planets in the universe? the very fact that WE exist HERE on this planet is proof positive to me, and many others, that life VERY LIKELY EXISTS on other planets. Until we have proof though, I personally only consider it a possibility. but a very distinct possibility at that.

Inanimate and inorganic gases evolved into life.
(zero evidence for this - just personal bias)


Go look up Dr Jack Szostak (recent Nobel prize winning scientist/doctor) and learn for yourself how far along they are in the study of Abiogenesis. They've created self replicating RNA from scratch buddy. If they can do it in a lab, then out in the wild is much more likely.

There exists an infinite number of universes.
(zero evidence for this - just personal bias)


This one I'm a little more skeptical of (the multiverse theory) but this level of knowledge is so far beyond me that I reserve judgment until it can be proven.

Unknown said...

Cole said,
Of course we must look at the TOTAL evidence from both sides of the scales. When we do I think the evidence clearly points towards some form of Theism.

The best that anyone can do is DEISM, not THEISM Cole... Do you know the difference?

John said...

Les,

Yes I do. If God chose to create and design the universe then He obviously has a will and that would make Him Personal. The Cause also cannot be lesser than the effect.

Thesauros said...

“If they can do it in a lab, then out in the wild is much more likely.”

What? Much MORE likely? Oh, ok, it’s a joke. I get it.

Any ribosyme replication that has taken place, son, has been brought about by the Intelligence of the Ribozyme Engineers:

. Intelligent Designers are the ones who enable self-replication to proceed.

. Intelligent Designers are the ones who select molecules that have a slightly enhanced ligase capacity.

. Intelligent Designers are the ones that preserve the optimal molecules.

. Intelligent Designers are the ones that enrich the molecules by repeated selection and amplification.

. Intelligent Designers are the ones who intervene before any of the other ways that polymerases perform.

. Intelligent Designers are the ones who anticipate the future function in a way that is not possible in nature.

. Intelligent Designers are the ones who choose RNA sequences knowing beforehand the required condition to bring about self-replication.

And then they say, "Look! Life could have arisen by natural means. That it's much more likely? Oh, ok. I get it. It's a joke.

That, is the atheist influence on science. True science, pure science, science uncontaminated by atheist bias could never make such a statement. Under the bigoted drive to eliminate Creator God, that is the only statement that is allowed.

matt the magnificient said...

at cole you said "he fact that some scientists have tried to get arround the scientific facts with things like M-theory and multiverses (which have no scientific evidence whatsover) shows how strong the evidence must be. Of course we must look at the TOTAL evidence from both sides of the scales. When we do I think the evidence clearly points towards some form of Theism."

ok, so lets do this. on one side, you have great scientific minds and their ideas, on the other, some old scrolls written by people who sacrificed goats and chickens to a sky man. i'm not really sure what else to say about the "holy evidence".

at theosaurus intelligent designers were clearly covered in the bible. the book of ezekiel 1; 4-7 "4: And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire.
5: Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man.
6: And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings.
7: And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot: and they sparkled like the colour of burnished brass."
ezekiel 1;19: "And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up."
this clearly shows that aliens in some sort of craft came down to check on their designs, and how they are progressing. the bible really DOES have all the answers!!!!

Unknown said...

Thesauros... Go read up on him. They put in a small set of building components into a solution and the polymers self assembled and then replicated without prompting or set up from the controllers of the experiment.

It turns out that life ISN'T that hard to form and replicate and keep in mind that the early earth was rife with polymers dwarfing the types of polymers that were used in Szostak's experiments...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OwSARYTK7w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

No joke brother. Reality.

The joke is that you'll find some excuse to not listen...

Unknown said...

Thesauros,
If you're rally interested to know, I suggest video 2 that I linked in the last message.

They have done this in the labs... The early Earth had much more time, space, complex chemicals and environmental conditions that made life possible.

You've heard of the mid Atlantic ridges I suspect... Scientists and biologists are leaning more and more to these locations as the place where early life began on this planet.

They have found microbes and animals that live directly ON these vents where the temperature is several hundred to several thousand degrees. Life finds a way to live brother.

It's not as hard as we think it is.

Watch the video and learn a little something.

David J. Houston said...

“Well there you have it. We aren't skeptics for lack of sufficient evidence; we're skeptics because we are reprobate trash that hates all things of God.”

To clarify: You are not necessarily reprobate trash because you do not believe at the present moment. Though I do grant that if you are not given saving faith by the time you die then, yes, you would be reprobate trash. Also, just in case we hear any taunts about Christians being full of themselves or arrogant – the saving faith is not something we deserve. We are just as deserving of death but God has chosen to save us based on his grace alone.

“Since most skeptics don't consider Paul's letters to be divine scripture, then why should we care one whit whether Paul believed we have sufficient evidence to make us morally culpable in our disbelief?”

Well, if what Paul wrote is inspired of God then you should. We can agree, at the least, on that point can we not? I think that it is quite plausible that, if Christianity is true, then God would lower the degree of skepticism you hold in order for you to accept the Bible’s teachings should he desire to save you.

However, my point was simply that since, presumably, Loftus made his post in order to try and convince Christians to give up their belief rather then to preach to his proverbial choir he should realize that his criticisms are in way damaging to Christianity.

“Also, even if nature is proof of divine creation, it still in no wise proves that the Christian mythology represents any special revelation from the creator.”

Never said that it did. That was one of the points I raised.

Unknown said...

David J Houston said

Also, just in case we hear any taunts about Christians being full of themselves or arrogant – the saving faith is not something we deserve. We are just as deserving of death but God has chosen to save us based on his grace alone.

That's not grace David. That's coercion.

David J. Houston said...

EDIT: I meant to write, "he should realize that his criticisms are not in anyway damaging to Christianity".

Papalinton said...

Hi Thesauros
Intelligent design is a dead duck in the water, and no amount of resuscitation is going to resurrect it. Get the pun?

Theo, I also think, in fact I am certain, you have mis-read or misinterpreted "Creator God" with "Create-a-God".

It's so easy to deceive oneself when your head is filled with theo-jelly.

Sheesh.

David J. Houston said...

Care to elaborate, Les?

Jayman said...

John:

Believers think that if their concept of God can explain the cosmos then automatically ipso facto they have arrived at the God they believe in, who acted in the world.

Sophisticated believers do not believe this. They believe that general revelation and special revelation point to compatible views of God.

Skeptics do not think believers have shown that a God explanation is needed for the cosmos. We think it is an unnecessary hypothesis at best.

Many (most?) arguments from natural theology do not posit God as an explanation or hypothesis. Rather they are deductive arguments that show God probably exists. What is relevant is whether such arguments are valid and sound, not whether they are unnecessary hypotheses.

We want evidence that he does. We want to see it. We want to see him do something verifiable, anything.

I searched this blog to see if you addressed Thomas Aquinas' arguments that God is sustaining the universe from moment to moment and came up empty. Perhaps a series of blog posts on this subject can help believers understand why you don't see your continual existence as evidence of God acting in the here and now.

In any case, why doesn't God act now in any objective verifiable manner?

Now you're just begging the question. There are countless accounts of miracles from the present day. Have you seriously investigated these accounts or are you just assuming they are all fiction?

He is no different in this respect then the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Christians bristle at these comparisons, I know. But given that God is not a good explanation of the cosmos they are apt and well-deserved ones.

Either the FSM and IPC are not thought of as First Causes or they are. If they are then the terms are just synonyms for God. If they are not then the comparison is not apt.

Anonymous said...

David, correct me if I'm wrong, but you sound like a Calvinist? Are you indeed, a calvinist? If you are, then we are chosen by God to be reprobate trash before the foundation of the world. Why do you blame us for this? Shouldn't you blame God? If he chose us to go to hell before the foundation of the world, then there is nothing we can do about it? Argue with God. Don't argue with us. After all, he's the one who chose us for eternal damnation, not us.

Anonymous said...

Oops, David. Sorry for the numerous typos involving question marks. Sheesh. :-)

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ Theo & Cole

With regard to the alleged fine tuning of the Universe, you are suffering from a serious case of backward thinking. Carbon based life is not the PURPOSE of the Universe, it is a result of the natural processes that proceed from the Universe as it exists. Simply because WE developed in a specific fashion based on the physical constants extant in the Universe in no way implies that such conditions are the ONLY way life could arise. Nor do they imply that those constants were 'fine tuned' to allow carbon based life to proliferate. To argue that human life and our 5,000 years of civilization are the PURPOSE of the entire cosmos is among the most arrogant conceits imaginable.

With regard to the likely existence of life on billions of planets, no one claims that such a thing is NECESSARILY true, merely that the evidence here on Earth coupled with statistics make it almost inevitable. The proliferation of life here on Earth in virtually every conceivable environment, and in many heretofore inconceivable environments, provides incredibly strong evidence that carbon based life is capable of proliferation in an incredibly wide array of environments. And Earth only presents one potential chemical pathway for life. Even if one were to assume that carbon based life is the only kind of life possible, statistics would make the existence of such life almost inevitable. Indeed just last week we discovered a 1.5G world within the habitable zone of Gilese less than 20ly away.

Finally, your contention that RNA production experiments constitutes evidence for intelligent design completely misunderstands the nature of the evidence presented. The experiments conclusively demonstrated how easily the building blocks of life can form in the high energy aqueous environment that existed in the primordial Earth. The fact that at the same time you had a global ocean with countless septillions of organic compounds combining and recombining over hundreds of millions of years makes the formation of a self-replicating molecule FAR more likely in the wild than in any lab. And as those molecules that replicate best create the most copies, once that first one managed, life and evolution were off to the races.

It is sad to me that you cannot see the beauty and grace of our existence without needing to resort to magic. Is the Grand Canyon made less affecting, less profund and marvelous because it is merely the work of time, gravity and water? Is its beauty lessened because it was not an act of conscious authorship? If so, I pity you.

Unknown said...

Sure David.

You call it gods grace that he's letting you live a life of eternity once you die in this "plane of existence" IF, and only if, you accept that he killed his son to assuage your sins.

There is a condition there... he's not letting you in unless you believe it.

If you don't, you're (how did Walter put it) reprobate trash. And this coming from the "father of us all"

The shepherds and Bedouins who made up the story of Jesus' life, and any other religions that they formed in that part of the world, THOUGHT they were thinking big when they made this shit up. You can likely throw all kinds of "proofs" that Jesus was a real person and that he died for our sins, but it's all insignificant to the reality of the universe my friend.

Hell, they thought the stars and moon and the sun revolved around the earth... And you want to look to THEM as the source of absolute morality and ethics?

Unknown said...

In other words, that's COERCION. There is no free will there. Who's gonna choose hell over heaven (if they even exist).

There is no grace there. It's him holding a hammer over your head and if you don't do as he wants, splat.

Unknown said...

In a world still filled with SOOOOOO much mystery, why do you think it is that humans believe with ABSOLUTE certainty that they have DEFINITIVELY answered the question of the ORIGIN of ALL things? Does it NOT strain credibility to actually believe that though we don’t possess a complete understanding of our own brain function, let alone millions of other things, that we have somehow MASTERED the maintenance of our immortal souls (which are as of yet still unprovable)?

Does that even SEEM logical?

Yet here we are, with a majority of the world’s population believing in one doctrine of faith or another, because they think that they are SO complex that there just HAS to be something more. Because there is SO much in the world, AND in the universe that has yet to EVEN be discovered, let alone UNDERSTOOD… Religious folk would rather have these mysteries remain, because it’s much easier to observe a tree than it is to discover photosynthesis, chlorophyll and the life cycle of individual types of trees.

Throughout history, EVERY mystery that has EVER been solved has turned out to be… NOT magic (which is the default claim of all miracle witnessing proponents)… Science has PULLED back the curtains on the Wizard of Oz COUNTLESS times, and MUCH that the world claimed used to belong to the supernatural, and by extension god, has been shown to have more natural explanations… Yet faith is still a virtue, except when it’s faith associated with people like the Muslims who flew the planes into the buildings in NYC and Washington…

Faith is the denial of observation, so that BELIEF can be preserved.

Walter said...

I think that it is quite plausible that, if Christianity is true, then God would lower the degree of skepticism you hold in order for you to accept the Bible’s teachings should he desire to save you.

"If Christianity is true" is the big IF.

If Calvinism is true, then whether I believe or not is completely out of my control and subject to the whims of a deity who plays favorites with his children.

stephsharpe said...

What is your view on the cosmos then?

Papalinton said...

Hi David J Houston

The raft of christian cults, from catholicism to the dizzying array of protestant variants, together with its sibling, judaism, are writings from pre-scientific bronze/iron age goat-herds, living in the middle of a desert, hot as hell, and sweating their asses off to eke out an existence. Their writings were all about asking, "Why the hell is all this happening to me? And I'm scared of the thunder and the lightning and the floods. I hate it when the Egyptians come across the border and do my family in, or the Mesopotamians. Jesus christ I wish I had someone to take me away from all this shit."

And thus was born a legend.

All those inexplicable challenges of living, became bearable. I think this was the first time Dale Carnegie's power of positive thinking came to be understood [Persiflage David, persiflage]. It was the first practical example of what today's psychologists terms as 'transference' in which the mind is able to develop mental states and conditions to mitigate damaging and destructive thought patterns.

Unfortunately, it has taken medicine, and the advent of neuro-science two thousand years to catch up in research that is now just beginning to provide a direct link and causative base for what goes for 'belief' as a substitute for reality in our minds.

Religion was borne out of our prehistoric beginnings and the time is now to let go as humanity reaches a different and sophisticated level of maturity. Loftus is living testimony to the transition that is beginning to gather great momentum.

Cheers

stephsharpe said...

Also, you say that God proved Himself to a list of people that you named, but they were people who already believed in God and didn't need proof. Paul knew there was God, but he didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah until his journey to Damascus. Can you name me anyone that was an Athiest or nonChristian that became a Christian because God "revealed" Himself to them? I'm pretty sure not.
God never had to reveal Himself to me for me to believe and yet I believe? May you give me an explanation for as to why I am a Christian that has nothing to do with me being ignorant because I have read the Bible inside and out and can't see any flaws in its Truth that can't be explained by reason.

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ StephSharpe

If you are like many Christians, there was no need for God to 'reveal himself' to you because you were raised in Him before you knew how to read or process information.

There is fascinating research on the brain's ability to reject information that does not conform to preconceived notions of how the world works even when confronted with irrefutable evidence. It isn't ignorance or stupidity, it is merely biology. We like things that reinforce what we believe, that make us feel smart and validated. We dislike the opposite. And there are few preconceived notions more deeply embedded than the Religion spoonfed since birth.

As far as the alleged internal consistency of the Bible's Truth, firstly, reason alone cannot explain the myriad inconsistencies and contradictions contained therein. Secondly, even if we were to accept arguendo that the Bible IS internallly consistent, internal consistency in no way implies external truth. Harry Potter is internally consistent. The Lord of the Rings is internally consistent. Neither is externally true merely by virtue of internal consistency.

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@StephSharpe

And as to your example of an Atheist who became a believer, you might try C.S. Lewis.

David J. Houston said...

Mike said:

“David, correct me if I'm wrong, but you sound like a Calvinist? Are you indeed, a calvinist? If you are, then we are chosen by God to be reprobate trash before the foundation of the world. Why do you blame us for this? Shouldn't you blame God? If he chose us to go to hell before the foundation of the world, then there is nothing we can do about it? Argue with God. Don't argue with us. After all, he's the one who chose us for eternal damnation, not us.”

Yes, I am a Calvinist. Meaning I am the scum of not only the secular humanist world but also a good portion of the Christian world. I guess peer pressure never worked on me… :P As you probably know, Calvinists are compatibilists and certainly within the “faith seeking understanding” tradition. As such, I can give some arguments to mitigate against the charge that God is responsible for our sins due to his determination of our actions such as providing frankfurt-style counterexamples, the fact that God’s causing an event has a different sense then human causation (Doctrine of Analogy), secondary-causation, and a whole bunch of ad hominem arguments against those who believe that libertarian free-will is necessary for responsibility, those who promote atheistic compatibilism but decry theistic compatibilism, etc. But, admittedly, this does not resolve the mystery. However, I still believe that the Christian can have enough warrant for these beliefs despite the apparent contradiction. It actually would seem to follow from the traditional doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God!

David J. Houston said...

Les said:

“You call it gods grace that he's letting you live a life of eternity once you die in this "plane of existence" IF, and only if, you accept that he killed his son to assuage your sins.

There is a condition there... he's not letting you in unless you believe it.

If you don't, you're (how did Walter put it) reprobate trash. And this coming from the "father of us all".”

And added,

“In other words, that's COERCION. There is no free will there. Who's gonna choose hell over heaven (if they even exist).

There is no grace there. It's him holding a hammer over your head and if you don't do as he wants, splat.”

Firstly, is what you are calling “coercion” so evil? Suppose that you were in a room with a serial child-molester and murderer who was on his way to the electric chair. Suppose further that you had the authority to offer him a pardon if he chose to turn from his evil ways and come work for you. Otherwise, you might remind, he would go to the chair. Is your offer a form of coercion? If it is then I see no problem with it. It seems to me like another option then being justly punished.

Secondly, if you were familiar with Christianity you would realize that this ‘condition’ is not only given to us by God but also met by him on our behalf. He meets his own condition for us whom he has effectually called to faith. Therefore, his grace
is actually unconditional.

“The shepherds and Bedouins who made up the story of Jesus' life, and any other religions that they formed in that part of the world, THOUGHT they were thinking big when they made this shit up. You can likely throw all kinds of "proofs" that Jesus was a real person and that he died for our sins, but it's all insignificant to the reality of the universe my friend.”

That’s an assertion that needs some support. I doubt that you’ll find any credible evidence for it considering how the vast majority of historians would agree that (at the very least!) Jesus was, in fact, a real person, that he died, and the tomb was empty on the third day. I think that Bill Craig has done fantastic work in this area and, as I said in my blog post, I have not seen anyone beat him in debate on this issue. Even Loftus’ beloved Richard Carrier.

“Hell, they thought the stars and moon and the sun revolved around the earth... And you want to look to THEM as the source of absolute morality and ethics?”

Another interesting assertion but, again, without any support. Steve Hays over at Triablogue has been doing a significant amount of posting on this issue that you should take a look at. But for fun, let’s assume that they did in fact believe as you say. Would that in any way rule out the possibility that God working in and through them to provide us with inerrant Scriptures? I see no reason for answering in the affirmative. But perhaps you can think of a few that would not beg the question…

David J. Houston said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David J. Houston said...

“If you are like many Christians, there was no need for God to 'reveal himself' to you because you were raised in Him before you knew how to read or process information.

There is fascinating research on the brain's ability to reject information that does not conform to preconceived notions of how the world works even when confronted with irrefutable evidence. It isn't ignorance or stupidity, it is merely biology. We like things that reinforce what we believe, that make us feel smart and validated. We dislike the opposite. And there are few preconceived notions more deeply embedded than the Religion spoonfed since birth.”

If we are biologically determined in such a rationality defeating way does this not cut both ways? Couldn’t someone who grew up in an Atheistic environment gain sufficient warrant(at least hypothetically) to reject his former atheistic beliefs and embrace theistic beliefs? How do you handle cases of people who have crossed over to the other side of the debate? If people have crossed over what does this say about your argument?

stephsharpe said...

@ Jeffrey

I'm actually taking a course on C. S. Lewis right now, but God didn't reveal Himself to Him, Lewis came to his own conclusions.
Also, what would happen if I didn't live in a Christian home, which I didn't? Then how would you explain something of that sort? Living in a society that we live in today, most people are not Christians, so Biology does not work here. Also, Biology can bring evidence for the existance of God and at the same time can't prove the existance, so using the argument of Biology does not work.

Thesauros said...

After reading this flurry of comments I find this all just to sad to stick around. However, Papaliton, I really want to thank you for sending me off with a laugh. I love twists on words and I haven't heard this one before.

"I am certain, you have mis-read or misinterpreted "Creator God" with "Create-a-God"."

Funny stuff. Thanks and good luck.

Jim said...

Stephsharpe,

Somebody (Christian) handed me a C.S.Lewis book a few years ago as a means to proselytize to me. They thought his arguments were iron-clad, or something.

I found myself writing so many disagreeable notes in the margins of the book that I gave up reading the book after about 45 pages. "Mere Christianity," at least, was utter bullshit. If the rest of his logic and philosophy is as bad as what I read, I don't think there's much to study.

Walter said...

Jayman says:


Now you're just begging the question. There are countless accounts of miracles from the present day. Have you seriously investigated these accounts or are you just assuming they are all fiction?


Show me these miracles of which you speak.

Jayman said...

Walter, if you want to directly experience a miracle then you will have to do some miracle-hunting of your own. If you want to read about modern-day miracles you can search the internet for starters. Perhaps look at the canonization process for Catholic saints. A quick search of Loftus' blog showed no entries refuting various miracle accounts. Is he just making assumptions or has he actually researched the topic?

Anonymous said...

You talk an awful lot about evidence, but as usual, you're sort of missing the point. The question is not "Do you have evidence?" it is "Why do you need evidence?"

Why do you need evidence for everything you believe? I mean, you're not going to sit here and try to tell me that you have the type of evidence you require for God, *that* type of evidence, for *everything* you believe? Seriously?

I mean, I go start my car every day, blithely assuming that there is no car bomb attached to the ignition. I believe my car is safe, even though I have no video evidence from the night before that it hasn't been tampered with, so, it's a foregone conclusion that since nobody has evidence for everything they believe, the syllogism:

1. I must have evidence to believe a thing.
2. I do not have evidence for God.
Therefore, I do not believe in God.

...just doesn't hold. We all believe all kinds of things we don't have evidence for. And don't say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," because the claim that there is a God is not extraordinary. It's ordinary. No, actually it's beyond that: it's quite banal. The vast majority of people on the planet believe that there is a supernatural god or gods, and Christianity is exceedingly popular, worldwide.

Anonymous said...

Also, why do so many atheists not understand what faith is? Faith is not "believing something you know isn't true" or "believing something you have no evidence for" it's choosing to believe evidence for something you hope for. "Faith is the assurance of things not seen, the knowledge of things hoped for."

Listen: Christianity teaches that people cannot be saved without faith. So, this proposed path to belief of seeing undeniable proof, then believing, then becoming a Christian, would not work. "By grace are you saved, through faith..." So, if such "proof" existed, (not that you would ever call *anything* proof) it would actually invalidate God's plan of salvation! If you can prove Jesus is God's son; there, you have finally, completely, and ironically ruined the whole thing. Proof annihilates faith, and faith is necessary for salvation.

The Bible says that "Without faith, no one can see God," and I don't think enough atheists understand that verse. It basically means that you have to want to believe in God before you are going to see *anything* approximating "evidence." Sorry. Faith is a virtue, and until you grasp that, you are going to continue to ask the wrong questions. A good analogy would be trying to use science to figure out who you love. Apples and oranges.

I actually don't bristle at all with FSM or unicorn comparisons, because I lost my faith for years: I can see myself through your eyes. I can see how it seems loony to talk about so many unseen things. But, I've also seen the undeniable transformative power that God can have on people's lives. A good analogy is love: love makes people crazy, too, but haven't you seen good love transform someone's life? Does the fact that love makes people behave irrationally, and not everyone believes in it or trusts it, and we can't prove it exists mean that love really doesn't exist? "He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for GOD IS LOVE." If you can believe in love, you can believe in God.

You're right, why should Christians be offended by comparisons to fairy tales? And furthermore, why should atheists be offended by how Christians view them? I mean, the most offensive thing a Christian can say to an atheist is "You know that you're going to hell, don't you?" but why should that be any more offensive than, "You know that the Easter Bunny is going to beat you up, don't you?" Atheists don't believe in hell, so why do they find any mention of it so offensive? They should just laugh, but oddly, I haven't seen any of them do it.

Anonymous said...

Also, why do so many atheists not understand what faith is? Faith is not "believing something you know isn't true" or "believing something you have no evidence for" it's choosing to believe evidence for something you hope for. "Faith is the assurance of things not seen, the knowledge of things hoped for."

Listen: Christianity teaches that people cannot be saved without faith. So, this proposed path to belief of seeing undeniable proof, then believing, then becoming a Christian, would not work. "By grace are you saved, through faith..." So, if such "proof" existed, (not that you would ever call *anything* proof) it would actually invalidate God's plan of salvation! If you can prove Jesus is God's son; there, you have finally, completely, and ironically ruined the whole thing. Proof annihilates faith, and faith is necessary for salvation.

The Bible says that "Without faith, no one can see God," and I don't think enough atheists understand that verse. It basically means that you have to want to believe in God before you are going to see *anything* approximating "evidence." Sorry. Faith is a virtue, and until you grasp that, you are going to continue to ask the wrong questions. A good analogy would be trying to use science to figure out who you love. Apples and oranges.

Anonymous said...

I actually don't bristle at all with FSM or unicorn comparisons, because I lost my faith for years: I can see myself through your eyes. I can see how it seems loony to talk about so many unseen things. But, I've also seen the undeniable transformative power that God can have on people's lives. A good analogy is love: love makes people crazy, too, but haven't you seen good love transform someone's life? Does the fact that love makes people behave irrationally, and not everyone believes in it or trusts it, and we can't prove it exists mean that love really doesn't exist? "He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for GOD IS LOVE." If you can believe in love, you can believe in God.

You're right, why should Christians be offended by comparisons to fairy tales? And furthermore, why should atheists be offended by how Christians view them? I mean, the most offensive thing a Christian can say to an atheist is "You know that you're going to hell, don't you?" but why should that be any more offensive than, "You know that the Easter Bunny is going to beat you up, don't you?" Atheists don't believe in hell, so why do they find any mention of it so offensive? They should just laugh, but oddly, I haven't seen any of them do it.

Walter said...

1. I must have evidence to believe a thing.
2. I do not have evidence for God.
Therefore, I do not believe in God.

...just doesn't hold. We all believe all kinds of things we don't have evidence for. And don't say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," because the claim that there is a God is not extraordinary. It's ordinary. No, actually it's beyond that: it's quite banal. The vast majority of people on the planet believe that there is a supernatural god or gods, and Christianity is exceedingly popular, worldwide.


That is just an argumentum ad populum fallacy. The majority of the people in the world have held wrong views about many different things throughout history.

Walter said...

The Bible says that "Without faith, no one can see God," and I don't think enough atheists understand that verse. It basically means that you have to want to believe in God before you are going to see *anything* approximating "evidence." Sorry. Faith is a virtue, and until you grasp that, you are going to continue to ask the wrong questions. A good analogy would be trying to use science to figure out who you love. Apples and oranges.

The problem with using faith in the manner you speak of is that a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or Mormon can make the exact same argument to prop up their particular belief systems. It boils down to saying that you have to WANT to believe before you will believe.

Walter said...

I mean, the most offensive thing a Christian can say to an atheist is "You know that you're going to hell, don't you?" but why should that be any more offensive than, "You know that the Easter Bunny is going to beat you up, don't you?"

What is offensive is the fact that many Christians say that with such obvious glee because they are miffed that someone dares to doubt the dogmas of their particular church. What they are really saying is, "How dare you disagree with me! You'll get what is coming to you for disagreeing with me."

Are you offended when a Muslim tells you, that as a Christian, you and your family are going to burn in hell for rejecting God's final prophet?

matt the magnificient said...

@ pammalamma you said "I mean, I go start my car every day, blithely assuming that there is no car bomb attached to the ignition."

unless you have some serious enemies, or live in an area where this is a concern, thats a pretty silly arguement. but what about every day decisions? do you blithely assume that you can trust every babysitter or daycare when it comes to your children, or do you investigate and look for evidence to prove you can? when you cross a street do you close your eyes and start walking, or look for evidence that it is safe to do so? i can use extreme analogies to make anything seem crazy just like you did.

and why is it that all the writers of the bible were privy to being shown "miracles" as proof of god and jesus's validity and power, but noone else is? again, the atheist point is this: there is no evidence to support the claim that there is a god, especially an ancient book with unknown authors, full of contradictions and myths. in closing, i would ask you: if god is "love", as you claim, then please explain the mass murder of thousands of innocent firstborn children in egypt by his order. or, conversely, prove it happened in the first place. lets start there, shall we?

Unknown said...

This is off topic, but I'm an ex-fundie who used to attend the infamous Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY back in 2006. Yeah, the seminary where Albert Mohler resides as the fundie leader. The Intelligent Design lunatic William Dembski was actually one of my professors while I attended there.

I browse some of the student blogs from time to time just to throw in a few comments and stir the pot. I ran across this one particular student's blog (see web address below). He wrote a blog titled:

"Rutgers student suicide highlights growing sin problem."

I read through it, and it is one of the most dogmatic, homophobic blogs I have ever read, including the comments. There aren't many comments so far responding to his drivel, but the nature of this blog almost demands a response from some knowledgeable skeptics. I thought maybe some of the biology majors in this site and equal rights supporters would have some fun chiming in on this one. This guy seriously needs his ass kicked in this debate he's started. His list of reasons in the comments section of why homosexuality is harmful to society is sickening. The blog address is listed below.


http://www.examiner.com/reformed-theology-in-atlanta/rutgers-student-suicide-highlights-growing-sin-problem#comment-12344256

Russ said...

pammalamma,
You said,

But, I've also seen the undeniable transformative power that God can have on people's lives.

No, you've never seen the actions of a god, yours or anyone else's. What you are observing is the transformative power of human social groups. I've seen people's lives transformed by bowling leagues, wood carving clubs, atheist groups, philosophy discussion groups and political parties. When a person gets involved; gets positive feedback; and, is somewhat respected for their thoughts and opinions and participation there is a natural uplift in their emotional and psychological state. Religious involvement can be one such social endeavor, but it is far from the only one. Sadly, when a positive personal change happens in a religious social setting, the religious intentionally overlook their group's social affects and erroneously attribute the affect to traditional superstitions like gods. That is a misattribution and a misplaced gratitude. Notice that when the lives of the religious go to shit, their god is never thanked for that. Their god only gets the credit if the result is what those religious believers consider positive to the image of their god. It's a sad and sick and socially supported means of self-deception.

Lives are frequently changed when people get off their dead asses, get away from the television and the internet and get connected to other like-minded people. You have never seen the transformative power of a god, any god, on a person's life. All you will have ever witnessed is the transformative power we humans have on each other. That you must lie and attribute it to a god is one of the worst failings of the Christian church.

Jim said...

Russ,

Amen, brutha!

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@Pammalamma

Others have adroitly handled your misattribution problems regarding the 'transformative power of God' argument, your ad populum fallacy and your inapt car bomb analogy.

I would simply like to address the ongoing conflation between God and Love.

God is not Love. Indeed, your God is not LOVING. Pursuant to your own mythology, God is Love, yet God will absolutely condemn a human being to endless, eternal torture in the pit of damnation simply by virtue of him being human and not accepting his 'love.'

God's alleged omnipotence clearly means that God COULD love those human beings enough to spare them eternal torment, but that he CHOOSES not to do so. Indeed, God actively chooses to condemn those he allegedly loves to ETERNAL torment based solely on the fact that they did not love Him for a few measley decades.

Is it really conceivable that an ETRNAL being, one who has already been in existence for countless trillions of years would be so petty and small and trifling as to condemn a monkey from the back end of the Cosmos to eternal damnation simply because that monkey didn't return his love for a few DECADES? How can you possibly justify a GOOGLE years of torment and torture based on a few decades of rejection.

Is your God truly so petty and small? No better than a jilted, jealous ex-lover?

I have cared for a number of women in my life. A few, I have loved deeply and totally. Some of those I loved did not love me back or never loved me to begin with. To be sure, such a thing is heartrending, painful, sad. It results in grief and loss and disappointment. But never in my wildest dreams have I ever wanted to condemn any of the women I've loved to even a moment of TORTURE simply because they didn't love me. Let alone condemn them to a lifetime or an ETERNITY of despair and wretchedness and pain. To the contrary, I still love those I loved because of what they meant to me during the time we had.

The thought that God, that the Creator of the Great All has less perspective than me, a mere monkey is insulting. The thought that God, the Sovereign of the Universe has less perspective than a stalker ex-boyfriend is just pitiful. Yet this is what the ancient texts explicitly advocate.

Unknown said...

I second Jim's Amen and doubly on Jeffrey's comment... Both very articulately said and perfect responses to lil ole Pammalamma. Not that any of it will sink in but one can hope. I can see her in my minds eye, contorting logic and reason to try and wiggle out of the box you both so eloquently boxed her in.

I see a redirection of the argument coming on. Religious folk are like that. Box them in in one regard and they bring up another point.

It's like the YouTuber named Evid3nce (highly recommend his videos) said in one of his earliest videos he did. Religion is like a multi-noded mega belief. If you attack one or more nodes of the belief, the other nodes pick up the slack and keep the person believing. After demolishing one node of the belief they shift to another until the original node can "grow" back or they can retwist their mind around it.

Another way to think of debate when it comes to religion is that it's like a game of Whack-a-Mole...

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

It was always fascinated at how spectacularly Yaweh and Jehovah both fail Anselm's Greatest Conceivable Being Test. Even if one is kind enough to overlook the tautologies and mathematical sleight of hand, Yaweh and Jehovah (and Allah) clearly fall well short of the Greatest Conceivable Being standard.

At best, they beings described in General and Special Revelations are parochial entities, riven with internal conflict, both wrathful and condemning and allegedly loving. Clearly Anselm's GCB would possess the infinite love necessary to forgive a poor monkey for a few decades of unbelief and would be understanding and solicitous if death were to sadly take that poor monkey before he had a chance to repent, yet Yaweh and Jehovah both clearly lack. Clearly a being who can love and forgives those who wrong them is greater than a being who cannot. Indeed, the bible explicity advocates precisely that.

I am always puzzled why theists even resort to the Anselmian formulation at all. While it may present a viable alternative for a soft Deist, it provides no refuge whatsoever for Christianity.

I want to address one other issue - the faith and evidence issue. Do the Pammallamas of the world really not understand that ALL of these ancient tracts use that exact same trick? They ALL claim to be authored by God - that's what makes them 'sacred.' They all disclaim evidence, instead demanding that we take their word on faith.

The holocaust denier wants desperately to believe and hopes that the holocaust did not happen and has hardened his mind against all manner of evidence refuting his claim, does that make the holocaust denier's 'faith' a virtue?

Your formulation of 'faith' applies to all manner of conspiracy theorists, drug addicts, crackpots, lunatics, alien abductees, who all believe in phenomena despite evidence to the contrary, yet theists would not describe their 'faith' as a virtue. Nor would they accept the beliefs of such people (or people of other faiths) to be true in any real or objective sense. Apparently standards of evidence ONLY apply to OTHER faiths and belief systems.

trae norsworthy said...

Believers think that if their concept of God can explain the cosmos then automatically ipso facto they have arrived at the God they believe in, who acted in the world.
You are implying that the idea came before any which you are unable to substantiate.

You are overlooking that people experience general and special revelation. You are also conveniently avoiding the alternative; the nontheist explanation of why there is something rather than nothing.

This is straight out of the dawkins/dennet playbook. Where did the “concept” come from?

We want to see him do something verifiable, anything.
you are criticizing the amount of revelation God has provided which requires smuggled in authority.

http://thegdebate.blogspot.com/2010/09/l-52.html

There is no way such an event can be verified with the historical tools available to us, as I wrote about here. Even if God did act in the historical past there is no way we can know that he did.
habermas has made a definitive case contra your claim

http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Jesus-Ancient-Evidence-Christ/dp/0899007325/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1286814743&sr=8-1

I don't even have to say in advance what it would take for me to believe. God should already know.
some people are stubborn. Or they quit when the going gets tough.

He is no different in this respect then the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
I can’t say I agree

http://thegdebate.blogspot.com/2010/08/l-31.html

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ Trae

The 'concept' came from the same place all human concepts come from, the human mind. Ancient humans looked up at the stars and had no understanding of what they were looking at. They saw bright sparkling lights like fires seen from a distance and luminous objects that hovered seemingly right overhead but were untouchable. They had no mechanism for explaining these things, so they did what all humans do when they encounter something they cannot explain, they extrapolate out as best they can using what they know about the world. And so they came up with ideas about magical beings who inhabited the sky, who floated overhead, who oversaw all of the various physical phenomena that lay beyond their limited understanding.

The idea of Gods is not some special revelation, it is a technological innovation, a methodological technology, a means of understanding the world cooked up by people without the tools or technology to know what they were actually looking at. The people who dreamed up fantastical coyotes and dragons and titans are no more the recipients of 'special revelations' than those who dreamed up the Omni-Deities the Abrahamaic traditions favor. They just happened to craft a more sophisticated, useful and less empirically falsifiable methodological technology than their forebearers.

Your conceit that you are the recipient of some 'Revelation' is quaint but falls far short given the fact that many of these so-called revelations are contradictory and nearly all are expressly mutually exclusive.

You claim that the request for verifiable evidence of a belief system constitutes 'smuggled in authority,' and yet you yourself routinely utilize the same allged authority in discounting the special revelations of Muhammed, Joseph Smith, Gutama Siddhartha, L. Ron Hubbard, et. al. It should be noted that all of them claimed special revelation and based on personal experiences analogous to those in your preferred fairy tale. None of these alleged revelations necessitate the conclusion that any of said revelations are REAL. The fact that you feel free to dismiss their claims despite the fact that they are equally as grounded in 'faith' as yours merely reflects your personal, cultural and geographical biases, nothing more.

The fact is that Religion says NOTHING about the Creator of the Great All (assuming it exists) it is merely a window into our evolving understanding of ourselves.

The fact is that we understand ourselves, our world, our evolution, cosmic evolution, and the origins of everything better than the ancients ever could have. They would have KILLED to know the things we know, to be able to see the things we have seen. The fact that you prefer bronze age methodological tools for understanding the Universe is, of course, your call - just know that humanity has much better tools available. You might try looking into them.

Unknown said...

Jeffrey Myers with the smackdown!

BAM! I mean DAMN!

Like most religious people, they just haven't thought about it enough but more often than not they totally miss what you're saying.

It's a shame.

Unknown said...

A couple of thoughts. One that is sort of deeply cosmic. Consider a couple of fundamental facts that have been gleaned in the last 50-60 years. If you had asked your chemistry teacher years ago (while staring at the very first periodic table you ever saw), "Where did the elements of the periodic table come from?" The chemistry teacher would actually have NOT had a very good answer to that question. They'd say, "Well, we dig them out of the earth", etc...

That's NOT where they come from. It took modern astrophysics to determine the origin of the chemical elements. We've observed stars... We know what goes on in their centers... They explode daily... Laying bare their contents to our optical/x-ray/radio telescopes and spectrometers, and what we've discovered so far is that the elements of the periodic table... THAT which we are made of, is derived from the actions of stars that have manufactured these elements in their innards. Exploding and scattering their enriched guts across the universe to recollect and add fuel to other clouds of gasses that then form a next generation of stars, populated by planets that form from the detritus of that earlier generation of stars.

When you look at the ingredients of the universe, the number one ingredient is hydrogen, next comes helium, then oxygen, carbon and nitrogen, etc. Those are the top ingredients in the universe and account for upwards of 90% of the mass of the universe. You'll likely say, "Oh yeah, that's kind of cool". But you're looking at earth and saying, "Aren't WE special, god made us and his son Jesus was sacrificed so that we can go to heaven with him?!"
Look, what is our body mainly made up of? Water right? H2O. Hydrogen and Oxygen, "Hmmmmmm, hydrogen and oxygen" If you rank the elements in the human body, with the exception of helium which is chemically inert... Useless to you except to inhale and make funny noises like the Chipmunks do... ;-P You can't die from helium unless that's ALL you breath for an extended period of time... So the number one element in the human body is hydrogen. Hey, matches the universe! Number two? Oxygen, matches the universe! Number 3, carbon, matches the universe! Number 4? Nitrogen, matches the universe! The rest of the body? "other", other elements that fluctuate daily (think taking a dump).

So, we've learned in the last 50 years, that of course not only do we exist in this universe. It is the universe ITSELF which exists within us... we are MADE of star stuff. "God" is within us, if you will, because the ultimate ruler over us as people are the laws of the universe that we've discerned over the millenia until now. That never changes, and miracles, events which "bend" the laws of nature, aren't a reality. Jesus didn't come back to life 3 days after being sacrificed on a cross. Continuing to believe in superstitious gods that were made up in the infancy of our species sociologically...? Not any more for me... It's just a waste of time to me to continue believing in it.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Part 2
So, we've learned in the last 50 years, that of course not only do we exist in this universe. It is the universe ITSELF which exists within us... we are MADE of star stuff. "God" is within us, if you will, because the ultimate ruler over us as people are the laws of the universe that we've discerned over the millenia until now. That never changes, and miracles, events which "bend" the laws of nature, aren't a reality. Jesus didn't come back to life 3 days after being sacrificed on a cross. Continuing to believe in superstitious gods that were made up in the infancy of our species sociologically...? Not any more for me... It's just a waste of time to me to continue believing in it.

When I look up at the night sky now, I'm humbled at the immensity of the universe around us. With my new found understanding of things, I don't feel discouraged at all, or scared, or lonely; because I don't have a celestial daddy looking over me in this brief time of consciousness. I look up at the night sky and feel a sense of oneness with the universe. To me, it's no longer "it's there", and "we're here"... We are part of it, and that association for me is actually very comforting, enlightening and ennobling. In fact, it's kind of spiritual to me and if I had to define god, that would be it. Knowing that the stuff I'm made of is part and parcel of the universe. In fact, when you get down to the atomic and sub atomic levels of our "being", there is almost no difference between us all. If you follow the logic, you SHOULD love your neighbor as yourself... they ARE yourself... Instead, we have these competing interpretations of childish gods who read more like an angry parent than as a god would likely behave. But I look at the sky and feel a sense of belonging in the cosmic sense.

But now think about this. We're made of the ingredients that are most common in the universe, and we already KNOW that OUR form of life exists (water based life). There MIGHT be other forms of life like silicon based life... Who knows? Our form of life might do fine around yellow dwarf stars... Maybe silicate life would do better around other types of stars, like neutron stars or red giants...

Unknown said...

Part 3
But seriously, carbon, while it's the 4th most abundant element out there, can combine to create more molecules and other compounds than all the other elements COMBINED can! Since WE have evolved on this planet, and are carbon/water based life, it is highly likely that life will develop on OTHER planets as well... So far as we now know, carbon/water based life forms on planets in the "Goldilocks Zone" around yellow dwarf stars. We can identify which stars fit that description and then look for planets that are in that zone, and as technology gets better and better, we'll dig up evidence that life very likely exists on that planet. Maybe not "intelligent" life yet but it very like will be shown to be true someday. Of course the best way to know it is GOING there but who knows if we'll ever make it that far right? We still need to overcome the technological barriers of such a long distance and we still have to get past the religious fight we see brewing more and more each day. They're (muslim terrorists) gonna get a hold of a nuke someday... I can just FEEL it, hate to say it but I feel it coming. The shits really gonna start hitting the fan then. I just hope mankind can make it after that dreadful day.

Look, these gods that we find being worshiped these days... They're just dumb my friend. It's as simple as someone, ANYONE, making a claim about something and specially pleading that they're right about it because they have some imaginary god standing behind them. We primarily ues religion to try to codify good and bad behavior, and religion served it's purpose as an engine for change in how we humans interact with each other, but it's high time we grew up and shed these monotheistic gods that do more to divide us, than unite us. In fact, they drive us to kill each other as we see flareups from time to time. Are there OTHER reasons for us to kill each other? Sure, getting rid of theistic gods won't solve all our problems as a species but shedding the belief in these gods that we follow will do more good than harm.

It's one less reason to disagree, and once you come to the realization that I now know, you'll have an ever more respectful outlook on life and other people. It's why I debate religious people now. Once you free yourself from the shackles of a celestial dictator, like Yahweh or Allah, you will THEN know real freedom. It doesn't mean you do whatever you want of course. We still work to get along and make sure we don't infringe on other people's freedoms, but you will THEN understand true freedom.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

wow, that glitched bad... kept telling me content too large but still it displayed it.. sorry for all the extraneous posts... trying to clear it up

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

Les,

Couldn't agree more. I find stellar nucleosynthesis to be one of the most fascinating processes imaginable. The fact that everything that we are was forged in the heart of a long dead star makes me happier and feel more connected to the Universe at large than anything I ever experienced at the hands of the Invisible Sky Wizard.

Unknown said...

Yeah, but MY invisible sky wizard made it possible, not yours!

But hey, religions are like farts...

YOURS is great, but everyone else's stinks.

David J. Houston said...

I find it amusing that providing an origin story for your opponents worldview is so often taken as a ‘smackdown’ in these atheist comment boxes. Perhaps you would think that the following lays a ‘smackdown’ on atheism:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.  For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” (Rom 1:18-21)

I provided an origin account, just like Mr. Myers, and provided no argumentation for it, again, just like Mr. Myers. But wait! I can fill in more of the story! Allow me to pontificate (just like Mr. Myers!) that the concept of ‘atheism’ come from the human mind. People, in their foolishness, sought a way to avoid the unwelcome truth that they are sinners who stand before a justly, angry God without a decent excuse for their behaviour so they decided to believe that there simply is no God. This is much like a child whose angry with his father and throws the covers over his head and says ‘You don’t exist!’. But that’s enough pontification for me.

You might also reconsider your claim about it being ‘conceited‘ to believe that you have had the happy occasion of receiving special revelation from God. At least, I’m not sure how this could be. The Oxford Dictionary defined ‘conceited’ as being ‘excessively proud of oneself’ or ‘vain’. But why would anyone be considered conceited for simply believing that God has spoken and that they have had the good fortune of being a recipient? Its not as if we are saying that we deserve to be the recipients of God’s revelation since, traditionally, this has been considered an unmerited blessing from him.

As for your allusion to the OTF I really think that you need to take a look at the fine responses to that failed would-be defeater of religion. Victor Reppert, for example, has blogged on this topic as have the Triablogue crew so take your pick! I’ll mention just one problem for OTF: it presupposes that neutrality of judgment is possible which is FAR from obvious. In fact, many would argue that it is downright incoherent!

David J. Houston said...

As for Les’ presentation of nature, we might go to the next verse of the section quoted above:

“Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” (Rom 1:22-25)
Perhaps you were simply exercising some poetic license in your last few posts but you certainly seemed to have made the move from atheism to pantheism and thus worshipping created things! You go so far as the ethical argument of choice for pantheists:

“when you get down to the atomic and sub atomic levels of our "being", there is almost no difference between us all. If you follow the logic, you SHOULD love your neighbor as yourself... they ARE yourself...”

Actually, if you follow the logic through we can not account for any kind of personal identity or individuation. We can not say that this is where you end and I begin. How would this work out ethically? You seem to think that it would lead us to love others but how could this be when on this view there are no others! There is simply nature. But if their is no individuation then how can things like individual rights exist? Why is it that I ought not steal from you or kill you or rape, should I so desire? You can’t take anything away from a non-entity, right? Not even ‘their’ life or ‘their’ dignity. There is simply no room for morality on this view. Or maybe their would be... but not as we generally think of morality. Certainly not an objective standard of right and wrong. No, it would have to be something that simply exists within nature. But how could materialism account for ‘oughts’? How can matter and motion have moral value? It seems that they cannot. To put it mildly, I cannot share your enthusiasm for this picture of existence.

You want to explain the question of the origin or the elements by appealing to the place of stars in the causal chain... but where did the stars come from? How did they come to be? At some point the causal chain must end and where will that be? Laws of nature? Quantum gravity? Can you provide an account of what laws of nature are? If you can then can you explain why you believe that they are not subject to change? Some of the best philosophers in the world have studied these question and left perplexed... what do you have to offer here?

You have provided no real arguments for your position so you’ll forgive me if I am a tad incredulous when you accuse religious people of ‘special pleading’. It seems that you are quite religious yourself! Can’t you see the irony? Read what you wrote:

“once you come to the realization that I now know, you'll have an ever more respectful outlook on life and other people. It's why I debate religious people now. Once you free yourself from the shackles of a celestial dictator, like Yahweh or Allah, you will THEN know real freedom. It doesn't mean you do whatever you want of course. We still work to get along and make sure we don't infringe on other people's freedoms, but you will THEN understand true freedom.”

Billy Graham would be proud of you! You’ve written a secular humanist sermon and even provided the atheistic equivalent of an altar call!

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ David

That is a smackdown? Honestly I have more fear that Santa Claus is going to leave me a lump of coal and the Easter Bunny is going to steal my lunch money.

When you can validate the magical processes that you describe with observed astronomical, mathematical and physical data, when you can validate your mystical origin story with overwhelming evidence from the geological, palentological, biological and chemical branches of knowledge, you let me know.

Cosmic evolution is actually discernible in a wide variety of wavelengths given our advanced optics. We can actually measure the speed, recession velocities, of galaxies, we can ascertain their mass and chemical composition through mathematics and spectroscopy. We literally see the evolution of galaxies and individual stars by tracking. And yes, we DO know how stars came to be. Collapsing clouds of hydrogen gas fall in towards a common center of mass and continue to do so until they ignite nuclear fusion in their cores at which point the heat generated acts to maintain homeostais with gravity.

You are quite correct that eventually, the causal chain gives way to what are often referred to as Brute Facts. Gravity. Electromagnetism. Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces. You propose that these laws are subject to change? We have never witnessed them change. They appear to be consistent throughout the cosmos. Please provide some evidence that they are subject to change. And of course our understanding is imperfect, Atheists accept that.

Theists resort to their own brute fact with alarming regularity. God Did It. This is the response to every conceivable question. When asked where God came from, the Theist turns God into the Uroboros. While this is a nice rhetorical trick, it is functionally useless.

Biological evolution is likewise incredibly well documented and is supported by the geological, palentological, genetic, chemical and biological research. I do not have the time or inclination to recite the overwhelming evidence demonstrating the fact of biological evolution, suffice it to say that your asertion that there is no 'argumentation' for it is laughable.

And of course Atheism is a product of the human mind. As is Theism. Both are the product of human thought. The difference is that the 'origin story' I recited can actually be verified by independent physical evidence that does not depend on ecstatic revelation or appeals to the invisible.

As far as your assertion that we are seeking to avoid the 'unwelcome truth' that we are sinners who stand before an angry God... You base this assertion on... What exactly? Your book? I would simply point you to my earlier post about your angry God and ask you to explain how it is that the Greatest Conceivable Being is incapable of being so small, so petty, so trifling and pitiful that He, an ETERNAL being would be willing to condemn a poor monkey from the back end of the cosmos to ETERNAL damnation based on a few measley decades. Clearly your God is not loving, because no loving, caring, decent being could possibly be so petty and small. A being that will forgive and love those that wrong him is far greater than one who will not according to the scriptures, therefore even under the Greatest Conceivable Being Standard, your version of God is not God. And if your God isn't God AND is a hateful, petty SOB, he certainly isn't worth a moment of worship.

I presume your resort to quoting scripture is based on II Timothy 3:16? "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"?

Why? Why would I care about your book? The fact of the matter is that I don't need your book. Your book carries ZERO evidentiary weight with me. It is, in its own way, your assertion of brute fact, NOT an argument.

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

And I apologize for the typos. Typing on a phone is hard.

Unknown said...

David,

I actually lean towards the idea of a god in that I can entertain the notion that one might exist.

One thing I'm damn sure of is this... YOUR god, an Islamic god, a Hindu god, etc, etc, etc... They are the farthest thing from a god that could ever be.

As Jeffrey's comments towards the Greatest Conceivable Being.

I can't conceieve of a god that would create all that we see in this universe, choose one tribe of creatures that he created as his own, forsaking all others until he decides its time to flip the switch and be a loving god.

It's almost like the writers of the new testament SAW just how screwed up and jealous, spiteful and capricious the old god was and used a little, how did you put it? Poetic license... To spruce up his image a little... Bring him a little more "up to date"

Hmmmmmmmmm.................

Funny thing about religions. They all scab off each other and their ideas intermingle into the same formula for success. The ones we see being practiced today? Simply a case of being the most successful at enforcing and spreading their seed.

Your religion is a fucking joke (just like all the rest of them) and you know it. Problem is, you've invested too much time and energy into to just let it go. You have relationships that could be damaged. You have a life that might be upset as a result of it. It's all in how you go about it, mine was just fine, but dude...

Let it go David.

Unknown said...

David,

You obviously wouldn't be trolling around atheist websites if it didn't intrigue you a little.

Why don't you come out of the closet bro?

Unknown said...

And by the way David...

Even IF I was a deist/pantheist, which is as far as I'm willing to go nowadays, I'd still be an atheist.

ALL it takes to be an atheist is to say that you don't believe in "revealed" deities... IE, gods with names/demands/edicts.

By the way, why does atheism mean "a lack of belief" in a god when we have other words like amoral, atypical, agnostic, defined as follows…?

amoral means without morals
atypical means without typical(ness)
agnostic means without knowledge

Why does atheism mean lack of belief in god when it clearly follows the same spelling methodology as these other words?

What I mean to say is atheism SHOULD mean without theism.

That being said…

From dictionary.com

theism means the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, WITHOUT rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).

deism means belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, WITH rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).

So while a deist believes in the existence of a god, he DOESN’T believe in the existence of revelatory gods/theistic gods, thus making him an atheist, because a deist is without belief in theistic gods.

GearHedEd said...

Jeffrey Myers said,

"...Your formulation of 'faith' applies to all manner of conspiracy theorists, drug addicts, crackpots, lunatics, alien abductees, who all believe in phenomena despite evidence to the contrary, yet theists would not describe their 'faith' as a virtue. Nor would they accept the beliefs of such people (or people of other faiths) to be true in any real or objective sense. Apparently standards of evidence ONLY apply to OTHER faiths and belief systems."

Just a quick point here:

How many times have we all heard the theist crowd say,

"You atheists have faith in science, but that is irrational (leads to infinite causal chains, etc...)!"

Is THAT faith a virtue? Or are we equivocating here so we can use the them 'faith' as a club with which to batter others?

GearHedEd said...

David Houston said,

"...The Oxford Dictionary defined ‘conceited’ as being ‘excessively proud of oneself’ or ‘vain’. But why would anyone be considered conceited for simply believing that God has spoken and that they have had the good fortune of being a recipient?"

You WOULD be vain and conceited if you believed that the ever-lovin' Creator of EVERYTHAAAANG took time out of his busy day of sustaining each electron orbital in the universe to talk just to you, because you're special to Him...

GearHedEd said...

Why do the Christians ALWAYS fall back to quoting Romans to "prove" their point?

Do you always read other peoples' mail and believe it was addressed to you?

Or better yet, read one sentence of a whole book, and thereby know what the punchline is?

Tip:

You can't prove the Bible is true by quoting the Bible.

GearHedEd said...

"...I’ll mention just one problem for OTF: it presupposes that neutrality of judgment is possible which is FAR from obvious. In fact, many would argue that it is downright incoherent!"

It's obvious, at least in YOUR case: You are not and cannot be neutral. Your belief system is embedded, and you don't have the necessary mental equipment to even understand how one might take the OTF.

As for the presupposition of neutrality: maybe, maybe not.

Think of it like this.

Imagine you're a Mislim, born in a Muslim area to Muslim parents and schooled from the time you could begin to understand speech to believe in Allah; and when they taught you to read, the book they used was the Qur'an.

Now imagine you're that Muslim, looking at someone who has the beliefs that YOU (the 'you' that really IS) do.

Just the same way YOU would say, "That Muslim's beliefs are false (and MOST Christians do this automatically, without ever having read the Qur'an), THAT Muslim looks at you and says to himself, "That Christian is a Godless heathen infidel (also without having looked at YOUR scriptures).

But it gets better:

Even people who study the other side have a bias. An illustrative analogy could be language itself. It is only the rarest prodigy of individuals who can learn a second language fluently to the extent that she ACTUALLY THINKS in the second language. In other words, you could spend years studying the Qur'an, but you still would THINK like a Christian, and you would still dismiss it. As the Muslim would dismiss your beliefs after having studied the Bible.

GearHedEd said...

The OTF isn't meant to be a "defeater of religion".

It's meant to shake you out of your sleepwalking faith long enough to critically assess your own beliefs from the perspective of someone who does not share your beliefs.

GearHedEd said...

And John has said many times that your Christian faith CAN survive the test, but most Christians don't have the guts to really look that deeply.

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ Les

Lol! He can't come out of the closet.

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Lev. 18:22

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." Lev. 20:13

Of course he should also be actively working to put such people to death, should stone prostitutes and adulterers and should work to ensure that all of the other crazy nonsense that warrants the death penalty or exile, sex during mensturation, cursing your parents, wearing clothes made of different materials, etc. are enforced.
Afterall, how can our Godless system of justice possibly justify deviation from ancient sacred scrolls?

Unknown said...

LOL@Jeffrey

Yeah, I alluded to that but I of course meant to come out of the closet and admit he's an atheist...

Just like homophobic people who end up being homos though...

He doth protest too much methinks.

Anonymous said...

>>There is no way such an event can be verified with the historical tools available to us...Even if God did act in the historical past there is no way we can know that he did.<<
(emphasis added).

A skeptic can just as well say "Even if God is acting in the present, there is no way we can know that he is...There is no way it can be verified with the scientific tools available to us".

If you're betting on a definition of "know" that implies 100 or 110% (i.e. absolute) certainty, then you've set up a problem from the get-go.

Becuase if God is presently acting in the world, and such acts are manifested in the form of apparent miracles, then even if the acts THEMSELVES are directly verifiable, their source would not. And if the SOURCE (God) is not directly verifiable, then it doesn't meet the conditions of the word "know" that I described above, and therefore God will be taken out of the picture...and the acts will be attributed to something else.

I repeat, you've set up a problem from the get-go.

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ GearHead

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Obviously, on a metaphysical and epistemological level, absolute unassailable, unquestionable knowledge is unattainable given our limited spatial, temporal and sensory capabilities, so on some level, we all have 'FAITH' that the way we experience the Universe is at least marginally related to the way it actually is (ie. not some manner of massive computer simulation, sollypsism, mass delusion or whatnot).

Given the foregoing caveat, I view science as a tool for understanding, more than a system of belief. Much like a hammer or a chisel. I'm sure science will eventually give way to a better way of elucidating understanding in the future, but at this point, assuming that the Universe is roughly the way we experience it, it produces reproducible and verifiable results with far, far, far greater frequency than the Revelatory Truth theists prefer.

@ Ana

I do not know a single Atheist or Skeptic who claims to KNOW in the way you describe. Indeed, the only people I know who claim to KNOW how the Universe began are Theists who claim that they KNOW their Atemporal Pre-Extant Sky Man created the Universe from nothing.

That said, I'm an attorney, so I think in terms of burdens of proof a lot. We as a society recognize that to wait on perfect absolute knowledge is socially, politically and legally paralyzing and so rather than require judges and jurors to adjudicate based on ABSOLUTE knowledge, we require them to adjudicate guilt or innocence based on Reasonable Doubt.

It is imperfect? Yes. But the alternative is to do nothing. Which is politically, socially and legally untenable.

It is also psychologically and intellectually untenable. It would disable us from pursuing any kind of understanding whatsoever and induce intellectual paralysis. Because despite the theistic assertions to the contrary, THEY do not possess absolute knowledge either. So we do what we can to assess the world (imperfectly) with the evidence that is presented to us.

And frankly I find the Theist 'doubts' about science to be unreasonable and intellectually dishonest as most Theists are MORE than happy to make liberal use of science when it suits their needs and improves their lives. You don't see theists doubting our understanding of electromagnetism and gravity when we use them to facilitate satellites for their cell phones and GPS and television.

GearHedEd said...

@ Jeff,

I was pointing out the conflict in the theists' use of "faith". It's one you didn't include in your list, that I thought should be included. Otherwise, I'm with you.

Anonymous said...

>>I do not know a single Atheist or Skeptic who claims to KNOW in the way you describe.<<

Context, Jeff. Context.

I was talking about the use of the word "know" SPECIFICALLY when applied to a context in which they're discussing what might convince them of God. They're idea of proof for God would be to observe him act in empirical real-time.(Implying that they think this is the only way in which the statement "I know God exists" would be justified)

That kind of thinking follows from a mentality that assumes science is the only reliable channel to knowledge and truth.

BUT, since God according to Christian theism is incorporeal,
then "observing him act" is a suspicious standard. You might be able to directly observe and/or objectively verify the effects (i.e. the acts) but NOT the cause (God).

If your corporeal senses can directly detect, examine, and verify the acts, but NOT the cause, then the skeptic can just say that the cause is mysterious or unexplained and any attempt to posit God is a 'leap of faith'.

Of course, not all skeptics think this way. But those that do, set themselves up to where they cannot be convinced.

Walter said...

That kind of thinking follows from a mentality that assumes science is the only reliable channel to knowledge and truth.

What is the alternative? Divine revelation? Science employs a methodology for gaining knowledge that has an incredible track record. Divine revelation, on the other hand, hasn't worked out so well, seeing as how we have so many mutually contradictory "revelations" out there in the world which often lead to violent conflict over whose "revelation" is the correct one.

trae norsworthy said...

What is the alternative? Divine revelation?
science and christianity are not in conflict with one another. science operates within the natural realm. christianity is not limited to just the natural realm. the discussion of origins is beyond the purview of science, beyond the natural. therefore, metaphysical and supernatural answers need to be sought.

Science employs a methodology for gaining knowledge that has an incredible track record.
let's not overstate the matter. first, science isn't the ultimate authority. second, science isn't infallible. third, not all scientists agree on all issues, even today.

my most recent post addresses this to a degree

http://thegdebate.blogspot.com/2010/10/l-516.html

Anonymous said...

Well certainly that’s an example. If an [omniscient] God gives a revelation, that’s also a way to gain truth.

Problem is, scientism excludes that, even as a possibility! (and no, that’s not a term that apologists just “made up” )

It’s a used, valid term: http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/
( 5th paragraph)

But scientism commits suicide. It’s entirely self-undermining. You cannot prove humans are rational beings. You cannot prove there are laws of logic. You have to ASSUME such is TRUE to do any science. So you can’t credit science with “providing” you with these knowable truths.

And then of course there’s the ever-present issue of moral truths. Which science can’t provide you with either. So of course someone who lives in the fantasy world in which scientism holds water, could never (with integrity) claim that their morals have any truth to them,because morality lies outside the domain of science and therefore is not determined by science, therefore you cannot trust your own morality (i.e. call it “truth”)
(for only science can provide truth, and if science didn't give it to you, then don't call it truth!)

But anyways, I’m digressing. My point was, that if there are contemporary effects (“acts/interventions”), such that God is the cause,
even if you can empirically verify the effects, since you cannot empirically verify the cause, then in the mind of an extreme skeptic, God cannot be the cause! And any attempt to posit him, is an appeal to “God-of-the-gaps”!

This is why I’m convinced that there are some skeptics –not all- but certainly SOME, who could literally be given an evidence (i.e. a “God act”) that’s right in front of their very eyes, and yet would not believe in God.
‘ If I can directly see the act, but can’t directly see who’s behind it all, far be it from my unalterably skeptical mind to say it's GOD!’

Walter said...

But anyways, I’m digressing. My point was, that if there are contemporary effects (“acts/interventions”), such that God is the cause,
even if you can empirically verify the effects, since you cannot empirically verify the cause, then in the mind of an extreme skeptic, God cannot be the cause! And any attempt to posit him, is an appeal to “God-of-the-gaps”!


In the above scenario, I would simply remain agnostic. That does not mean that a deity isn't working "behind the curtain." It does mean that I won't automatically make the leap to "Godidit" without sufficient reason to believe that a deity is responsible.

Walter said...

science and christianity are not in conflict with one another. science operates within the natural realm. christianity is not limited to just the natural realm. the discussion of origins is beyond the purview of science, beyond the natural. therefore, metaphysical and supernatural answers need to be sought.

In other words, let's take the word of some bronze age "prophets" who scribbled creation stories down on some sacred scrolls. No thanks. I am content to say that I do not know how the universe came about.

You see, I am not a hard atheist, and I don't rule out the possibility of a deity, but I am pretty firmly convinced that the Christian concept of God is pure man-mad mythology.

Anonymous said...

Walter,

"In the above scenario, I would simply remain agnostic. That does not mean that a deity isn't working "behind the curtain." It does mean that I won't automatically make the leap to "Godidit" without sufficient reason to believe that a deity is responsible." (emphasis mine).

I appreciate your honest answer. But, in addition, please, consider this question (whether you respond to it here, or simply think through it on your own): What would be sufficient reason to believe that a deity is responsible?

If the act itself - no matter how extraordinary - is not sufficient reason, what else could be? Any 'reason' to believe the act is of God, would have to derive from examining the act itself...what else could it derive from..

trae norsworthy said...

Walter

let's take the word of some bronze age "prophets" who scribbled creation stories down on some sacred scrolls. No thanks
the question is whether or not their writings were about truth. Is God the author of creation? They had evidence to write that He is. plus, we get confirmation of it today so it’s not like we’re just taking them at their word.

I am content to say that I do not know how the universe came about.
What would it take to convince you that God created the universe?

I am pretty firmly convinced that the Christian concept of God is pure man-mad mythology.
Why? how do you know?

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ Trae,

Their writings have nothing to do with TRUTH. Their writings were nothing more than a human attempt to describe something far beyond their ability to comprehend. Bullshitting is one of our species greatest art forms. When we don't know, we make shit up. They didn't have any EVIDENCE that He did. And the stories they told have been demolished by every empirical observation made in the last 500 years. Their story is FLAT WRONG. Rather than empirical observation and analysis confirming the biblical account of creation, evidence compounds with every passing day that all of the creation stories are completely 100% WRONG.

Assuming arguendo that there IS a Creator of the Universe, there is no shortage of things he could do to prove his existence. He could appear over New York and announce, 'Hey, by the way, I created all this. Pretty neat huh. And because I love you guys so much I'm going to every case of cancer on the planet.' If that happened, even the most hardened skeptic would be hard pressed to doubt. I'm sure it would be in all the papers.

Instead, we are asked to rely on highly ancient fragments of written stories culled from oral stories that were passed down for several hundred years desrcibing some miraculous event. The historicity of the Bible is not much different than the historicity of the Iliad, but you don't see people getting riled up about those Greek Gods or Achilles' invincibility. It isn't even the first resurrection story in antiquity - Osiris, Baal, Asclepius, all beat Jesus to the punch. The reality is that antiquity is FILLED with historical epics with all kind of magic, resurrections, healing of the sick, ascensions, and supernatural derring-do, that no one takes seriously.

The reality is that the Bible is not even internally consistent. It is self-evidently contradictory. A document that is alleged to be literally true should at a BARE MINIMUM be internally consistent and free of contradictions, but the Bible is NOT. Indeed, it is LESS internally consistent than the Iliad or The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. And even if one were to accept its internal coherence, internal coherence in NO WAY necessitates that it be externally true. Therefore, as the Bible is NOT literally true and is highly inconsistent with the world as we observe it despite its claim to the contrary, it can safely and logically stated that the Bible is, as Walter put it, 'man-made mythology.'

trae norsworthy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
trae norsworthy said...

Jeffrey A. Myers

Their writings have nothing to do with TRUTH.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. They were recording what they thought was evidential and spiritual truth.

Their writings were nothing more than a human attempt to describe something far beyond their ability to comprehend.
Unless the God they are referring to has revealed Himself in a way they CAN comprehend.

They didn't have any EVIDENCE that He did.
And how would you go about proving they had no evidence? Many people have in fact made the case that they did.

And the stories they told have been demolished by every empirical observation made in the last 500 years.
Like what?

evidence compounds with every passing day that all of the creation stories are completely 100% WRONG.
we’ll have to agree to disagree. There are plenty of scientists who are Christians who find that science and the Bible are not in conflict.

He could appear over New York and announce, 'Hey, by the way, I created all this. Pretty neat huh. And because I love you guys so much I'm going to every case of cancer on the planet.' If that happened, even the most hardened skeptic would be hard pressed to doubt. I'm sure it would be in all the papers.
there is no way you can prove that your fictional scenarios would be any more persuasive than the current level of revelation. Nor can you show that it would actually be BETTER than our current condition.

http://thegdebate.blogspot.com/2010/08/l-35.html

http://thegdebate.blogspot.com/2010/08/l-38.html

The historicity of the Bible is not much different than the historicity of the Iliad
wow. if you believe this then you are incredibly, woefully uneducated on the reliability of ancient documents.

you don't see people getting riled up about those Greek Gods or Achilles' invincibility.
Some people consider this as proof that your prior statement is evidentially false.

The reality is that the Bible is not even internally consistent. It is self-evidently contradictory.
This oft repeated notion has been refuted in many books and in many places on the internet. Do you have any examples you would like to discuss?

Therefore, as the Bible is NOT literally true
There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. If you disagree, post an example.