tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post5709720653916777694..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Should Atheists Take the Outsider Test for Faith?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger132125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81200212349259403892010-06-23T17:20:14.544-04:002010-06-23T17:20:14.544-04:00One more thing, Eric. Consider the question of the...One more thing, Eric. Consider the question of the origin of life. At present, we don't know how life began. There's plenty of promising work and many seemingly important steps have been reproduced in the lab, but still the answer is not there. At that point, what can we say about the origin of life?<br /><br />We don't know.<br /><br />And that's an important point, we don't know. So because we don't know, does that mean that life began by unicorn sneezes? Should we even consider it a possibility? After all we can't rule it out! But why rule it in to begin with? If we're being honest, there's an infinite number of possibilities. Yet the scientific establishment is finding processes involving hydrothermal vents, panspermia, or growing complex structures on the back of crystals and not even considering the unicorn sneeze hypothesis. Perhaps science is barking up the wrong tree because of it discounting unicorn sneezes...<br /><br />But why consider unicorn sneezes in the first place? And this is where burden of proof lies. It's all well and good to talk about the positive claims of naturalism, but the question of atheism is the existence of gods. Is positing the existence of God - the Judeo-Christian construct - any more valid than positing unicorn sneezes? If so, why? That's what I meant by burden of proof, the theist is making a claim about existence that until a positive case is made is nothing more than a bare assertion.<br /><br />What is meant by God? How can we possibly know this? This is the positive case that needs to be argued by a theist, because otherwise God is indistinguishable as a concept from sneezing unicorns or even nothing at all. An undefined God, the lack of a positive case for God, it's saying nothing meaningful at all. The theist without a positive case is making a bare assertion, the burden of proof is on the theist to define and demonstrate the existence of God in such a way that it's distinguishable from the null hypothesis and thus put on the atheist to consider.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7984479509694876132010-06-23T06:35:37.760-04:002010-06-23T06:35:37.760-04:00Hey Eric,
"I agree in a sense, but it's i...Hey Eric,<br /><i>"I agree in a sense, but it's important to remember that no atheist is just an atheist; indeed, most atheists today seem to be atheists largely *because* they are naturalists, and naturalism is a 'positive' position -- a positive philosophical claim about the nature of reality (in other words, it's a metaphysical claim)."</i><br />But this is a different issue. The positive claim there is not atheism but naturalism. That atheists are naturalists is shifting the goalposts.<br /><br />From my experience personally, I was an atheist long before I was a naturalist. I didn't know what naturalism (as opposed to supernaturalism) was, and in any case my doubt against gods wasn't because I had some rival metaphysical construct to fight against it. I just couldn't see how the claims people were making could possibly be true.<br /><br /><br />I'm not sure how typical my experience was, but I can assure you that my atheism came before my naturalism. Naturalism is the only tenable philosophical position in my mind because supernaturalism is incoherent. It's indistinguishable from what is not yet known, and in effect an anything goes approach where one doesn't need to justify anything. Of course as a child, I didn't know such things. My thoughts were "what do you mean Jesus came back to life?" <br /><br /><i>"Since naturalism is a claim that moves beyond the available evidence, and since in a scientific context it implies a programmatic commitment, it can indeed be described as an instance of faith"</i><br />This is where I think I get muddled up with the way theists think, and as a result the use of the word faith confuses me. In your case with Global Warming, it's not a matter of faith but the best position proportional to the evidence. It's not about certainty, but what's the best available position proportional to the data. If there's no data one way or the other, it would be a faith position. But how is it faith to follow the path that is best supported by the evidence? To me that's conflating the word faith from the taking a leap beyond evidence to the inherent uncertainty of contingent knowledge. <br /><br />If tomorrow AGW were to lose its scientific consensus with new data that contradicts the scientific model, the reasonable thing to do would be to abandon the model. Faith would be believing despite the evidence. The enterprise of human knowledge is uncertain by definition, where anything could be revised. Yet in this use of the word faith, there is no functional difference between calling evolution a faith and calling a literal creation event in the Garden of Eden a faith.<br /><br />This is why I object to the word faith, I can't think in such terms. I want to follow whatever is the most reasonable course, if my beliefs are unreasonable then I will abandon them. Faith is claiming that nothing could shake you out of a belief. I don't have that commitment to anything beyond the cogito, 2+2=4 and that all bachelors are unmarried. Beyond all that, tentative conclusions that are based on the best possible reason and evidence are all I can commit to!Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83813311390297317362010-06-22T19:29:25.177-04:002010-06-22T19:29:25.177-04:00"But atheism is not a faith, it's a negat..."But atheism is not a faith, it's a negative position."<br /><br />Hi Kel<br /><br />I agree in a sense, but it's important to remember that no atheist is just an atheist; indeed, most atheists today seem to be atheists largely *because* they are naturalists, and naturalism is a 'positive' position -- a positive philosophical claim about the nature of reality (in other words, it's a metaphysical claim). Atheists qua atheists may not assert anything, but atheists whose atheism is informed by their naturalism do make a very big claim indeed. (Note, while atheism is entailed by naturalism, the converse is not the case, i.e. atheism doesn't entail naturalism. So, one cannot justifiably say he's a naturalist because he's an atheist.)<br /><br />Since naturalism is a claim that moves beyond the available evidence, and since in a scientific context it implies a programmatic commitment, it can indeed be described as an instance of faith (where 'faith' is understood as a programmatic commitment to a proposition that is not proportional to the evidence for its truth; so, we may think that, given the evidence, it's probable that people are contributing to global warming, but the move from assenting to this truth and committing to becoming an environmentalist involves faith, as previously defined).<br /><br />"But you must realise that the burden of proof in terms of the existence of gods is on those proposing the gods."<br /><br />This is not necessarily true. Burden of proof issues concern informal logic, and in informal logic the specifics of each case are vital (see <a href="http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2010/01/onus-probandi.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> and <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> for some clarification).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1880452106392268462010-06-22T18:05:37.569-04:002010-06-22T18:05:37.569-04:00I agree Blue Devil.
As I have encountered believi...I agree Blue Devil.<br /><br />As I have encountered believing friends since my deconversion I've found most of them don't rely on God but rest in a general idea of God because it makes them feel good. When I bring up the problem of evil almost all of them relate a theology that is best defined as impotent Deism.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20128115435949185312010-06-22T18:02:56.260-04:002010-06-22T18:02:56.260-04:00ennangal wrote:
"I think the burden is on ath...ennangal wrote:<br /><i>"I think the burden is on atheists to define their own OTF and pass it!"</i><br /><br />But atheism is not a faith, it's a negative position. If you're arguing that atheists should carefully consider their position and try to come to the best possible (and tentative) conclusion they can, then I'm all for it. But you must realise that the burden of proof in terms of the existence of gods is on those proposing the gods.<br /><br />The logic for this is simple. In the case of astrology, is the burden on those saying it's true or those denying its possibility? In other words, what is the role of who express doubt? In the case of astrology, as far as I can see the burden of proof lies with the astrologer. They are the ones making positive claims, they need positive evidence. The non-astrologer is in the position of critiquing those positive claims. Because no positive claims looks exactly like nothing at all...<br /><br /><br />As atheists, the best we can ever do is argue against the positive claims that theists make. This isn't just specific claims but conceptual ones too. Critiquing astrology because a horoscope someone is claiming to be true is vague and nebulous barely rates a mention, but arguing that the whole concept is flawed because there's no causal relation between the relative position of the stars and planets to the earth and the affairs of humanity is much better. The astrologer has to demonstrate that there is such a link, not just that there is a seeming link if interpreted in the right way. As a non-astrologer, I find this completely unconvincing.<br /><br />Likewise, the atheist needs to address what people conceptualise as the concept for gods and look at the case theists of all sorts make. The "OTF" (hate the f-word) for atheists are conceptions of the gods that can pass the OTF. If there is a good case for the OTF, <a href="http://kelosophy.blogspot.com/2010/06/outsiders-quest-for-understanding-faith.html" rel="nofollow">please let me know</a>.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81354063819362013462010-06-22T15:39:56.827-04:002010-06-22T15:39:56.827-04:00Why do they evaluate other religious faiths with a...<i>Why do they evaluate other religious faiths with a level of skepticism that they do not apply to their own culturally inherited one? Why? Answer me that!</i><br /><br />Well, they don't. Your garden-variety Christian's skepticism about other faiths is typically as superficial as the reasons they have for believing their own faith. They just need to be generally more critical about all theological matters, not just their own.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42593913773458612482010-06-22T12:32:45.940-04:002010-06-22T12:32:45.940-04:00Rob R.
No permission need to be sought by those o...Rob R.<br /><br />No permission need to be sought by those of us who have been insiders in the Christian religion and have found it false.<br /><br />Our conception is from the inside-out.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14979595422034946872010-06-22T12:04:22.768-04:002010-06-22T12:04:22.768-04:00ennangal, with me Christianity failed the Insider ...<em>ennangal, with me Christianity failed the Insider Test for Faith so how much more does it fail the OTF.</em><br /><br />As surely as there is no one outsider's perspective, neither is it true that there is just one insiders' perspective. And not all outsiders' perspectives nor insiders' perspectives are equal. Not all are static as any perspective has room to grow and improve.<br /><br />I recall taking a world religions class from an orthodox Christian and through it all, the emphasis was there to be cautious as an outsider and know the disadvantage that it entails. And if criticism was to be made, there was a sort of permission to be saught, to make sure from the insider that we got the picture right to begin with.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55447575570912783762010-06-22T00:19:34.124-04:002010-06-22T00:19:34.124-04:00I'm assuming the current definition of underde...I'm assuming the current definition of underdetermination is <br /><br />"a term used in the discussion of theories and their relation to the evidence that is cited to support them. Arguments from underdetermination are used to support epistemic relativism by claiming that there is no good way to certify a theory based on any set of evidence. A theory (or statement or belief) is underdetermined if, given the available evidence, there is a rival theory which is inconsistent with the theory that is at least as consistent with the evidence. Underdetermination is an epistemological issue about the relation of evidence to conclusions. (sometimes called indeterminacy of data to theory)"<br /><br />Eric said (to Steve),<br /><br />"...(For instance, you referenced "underdetermination" in your post, but consider the importance of Putnam's famous 'Twin earth' thought experiment in informing how we think about underdetermination.)<br /><br />Now, flame me if you must, but the summary of Putnam's famous 'Twin Earth' thought experiment didn't seem to address underdetermination at all. It said Putnam's 'Twin Earth' was a highly improbable thought experiment about perception, unless I'm retarded.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30127805476327138812010-06-21T23:59:01.595-04:002010-06-21T23:59:01.595-04:00Eric knows I don't accept anything he says jus...Eric knows I don't accept anything he says just because he said it.<br /><br />LOL!<br /><br />Word verification = "prove"<br /><br />No shit.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30689586808474438492010-06-21T23:57:32.409-04:002010-06-21T23:57:32.409-04:00ennangal said,
"...how can you discount the ...ennangal said,<br /><br />"...how can you discount the subjective experience of millions of believers?"<br /><br />Substitute "jumping off a cliff" for "subjective experience" and "lemmings" for "believers", and then read the question again.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86322866635593816302010-06-21T23:53:04.025-04:002010-06-21T23:53:04.025-04:00Now watch it Ed, Eric will question your education...Now watch it Ed, Eric will question your education if you disagree with him.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-332012884475731422010-06-21T23:47:10.200-04:002010-06-21T23:47:10.200-04:00Eric said,
"...Now all you need for science ...Eric said,<br /><br />"...Now all you need for science to "work" is a natural world that (1) is intelligible, and (this is a related but distinct concept) (2) that is orderly (in a broadly mathematical sense). Note, you need a natural world that satisfies both (1) and (2), *but you don't need there to be *only* a natural world*."<br /><br />I think that naturalism satisfies both (1) and (2), and that anything beyond that is extraneous, and has no business elbowing its way into the world of naturalism.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20498787489681104362010-06-21T23:46:36.424-04:002010-06-21T23:46:36.424-04:00John,
Yes! I read that in your WIBA book. My point...John,<br />Yes! I read that in your WIBA book. My point is exactly what you have just said. You cannot discount your<br />subjective experience of Christianity in your journey towards atheism. My basic point is how can you<br />dicount the subjective experience of millions of believers?. I think discounting subjective experience<br />from the equation is a flaw in OTF. That is, even if OTF fails, people will still believe because<br />of this subjective experience!ennangalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283958544155198001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23323726061144945402010-06-21T22:47:53.202-04:002010-06-21T22:47:53.202-04:00Breck
You should form your own religion and call ...Breck<br /><br />You should form your own religion and call it "Gapology" where we all get to worship the god of the gaps.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43265229178855546242010-06-21T22:39:02.111-04:002010-06-21T22:39:02.111-04:00ennangal
You will find many atheists here were on...ennangal<br /><br />You will find many atheists here were once professing believers.<br /><br />If you are a christian then I ask why you feel compelled to form a relationship with a character in a book to give your life meaning?Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43205279504057193232010-06-21T22:35:16.920-04:002010-06-21T22:35:16.920-04:00Breck
What do you know of the human genome?
What...Breck<br /><br />What do you know of the human genome?<br /><br />What study have you done of genomics (and no reading "The Signature in the Cell" doesn't count).Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47534054792294954182010-06-21T22:28:18.511-04:002010-06-21T22:28:18.511-04:00"Because little green men are concluded and N..."Because little green men are concluded and NOT assumed. ET's are experienced .."<br /><br />Neither of these are a logical explanation for the Intelligence necessary for biological information in the identifiable sequences in the genome or the complex mechanical working systems of a living cell nor the IF-THEN programming in two part control mechanisms for gene regulation.<br /><br />Theistic implication in science first points to agnostic theism. Little green men and ET are folly in such discussions and are "conceptually"(if they were real) made up of matter and therefore would NOT be the explanation for the creation of matter.<br /><br />If you surrender all wisdom and sink to the depths of foolishness like pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters which have NOTHING to do with arguments for agnostic theism then the discussion becomes folly.<br /><br />Question everything (especially the origin of the arrangments of codons and amino acids).Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69212761872764291072010-06-21T22:04:50.808-04:002010-06-21T22:04:50.808-04:00ennangal, with me Christianity failed the Insider ...ennangal, with me Christianity failed the <i>Insider Test for Faith</i> so how much more does it fail the OTF.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13806890505607416012010-06-21T21:50:08.179-04:002010-06-21T21:50:08.179-04:00When I first read about OTF, I thought why would s...When I first read about OTF, I thought why would someone need to test the obvious! I find two problems in OTF:<br />1) It assumes atheism does not need OTF; it demands theism to provide a framework for atheism to use OTF. I think the burden is on atheists to define their own OTF and pass it! They need to step into Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc framework and “objectively” test if atheism still holds! It is obvious, if an atheist step into any theistic framework, from that point of view atheism will not pass the test; this brings to my 2nd point,<br />2) OTF assumes believers choose their own faith over other faiths based on purely objective framework; the reality is there is a great amount of subjective element why one chooses his/her faith over the other. He/she may use objective framework (OTF) to reject other faiths, but the reason why one sticks with his/her own faith is mostly based on subjective element!<br /><br />(e.g ) The subjective experiences of John Loftus drove him from theism to agnosticism/atheism. If those subjective experiences had not happened, I am not sure if we would be having “debunkingatheim” blog instead of “debunkingchristianity”! <br />The same kind of subjective experiences are what help believers to hang on to their faiths; they use OTF to reject other faiths, obviously because they don’t have subjective experiences with those faiths! John Loftus claims he uses objectivity (OTF) to reject other faiths but fails to see he has used subjective experiences to arrive where he is now, and adamantly claim he arrived/swam there by reason!( fail to see the water he swim/swam in!)ennangalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283958544155198001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38682824404490387952010-06-21T21:33:54.124-04:002010-06-21T21:33:54.124-04:00Eric
Thanks. I find your rationalizations exhaus...Eric<br /><br />Thanks. I find your rationalizations exhausting. It will be a relief not to deal with you.<br /><br />When you graduate from school and enter the real world I hope you find a mentor to call you on your pretension. Until then, recognize when you post survey data (my specialty) you should consider research hygiene and do a simple index of the sample to confirm your argument. In this case, doctors rely on god thinking as a complementary decision point when practicing medicine and these doctors use the orthodox christian god to do so.<br /><br />You were wrong on both counts. <br /><br />Now go return your library books schoolboy.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68365430015459564142010-06-21T21:21:38.297-04:002010-06-21T21:21:38.297-04:00Correction*:
"MN is a claim about how you ...Correction*:<br /><br /><br /> "MN is a claim about how you ought to conduct, or a command about how you must conduct, an investigation, in this case a scientific investigation; N* is a claim about how the world in fact is."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57367450957597259742010-06-21T21:19:35.231-04:002010-06-21T21:19:35.231-04:00John, yes, I'm familiar with both arguments. H...John, yes, I'm familiar with both arguments. Here are a couple of my problems: <br /><br />First, what do you think would be more difficult, deriving an ought or a command from an is, or deriving an is from an ought or a command? I think it's clear that the latter case is much harder to make, and perhaps impossible to justify logically, yet that's precisely the case Forrest makes (and Martin implies; his paper doesn't deal with the move from MN to N, but with whether you can both reject N and accept MN; however, he clearly defines MN as a command, and speaks about it as if it's an ought). MN is a claim about how you ought to conduct, or a command about how you must conduct, an investigation, in this case a scientific investigation; MN is a claim about how the world in fact is. Forrest is attempting to move from an ought or a command (MN) to an is (N), and that move is obviously fallacious. (I think this is why most philosophers, though they are naturalists themselves, reject the conclusion that MN can get you to N).<br /><br />Here's a second problem: Part of Forrest's case for the move from MN to N rests in the success of N in describing the natural world. But as I argued earlier, the conditions of the possibility of science are satisfied by Christian theism, and MN is perfectly consistent with such a worldview, *even if it were false*; hence, it follows that MN would be just as successful given Christian theism as it would be given naturalism. Simply put, the success of the sciences cannot adjudicate the matter.<br /><br />(I have other problems with her arguments, but those two will suffice for now.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43716726909179905732010-06-21T20:56:05.556-04:002010-06-21T20:56:05.556-04:00I think the Sir Arthur C. Clark quote regarding ad...I think the Sir Arthur C. Clark quote regarding advanced technology and magic (should) covers Eric's concerns about science presupposing naturalism. The universe is a big place. There's no reason to assume we've exhausted the scope of naturalism on this tiny speck of rock or with a telescope. And that's not to say that we won't discover "natural" phenomena that make biblical miracles look like a childs play.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80770534108010103712010-06-21T20:55:07.355-04:002010-06-21T20:55:07.355-04:00Chuck, you have demonstrated time and time again t...Chuck, you have demonstrated time and time again that you simply lack (1) the education and (2) the maturity required to take part in these discussions seriously. I had some hopes for you given some of your recent posts, but I now consider you unworthy of my time. Respond to my posts all you want; you won't get a response from me anymore unless you demonstrate some serious improvement in the two areas I referred to above. <br /><br />Adieu!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com