Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Autumn Reading for Jerry and friends

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email


Japanese maple leaves.

Over at Why Evolution is True, Professor Jerry Coyne has been busy at work. He has not only outlined a scenario that would convince him of God’s existence, but he has written an article entitled On P. Z. Myers on evidence for a god with a point-by-point rebuttal of P. Z. Myers’ assertion (backed up by eight supporting arguments) that there was no amount of evidence that could convince him of the existence of any kind of God. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, so I would like to congratulate Professor Coyne. Let me hasten to add that Professor Coyne is still a convinced atheist. As he writes: “To me, the proper stance is, ‘I haven’t seen a smidgen of evidence for God, so I don’t think he exists. But I suppose it’s a theoretical possibility.'” In the final paragraph of his post, Coyne declares: “I’m writing this post simply to continue a conversation that I don’t think has yet run its course…”

Well, Professor, I’m something of a magpie. I collect good articles. The 200 or so articles I’ve listed below are the “creme-de-la-creme” so to speak, of what’s available on the Web. Taken together, they make a strong cumulative case, on philosophical and empirical grounds, that God does indeed exist, and that the benefits of religion vastly outweigh the multitude of harms inflicted in its name. (There’s even a case where an amputee gets healed! Curious? Thought you might be.) I’ve also included some good articles on God, morality and evil, which will interest you. The arguments for the immateriality of the mind are also significant: they serve to undermine the materialist argument that there can never be a good argument for the existence of an immaterial Intelligence, since all the minds we know of are embodied and complex. Interested? Please read on.

Table of Contents

Section 1 – Philosophical Arguments for God’s existence
Section 2 – Miracles
Section 3 – The Attributes of God
Section 4 – God, Morality, Goodness and Evil
Section 5 – Arguments for the Immateriality of the Mind
Section 6 – Mysteries of the Christian Faith (The Trinity, the Incarnation and the Atonement)
Section 7 – Religion: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

For the list of articles, click here.

Enjoy!

Comments
PS: BA, interesting music and videos. Dancing in a minefield indeed.kairosfocus
October 30, 2010
October
10
Oct
30
30
2010
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
F/N: First, CY, thanks for the kind words. Same, BA. Now, the note. The following could well be Plato's clearest definition of how we should understand knowledge, as translated for us by Timothy Chappell, from Symposium 202a5 - 9: ___________________ >> Don't you know that to have correct beliefs while lacking the ability to give an account [ ~ reasoned ground], is not to have knowledge? For how would anything be knowledge without an account? Yet correct belief is not ignorance either. For how could what hits on reality be ignorance? So presumably true belief is like this: it is in between ignorance and knowledge. >> ___________________ Family resemblance to "Justified, true belief" should be pretty clear. We start with belief. Then, we narrow down to true belief, but that is not yet knowledge until we have a rational account for it. Blend in my concerns on the looser but very practical sense of knowledge, and the distinction from the tighter, certain sense, and my further concerns on the gap between subjective justification and objective warrant, as well as the gap between what we know and whatwe should know, and you get to where I am. And, why I am there. Q: Why take so much bother to pin this issue down? A: if we do not have a clear, reasonable and credible understanding of what knowledge is, and its limitations, then we will conflate knowledge with opinion or even ideology and indoctrination. We will be prone to selective hyperskepticism, and we will be hindered from a competent comparative difficulties analysis when we turn to address worldview choice. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 30, 2010
October
10
Oct
30
30
2010
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
KF, As always, I appreciate your thorough handling of the issues here. Great posts. Also, thanks for the link to Vox Day's expose on the new atheists. I've started reading it. molch, In the interest of maybe settling some issues, rather than in taking this thread into tangential oblivion, it might be beneficial if you simply give us your answers (in brief) to the three questions I asked. Then maybe we can address them here rather than via email where onlookers and participants don't have access. After all, you made the claim that you can answer the questions (which I don't doubt you can), so it is only fitting that you demonstrate this here so we can come to some conclusions - although perhaps limited here.CannuckianYankee
October 30, 2010
October
10
Oct
30
30
2010
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Onlookers: Unfortunately, the onward comment by Molch makes it further clear that he has not taken the time to read carefully, either above or in the already repeatedly linked. He seems dead set against the link between acceptance as true sufficient to act on a claim, i.e. belief, and knowledge. He seems to be particularly resistant to the impact of the particular modifiers "warranted" [has he asked himself why I do not use "justified," post Gettier?] and "credibly true," and how they specify a subset of belief that rises above opinion to knowledge The NWE article on knowledge has a helpful Venn diagram, and leads with a most useful summary definition as already cited:
Knowledge is evaluated and organized information with implications of being true, justified, and believed. Knowledge is often distinguished from opinion. Opinion implies one's perspective without a claim for general or universal validity. The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject, potentially with the ability to use it for a specific purpose . . . [Sadly, the Wikipedia article, in quoting the OED on knowledge, and hastening to say that there is a philosophical debate on knowledge -- in fact there is a philosophical debate on everything in phil, starting with the definition of phil itself -- manages to suppress the definition already cited from OED: "Philos.: true, justified belief."]
So, we can see how knowledge is distinct from belief in general by being a particular subset thereof, one that is warranted and credibly true. In short you cannot know what you do not accept as so, i.e. believe (though one who shuts his eyes to what he ought to know is not without fault). That is why Rom 1:18 - 20 for instance, classically speaks in terms of the moral failure of what one knows or what one should know but suppresses. But also, some beliefs may be false, or may be true but held without good warrant. Such beliefs are not knowledge. To be knowledge, the matter must be accepted, warranted and credibly true. Thus, as already pointed out -- and stoutly resisted to the point of reductio: knowledge is best summed up as warranted, credibly true belief. In the looser sense commonly used of knowledge in day to day affairs, or even science, that credibility may be provisional. In the stricter sense, it means demonstrative certainty. (And in that distinction lieth much of the debate and disagreement that Wikipedia and New World encyclopedia summarise. It is precisely because I am aware of that debate -- cf, my excerpt from Locke in 98 above on that very point -- that I have used that modifier, "credibly.") Even more unfortunately, if M so struggles over a basic point, knowledge, that tells us a lot about the way in which he has addressed the more complex issues on the table about worldview choice. And, in turn this tells us much, and none of it happy, about his response tot he positive evidence and worldview options on comparative difficulties challenges implicit in accepting or rejecting the evidence regarding Christian foundations and broader theism. (Cf. introductory remarks on that related topic, here.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 30, 2010
October
10
Oct
30
30
2010
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
StephenB: "Which arguments for the Christian God have you considered and how did you answer them to your satisfaction?" I extend the same invitation to you as I did earlier to CY: If you are actually interested in my views on these issues I would move the conversation to private e-mail, because it has the scope to fill books. Let me know. Do you know if there is a way to exchange e-mail adresses without making them public on the blog?molch
October 30, 2010
October
10
Oct
30
30
2010
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
KF continues to entertain! “Molch, 75: Belief (warranted credibly true or not) is fundamentally different from knowledge.” KF: “As I pointed out in my quickie response at 79, this reveals that M is evidently ignorant of the classic, basic definition of knowledge in epistemology, and/or the reasons behind it.” Let’ s see about that, shall we? Here is what wikipedia says about belief and knowledge: “The terms belief and knowledge are used differently in philosophy. Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief. The primary problem in epistemology is to understand exactly what is needed in order for us to have true knowledge. In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as "justified true belief". The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true. A false belief is not considered to be knowledge, even if it is sincere. A sincere believer in the flat earth theory does not know that the Earth is flat. Similarly, a truth that nobody believes is not knowledge, because in order to be knowledge, there must be some person who knows it. Later epistemologists, for instance Gettier (1963)[2] and Goldman (1967),[3] have questioned the "justified true belief" definition.” So, this reveals that KF is eminently ignorant about the debate around the relationship of knowledge and belief in epistemology, and the inherent problem that what is a “reasonable and necessarily plausible assertion/evidence/guidance” to one person, is not at all to another person. A sincere believer in flat earth theory will tell you that his belief is justified and true, and he’ll give you all sorts of evidence and assertions that he finds perfectly plausible and reasonable. So, as the epistemologists that KF follows would want to have it, that person “knows” that the earth is flat. But then, those same epistemologists would also say that that belief, being false, is not knowledge; see the problem? I am with the epistemologists that don’t find that concept useful, because it renders the use of the word “knowledge” basically meaningless and completely subjective; I reserve the word “knowledge” by and large for things that I have actually witnessed; thus, in the context of world-views, I use the concepts of belief and conclusion instead; But I am sure KF will continue raging on and on about why he “knows” that I am not entitled to this distinction between knowledge and belief in defining my world-view (and why epistemologists that agree with me are idiots). Rage on – I know you have an avid audience. But wait - there's more: in the following lines KF "proves" that he "knows" that I am a moron. And apparently male; didn't know that one myself; ah, the things I learn from KF! But read for yourself: “Further, simply on the strength of this assertion by M, we can seriously question the claimed depth of his logical and philosophical investigation of the arguments to God” And: “it is sadly but increasingly clear that at no time has Molch seriously engaged the issues of warrant, limitations of warrant, the fallacious nature of either absolute or selective hyperskepticism, much less the process of institutional and individual comparative difficulties that is needed if one is to address worldview choice seriously. Thus, a fair comment: his epistemological foundations are thus found wanting when he draws his “conclusions.” And: “If M does not seem to coherently understand what knowledge at its root is and how it is connected to belief, he is simply not equipped to seriously discuss merits of worldviews on comparative difficulties.” I know it makes you feel better to question my mental capabilities and philosophical investigations (cause non-Christians must obviously be either ignorant or stupid to be non-Christians, duh!) – too bad you don’t know the first thing about either of them. Ahh, well, don’t let that stand in your way! Question away!!! Molch: “I was talking about here were the truth claims of the multitude of alternative worldviews we were discussing (i.e. there is no Tao, there is no Karma, there is no Boddhisattva, there is no [insert whatever concept you want]).” KF: “In short, M is underscoring the old fashioned Atheistical denial of the reality of God, using the classic, “Christians deny the reality of gods a though y, well we add to that, god z.” No. wrong again. I was pointing out that (according to MY use of the word knowledge) a non-adherent of world-view X cannot claim to KNOW that Y (a concept in faith X) does not exist, regardless of what world-view X might be. “Of course, this ducks the precise point of the positive warrant for the Christian faith anchored on 2,000 years of living, life-transforming encounter and relationship with God in the face of the crucified, risen Christ, starting with the 500 eyewitnesses at the core of the church’s mission, in addition to the force of the result of serious comparative difficulties analysis: Judaeo Christian theism, on a grand inference to best explanation exercise, holds up excellently, thank you.” Seems like you didn’t actually pay much attention to my discussion with CY. Might help to read 62 & 80 again. “Let us understand” Well, you failed at that so far. “let us correct” That would require understanding, first “let us pray” Ok, that’s cute! Thanks KF!molch
October 30, 2010
October
10
Oct
30
30
2010
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
--molch: "Like I keep pointing out, although I don’t find your requirement for the defensibility of my world-view justified, I do indeed fullfill it: I actually HAVE spent quite a bit of time with the arguments for the Christian god, and answered them to my satisfaction." Can you be more specific? Which arguments for the Christian God have you considered and how did you answer them to your satisfaction?StephenB
October 30, 2010
October
10
Oct
30
30
2010
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
very well put kf, you may enjoy this new song: Andrew Peterson - Dancing in the Minefields (Official Video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtTa81LyuQM notes: Miracle In A Minefield - The Rebirth Of Israel & 1967 Six Day War - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4159336/ The Precisely Fulfilled Prophecy Of Israel Becoming A Nation In 1948 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041241/bornagain77
October 30, 2010
October
10
Oct
30
30
2010
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
PS: Since the issue of what knowledge is is pivotal, I link and excerpt [with a few notes in parentheses] from a NWE article as a useful 101 based on their usual cleanup of the Wikipedia article: ___________________ >> Knowledge is evaluated and organized information with implications of being true, justified, and believed. Knowledge is often distinguished from opinion. Opinion implies one's perspective without a claim for general or universal validity. The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject, potentially with the ability to use it for a specific purpose . . . . Other definitions * Knowledge is "information combined with experience, context, interpretation, and reflection. It is a high-value form of information [notice the implication of warranted credibility] that is ready to apply to decisions and actions." T. Davenport et al., 1998. * "Explicit or codified knowledge refers to knowledge that is transmittable in formal, systematic language. On the other hand, tacit knowledge has a personal quality, which makes it hard to formalize and communicate." [this is not strictly a definition, indeed it is circular] I. Nonaka, 1994. * "Knowledge is the human expertise stored in a person’s mind, gained through experience and interaction with the person’s environment." [notice the unaddressed but implied issue of warrant] Sunasee and Sewery, 2002. * "Knowledge is a physical, mental, or electronic record of relationships believed to exist between real or imaginary entities, forces, and phenomenas." [focuses on storage, but what determines what is worthwhile of being stored as knowledge?] Worthington, 2005. * Knowledge is "the insights, understandings, and practical know-how that we all possess – it is a fundamental resource that allows us to function intelligently." [again, the issue of warrant lurks] Wiig, 1996. * "Knowledge is information evaluated and organized by the human mind so that it can be used purposefully (e.g., conclusions or explanations)." [again, warrant is the key issue] Rousa, 2002. >> ___________________ We may observe the central significance of the distinction to be made between opinion and knowledge: warrant sufficient to credibly conclude truth and act on that believed, credible truth. Christians, for 2,000 years, and in millions of instances, claim to have personal, miraculously life-transforming knowledge of he Living God, the God of Abraham who raised up our Lord Jesus from death in fulfillment of the prophecies of the Hebraic prophets. Knowledge that is also confirmed by reference to the authentic, accurate record handed down to us at great personal cost by that first generation of eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus, and their faithful successors. Onlookers, ask yourself, what level of warrant do athestical and other skeptical objectors have for dismissing all such testimony and record as erroneous, delusional or deceptive? Similarly, in our day, atheism claims to be rooted in science, in particular, evolutionary materialistic accounts of origins. In light of issues raised here and here, and elsewhere [start with VJT's 200], what degree of actual warrant -- Lewontinian a priori question-begging does not count -- what degree of actual warrant do such advocates have for their views, relative to the warrant for say Judaeo-Christian theism? GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 30, 2010
October
10
Oct
30
30
2010
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT
3] Molch, 75: Belief (warranted credibly true or not) is fundamentally different from knowledge. As I pointed out in my quickie response at 79, this reveals that M is evidently ignorant of the classic, basic definition of knowledge in epistemology, and/or the reasons behind it. Further, simply on the strength of this assertion by M, we can seriously question the claimed depth of his logical and philosophical investigation of the arguments to God. In short, this inadvertent admission of ignorance on M's part is decisive. For, in his haste to reject any connexion between faith -- acceptance and trust sufficiently held to act on [think: why do I sit on a chair?] -- and knowledge, he has -- by his own confession -- failed to understand the significance of warrant, credibility and truth in moving from belief as such to knowledge. (Observe, onlookers, how studiously M has avoided addressing this correction. I link my introductory level discussion of the point here in the relevant course notes.) This unfortunate error is sadly typical of Neo-Atheist forays into philosophical waters. 4] M, 75: You want some “painfully specific details” why calling Christianity “troubled” might be “well warranted”? Neo-Atheists too often do not understand that the history of Christendom -- that of a civilisation partially (and profoundly) influenced by Christian teaching and institutions in various stages of fidelity to or apostasy from the foundational teaching and example, and the latter usually followed by reformation by appeal to foundational sources and principles -- is utterly distinct from the historic foundations of and example set for us by the founder of the Christian Faith. As the previously linked work by Nehls and Eric documents in painful detail, it is the latter that is precisely what is the root problem with the foundation of Islam. I further find that it is a commonplace for such Neo-Atheists to try to dismiss and/or denigrate well-warranted observations on major (indeed, positively transformative) positive contributions of the Christian faith and of Christendom to the progress of human history. the jaundiced tone and shrillness of a Dawkins or a Coyne et al are utterly telling. 5] M, 75: how about some highly compressed summary remark that I find Christianity an ethically highly questionable, internally inconsistent cult for a barbaric god, and Alvin Plantinga outdated and far from the mark in addressing the problem of evil. This little bit of ill-founded turnabout rhetoric simply shows the superficiality of M's objection. (Onlookers, in addressing the problem of the one and the many relative to pantheistic views, I linked extensive discussions, which warrant my claims. Plantinga's defense -- as opposed to theodicy -- on he deductive form of he problem of evil is decisive, and decisive precisely because of the stringency of the asserted contradiction pushed by skeptics. In addressing the inductive form of the problem, we are now in the province of comparative difficulties, and it can be seen that Judaeo-Christian theism more than holds its own. Observe again, how M does not actually engage substantial reasoning, starting with the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialistic atheism.) 6] M, 75: I am sorry that it irks you that I don’t feel like debating the roots and reasonings behind my world-view with you. If I want to do that, I go to much more intellectually and philosophically challenging places than here. We can take the measure of this confident declaration by observing he basic blunder remarked on at 3 above. If M does not seem to coherently understand what knowledge at its root is and how it is connected to belief, he is simply not equipped to seriously discuss merits of worldviews on comparative difficulties. 7] M, 75: Thanks for summarizing your pervasive debating technique so beautifully. That’s exactly why I find discussions with you neither productive, nor educational, nor enjoyable.Have fun deriding the next customer! M, sadly, concludes with a classic example of a turnabout, and false, accusation; then slams the door on the way out. Onlookers, this example is sadly typical of Neo-Atheist rhetoric. __________________ Let us understand, and let us correct. Also, if you are of that inclination, let us pray. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 30, 2010
October
10
Oct
30
30
2010
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
With these in hand, I now wish to respond on selective points in Molch's comment at no 75 [and one or two from later on], noting but setting to one side the immediate unwarranted resort to personalities. I note that -- contrary to his ad hominem-laced allegations -- I have not put words into Molch's mouth, but as a perusal of the thread above will document, I have responded to the general tenor and many specific claims he has made. (Actually, M is trying a turnabout, as I have exposed the tendency of Neo-Atheists and fellow travellers to distort and denigrate instead of responding squarely on the merits.) Now, on cited points: 1] M, 75: I was talking about here were the truth claims of the multitude of alternative worldviews we were discussing (i.e. there is no Tao, there is no Karma, there is no Boddhisattva, there is no [insert whatever concept you want]). In short, M is underscoring the old fashioned Atheistical denial of the reality of God, using the classic, "Christians deny the reality of gods a though y, well we add to that, god z." Of course, this ducks the precise point of the positive warrant for the Christian faith anchored on 2,000 years of living, life-transforming encounter and relationship with God in the face of the crucified, risen Christ, starting with the 500 eyewitnesses at the core of the church's mission, in addition to the force of the result of serious comparative difficulties analysis: Judaeo Christian theism, on a grand inference to best explanation exercise, holds up excellently, thank you. And, in particular [the context for what has developed starts with CY's remarks on my links at 39, in 44 - 45, and M's "different kind of atheist" remarks at 53], when we look at the arguments to God from an inference to best explanation on comparative difficulties perspective, to reject ALL of these arguments ends up forcing some pretty extreme and quite hard to defend worldview commitments, and I linked a summary discussion on that here (from a course I presented some years back), which M of course has never specifically addressed. That is why, in 68, I said: there are several cumulatively strong lines of evidence pointing to a specific exception to the universal negative claim: “there is no God.” 2] M, 53: I might be the kind of atheist you have not met before. And I think I am in good company . . . . a lot of philosophers HAVE contended with those positive arguments for the existence of deities. I am surprised that you seem utterly unaware of the rich philosophical literature criticizing them . . . . I might be different from all the other atheists that you know, but I have personally spent quite some time contending with these arguments myself. So far, I haven’t encountered any that convinced me after serious philosophical, logical and scientific investigation. Thus, M contends that he is an atheist, has investigated on phil, logic and science, the classic theistic arguments and has rejected all of them. So, he immediately falls under the category I highlighted in 1 just above: to reject the full set of classic theistic arguments, one has to commit to denials of premises that put one on a pretty sticky wicket. Just picking a point or two from the above linked 101 survey, is M able and willing to cogently defend claims of the following ilk:
[cosmological argument:] the [overall physical] universe’s existence is a brute – inexplicable – fact Ontological: from premises # 4 & 5 [of this argument, cf. the link], God’s existence is only possible if it is necessary [i.e. part of the meaning of God in theism is that He is a necessary being, logically to explain the contingent world, and ontologically as the ground of all being] – inviting the objection that God’s existence is impossible, but this is in turn a very strong claim [Design/teleological:] even very improbable complex systems, given enough time will happen by chance. [That is, have evolutionary materialistic atheists succeeded as yet in empirically showing that functionally specific complex organisation and associated information can and do arise by undirected cofces of mechanical necessity and chance? If not, why then -- apart from Lewontinian a priori commitment to materialism -- do they dismiss the abundant observation that such FSCI routinely comes about by design, and that the resources of he observed cosmos are utterly insufficient to create such systems once the required or implied information storage capacity to sustain function is in excess of say 500 - 1,000 bits?] Moral: often people simply assert that there are no binding obligations, or claim that there is no set of universally accepted moral principles. Others seek to suggest ways in which moral obligations can exist in a non-theistic world; or else simply say that these obligations are yet another brute – i.e. inexplicable -- fact. Religious Experience: Some object that religious experiences are simply subjective perceptions: i.e. that they are not veridical. [In blunter terms, all people, in all times and places, who claim to have met and have a relationship with God are to that extent, delusional.]
And, that leaves off the fundamental problem of today's "science"-glorifying atheism: the question-begging and incoherence of evolutionary materialism, as I recently posted on at UD here. In short, the cumulative implicit commitments of atheism are extreme and hard to defend. That is why ever so many atheists spend their time on the attack, instead of sitting down to a serious comparative difficulties exercise. [ . . . ]kairosfocus
October 30, 2010
October
10
Oct
30
30
2010
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT
Onlookers (and CY, BA and Molch, also SB [cf 77!]): CY, during the onward exchange, has captured the heart of the problem Molch and many other Neo-Atheists have (I make an adjustment or two, pardon CY):
[CY, 88:] the atheist has no point of reference on which to base a statement such that if they experience [ACKNOWLEDGE] no evidence for God’s existence, such a God probably does not exist. The Christian does have a point of reference for the comparative difficulties between two opposing religious truth claims, while not needing to entirely dismiss the foundation for the opposing claim. And I think this is what KF means with regard to Islam [CORRECT!] . . .. The Christian is not making [universal negative] claims pertaining to what he or she believes does not exist, but of what does exist [per experience of God and his transforming power as experienced through the gospel by millions across thousands of years, with clearly authentic and authoritative records and eyewitness testimony recorded within the lifetime of those witnesses tot he key events in Jerusalem at the turn of the 30s of our common era] . Differing religions [indeed] make differing truth claims. As such, we are able to compare and carefully weigh the differences against the reality we can plainly see or with the internal consistency of the claims, and so forth. [And, for good reason, we find that the Judaeo-Chrisian worldview and faith stands up very well to that process of comparative difficulties.]
As I skim back above, my mind is brought back to a much overlooked remark by John Locke in the introduction [section 5] to his famous essay on Human Understanding: ________________ >> Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2 & 13, Ac 17, Jn 3:19 - 21, Eph 4:17 - 24, Isaiah 5:18 & 20 - 21, Jer. 2:13, Titus 2:11 - 14 etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly. [Text references added to document the sources of Locke's allusions and citations.] >> _________________ As I reflect on the thread above -- which per its original post, is on the question of warrant for worldviews and the issue of falsifiability as a criterion of such warrant, then the assignment of a set of collected readings relvant to the credibility of Judaeo-Christian theism -- it is sadly but increasingly clear that at no time has Molch seriously engaged the issues of warrant, limitations of warrant, the fallacious nature of either absolute or selective hyperskepticism, much less the process of institutional and individual comparative difficulties that is needed if one is to address worldview choice seriously. Thus, a fair comment: his epistemological foundations are thus found wanting when he draws his "conclusions." (this is unfortunately typical of the Neo-Atheists, as can be easily seen in their various best selling books and all too often utterly strident, outright rude, egotistical and disrespectfully slanderous and dismissive web sites. For, the trifects fallacy of distraction, distortion, denigration or demonisation leading on to dismissal, has become standard, even habitual procedure for such advocates. Vox Day's expose, as already linked [this gives the e-book downloads page], is a useful first rebuttal.) I also must spotlight and reject the sort of epistemological egotism that so often joins itself to selective hyperskepticism and thinks the world of knowledge pivots around what one is willing or unwilling to accept as so. The path of epistemological humility, instead, starts from acknowledging that one is finite, fallible, morally fallen and too often ill willed and/or blinded by all sorts of influences. In that context, one examines serious alternatives on an objective basis, and will check authenticity then hear out credible authorities. And, as Simon Greenleaf so wisely counselled long ago now, one will hold to a conclusion based on warrant, to the relevant degree applicable to the matter at stake:
a: In mathematics, we accept demonstrations tracing to first principles (though for most of us, tha tmeans we accept the credible testimony of teachers). b: In the natural sciences, we mark the distinction between the operational world we live in and can test by direct observation, and attempted reconstructions of the remote and unobserved past of origins. c: We also accept that scientific warrant is provisional, and that across time, scientific theories and even fact claims rise and fall. d: In history and law, we recognise the principles of testing testimony and once a relevant witness or record is authenticated, we recognise that the burden of proof properly shifts to the objector. [Cf discussion here on this, in the context of the authenticity and credibility of the NT record -- notice how Molch has yet to seriously address any specifics, even as he is ever so eager to dismiss.] e: In common sense and managerial decision-making situations, we recognise and apply more or less looser forms of such criteria, on the principle of prudent cost-benefit analysis, i.e. we weigh the situation, the resources to hand and the cost of the different kinds of mistakes, then take the relevant calculated risk on degree of warrant needed to act in the face of fleeting opportunities and challenges. f: We also understand that our senses, reasoning capacity and intuitions, once they are not misled by warped perspectives, and are operating correctly in their designed, environments, are generally trustworthy. (To reject this principle leads immediately to an absurdly infinite regress of skepticisms.)
[ . . . ]kairosfocus
October 30, 2010
October
10
Oct
30
30
2010
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
correction,, Myersbornagain77
October 30, 2010
October
10
Oct
30
30
2010
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT
CY, here is Michael Egnor's response to P.Z. Meyers; Theologians nice to Myers...naaasty little Theologians... http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/pz_or_not_pz_thats_the_questio039731.htmlbornagain77
October 30, 2010
October
10
Oct
30
30
2010
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT
CY: "Can you answer these questions while still maintaining a coherent position of atheism?" This issue is kind-of besides the point of our main discussion, but my answer is obviously yes. Like I keep pointing out, although I don't find your requirement for the defensibility of my world-view justified, I do indeed fullfill it: I actually HAVE spent quite a bit of time with the arguments for the Christian god, and answered them to my satisfaction.molch
October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT
CY, so the core of your argument basically boils down to this: "the atheist has no point of reference on which to base a statement such that if they experience no evidence for God’s existence, such a God probably does not exist. The Christian does have a point of reference for the comparative difficulties between two opposing religious truth claims, while not needing to entirely dismiss the foundation for the opposing claim." That is a very curious belief on your part, which demonstrates to me that you don't have much experience with the actual world-view, or rather enormous variety of world-views, that atheism can entail. You simply assume that the only truth claims an atheist can make are negative (i.e. such-and-such does NOT exist). Nothing could be further from the truth. I have a very rich repertoire of reference points in the form of beliefs/concluded truths about the world to compare opposing truth claims and evaluate their relative validity against. The existence of a deity is incredibly far from being the only relevant point of reference in any belief system, and if you know anything about Eastern religions, then you know that from their perspective, it is even farther from being the most important one. "And I would call it a strength in that you have a basis (though faulty in my view) for rejecting Christianity from it’s claims of historical truth." ??? In 81 you said: "It would indeed be a weakness if one begins with the assumption that Christianity is not true." No matter - we can agree to disagree! "The Christian is not making claims pertaining to what he or she believes does not exist, but of what does exist. Differing religions make differing truth claims. As such, we are able to compare and carefully weigh the differences against the reality we can plainly see or with the internal consistency of the claims, and so forth." and: “Since I have evidence that the God of the scriptures exists, and that He transcends all else that exists, many of the truth claims based on Vishnu are probably untrue insofar as they are at odds with the God of scripture, who exists.” So, like I expected, you base your acceptance or rejection of the truth claims of other world-views on the comparison and compatibility with your own. Well, like I said above, my truth claims likewise are based on what I have concluded does exist, is unlikely to exist, is true, is unlikely to be true, and the comparison and compatibility of other truth claims. "I find it interesting that you conclude that Christianity is not true prior to concluding that the specific historical events concerning Jesus are not true" Although it probably seemed like it from my earlier post, one conclusion did not really precede the other, they go hand in hand and affirm each other. "And since this will probably be my last post on the matter, I’d like to thank you for your thoughts. I really value the time we’ve spent considering each others’ positions, and I respect you for raising the issues you did, while remaining in disagrement." thanks - respect reciprocated!molch
October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT
BA, Thanks for the link. Dr. Egnor wrote at the end of his essay: "P.Z. Myers and others also answered the eight questions, and I'll review and critique them when I can." Do you know if the answers are available? If so, do you have another link. I think this is completely relevant to the questions I asked molch, and I'm curious what they answered.CannuckianYankee
October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
molch, "So, following from the point made above, after concluding that Christianity is not true, my conclusion already entails that many of the biblical claims about the historical figure Jesus are false, since at least some of those claims are inherently related to what I rejected based on inspection of arguments; Thus, the premise is already falsified after inspection of other arguments; I’d call that a weakness." And I would call it a strength in that you have a basis (though faulty in my view) for rejecting Christianity from it's claims of historical truth. What other religions can claim to fall based on the veracity of an alleged historical event - namely, the resurrection? In other words, is Christianity based on the teachings of Jesus, or on the actions and events of Jesus' life? The Christian scriptures seem to suggest that the teachings of Jesus are in fact closely tied to the events and actions of his life. Is Mormonism based on the actions and events of Joseph Smith's life, or on the teachings found in the Book of Mormon and other extra-biblical texts? Is Islam based on the actions and events of Mohammed's life, or on the teachings found in the Quran? I find it interesting that you conclude that Christianity is not true prior to concluding that the specific historical events concerning Jesus are not true (that's if I'm reading you correctly above). I personally think you have it backwards. If the historical events concerning Jesus are true, then Christianity itself is true. In other words, If Jesus lived, claimed based on the Jewish scriptures to be the Messiah, fulfilled the relevant prophecies, preached in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas, was arrested, crucified and rose from the dead according to those historical accounts as well as according to the prior prophecies concerning the Messiah that he would complete such actions as evidence of the foreknowledge of God, then Christianity is most likely true absent the strain of materialist metaphysical assumptions. The issue then returns to the same (or similar) issue with your denial of the existence of God. You have the problem of trying to prove a negative - as in an alleged historical event, and against the testimony from the historical period in question that such an event did in fact occur, as well as in the absence of historical contemporary testimony to the contrary. While the event itself and it's testimony is not the only basis for why Christians believe it, you don't appear to have (again) a point of reference from which to deny the claims other than (again) that you have experienced no evidence for such an event, since in order to actually experience the historical evidence you would have to have been there at the time. The issue then would have to of necessity disregard the likelihood of experiencing the physical evidence and adhere to accepted criteria of and applications for historical accuracy based on the experiences and record of others. For that, I think the historical record for Christianity fits well within the accepted criteria for historical accuracy more than any other ancient historical event, with testimony from multiple sources both contemporary (as far as is possible in ancient times) with Jesus' life and within a couple of hundred years following the events - which is almost unheard of for most significant ancient historical events; and if it were not due to (again) an a priori materialistic metaphysical assumption regarding the veracity of "religious" texts, one be well within warrant to accept that historical testimony according to commonly accepted criteria. That seems to me to be where a glaring problem lies for your view. And since this will probably be my last post on the matter, I'd like to thank you for your thoughts. I really value the time we've spent considering each others' positions, and I respect you for raising the issues you did, while remaining in disagrement.CannuckianYankee
October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
CY and molch, you may find this recent article by Michael Egnor interesting: What I Really Believe - Michael Egnor - October 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/what_i_really_believe039671.htmlbornagain77
October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
molch, "To clear up what your position seems to be, let me re-iterate my example: According to your standard, a Buddhist (who might very well be an atheist) is required to justify why he/she is not a Christian, but a Christian is not required to justify why he/she is not a Buddhist." No, not at all. First of all, not all Buddhists are atheists - some are. I'm distinguishing this here for the sake of my argument: I would approach the beliefs of a theistic Buddhist with the same comparative difficulties exercise I illustrated briefly in my next to last post. For the atheist though, as I pointed out, there is no point of reference for "I find no experiential evidence for a god or gods, therefore a god or gods probably (or for some 'possibly') do(es) not exist," other than inexperience. That doesn't leave me or them for that matter, much to go on, so that is why I suggest that the atheist needs to consider more the positive arguments for theism in order to have a firm point of reference apart from his/her inexperience with evidence. And it is this lack of a frame of reference, why I believe the new atheists at least resort to what I have termed the denialist arguments against theism, which theism itself adresses quite sufficiently in my view. Again, the bottom line to all of this is: If there is no god, then why do we as humans value anything? If there is no god, then why is the universe not completely chaotic? In other words, where does order derive? If there is no god, how does one account for the absurdity of infinite regresses of causes? Can you answer these questions while still maintaining a coherent position of atheism? If you can answer them, fine. If you can't answer them, I see no problem except in your firmly held belief that there is (possibly or probably) no God. This is partly why I challenge atheists towards a(n) (re-)examination of the evidence. Of course, I'm sure that the other posters and onlookers here who are theists, could come up with more questions for you in that regard. My list is rather minimal.CannuckianYankee
October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
molch, Before I respond to the rest of your posts: "Truthiness is a 'truth' that a person claims to know intuitively 'from the gut' without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1]" From Wikipedia. Sorry, it's a rather new term, and it's definition might have a certain truthiness of it's own. ;) Suffice to say, that many faith claims are not necessarily based on evidence or logic - this may be true of some claims within the Christian worldview as well as outside - including atheism.CannuckianYankee
October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
molch, "that brings me back to the point: why should this premise be any more faulty than 'since I as a Christian have no evidence of Vishnu, therefore, Vishnu probably does not exist?'" Because that's not how a Christian would necessarily approach the issue. The Christian would more likely approach it from the evidence for God. It would go more like this: "Since I have evidence that the God of the scriptures exists, and that He transcends all else that exists, many of the truth claims based on Vishnu are probably untrue insofar as they are at odds with the God of scripture, who exists." The Christian is not even required by this to state that Vishnu necessarily does not exist. In fact, the Christian would agree that Vishnu if understood as the supreme God does exist, but that some (maybe not all) of the truth claims attributed to Vishnu by Hinduism are probably untrue insofar as they contradict the truth claims of scripture. And of course this is given that we have some sort of basis for why we hold the Judeo-Christian scriptures as truth above the scriptures of other faiths. I believe we do, but that will have to be another discussion. So as KF has carefully illustrated, Christians base their affirmation of Christianity as truth against other truth claims based on comparative difficulties. So it's not true that a Christian would say "since I have no experiential evidence for the existence of Vishnu, Vishnu probably doesn't exist," if Vishnu is understood as the supreme God. The Christian would state more like: "I believe I have experience with Vishnu, but I understand Him differently than what Hinduism teaches about him, and I believe I am warranted in such a difference...." and further laying out the case. So the Christian is not necessarily denying the existence of Vishnu, or Allah, or any other god or gods. The Christian is challenging the truth claims based on these gods. Also, the Christian would affirm that even if such a god or gods exist, either they are misrepresentations of the God of scripture, or they are other supernatural beings, which God created, and which humans had experience with, or they could be some other form of belief system based on ancient myths - true or not. Let's get back to the issue here - the atheist has no point of reference on which to base a statement such that if they experience no evidence for God's existence, such a God probably does not exist. The Christian does have a point of reference for the comparative difficulties between two opposing religious truth claims, while not needing to entirely dismiss the foundation for the opposing claim. And I think this is what KF means with regard to Islam. Islam has certain voluminous inconsistencies with scripture, while at the same time, holding the Judeo-Christian scriptures as authoritative (but corrupted). In fact, the beginnings of Islam are very similar to the beginnings of Mormonism, which also departs from scripture and holds extra-biblical texts above scripture, since the Christian scriptures are said to be "corrupted." There's no basis, in my view, for the charge that the Judeo-Christian scriptures are in fact corrupted as is claimed, in order for Islam (or Mormonism) to justify a certain theological departure from the truth claims of Christianity and Judaism. So in that respect, the Christian is quite warranted in pointing out that while Islam holds the Judeo-Christian scriptures as (somewhat) authoritative, it grossly departs from the essential truth claims, which make those very same scriptures what they are, while preferring an extra-biblical text, which contains equally gross departures from Christianity and Judaism. Now that's how I view Islam as a religion. It has no bearing on how I view adherents to Islam, whom I have experienced as wonderful people. I have lived in Islamic countries to be able to say this with some degree of experience. In fact, it was Muslims, who first challenged me out of my atheism, so I owe them much in that respect, and I can't dismiss Islam insofar as it is a belief system that does accept the existence of God as I do. The parts I challenge, are those voluminous parts, which first challenged the foundations of Christianity some 1,400 years ago, and which continue to this day. This is essentially what I mean by having a point of reference. The Christian is not making claims pertaining to what he or she believes does not exist, but of what does exist. Differing religions make differing truth claims. As such, we are able to compare and carefully weigh the differences against the reality we can plainly see or with the internal consistency of the claims, and so forth.CannuckianYankee
October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
"If you think adopting a certain worldview necessitates “enough research", it would seem to me that the only people in the world who could be worthy of holding any particular worldview would be an elite few – or perhaps none of us." now you are confusing me - when I referred to "the standard you are applying to your judgement of whether someone has done enough research to adopt a certain world-view", I was paraphrasing your position: weren't you the one who required non-Christians to "do the research" of inspecting every single argument for Christianity before you allow them to reject it? In case you forgot, this is what you said: "But honestly, if anyone wants to be a true atheist and deny God, they really have to contend with all the arguments for His existence, and not simply the carefully constructed so as to avoid the positive, denialist arguments." "I wasn’t being stringent, I was asking for reason as opposed to mere skepticism firmly grounded in a priori assumptions." And I was asking for a reason why you think it's ok on the other hand to reject Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. etc. etc. based on the assumption that they must be false under a priori Christianity. To clear up what your position seems to be, let me re-iterate my example: According to your standard, a Buddhist (who might very well be an atheist) is required to justify why he/she is not a Christian, but a Christian is not required to justify why he/she is not a Buddhist.molch
October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
molch, "Ok, I thought you understood my point earlier, but it seems I was wrong. I am not challenging your world-view, I am challenging the standard you are applying to your judgement of whether someone has done enough research to adopt a certain world-view." And your point was well understood, but I disagree. If you think adopting a certain worldview necessitates "enough research," in order to judge, then it would seem to me that the only people in the world who could be worthy of holding any particular worldview would be an elite few - or perhaps none of us. By what and who's standard is "enough?" I'm reminded of the post in which you charged me with being stringent with atheists. That's funny. I wasn't being stringent, I was asking for reason as opposed to mere skepticism firmly grounded in a priori assumptions.CannuckianYankee
October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
CY: "my overall argument against atheism would include all – that the atheist worldview is based on a faulty premise, that “since I as an atheist have no evidence of a god or gods in my experience, therefore, a god or gods probably (or for some ‘possibly’) do(es) not exist.” that brings me back to the point: why should this premise be any more faulty than "since I as a Christian have no evidence of Vishnu, therefore, Vishnu probably does not exist"?molch
October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
CY: I have no idea what "truthiness" is supposed to be?molch
October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
CY: "It would indeed be a weakness if one begins with the assumption that Christianity is not true. Of course if you begin there, then you’re not really considering Christianity’s truth claims, are you?" Well, obviously you agree that it is indeed a weakness from at least one possible perspective. And my perspective, not by "beginning with the assumption", but after reaching the conclusion from the inspection of many, many arguments and truth claims, is that Christianity is not true. "a truth claim, which has as its premise something that can be falsified, as a weak point for that claim" So, following from the point made above, after concluding that Christianity is not true, my conclusion already entails that many of the biblical claims about the historical figure Jesus are false, since at least some of those claims are inherently related to what I rejected based on inspection of arguments; Thus, the premise is already falsified after inspection of other arguments; I'd call that a weakness.molch
October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
"Did you find me using any such labels or any signs of intolerance in my discussion with you at any point?" No, not at all. I'm enjoying the exchange. If you read my posts carefully I qualified that with the "new atheists." Not all atheists are Dawkins devotees, but on the other hand, many are, and many of the atheist forums on the internet seem to be of that ilk. So when I say "atheist," please understand that I'm not making a charge against any one individual, but to a certain segment of the atheist movement that is very vocal, and has a lot of influence. I believe I have made that quite clear. But my overall argument against atheism would include all - that the atheist worldview is based on a faulty premise, that "since I as an atheist have no evidence of a god or gods in my experience, therefore, a god or gods probably (or for some 'possibly') do(es) not exist."CannuckianYankee
October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
molch, I'm going in a somewhat non-specific order in response: Me: “Furthermore, Christianity’s basic focal point is an historic event, which if it could be shown to be untrue, would topple the entire belief system. Not all religions have that unique quality such that if the central figure were shown to have not existed, or not done what is claimed of him, would falsify the entire faith.” you: "I’m not sure why you think that that’s a strength – to me it’s quite obvious that that’s a big weakness of Christianity." Why? It would indeed be a weakness if one begins with the assumption that Christianity is not true. Of course if you begin there, then you're not really considering Christianity's truth claims, are you? The strength in that point is that Christianity does not depend on some esoteric "truthiness," which can be accepted or rejected and still maintain a foundation. Christianity depends on an historic event, which if it did not happen, renders Christianity false. The gospel writers understood this, and Paul understood this; yet they boldly proclaimed it. But let's not belabor the point here. For you to charge that a truth claim, which has as its premise something that can be falsified, as a weak point for that claim, would seem to fit in what KF has categorized as hyper-skepticism, and I would add - to the extreme. And you're questioning my basis for worldview foundation? On what basis do you make the charge that an element that can be falsified is a weakness for a truth claim? What is your reasoning here? Do you think all religions should only contain "truthiness" and not truth?CannuckianYankee
October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
CY “Let’s get this discussion back on track here.” Yes – thanks. I said: “Like I pointed out in the discussion with CY, I am not here to discuss my world-view, or his, or yours. I entered the discussion to challenge his somewhat strange and in my eyes inconsistent standard for adopting a world-view.” To which you replied: “I’m sorry, but this statement appears rather contradictory. You’re not here to discuss my worldview, but you are challenging my worldview?” Ok, I thought you understood my point earlier, but it seems I was wrong. I am not challenging your world-view, I am challenging the standard you are applying to your judgement of whether someone has done enough research to adopt a certain world-view. I’ll try to be more clear by using an example: According to your standard, a Buddhist (who might very well be an atheist, in case you didn’t know) is required to justify why he/she is not a Christian, but a Christian is not required to justify why he/she is not a Buddhist. “I don’t believe you’ve captured the essence of how I have formed my worldview.” Well, I mean no offense, but I don’t really care that much how you have formed your worldview, I care about what you prescribe onto others as to how you think they should form their world-view. “I personally believe that worldviews are important not simply as an intellectual exercise, but in order for us to understand our place; our significance in the world.” I completely agree with you there, and thought that was evident from my earlier posts. “I personally find atheism utterly lacking in any coherent accounting of the basic questions most of us find ourselves asking – why are we here? why does such a universe exist rather than not? How did the universe come to be?” That’s completely fine by me that you feel that way – I feel quite similarly about all the monotheistic religions and many other religions. I said: “Note that I replaced the word ‘know’ from your sentence, and replaced it with the word ‘conclude’.” To which you replied: ”So I can see from your perspective why you would make such a distinction, but from a Christian perspective it is different. If you haven’t had the Christian perspective, how would you know? So you’re way of looking at it from an atheist perspective is perfectly fine as far as it goes.” Great – I’m glad we can agree on that “But to say that a Christian cannot “know” based on his/her own experience of the presence of God, is again, to beg questions.” I never said that, and never implied it either, so that should settle that. “my overall point is that not all truth claims are coherent with the parts of reality that are plain and clear to most of us.” I completely agree with you here – and there are a lot of truth claims in ANY faith that are not coherent with the parts of reality that are plain and clear to most of us. “when you ask why one and not the other, or what’s the difference between Christianity’s truth claims and that of any other religion; we are strongly supported by Christianity’s epistemological history, as well as a propensity of evidence from a number of disciplines.” If I dig enough I can find you hundreds of examples of the exact equivalent claims made by practically every other religion. “Furthermore, Christianity’s basic focal point is an historic event, which if it could be shown to be untrue, would topple the entire belief system. Not all religions have that unique quality such that if the central figure were shown to have not existed, or not done what is claimed of him, would falsify the entire faith.” I’m not sure why you think that that’s a strength – to me it’s quite obvious that that’s a big weakness of Christianity. I said: “….and it sounds just as convincing or unconvincing (take your pick) as an argument to adopt a particular belief system as your original version.” To which you replied: “Well that may be true.” Yes, it is true. Just because a lot of people believe something, doesn’t make it any more or less true. “the fact remains that one will find Christians in more countries around the world in larger numbers than one will find Buddhists. With the exception of a few population pockets in countries where religion is tolerated, Buddhists for the most part are concentrated in Eastern Asia.” That fact is entirely unsurprising, given that Christianity has a strong component of evangelism, whereas most Eastern religions, including Buddhism, do not. And, as I said earlier, that point is really irrelevant to me for a reason to adopt a world-view. I don’t adopt a world-view by majority vote. I said: “why do you require an atheist to look into every argument for the truth of the Christian faith, when he/she has already concluded that deities are not likely to exist, and the Christian faith is one of a multitude of beliefs that include deities?” To which you replied: “For the simple reason that Christianity teaches that atheism can and should be eliminated through right reason and respectful challenging of it’s foundations.” Sure, I have no problem with that. I personally believe that monotheism can and should be eliminated through right reason and respectful challenging of it’s foundations. “It seems, on the other hand, that atheists believe theism should be eliminated through intolerance – by labeling a huge portion of the world’s population as “delusional,” “unscientific” and in some cases, “evil.” Did you find me using any such labels or any signs of intolerance in my discussion with you at any point? No? So why then do you throw people of a certain belief all in the same pot, when you yourself don’t wish to be thrown in the pot with adherents of your faith for whom “tolerating the views of others, while attempting to persuade them through reason, example and respect” has demonstrably NOT been the method of persuasion?molch
October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8 9

Leave a Reply