After I had finished writing Monday’s Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence post, I Googled extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to see what else had been written about it: had I missed anything or got something wrong? Surprisingly, the first hit was the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM) – with a critique of the way atheists supposedly apply the extraordinary claims doctrine when examining claims of Jesus’ resurrection. Unsurprisingly, they managed to mangle the atheists’ position. Equally unsurprisingly it’s choc full of logical fallacies. It starts with a possibly unintentional statement that the Christian has already made his mind up about the resurrection, whether he has any evidence or not:
In Jesus' resurrection, for example, Christians presuppose that God exists and that He could easily have raised Jesus from the dead. The evidence of fulfilled prophecy, eyewitness records, and changed lives of the disciples is enough to convince many people who believe in God that Jesus rose from the dead. This is a logical conclusion based on the presupposition and the evidence.
The CARM’s position that “Christians presuppose that God exists and that He could easily have raised Jesus from the dead” is circular reasoning: they’re using the resurrection as evidence that Jesus was resurrected (and was therefore the son of God, etc), but their admitted presupposition is that God exists and would have resurrected his son. Of course, if you start from the position that Jesus was the son of God then your “logical conclusion” pretty much has to be that Jesus was resurrected. Who needs evidence?
They then misstate the atheists’ position to accuse atheists of doing what they just admitted to doing themselves:
Atheists, on the other hand, would negate the resurrection by default since their presupposition that there is no God would require that God involvement cannot occur. Therefore, for an atheist the extraordinary evidence would have to be "exceptionally" extraordinary in order to overcome his atheistic presuppositions.
No. It has nothing to do with “atheistic presuppositions”. It is because of the “presupposition” (actually, the extraordinary evidence that exists), that show DEAD PEOPLE DO NOT COME BACK TO LIFE. I’m not talking about people who were technically “dead” for a short while but who were brought back by heroic modern medicine. I’m talking about someone who was really dead, for nearly two days, without modern machinery to keep the organs working, who was resurrected by magic.
I find it telling that the CARM accuse atheists of presupposing their conclusion (they don’t), when that is exactly what the CARM just did. (Projection?) And remember, I used their own actual statement of what their presuppositions are, from their own article – not a straw man version of their presuppositions as they did with the atheists' supposed presupposition.
This is why the skeptic must require "extraordinary evidence." It enables him to retain his presupposition should the extraordinary level of the evidence not be met. Therefore, requiring extraordinary evidence effectively stacks the deck against the claim.
No. The absurdity of the claim – a dead person coming back to life - stacks the deck against the claim.
When debating skeptics, I often ask them to tell me what would qualify as extraordinary evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Generally, nothing sensible is offered. Normal evidence would be written accounts. Extraordinary evidence would be a film, but we know that this extraordinary evidence is not reasonable since there was no film in Jesus' time. Therefore, can the requirement that extraordinary claims (Christ's resurrection) require extraordinary evidence apply to Jesus' resurrection?
It can and it should. It is not the fault of the atheist that Christians have nothing but lame second-hand anecdotes for this patently absurd claim. The burden of proof is upon the claimant, not upon those who doubt the absurd claim.
It would seem not. Since Jesus' resurrection is alleged to be a historical event, then it seems logical that normal historical evidence and normal historical examination of that evidence would be all we could offer. The resurrection is supposed to be an event of history and since it claims historical validity, then typical criteria for examining historical claims should be applied.
No. Unless the historical claims they refer to also involve raising the dead. Which they rarely do.
They go on to equivocate about how historic claims are judged differently because of the difficulty in testing events that happened a long time ago. But historians are generally evaluating claims such as who won a war, why they won (better tactics, better weapons?), who was involved in implementing legislation, etc. These things can often be inferred from a variety of sources. But they are not, in the main, extraordinary claims. One historian might say a war was won because of a better general; another might say it was bad weather than got the troops of one side bogged down in the mud. One or both of these explanations might be wrong. But neither requires you to accept some new and extraordinary claim such as (for example) that if you accept Jesus you will live in heaven forever. The CARM equivocate about this difference:
Furthermore, we cannot ascertain all things with absolute certainty. We cannot, for example, prove that Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.) ever lived by observing him. But, we have ancient writings from eyewitnesses concerning his existence. Skeptics readily believe in Alexander the Great without involving the scientific method and without requiring "extraordinary evidence" yet they will require it of Jesus' existence.
No. They have created a false analogy. When expressed properly, it applies to the atheist position, not the Christian one, as I will demonstrate. As with Alexander the Great, we cannot prove that a historic Jesus actually existed. However, we have ancient writings (not from eyewitnesses, but I’ll let that slide for the sake of argument), concerning his existence. I am prepared to accept that a historic Jesus could have lived, without involving the scientific method and without requiring "extraordinary evidence". What I will not accept is that he died, was resurrected, and now lives in the sky. That, is the extraordinary claim. It is absurd. And there is no rational reason for anyone to believe it.
They don't seem to get that not just any written account would do. I'd be somewhat more receptive to the idea if multiple, consistent, contemporary records for the event existed from a variety of sources in which a reasonable number of them didn't obviously have an agenda. All they can produce are documents written decades later from obviously biased sources (which have since been edited for political reasons), and even then the accounts aren't consistent.
Compare that to Alexander, of whom we have contemporary accounts from multiple sources, and there's even a city named after him. The best we can say about Jesus is that he may have historically existed, and even if he did, many of the claims made of him are almost certainly false.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | January 16, 2008 at 01:04 AM
Note they also presuppose that
1. Jesus was a historical figure (he may have been, of course)
2. The resurrection was a historical event
3. The Bible is a written account of history
Posted by: Beowulff | January 16, 2008 at 05:45 AM
Skillful analysis, as always, but there is one point where I disagree with your interpretation (although the fault lies with their wording moreso than your interpretation). You take "Christians presuppose that God exists and that He could easily have raised Jesus from the dead" to mean that "their admitted presupposition is that God exists and would have resurrected his son" (emphasis mine). I don't think that's what they're saying.
Even using their own source of evidence (i.e. the Bible), resurrection is not limited to the Son of God (see: Lazarus). So what I think their statement more means is that they presuppose God exists and has the ability to resurrect the dead. It's not an unreasonable extension, either: if you presuppose an omnipotent God, why wouldn't resurrection be within his power set?
Of course, even taking into account those presuppositions -- that God exists and can resurrect people -- there's still precious little evidence (and what evidence does exist is, as uknesvuinng points out above, hardly historically reliable) that he did resurrect Jesus, so that presupposition really doesn't get them very far.
Posted by: Alan M. | January 16, 2008 at 09:55 AM
The problem is that we ask for evidence before we believe and they simply say something inane as "The evidence is all around you!, you just need to look!" as if they see something us stupid atheists cant see.
Anyone know a 1 or 2 sentence way to crisply and precisely explain what evidence is and is not? something quick to explain why we don't look at a leaf and say It was designed! I always end up in a diatribe about arguments from incredulity or an analogy that glazes over eyes.
Posted by: Techskeptic | January 16, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Wow, so written accounts of historical events are all true, because they were written? But for some reason, they accept the "reality" of Jesus' resurrection but not the "truth" that Pallas Athena sprung from Zeus' head wearing full armor and carrying a spear.
Of course the real way to flummox them on that issue is to ask then why they don't accept Muhammad's account of certain events and therefore why they aren't Muslim. After all, it's written down in a quasi-historical format. You know, like BatBoy on the cover of the Weekly World News.
The best point about Jesus' alleged resurrection has to have been made by Sam Kinison. "Jesus is the only person who returned from the dead that didn't freak people the f*ck out. Everyone else, they'd be yelling get a shovel! kill it! the dead live! put a stake in his a**! kill it! But Jesus comes back and he doesn't get any static."
Another funny thing to point out (they don't have an answer to this..) is that if Jesus could actually heal people don't you think there'd be a huge historical footprint? There would have been thousands of people lined up for cures. It would have been huge, gigantic news. That's another Kinison riff, "If you could actually heal, you'd have a new full-time job."
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | January 16, 2008 at 02:08 PM
You'd certainly think that a Jewish guy coming back to life and walking around would have made a big stir all across the Mediterranean world, but not a word about it. Ditto with the same guy healing the sick and raising the dead himself. Instead you have to wait decades to find anything about it at all.
Posted by: Chayanov | January 17, 2008 at 12:23 PM
I really get fun reading this blog, and I already add it to my favourite's list... I would be glad to interact with you people, if you forgive my dreadful english...(and please, do it...)
I think that jesus in fact existed, and was a charmismatic guy who teached some good ideas but he needed an extra-help...
why the people will believe him?
Answer: be cause he is the son of God!
ok, Alexander the great also believed that... so, Jesus and alexander were brothers!!!
Jesus healed people,... like I do... and my father do...
Sometimes I persuade people to think that they are healthy, and certainly this way of thinking help to rise their defenses against illness, wich is linked with emotions and mood swings..., but everything has a limit...(not for me... for you humans!.. :P)
Skeptico: It would be great if you post something about "Carlos Castaneda" ", I'm reading some books from him, because I usually make experiments with "Auto-hipnosis" wich is similar to a Lucid Dream (that says my friend, the one who insist on me to read this book..)
Maybe you has some useful information, and makes my task easier...
Posted by: P3-CO | January 17, 2008 at 04:45 PM
I found this a good read, i would love the opinion of Skeptico and others on this:
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
Posted by: RoninRules | January 18, 2008 at 03:56 AM
Ronin: it's a good read for an atheist. A christian could look at it and go "it's the word of god, man can't filter it properly - AND god is omnipotent, so he could recount exactly what happened to 4 different people (matthew mark luke and john) at different times, and each of them wrote, from memory, what god had told them to say. as a matter of fact, the whole "gerasa" thing can be explained away as a function of the limits of the human brain. If i told you a story involving some obscure town in another country (or even in this country); would you be more concerned with the details of the story, or the name of the place where it occurred?
I've taken to discussing stuff with christians whenever i can. And i'll tell you, being around apologists really teaches you how these people think.
For instance, is the bible the word of god, transcribed by man? or is it the immutable word of god, meant to be taken literally? Vast Left Wing Conspiracy's blog is a perfect example of the patent absurdity of taking the bible as immutable words from god. But if the bible is merely men's recollection of visions/dreams/words god gave them, then why does it hold any water? Christians are quite literally damned if they do hold it as immutable (internal inconsistencies and historical/geographical inaccuracies) and damned if they don't (because it's the word of man, and thou shalt not hold false idols!)
But good luck explaining that to them. This post is almost all original philosophy as far as i know, but i'm not claiming any rights to it. :-D
Posted by: genewitch | January 18, 2008 at 10:49 AM
And another glaring point comes to mind... There are two groups of people on this planet that know a LOT about the bible and it's history, stories, &c
Ministers of the faith (men of cloth) and atheists. Atheists can go on all day about the bible. So can priests, ministers, &c.
But your average christian just says they believe in the bible, and probably have never read an entire book out of it.
I've read the Old Testament most of the way through, that being the Old Testament as it was described to the Jews. it was required reading to start to learn how to read Hebrew, and speak it. Don't ask. :-D
I don't know of many people who have read even genesis all the way through. and that's the BIG DADDY of all bible books. If you exclude the crackpot Revelations (which i've started rewriting, it's interesting to say the least), that is.
Posted by: genewitch | January 18, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Maybe Jesus here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive.
Posted by: PalMD | January 18, 2008 at 12:33 PM
That explains why he did so little after the resurrection. After all, he'd been mostly dead all weekend.
Now I wonder if Satan was really just a big guy in a holocaust cloak...
Posted by: Tom Foss | January 18, 2008 at 01:52 PM
I am so amazed that someone would devote so much time and thought to so many things he considers "drivel"!!!!!
That aside, I would also suggest you try taking a renowned spirutal retreat for - say - 10 days or 2 weeks -
Really open you mind, heart and soul to it and see if you emerge with the same skeptical "drivel"!
Posted by: yazz | January 20, 2008 at 03:42 AM
^^ Can you believe this crap? A subjective experience, induced by being surrounded by like-minded idiots, that explains the universe? Cultists are ridiculous.
Posted by: Jesus Christ | January 20, 2008 at 12:27 PM
yazz:
I am so amazed that someone would devote so much time and thought to so many things he considers "drivel"!!!!!
Rough transaltion:
That aside, I would also suggest you try taking a renowned spirutal retreat for - say - 10 days or 2 weeks -
Rough translation:
Really open you mind, heart and soul to it and see if you emerge with the same skeptical "drivel"!
Rough translation:
What did you really think that useless post was going to achieve yazz?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | January 21, 2008 at 09:39 AM
Today's (Jan 21/08) xkcd is relevant to this article. Sums it up in one neat graph.
xkcd.com, if you aren't familiar with it.
Posted by: Wilson | January 21, 2008 at 10:03 AM
My mothertongue isn’t English, so please excuse the clumsiness. Just a very short thought: If anyone could prove the existence of God it wouldn’t be called “faith” anymore. To believe in Jesus Christ and God is exactly what it is saying in the first place: “believing” and not “knowing”.
You obviously need proof to be able to believe in something. You have to admit though that this is a paradox, since if you have proof you can’t believe anymore but automatically know. I don’t claim to know, I just say I have faith, I believe. For believers it is a good thing to have faith, while for you this seems to be unacceptable. This just means it is impossible to find common ground in this question… except I do agree the CARM article is poorly written.
Posted by: Fabian | January 22, 2008 at 12:17 AM
And it is neccesary to believe in but not know about the existence of god, becaaause...?
Posted by: Tom S. Fox | January 22, 2008 at 05:05 AM
because you can not scientifically proof the existence of god, at least not in a double-blind study, the way you like it. God has proven himself to me in many ways in my life, but I can't use that as scientific argument in this discussion, can I?
You are attacking believers for believing, which is a pointless argument.
Posted by: Fabian | January 22, 2008 at 08:35 AM
Fabian:
So do you agree there is not extraordinary evidence for the resurrection of Christ or for the existance of God?
Posted by: Skeptico | January 22, 2008 at 10:58 AM
I do agree. But do you also agree, that there is no definite evidence he didn't actually do so?
The only thing you can say is, that from what you have learned in this very short period of life about how the world works, it is highly unlikely he did.
Posted by: Fabian | January 22, 2008 at 05:32 PM
Fabian:
Of course. But the burden of proof is upon the claimant – in this case those claiming Jesus was resurrected. It is not up to everyone else to prove he wasn’t resurrected.
My point is not that it is highly unlikely Jesus was resurrected. My point is that there is nothing coming even close to extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim and so the claim is not even worthy of serious consideration by any rational person. You have agreed that there is no extraordinary evidence for this claim. So why would you believe it?
Posted by: Skeptico | January 22, 2008 at 05:47 PM
I believe, because it gives my life a meaning, because it makes me feel good, because it gives my restless heart peace and because from my personal experience in life I have to assume that god exists and that Jesus was resurrected.
Posted by: Fabian | January 22, 2008 at 06:10 PM
I believe, because it gives my life a meaning
If that is what gives your life meaning, then I pity you.
because it makes me feel good
So would crack.
because it gives my restless heart peace and because from my personal experience in life I have to assume that god exists and that Jesus was resurrected.
In other words, because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling and stops you being afraid of the night (figuratively speaking).
I get the same thing from my kids, from a good book, a long hike in beautiful country, a nice bottle of wine, good sex and many more things which actually exist.
You admit however that because it makes you feel good you don't have to view it rationally. What else does this extend to?
Religious people are scary.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | January 22, 2008 at 06:44 PM
Re: because from my personal experience in life I have to assume that god exists and that Jesus was resurrected.
What personal experience did you have that meant you have to assume that god exists and that Jesus was resurrected?
Posted by: Skeptico | January 22, 2008 at 07:21 PM
dear Jimmy_Blue
The reasons I list might be subjective and unscientific, but what makes you say they are not rational?
Irrational would be me taking crack, because I can assume that crack most likely will not make me happy but physically and mentally ill.
Posted by: Fabian | January 22, 2008 at 07:55 PM
I didn't say from a personal experience, I said from my personal experience, which is many experiences combined of course.
Do you want me to start listing experiences on this blog?
Posted by: Fabian | January 22, 2008 at 08:07 PM
Fabian:
Up to you. We don’t need your full life history, but I’m finding it hard to imagine what experiences would mean you have to believe such as extraordinary claim without (as you agree) extraordinary evidence.
Posted by: Skeptico | January 22, 2008 at 09:50 PM
I thought about it, but I don't think it's going to change anything if I post an anecdote out of my life. You would want proof, but I don't have any. For one anecdote I could even get medical proof, but then where do I get the proof, that our prayer to God changed anything?
I might be a fool in your eyes, but I don't lose anything by believing in God, whereas atheists could lose a lot if what we believe in is true.
And again, as much as I can't prove my faith, you are and will not be able to disprove it. This means, there is a real chance (even if it is a very small one in your eyes), that there is a God, that Jesus was resurrected, that there is a heaven and there is a hell. And because there is this chance, it might be worth to give him a chance. This is what I did, and I didn't regret it a single day.
I thank you for this civilized dialogue. It has been fun. I really enjoyed some other things on your blog like "the secret" and "bleep". Keep up the good work. God bless:)
Posted by: Fabian | January 22, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Fabian:
Re: … I don't lose anything by believing in God...
Not necessarily true. If you believe in the wrong god, the real god could be mightily pissed off at you. The atheist might be better off – at least he didn’t worship a false god.
Also, if you are wrong, you waste your one and only life worshiping something that is false. At least I didn’t waste every Sunday of my life.
Anyway, thanks for the debate and I’m glad you enjoyed it and the other things on this site.
Posted by: Skeptico | January 23, 2008 at 08:23 AM
Fabian:
The reasons I list might be subjective and unscientific, but what makes you say they are not rational?
Read that again, because you answered your own question.
More particularly though, because it is irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence, and for which there is a large body of evidence that shows what you believe is probably (to a degree that makes it almost certain) false.
For one anecdote I could even get medical proof, but then where do I get the proof, that our prayer to God changed anything?
You can't, that's the point.
but I don't lose anything by believing in God, whereas atheists could lose a lot if what we believe in is true.
Pascal's Wager is flawed, as Skeptico pointed out.
Here is just a tiny list of what you lose:
Time
Money
Freedom
Experience
Exposure to many ideas
Exposure to many lifestyles
Exposure to many different cultures
If you believe in the wrong god you risk punishment, possibly eternal punishment.
I mean, what if the Mormons are right? What if Episcopalians are right? What if it's Unitarians? Fifth Day Adventists? Christian Scientists? Hindus? Sikhs? Ancient Greeks? Romans? Egyptians? Zoroastrians? Australian Aborigines? Persians? Inuits? Navajo? Incas? Aztecs? Olmecs? Greek Orthodox? Roman Catholics? Anglicans? Sunni Muslims? Shia Muslims? Orthodox Jews? Minoans? Etruscans? Celts? Vikings? Zulus? Presbyterians? The Polynesian peoples? Buddhists? Wickans? Babylonians? What if the Ranters were right (now there's a sect I could appreciate)? Lutherans? Calvinists? Arminians?
Remember, by your own standard, you cannot prove that any of these is less or more likely than your own faith.
Why did you choose yours and reject these faiths or the faiths of the peoples listed?
On the other hand, here's what an atheist risks:
If a god or gods exists, they might punish us for not believing in them.
I think I'll risk it.
And again, as much as I can't prove my faith, you are and will not be able to disprove it.
And you can't disprove that there is a giant pink rabbit at the centre of the Universe controlling everying with a Sega Dreamcast powered by Iron-Bru. Should we accept it is rational to believe in that then?
Well according to you, yes. It's right there in your own words.
That's why your belief is irrational.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | January 23, 2008 at 09:01 AM
Fabian, Pascal was bad wagerer!
Damn, I had that thought recently and thought I was the first one to come up with it!Anyway, Cectic made a good about this topic:
http://cectic.com/082.html
And Fabian, you still failed to explain why anyone should believe in something that you admit isn't scientifically provable (which is actually a reason not to believe in it).
And another thing:
I'd rather spend eternity in hell than praising a cruel tyrant!
Posted by: Tom S. Fox | January 23, 2008 at 09:07 AM
Jimmy:
Re peace of heart:
The belief in a god (which was the cause of his peace of mind/heart) Fabian has in his head exists as much as your bottle of wine. Isn't it a matter of taste whether you chose to drink alcohol or believe in a god to achieve peace of heart? Until someone extends this line of thought (i.e relying on faith) to his job in designing the next space shuttle for NASA or whatever, i dont really see the problem.
Re you list of possible losses:
Except for time (which might be an issue if you pray 5 times a day), i don't see how simply believing in a god necessarily make you lose all these things. If someone lives a hectic life, i would even entertain the idea that it might be good for him to go to church every sunday and sing a song or whatever it is that they do there. Of course it would be better if they spent their time being more productive and helped homeless people or did some kind of charity on sundays as i reckon the typical atheist does..
Tom S. Fox:
Where did Fabian say anyone should believe in anything? What i think he said was that it gave his restless heart peace, and that this was how he justified his belief in a god. He did admit that his belief was not a justified true belief, but at least his motivation is honest and, i ask this as a question, reasonable?
On a personal note, im willing to gamble on that a hypothetical god will judge me on my actions, not my beliefs. If not, he's not very nice.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: Martin | January 23, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Fideism is concerned with what best puts the believer at ease, skeptics are far more concerned with what best represents reality. Of course, Fideism unchecked would lead a believer to dwell in a fantasy land--it may be comforting to believe that I have a million dollars in the bank, but it is not true; it is a compartmentalized belief system, limited in scope (usually to the question of God's existence) and cognizant of its subjective nature (i.e., it knows that it does not necessarily represent objective reality).
Where you deviate from Fideism is where you make judgment calls about the use of faith as a determinant of reality, and where you make claims about the nature of the real world. Yes, believers think faith is a good thing, and yes, we disagree. But our reason for disagreeing is that faith, while it may cause comforting feelings, provides no criteria by which to judge real beliefs from false ones. When we base our beliefs on the presence of convincing evidence, we can weed out justified true belief (that which is supported by evidence) from false belief (that which is not). Any determination between true and false beliefs on the basis of faith is purely subjective and arbitrary, and thus does not represent a rational basis for looking at the world.
You make claims about the nature of God, and one must wonder where you get this knowledge. How do you know that "you can not scientifically proof the existence of god"? If God has observable effects in the universe, then science can observe those effects and find evidence of God's existence. If God has no observable effects in the universe, then how did you acquire the knowledge of his traits? What does it mean to say he exists if he never interacts, or cannot interact, with the universe? If you just believe he is not testable by science because it comforts you, then how can you claim that such a belief represents reality? Many others are comforted by the belief that God does have observable effects in this universe, why are their comforting beliefs less valid than yours?
And what events in your life have caused you to assume an esoteric fact like the resurrection of Jesus? If such an event occurred, it would suggest that God can interact with the universe, and has done so at least once before, so we should be able to observe those effects with science.
Yes, if you're right, I'm going to Hell. And if what the Muslims believe is true, then we're both going to Hell. And if what the Buddhists believe is true, then we're both going to be reincarnated to learn some grand karmic lesson. This leads us right back to the problem of faith: it gives us no criteria to judge which god-beliefs are true, and which are not. You don't lose anything by believing in God, if God exists. If Allah or Ganesh or Zeus exists, you might lose quite a bit.Incidentally, what you've just argued there is Pascal's Wager, which has more holes in it than a sieve. I'd recommend against using it on atheists, it's not effective at doing anything more drastic than making us laugh and try to choose which argument to use against it this time.
And the point of this post is that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. It's not up to us to disprove the claim, it's pretty much impossible to prove a negative. It's up to the person making the extraordinary claim to provide evidence extraordinary enough to be convincing. I don't believe things just because they haven't been disproven; if I did that, I'd believe in unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, and so on. This means, there is a real chance (even if it is a very small one in your eyes), that there is a Zeus, that Heracles ascended to the top of Olympus, that there is an Elysium and there is a Tartarus. And because there is this chance, it might be worth it to sacrifice some animals on Zeus's altar and pray that he will be pleased and will not smite you with lightning.What reason do you have to believe in God and not the Greek pantheon? What makes the resurrection of Jesus more plausible than Orpheus's journey to the Underworld or Mohammed's ascent to Heaven on a winged horse? With faith alone, we have no way of picking which one to believe; any choice would be totally arbitrary.
Martin:
You're right, simple god-belief, pure theism, carries with it none of those losses. But there are very few, if any, pure theists; most believers layer some kind of belief system, usually based in some organized religion, on top of the basic god-belief. Once you've attached those details and doctrines, you begin losing all those things that Jimmy mentioned and more: the freedom to dress as you please, to choose certain people as mates (or to choose at all), to save or spend all of your money as you see fit, to engage in certain activities, to entertain certain kinds of thoughts, to eat certain kinds of food, to not be burdened with anxieties about sin and hell and sexual dysfunction, to sleep in on Sundays, and so on. Ah, tu quoque. Been awhile since I saw that one. Besides criticizing the use of reason rather than faith to judge what is real, he said "atheists could lose a lot if what we believe in is true" and "And because there is this chance, it might be worth to give him a chance," both of which are advocating belief in his particular deity. Which is why I think he took a step or two outside of Fideism.
I don't think his belief is reasonable. It's about as well-justified as theistic belief gets (outside of genuine, non-psychotic divine revelation), but it's still a case of fallacious special pleading. Somehow, I imagine Fabian's criteria for judging the existence of God are different from his criteria for judging the existence of fairies and leprechauns, or the honesty of car dealers and three-card monte dealers, or anything else for that matter. While it'd be nice to base all my beliefs on whether or not they comfort me and soothe my restless heart, I'd end up living in a padded cell if I did. It's not reasonable to believe one thing because of its fuzzy-feeling-value, and everything else based on its evidence.
Posted by: Tom Foss | January 23, 2008 at 04:47 PM
Dear Jimmy
I can't speak for other christians, but I don't lose what you are listing.
"Here is just a tiny list of what you lose:
Time
Money
Freedom
Experience
Exposure to many ideas
Exposure to many lifestyles
Exposure to many different cultures"
1. I might "lose" some time praying and reading the bible, but I also lose time combing my hair, shaving and cleaning my shoes. If I was so concerned about my time, I'd have to stop all these other timeconsuming habits that are not necessary for survival. Other than that I still waste much more time watching tv than I spend time in prayer and bible study, which yes I do feel a little bad about.
2. I have more money than before I started to believe, since I spend less of it on booze and partying.
3. I'm admittedly not supposed to do certain things anymore. But are you truly free to do these things? Are you free to murder? to steal? to sleep around outside of your relationship? to beat your kids? I assume that you not only don't do these things because there is a law, but your healthy concience prevents you from doing so. This means you are not free either.
4.-6. I don't see any trace of coherent thinking in this argumentation. How would my faith stop me from being exposed to different ideas, lifestyles and cultures? I personally have been living in China for the last 5 years, so I feel rather exposed to all 3 of them. Where is the contradiction in me believing in god and being exposed to different ideas? I might not be able to act on these ideas, lead these lifestyle or agree to everything different cultures have to offer, but I certainly can learn about and appreciate them for what they are.
Dear Tom Foss:
I have to take my hat before you and basically give up... your intellectual level and insight into the matter excedes mine by far.
Maybe I will read pascal's wager one day and I'm sorry if this debate has nothing new to offer...
I would appreciate it if you would take a whole sentence and critisize it for what it is and not just a part of it. Especially if you use this part to analyze my religious views. Just to make it clear: I don't consider myself a fideist and I do treat the bible as word of God. No need to reply to this one, I'm not getting into more detail.
2 Points I would like to clarify:
1.
"You make claims about the nature of God, and one must wonder where you get this knowledge. How do you know that "you can not scientifically proof the existence of god"? "
I think I can rest on your case, that an extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence. If anybody can scientically proof the existence of good, I'd be thrilled to know about it. And if that happens even you Tom would not be an atheist anymore and I couldn't call myself a believer, since it would be a scientific fact. Faith would be replaced by "knowledge" (not sure if this is the right expression, but I think you get what I mean).
2.
"Any determination between true and false beliefs on the basis of faith is purely subjective and arbitrary, and thus does not represent a rational basis for looking at the world."
I didn't claim that having faith was a rational basis for looking at the world. What I said was: I don't think the reasons for me believing in God are irrational (maybe I should have used the term "unreasonable" instead, but I do think the definition of "rational" is wider than some guys posting comments on this blog take it).
And again the only thing I wanted to point out from the beginning was the paradox quest for proof in matters of faith.
Posted by: Fabian | January 23, 2008 at 11:19 PM
my comment about heaven and hell did go to far in this discussion, since it doesn't have to do anything with my original point. I got carried away and I'd like to apologize for that. I didn't intend to offend anybody and I definitely don't want to judge anybody (I can see how it came across that way). It's not my call to do so.
Posted by: Fabian | January 24, 2008 at 03:21 AM
Martin:
The belief in a god (which was the cause of his peace of mind/heart) Fabian has in his head exists as much as your bottle of wine.
You missed the point. The 'drinking of' equates to 'belief in', the 'wine' and 'god' equate. The belief and drinking both exist, the wine exists, god does not. Perhaps I wasn't being as clear as I thought. The point was not that the actions don't exist, but that the objects of those actions do or do not exist.
Isn't it a matter of taste whether you chose to drink alcohol or believe in a god to achieve peace of heart?
Indeed it is. The point was that belief in god is a waste of time because it does not exist.
Until someone extends this line of thought (i.e relying on faith) to his job in designing the next space shuttle for NASA or whatever, i dont really see the problem.
Obviously you aren't paying attention to the world today.
Except for time (which might be an issue if you pray 5 times a day), i don't see how simply believing in a god necessarily make you lose all these things.
As Tom pointed out simple belief in god is not as far as any religion goes. There are always rules, requirements and obligations of one sort or another.
Of course it would be better if they spent their time being more productive and helped homeless people or did some kind of charity on sundays as i reckon the typical atheist does..
Speaking for myself, I work on Sundays. We can have a willy waving exercise over charity if you really want though.
Fabian:
I can't speak for other christians, but I don't lose what you are listing.
That's nice (if indeed it is true and you don't lose anything from the list), but how do you know you are the right type of christian?
I asked, and Tom re-iterated, how do you know you have chosen the right religion from amongst all the others? How do you know you have chosen the right branch of christianity from amongst all the others?
No believer I have ever asked has answered this yet, will you be the first?
1. I might "lose" some time praying and reading the bible, but I also lose time combing my hair, shaving and cleaning my shoes. If I was so concerned about my time, I'd have to stop all these other timeconsuming habits that are not necessary for survival. Other than that I still waste much more time watching tv than I spend time in prayer and bible study, which yes I do feel a little bad about.
So you agree that religion is not necessary for survival? The point, however, is that combing your hair, shaving, polishing shoes have a purpose. In the context of Pascal's Wager, which you brought up remember, if you have picked the wrong god then your time is lost because it has had no purpose. As an atheist I have not lost any time in this way, so in the terms of Pascal's Wager I am better off than the believer.
Both you and Martin have made the mistake of trying to criticise the list outside the context of the Wager that you, Fabian, introduced. You can't have it both ways, it applies to you if you want to use it here to attempt to discredit atheism.
2. I have more money than before I started to believe, since I spend less of it on booze and partying.
Do you tithe? Do you contribute? Do you 'sacrifice'? Pay for religious ceremonies/buildings/activities/garments/ scriptures? Pay for religious classes? Pay for the transport to religious events/ceremonies/pilgrimages? We can now add partying and booze to the list of things you lose out on at least. In the context of the wager, you do lose if you have picked the wrong god/religion. The atheist doesn't give this money, so they come out better than a believer.
3. I'm admittedly not supposed to do certain things anymore. But are you truly free to do these things? Are you free to murder? to steal? to sleep around outside of your relationship? to beat your kids? I assume that you not only don't do these things because there is a law, but your healthy concience prevents you from doing so. This means you are not free either.
I'm sorry, since when did freedom mean freedom to murder, rape and pillage? Is religion the only thing that stops believers from doing this? When a believer hears an atheist talk about freedom do they really think we mean the freedom to commit child abuse? What kind of sick bastards are you? Or do you come from the school of "Religion is morality" believers?
I am free of religious restrictions to read what I want, to have sex with whom I want, to dress as I want, to socialise with whom I want, to do as I want over the weekend, to eat what I want. In the context of the wager, believers are not. The atheist wins.
Incidentally, I did laugh when you brought up beating your children, since it appears you are not too familiar with what the bible says on that matter. If anything, it is the true bible believer who is free to beat their kids, and it is the atheist who is not.
Leviticus:
How did you put it Fabian? Oh yes:
4.-6. I don't see any trace of coherent thinking in this argumentation.
How ironic.
How would my faith stop me from being exposed to different ideas, lifestyles and cultures? I personally have been living in China for the last 5 years, so I feel rather exposed to all 3 of them. Where is the contradiction in me believing in god and being exposed to different ideas? I might not be able to act on these ideas, lead these lifestyle or agree to everything different cultures have to offer, but I certainly can learn about and appreciate them for what they are.
In the context of the wager, you specifically may not lose some or all of those things, but many other believers do.
On second thoughts though maybe you are right, maybe exposure to them is the wrong phrase. Perhaps I should have said freedom to immerse yourself in and engage in other ideas, lifestyles and cultures.
Again in the context of the wager, the atheist wins.
but I do think the definition of "rational" is wider than some guys posting comments on this blog take it.
What definition are we using, and what is therefore the correct definition?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | January 24, 2008 at 09:54 AM
Correction - The bible verses in my previous post are from Exodus, not Leviticus.
Although Leviticus has its fair share of child abuse, check out what god does to Aaron's sons for lighting the wrong kind of fire. Aaron, like a true believer, does nothing.
And wait, Leviticus does agree with Exodus:
And watch out if you happen to be the daughter of a priest:
And boy does god have a hard on for child abuse:
Numbers:
Deuteronomy:
I'm confused Fabian, who is free to beat their children? Looks like the believers win this one. I think I can live with that.
Do your religious laws from god supercede the secular laws that punish me as a mere atheist if I beat my children? My conscience prevents me from doing it, your religion and god commands it.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | January 24, 2008 at 10:50 AM
I was thinking more about Proverbs 13:24: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."
I'll get to more of a response in a little bit.
Posted by: Tom Foss | January 24, 2008 at 11:45 AM
dear jimmy-blue
"Do your religious laws from god supercede the secular laws that punish me as a mere atheist if I beat my children? My conscience prevents me from doing it, your religion and god commands it."
you are really good at twisting around meanings, aren't you? What I was saying is that there are at least two instances restricting your behaviour. An exteriour one: the Law and an interior one: your healthy conscience. Of course there are many more like social codex, the expectations of a partner... and so on.
So while an atheist might be free of some restrictions that are added to my list, the atheist has still a pretty long list of restrictions himself.
your examples of your freedom are not very convincing either, because I can: eat what I want, socialize with whom I want, dress the way I want and do on weekends what I want. Believing in God doesn't impose these restrictions, being part of a certain church might do. I can not have sex with whom I want, but I doubt an atheists wife would be happy to have him sleeping around.
Could the fact that you are always attacking me on some side points imply that my first comment has some truth to it?
Posted by: Fabian | January 24, 2008 at 06:35 PM
Fabian:
you are really good at twisting around meanings, aren't you?
Which meaning have I twisted?
So while an atheist might be free of some restrictions that are added to my list, the atheist has still a pretty long list of restrictions himself.
Again you miss the point. Pascal's Wager, which you introduced, works on the principle that the believer is better off than the non-believer because they lose nothing. The problem with this is that the believer does lose plenty. If there are any restrictions that apply only to believers then the wager fails because they do lose freedoms the non-believer may have. It doesn't matter what restrictions the atheist has, the believer has more.
your examples of your freedom are not very convincing either, because I can: eat what I want, socialize with whom I want, dress the way I want and do on weekends what I want.
You aren't much of a christian or believer in the bible as word of god then. Once again though I re-iterate the point, you might not specifically suffer from some or any of these restrictions, but other believers do, so again Pascal's Wager fails as a convincing argument.
Believing in God doesn't impose these restrictions, being part of a certain church might do.
Do you or do you not believe that the bible is the word of god? If you do, why do you not follow the restrictions within? What gives you the right to disobey the word of god? If you don't, why did you say that you did?
I can not have sex with whom I want, but I doubt an atheists wife would be happy to have him sleeping around.
Why do you assume wife and sleeping around? Atheists can't be women? And sleeping with who you want has to mean you are promiscuous? Maybe I meant monogamous homosexual relationships. Someones prejudices are showing through.
Could the fact that you are always attacking me on some side points imply that my first comment has some truth to it?
Could the fact that you ignore most of my significant questions prove you can't or don't want to answer them?
But anyway, please demonstrate how it is that I deal with every single one of your points, and you think this only amounts to commenting on 'side points'.
If you don't like what the bible has to say about child abuse, that's not my problem. It's your religion. Maybe you shouldn't have brought it up.
Now, questions you still haven't answered:
1. How do you know you have chosen the right variety of christianity?
2. How do you know christianity is the right religion?
3. How do you know the christian god is the right god?
4. On what grounds do you reject other faiths and gods?
5. You can't disprove that there is a giant pink rabbit at the centre of the Universe controlling everying with a Sega Dreamcast powered by Iron-Bru. Should we accept it is rational to believe in that then?
6. Do you agree that religion is not necessary for survival?
7. Do you tithe? Do you contribute? Do you 'sacrifice'? Pay for religious ceremonies/buildings/activities/garments/ scriptures? Pay for religious classes? Pay for the transport to religious events/ceremonies/pilgrimages?
8. When did freedom mean freedom to murder, rape and pillage?
9. Is religion the only thing that stops believers from doing this? (You have partly answered this, but you made no mention of whether or not religion plays a specific part in restricting immoral/anti-social behaviour).
10. What definition of rational are skeptics using, and what is therefore the correct definition?
11. Do your religious laws from god supercede the secular laws that punish me as a mere atheist if I beat my children?
12. Do you really believe that the bible is the word of god?
13. If yes, then why don't you follow the laws of god exactly as laid down in the bible? If no, by what right do you choose what to follow and what not to?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | January 24, 2008 at 08:46 PM
1. I don't know, I believe.
2. I don't know, I believe.
3. I don't know, I believe.
4. I already answered that after Skeptico's Question to why I believe.
5. If the qiant pink rabbit would prove himself to you in your life, then in my opinion it would be rational of you to believe in his existence.
6. It obviously isn't... otherwise you and me (i used to be somewhat of an atheist) would both not be alive.
7. I'm not a member of an organised church at the moment, this might be partly because there aren't to many of them here in China. If I were, I probably would. By the way, maybe you should try to live in an atheist country for a while and see how you like it?
8. If freedom means the complete lack of restriction then murder, rape and pillage are likely to happen. You can observe this in the animal world (of course we use different terms to describe the actions of animals). What prevents us from doing so is besides other factors our concience and the law. In my opinion it's beneficial both to the indivual and society to have a good set of restrictions, which can but don't have to come from religious doctrine.
9. As I already mentioned it isn't. There are many factors that restrict us from such a behaviour.
10. Up to you, you choose one and next time I'll stick to it.
12. Yes I do.
11. and 13. I have to admit I'm not qualified enough to answer these questions. As some of you pointed out there are many atheists having far more insight in biblical scripture than many christians. It is pretty obvious that I am not an expert in scripture.
Maybe the lecture of Paul's Epistels (e.g. Romans could give you an answer to your questions.)
I call myself a christian because I accepted Jesus Christ's sacrifice, which gives me the promise of God forgiving my sins, this is the essence of the gospel or the "good news" of the New Testament also called the new covenant. Measured by the law of the Old Testament we are all sinners. The New Testament promises that we become righteous not through complete obedience to the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ.
I answered your questions... So how about you critisize my first comment?
Posted by: Fabian | January 24, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Tom Foss:
Thanks for sharing that information on Fideism.
Jimmy:
The belief and drinking both exist, the wine exists, god does not. [..] The point was not that the actions don't exist, but that the objects of those actions do or do not exist.
So what? If some action gives him 'peace of heart', and it does not harm anyone (i'm assuming he's not a Crusader or anything like that, for simplicity), why isn't it a reasonable thing for him to do? For him, faith apparently has an observable effect, and it is in my opinion the belief alone that causes this effect, not god. So if the object exists or not doesn't matter? Why isn't the effect of his belief more important than the non-existing (?) 'object'?
The point was that belief in god is a waste of time because it does not exist.
If your not speaking for yourself only, how can you know this? If you love to count marbles and do this every day, are you wasting time?
We can have a willy waving exercise over charity if you really want though.
I'll pass, thank you.
Posted by: Martin | January 25, 2008 at 07:12 AM
Fabian:
Thank you for answering, some very interesting responses.
1. I don't know, I believe.
2. I don't know, I believe.
3. I don't know, I believe.
This means that the believer does in fact have as much to lose as the atheist does, because they can believe wrongly.
This amounts to the same as not believing at all if the result is a different god actually existing than the one believed in. In fact, given the tenets of some religions it might be worse than not believing at all.
4. I already answered that after Skeptico's Question to why I believe.
I don't believe you did. What you said was that you have had experiences which confirm your belief to you. This does not explain why you rejected other faiths because it does not say whether you tried other faiths.
If you have not tried any others, you have no grounds for rejecting them and favouring another or deciding that they don't work since your own requirement for rational belief is that you experience it.
5. If the qiant pink rabbit would prove himself to you in your life, then in my opinion it would be rational of you to believe in his existence.
Dear oh dear.
Well, the Universe exists. And it works. And Sega Dreamcasts exist. And Iron-Bru exists. And rabbits exist. And rabbits get everywhere. So far, I have more physical evidence for the giant pink rabbit controlling the universe with a Sega Dreamcast powered by Iron-Bru than you have for your god. So, care to join me in worshipping the Giant Pink Rabbit, creator of the Universe? It would be the rational choice, according to you.
6. It obviously isn't... otherwise you and me (i used to be somewhat of an atheist) would both not be alive.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say you weren't a very good one. I was a Roman Catholic for 18 years after all.
7. I'm not a member of an organised church at the moment, this might be partly because there aren't to many of them here in China. If I were, I probably would.
So you would lose money that a non-believer does not.
By the way, maybe you should try to live in an atheist country for a while and see how you like it?
When you find one, let me know. I have however lived in two of the most secular (and in the case of one of them, most progressive) nations in the world; the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Both were far far better experiences than living here in the USA, a very religious (and primarily christian) country.
8. If freedom means the complete lack of restriction then murder, rape and pillage are likely to happen.
Like I said, what sort of sick bastards are believers if the first thing they would do when given freedom is rape, murder and pillage?
Your original post on 'freedom' was :
I assume that you meant restrictions specifically given in the bible, and it seems from the wording of this passage that you seemed to have the Ten Commandments in mind.
No I am not free to do some of those things you list, but it is not because of religion. And there are other restrictions in the bible which I am not subject to. On top of this, in at least one of the cases you highlighted you are free to do it, as commanded by your religion's holy book. At no point was complete freedom from any restriction at all mentioned. If you lose any freedom of action that a non-believer does not, then you lose freedom. Which is exactly what I said.
You can observe this in the animal world (of course we use different terms to describe the actions of animals).
We use different terms because they are not the same thing. Murder and rape at the very least require intent on the part of the perpetrator, and in the case of rape, the victim. In order for you to argue that animals act as humans but under different terms you would have to argue that animals are self aware and have intent in the sense that humans do. This I can't wait to see.
What prevents us from doing so is besides other factors our concience and the law.
And what are these 'other factors'. Where do you stand on the issue of free will then?
In my opinion it's beneficial both to the indivual and society to have a good set of restrictions, which can but don't have to come from religious doctrine.
Like, for instance, the drivers behind biological/evolutionary co-operation you mean?
9. As I already mentioned it isn't. There are many factors that restrict us from such a behaviour.
We agree on one thing at least.
10. Up to you, you choose one and next time I'll stick to it.
Sorry, no dice. You made a specific accusation and claim, time to back it up or withdraw it.
12. Yes I do.
11. and 13. I have to admit I'm not qualified enough to answer these questions. As some of you pointed out there are many atheists having far more insight in biblical scripture than many christians. It is pretty obvious that I am not an expert in scripture.
I'm sorry, you are a christian aren't you?
If you are not an expert, or if you don't even seem to know what is in the bible, then how dare you claim that the bible is the word of god? If you don't know what it means to say this, then how dare you?
It's no wonder that you feel my criticism of Pascal's Wager makes no sense if you don't even know what your own holy book says and you don't even know what you are supposed to do with what it says.
Don't you see the problem here?
Maybe the lecture of Paul's Epistels (e.g. Romans could give you an answer to your questions.)
I call myself a christian because I accepted Jesus Christ's sacrifice, which gives me the promise of God forgiving my sins, this is the essence of the gospel or the "good news" of the New Testament also called the new covenant. Measured by the law of the Old Testament we are all sinners. The New Testament promises that we become righteous not through complete obedience to the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ.
I suggest if you want to start quoting the New Testament to people, you first read the book 'Misquoting Jesus'. No original text of the New Testament survives. There are many mistakes, mistranslations, omissions and additions between the texts we do have. We have evidence that scribes amended passages as they saw fit to. We know of books with differing messages left out of the final 'official' new testament for political reasons.
On top of this, we have Jesus' own words on the laws of the New Testament:
The conclusion from this religious website?
Now, do you want me to start quoting the unpleasant parts of the New Testament?
I answered your questions... So how about you critisize my first comment?
Which comment do you think has not been answered? Do you mean your very first post?
Martin:
So what? If some action gives him 'peace of heart', and it does not harm anyone (i'm assuming he's not a Crusader or anything like that, for simplicity), why isn't it a reasonable thing for him to do?
Not reasonable, rational. It is not a rational thing for him to do.
For him, faith apparently has an observable effect, and it is in my opinion the belief alone that causes this effect, not god. So if the object exists or not doesn't matter? Why isn't the effect of his belief more important than the non-existing (?) 'object'?
Do you think it healthy to encourage or accept delusion? My point was that the same effect can be achieved with real things, and quite often real things that don't have harmful effects on the scale that belief and religion do.
If your not speaking for yourself only, how can you know this?
The same way that I know believing in leprechauns is a waste of time.
If you love to count marbles and do this every day, are you wasting time?
You could certainly argue the answer is yes. How much you enjoy something has no bearing on how pointless it is. I waste time playing roleplaying games that I could spend doing many other more productive things, but it doesn't stop me enjoying it.
However, neither the counting of marbles nor roleplaying games have done as much damage as belief in gods has.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | January 25, 2008 at 04:52 PM
dear jimmy
I came to this forum to state one fact: that I'm a believer and therefore do not need the extraordinary evidence skeptico requested in his comment. Then I pointed out that it is a pointless argument to request this evidence from a believer, since it is necessary that he doesn't have this evidence, or he couldn't be a believer.
You are still trying to get this evidence of me, when from the beginning I said I couldn't provide it. Still I have been trying to explain to you honestly why I believe and even got into details of my private life. I opened myself up to your critizism. You called my life pitiful, you said I'm scary and you implied twice that I am a sick bastard. Did you twist my meanings? I leave this to other readers to decide.
I would like to say goodbye, this is my last post on this forum. I hope you find what you are looking for in life, wish you a happy life and all the best... and of course a lot of fun playing role-games.
Posted by: Fabian | January 25, 2008 at 07:47 PM
Fabian:
If you don't like criticism of your opinions/beliefs, keep them to yourself.
We responded to point out what was wrong with your opinions and beliefs. If you don't want people to do that in future, keep them to yourself.
However, if you don't keep these things to yourself, if you do defend them, don't then act like a martyr when people pick holes in them that you have no answer to or in ways you don't like.
I did not call your life pitiful, I said I pity you if religion is the only thing that gives your life meaning. I said religious people are scary, I gave my reasons for this, and you said nothing which dispelled this. In fact, you made more comments that reinforced this. I asked if religious people are so sick that when free of restrictions they would rape, murder and pillage, because this is what you said would happen (I didn't have to twist anything, they were your own words) and it is the fall back of nearly every religious person at some point in an argument like this - you will never hear an atheist say that free of restriction they would descend to rape, murder and pillaging.
Why is that? You had no answer.
You have had no answer that was in any way satisfactory (when you answered at all). This is not my fault.
I have in fact not asked for any evidence for the existence of god from you. I asked you to justify why you believe, and you could not in any rational or consistent way.
For crying out loud, you aren't even aware of what is in your own holy book, but you still claim it is the word of a god and make other claims about its nature and purpose.
As for this:
that I'm a believer and therefore do not need the extraordinary evidence skeptico requested in his comment. Then I pointed out that it is a pointless argument to request this evidence from a believer, since it is necessary that he doesn't have this evidence, or he couldn't be a believer.
It is pointless nonsense, as I demonstrated with the Pink Rabbit point. On top of this, you claimed that you don't need extraordinary evidence, but then said it was evidence that caused you to believe. So are you a believer, or are you a 'knower'?
We already know it is pointless to request evidence from a believer, because we already know that they have none. However, your attempt to paint this as a virtue of belief was and is risible. Your attempt to claim that it is still rational to believe without evidence is nonsensical and clearly wrong.
So sorry Fabian, you're not a martyr or someone who has been wronged. You're just someone who doesn't like having their beliefs robustly criticised. That is not my problem.
If my points were wrong, inconsistent, flawed or irrational; if your beliefs were strongly held, well reasoned and had been considered at length, you would have no problem refuting me and defending yourself. Instead, you complain about your treatement, ignore the points against you and make a vain attempt to claim some moral middle ground. That speaks volumes to me if nobody else. I mean, you even tried to insinuate that China is an atheist country, and that this makes atheism wrong or unpleasant in some way.
Belief and opinion are not immune to criticism, its time religious people understood that.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | January 26, 2008 at 09:42 AM
Fabian:
There are benefits to combing your hair, shaving, and cleaning your shoes, related to your position in society and your attractiveness to potential mates. Life ain't just about survival.
You say you feel guilty about spending more time watching TV than participating in Bible Study. So, we can add "freedom from unnecessary guilt" to the things believers lose.
I'll reiterate Jimmy's point here, too: that list of things is meant in the context of Pascal's Wager, which specifically states that believers lose nothing and gain everything, wrong or right. The list of things potentially lost to believers is to demonstrate that such a claim is actually false.
I've never partaken of booze, despite having no belief in any gods; teetotalling is not necessarily a benefit of religion. I do like going to parties, but I can't say I spend much money on them, unless it's a birthday party, or I'm bringing snacks or something. So I save that money and I don't lose anything to tithes. As though those are the only things forbidden by religions. Depending on which god I might choose, and which branch of worshippers I might join, I could lose anything from my ability to choose what music to listen to and what clothes to wear, to my ability to allow my sons or daughters to go through life without having their genitals mutilated.I'd also lose the freedom to get angry or feel attracted to women without thinking it's the same as killing someone or committing adultery. There are 618 laws in the Old Testament alone, Fabian, and they cover a lot more than killing and cheating on spouses.
Many faiths have long lists of banned books, disallow listening to various types of music, disallow participation in the rituals of other cultures, and spread misinformation about other cultures' beliefs. Perhaps your particular branch of religion doesn't, but again, this is about "believers lose nothing," not your specific system. I've read your whole post, and criticized the parts that I feel warrant criticism. If I've taken things out of context, I apologize, but I'd like to know where specifically I've done such a thing. I'll reply anyway, sorry. I recognize that you don't consider yourself a Fideist; as I said earlier, I don't either. However, your position, so far as it has come across, is quite a bit closer to fideism than most of the Christians we end up having discussions with. I thought, especially with Martin's comment, that it would be worthwhile to make mention of that. I actually don't get what you mean, mostly because I can't tell if you meant to say "good" or "God."But, I'll try to parse it as best I can: I asked you where you got your knowledge about God's characteristics, and how you knew he was not testable by science. You responded by saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which would suggest that you have some extraordinary evidence to explain the traits that you've assigned to God.
I agree that if they scientifically proved the existence of God, then I'd certainly believe. And I can conceive of various kinds of scientific evidence that would constitute extraordinary evidence of God's existence. The problem is, as you mentioned, that we wouldn't need faith anymore--or, more specifically, that at this point we'd need faith to believe in God. Since we don't have any good reasons to believe in God, and since we have no evidence that he exists, the only way to come to such a conclusion is to make an arbitrary exception from normal rational faculties.
So, none of that really answers my question, which is how you know what God is like, and why he can't be tested by science. I've explained that science can test anything which has observable effects in this universe; so if God is untestable, then he must not have observable effects in this universe, and so you have no way of knowing what characteristics he has. You've set up quite a paradox there.
I guess I'll tie this into another question, then: why is faith a good thing, and what criteria does faith have that allow you to distinguish between your "real" God and all the other gods out there? Why should we believe in your God, and not in someone else's?
Good, because I don't think it is. So, you admit that faith is not rational, but you think that your reasons for taking things on faith are rational? Again, I see a paradox. If faith is not rational, then what reasons ("reason" being the core of the word "rational") could you possibly have to believe on faith--to take an unreasonable action? You're suggesting that you have a rational rationale for being irrational.To get back to your point about faith not being a rational basis to look at the world, I agree. My point, however, was that we (you included) look at the world through reason, logic, and evidence for everything in our daily lives, and yet you want to make a special exception for this matter of God's existence. What I was saying was particularly unreasonable is this act of special pleading--a logical fallacy, "unreasonable" in the most literal sense--that we should use one set of criteria to judge everything in life, and a different set of criteria to judge the existence of God and what characteristics he has. If faith is a good determinant of real things--such as God's existence, God's characteristics, and the resurrection of Jesus--then why don't we use it elsewhere in life. If it makes me feel good to believe that I have a billion dollars in the bank, why shouldn't I take that on faith? If faith isn't a good determinant of reality, then why judge a question as important as God's existence on faith? Shouldn't we use our best tools to examine such a claim?
I'd like to know what definition of "rational" you think we ought to use. I'd say that my definition of rational is "directed by reason and logic."
And I wanted to point out that it's not a paradox to say "these are the criteria which work best to determine the nature of reality, we should use them to evaluate the question of God's existence." How do we determine which matters are "matters of faith"? What is such a term other than saying "hey, these are things that we shouldn't examine with the criteria we use to examine everything else"? On what do you base such a distinction? If God is a "matter of faith," immune to logical examination, then why not ghosts? Bigfoot? Zeus? Thor? That's fine, and I can't say that I think anyone was offended.Jimmy_Blue:
I'm surprised you missed the most famous one of all, Proverbs 13:24: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." It's the source of the old adage "spare the rod, spoil the child."
Fabian:
Yes, but the believer has all those restrictions too, in addition to the restrictions imposed by the church. In some cases, the church's restrictions match up with social law and personal conscience (don't kill, for instance); in some cases the church's restrictions have no apparent social value, nor wrongness in personal conscience ("women should keep their heads covered," for instance, or "don't eat shellfish"); in some cases the religious restrictions conflict with social law and personal conscience ("beat your unruly children with rods and stones" vs. child abuse laws, for instance). The nonbeliever doesn't have to deal with sorting out problems when conscience, religious law, and secular law are in disagreement. Depends on whether cuckolding fetishes and polyamory are involved, I suppose.
The problem still remains, Fabian, that you're trying to respond to Jimmy's refutation to Pascal's Wager ("believers lose nothing") with your own personal religious system. Pascal's Wager discusses believers in general, Jimmy responded with some of the potential things lost to believers of various stripes. No, not all believers lose everything he mentioned, but it demonstrates that believers in general don't lose "nothing" if wrong about the existence of god.
It's still another step from "believers lose nothing, so you should believe" to "you should believe in my specific God." As Jimmy and I have both asked, what are your criteria for determining whether or not you believe in the right God and belong to the right religion? If we accepted Pascal's Wager and agreed that we should believe, what could you say to convince us that we should believe in your specific God?
No, because we've addressed your first comment repeatedly, and you've not really responded to those criticisms (i.e., how do you know what you claim about God, why should we accept things on faith, how do we distinguish between true and false things with faith, and how do we know what to believe on faith and what to believe on logic and reason). You've moved on to new arguments, and so we've moved on to criticizing your new arguments. Could the reason that you keep moving on to new arguments be that you recognize how shaky your first argument was?Jimmy:
I'll admit, that criticism might be a bit of a stretch. It seems to me that Fabian was moving from his own circumstances--he can't sleep with whomever he wants because his wife wouldn't like it; likewise, were he an atheist, his wife still wouldn't like him sleeping around.
Fabian:
Okay, let me rephrase on Jimmy's behalf:
1. Why do you believe you have chosen the right variety of christianity?
2. Why do you believe christianity is the right religion?
3. Why do you believe the christian god is the right god? Because it makes you feel good, right? So why shouldn't we believe everything that makes us feel good? China's problems aren't due to atheism, but to dogmatic Communism. I live in a secular country right now, and like it quite a bit. In fact, I wish it were quite a bit more secular. But as you said yourself, there isn't complete lack of restriction. Even if there weren't social laws to prevent such things, there's individual conscience. Will some people still commit such crimes? Certainly, as some still do. But most don't, because most recognize that it is wrong. I agree, but I think the best restrictions are the ones that come from society. Social restrictions change as society changes, dogmatic religious doctrine is more resistant to such things. Which is why we have social laws against child abuse, for instance, but no such religious laws. Done and done. Here it is again:
- Why is faith a good thing?
- If faith is useful to determine whether or not God is real, why not use it to determine other things?
- How does faith allow us to determine which gods are true and which are false?
- Why are reason and logic and evidence good enough standards to judge everything else in this universe, but God needs to have a special exemption?
- What reasons do we use to we determine which things are "matters of faith" and exempt from logical examination, and which things aren't?
- Why can't God be examined by science?
I think that's the bulk of criticism over the first post, but I could have missed something.Martin:
No problem. As long as he's just engaging in belief and practices that make him feel good, we can't say anything about it. It's when he tried to convince others that the objects of his good-feeling belief are real that he opened himself up to such criticism. I think what it comes down to is how you prioritize "makes me feel good" vs. "is real." It might make me feel good to believe that there is a fat man in a red suit to come bring me presents every year, but at some point the desire to believe in real things supersedes the desire to believe in things because they make me feel good.
Fabian:
That's fine for you and your personal beliefs. But the moment you try to promote said beliefs, by evangelizing or claiming that they represent the real world (as you have done both here), you should expect to be asked for some extraordinary evidence. Just because you were convinced without evidence doesn't mean that others will be, nor does it mean that they should be. You came here essentially telling us that our criteria for judging reality are wrong, and your justification for that judgment seems to be either that you don't use those criteria and neither should we, or that if we use those criteria we'd conclude that there is no God. Neither one is convincing.
So, more succinctly, belief on faith might be good enough for you, the rest of us need something more substantial. There's no paradox in that, just consistency. We require the same proportion of evidence for the claim "god exists" as we do for any other claim.
As long as we're playing games of semantics ("believer" vs. "knower," which is what you seem to be getting at), I'll turn that back around: it's a pointless argument to try to convince a rational person, because they judge reality based on a certain set of criteria. If they didn't, they wouldn't be particularly rational.The problem is that we're all rational for most of the time; it's just that some of us suspend that rationality for a few questions, and expect others to do the same based on our say-so.
To wrap it all up: faith might be good enough for you, but we're not wrong in rejecting it as a way of answering questions. You've been able to provide no reasons for why we should use faith, or how to do so, or why we should use faith in some cases and reason in others. We're not just asking you for evidence, Fabian, though that would be nice; we're asking you to explain why we should even consider using faith instead.
I've heard that before; forgive me if I hold out for some evidence before I believe it.For what it's worth, thanks for the civil discussion, Fabian.
Posted by: Tom Foss | January 26, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Tom:
I'll admit, that criticism might be a bit of a stretch. It seems to me that Fabian was moving from his own circumstances--he can't sleep with whomever he wants because his wife wouldn't like it; likewise, were he an atheist, his wife still wouldn't like him sleeping around.
I think you are more willing to give Fabian the benefit of the doubt than I am.
Fabian seemed to assume from the start that I meant heterosexual promiscuity rather than sexuality when I referred to having sex with whomever you want to. I thought this demonstrated one probable bias (heterosexual coupling is the only right way), and this gave me grounds to think Fabian guilty of other gender related religious biases.
Fabian can always correct me though.
For clarity, I was referring to sexuality when I wrote "I am free of religious restrictions ... to have sex with whom I want". Heck, I even referred to christianity and homosexuality prior to that. But Fabian went straight to assuming I meant heterosexual promiscuity. I found that revealing, but it is probable my own bias informed this.
Isn't this the point where, since we are disagreeing and we are both skeptics, we should start being cruel and insulting to each other?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | January 26, 2008 at 02:21 PM
Great post Skeptico!
And bravo to the commenters Jimmy and Tom! Reading great skeptical argumentation like this makes me so happy! I wonder if you two perhaps have your own blogs?
Posted by: Benjamin | January 27, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Great post Skeptico!
And bravo to the commenters Jimmy and Tom! Reading great skeptical argumentation like this makes me so happy! I wonder if you two perhaps have your own blogs?
Posted by: Benjamin | January 27, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Benjamin: Thanks for the compliment. You can get to my blog by clicking my name. Clicking Jimmy's name will only get you carpal tunnel syndrome.
Posted by: Tom Foss | January 27, 2008 at 11:25 PM