Ship of Fools: On the usefulness of Christian debaters

Thread: On the usefulness of Christian debaters Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029147

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Perhaps we have some on the Ship? I'm curious about the usefulness of Christian vs Atheist debates. I can see the usefulness for a public forum for various sides of an issue or set of issues to explain their thinking, but I'm not entirely convinced debating is the best way to achieve that goal.

One of the reasons I doubt the usefulness is that both sides are frequently proselytising, rather than debating. One of the best-known Christian debaters, William Lane-Craig, has admitted that no evidence whatsoever would alter his Christian beliefs. He is clearly a talented debater, no doubt. His goals, however, are not really about the 'facts' or even about winning debates, but rather about evangelising under the guise of public debate.

I noted in my (near) decade of involvement in a prominent London evangelical church, that these debates garnered a fair amount of attention from preachers and well as congregants. These debates were offered as evidence of Christianity engaging with scientific thinking and evidence-based approaches. However, I also noted that the existence of such debates went almost entirely unnoticed in The Academy. In short, Christians would point to arguments made in debates as 'proof' of some aspect of the religion, but biologists or astronomers, for example, were not taking up time at conferences to consider if perhaps God was the answer to the source of some question or problem they were addressing.

Perhaps the mechanics of these debates will be discussed here, but to start with I'm wondering why some Christians, whose religion is based on faith, run the risk of this sort of entanglement where they deliberately avoid the role of faith (or at least place more emphasis on 'evidence'). The whole 'reasonable faith' movement seems contrary to Biblical teaching and to much subsequent teaching (from Luther to Rick Warren—with apologies to Lutherans for putting those two names in the same sentence!).

Disclosure: back in 'those days' mentioned above, I took heart in the successes of Christian debaters because in my mind the phenomenon seemed to create a bridge between my normal life as a scholar and my life as a Christian. Once I really started watching them and doing no small amount of follow-up reading, I changed sides. I was also dismayed by dirty tactics and subterfuge from WLC—by the way, I'm certainly not trying to suggest that I've found the right answer and believers have not, but merely giving some notion of where I am coming from on this topic.

K.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Atheist v. Christian debate? Rubbish. As somebody famous once noted, "You cannot reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

That's the nub of the problem, it seems to me. For all the centuries of Jesuitical (and other) attempts to foist the rigors of pure reason onto a Christian framework founded at its heart on the miraculous, these two qualities make poor yokemates. While not necessarily antithetical, the rational and magical elements of Christianity seem to me to appeal to very different sorts of people, develop different sorts of proselytizing tools, and set up different moral and spiritual aspirations, which is certainly one reason why Christianity has so many, many different subsets so frequently set tooth-and-claw against each other.

Much as I admire attempts to turn the faith into a kind of holistic, meets-all-aspirations endeavor, it seems not to have worked, at least as any sort of unifying force.

Meanwhile, atheism, whose emphasis on the empirical and rational seems to doom it to minority status so long as human beings retain some hold on their creative, emotive, and imaginative powers, seems thin and flat and bodiless by comparison. Frankly, atheism in its current most popular forms (I am in actuality an agnostic rather than an atheist) seems like sandy ground to me: insufficient nourishment for the human psyche.

Apparently, human beings need the ability to imagine improvements, however preposterous, on what reality hands them. They've created some sort of miraculous superstructure in every age and society we've learned about. Christianity is just one particularly wide-spread and long-running example of same. Islam's another.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Atheism wins hands down, no contest, up against the vast majority of Gods.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

How, Martin? Relatively few people actually subscribe to "real" atheism, once they hit any sort of foxhole. Plenty of people ignore religious faith on the straightaway, but that's only because they, like me, simply aren't convinced -- until their personal foxhole arrives. Then they leap to belief, make promises, swear to remain faithful, etc. etc., but that generally only lasts until the foxhole's filled in. Of course there are exceptions.

Many of us, alas, are cupboard-love sorts of creatures, and our belief in "reason" (to the extent we'd recognize it if it dropped into our morning mug-o-whatever) is every bit as wan and wobbly as our belief in death-defying, sin-defeating SuperJesus.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

Reckon the answer to the o/p is with those who find these debates useful and for what. WLC's debates showed you can make a case for a rational basis for theism in general and Christian belief in particular. Some people have come to faith, or come back to faith either by listening to a debate or being intrigued enough to do some more research.

The debate format itself gives a lie to the argument that theistic arguments aren't any good when challenged because all the rational arguments are with the atheists. Craig's demolition of the late Mr Hitchen's was one of the clearest examples of that one.

Debates are also good places to refine arguments. You get some of that with the more intelligent debates on these threads.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Oh yeah Porridge, we're nearly all wired for mindless superstition, truly except Dawkins (he has no polarization between his frontal lobes, which is most unusual), but the Gods of our fearful ignorance can't compete with their nullity.

[ 21. April 2015, 22:04: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

Debates are to reasoning about religion what Prime Minister's Question Time is to reasoning about politics.

It is perfectly possible to have reasoned political beliefs. It is even possible to have a reasoned argument with another person about politics. Prime Minister's Question Time is not about reasoned argument; it is about scoring points off the other person.

I do believe that even if religious beliefs cannot be proven they can at least be shown to be intellectually defensible: internally coherent and compatible with sensible epistemic canons. If religion is not rational we cannot understand what we believe, nor can we live by it.
That's got nothing to do with who can score points off whom in a staged points scoring match.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Very good post, Dafyd. I find Craig risible really, but he has certainly mastered the art of, well, I'm not sure really. The Gish gallop, I spose.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Debates are to reasoning about religion what Prime Minister's Question Time is to reasoning about politics.

It is perfectly possible to have reasoned political beliefs. It is even possible to have a reasoned argument with another person about politics. Prime Minister's Question Time is not about reasoned argument; it is about scoring points off the other person.

I do believe that even if religious beliefs cannot be proven they can at least be shown to be intellectually defensible: internally coherent and compatible with sensible epistemic canons. If religion is not rational we cannot understand what we believe, nor can we live by it.
That's got nothing to do with who can score points off whom in a staged points scoring match.

I think there is a big difference between having an internally consistent and justifiable position and having a philosophy which is thought can have a strong objective rational position.

Too often these debates are people talking past each other - they are never going to agree because they share too little common ground. One side cannot say this then that then the other if the other side refuses to accept this, that or the other.

The problem with both sides of this kind of argument is that they tend to assume that their way of thinking is the only objectively true way to look at the problem, and thus tend to assume that the other side can be persuaded out of their delusion with a better argument.

But the problem is that the whole thing is not based on facts, but much more about perception. If two people perceived these things differently and/or interpret their perceptions differently, they're just not going to agree.

Hence they usually just turn into slagging matches, which is very unfortunate because they might learn something from each other if they struggled to see the problem as the other side saw it.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Relatively few people actually subscribe to "real" atheism

"Real" atheism tends to be a term used by religious believers, whereas "real" Christianity is used by atheists (and Christians judging by SoF occasionally). "Real Scotchman" is of course a fallacy.

I feel no desire to debate God v atheism. I've read many argument one way or the other. I've never doubted that belief in God is as rational as not - just that arguments don't do it for me and at some deep level I don't feel that's how the world is.

If I can see a flaw, I'll reject the argument (but of course I'm more prone to see flaws in arguments I don't want to believe). If I can't see a flaw I'll assume it's because I'm not bright enough (and undoubtedly someone else will find one).

Truman White's Debates are also good places to refine arguments is true - with practice you'll be able to reject any argument you don't like and able to recognise that attempts to defeat yours are faulty.

We all seem to have a deep aversion to accepting that some people with whom we have much in common nonetheless have some beliefs which shock us with their difference from ours. I assume I have lots of false beliefs though I don't know which ones (and sometimes I do but won't own up). One of the reasons I follow SoF is to be reminded of that and experiment with seeing the world differently.

A couple of years back there was a thread on why people were Christians. Most, as far as I can remember, gave contact with some charismatic* believer(s) as the cause; some mentioned experiences they couldn't explain. I don't remember any who'd been argued into it.

* In the everyday sense of the word.

[ 22. April 2015, 09:15: Message edited by: que sais-je ]

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

I like your post Mr Cheesy. I'm slightly hesitant to focus on personalities, but as WLC has been brought up again; he's a skilled debater, but a shifty so-and-so. He'll do anything to proselytise (in fact, that's the only reason he debates). But picking up on Mr Cheesy's comments, I think the point about 'closed systems' is vital. In ordinary debates, the speakers are playing from the same deck; that is, the natural world. In these cases, those arguing against theism are only drawing from the natural world and the laws of science as well as predictions that can be made from that understanding. The theists, on the other hand, pick bits of the latter, but always have the 'magic' card to play. The 'magic' aspect cannot be defeated because of its unfalsifiability. Therefore those defending theism are very unlikely to concede ground in a public debate because they always have what seems to be the ace of spades up their sleeve. From my years in Charismania, you are instructed not to listen or think outside of the closed system; therefore, all of the stuff the secularists say at these debates that falls outside of the evangelical worldview is ignored. The best of these 'debates' was Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams. It was interesting and useful because it wasn't a debate—there was no point-scoring. There is also a pretty large spectrum of opponents to consider. I've noticed in the examples in the USA that (somehow) evolution is up for grabs as a topic of debate. That doesn't happen in the UK debates (as far as I'm aware).

I disagree that WLC carried out a 'demolition' of Christopher Hitchens. However, I don't think that Hitchens was ready for that kind of debater. WLC won on points, but that's the only way he can fight. He argues around the semantics of definitions (like, what constitutes 'evidence', and creates a platform for himself where anything can be evidence. He presents 'anything' and scores points). WLC does a brilliant job of stacking the deck in his favour, falsifying the claims of his opponents, misleadingly summarising the arguments of his opponents, smearing his opponents and so on. I followed his debates for several years before I learned about his behind-the-scenes behaviour and I allowed myself to listen to his opposition. WLC was soundly beaten by Bart Erhman and Sean Carroll. Although closer to a draw, WLC was exposed by Sam Harris for his dodgy morality of his articulated beliefs and weak moral arguments.

I'm aware that this is drifting toward analysis of debates (which might be fine), but my point is this: unlike most other debates, these types of debates are less useful because one side will inevitably rely on unfalsifiability.

K.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I like your post Mr Cheesy. I'm slightly hesitant to focus on personalities, but as WLC has been brought up again; he's a skilled debater, but a shifty so-and-so. He'll do anything to proselytise (in fact, that's the only reason he debates). But picking up on Mr Cheesy's comments, I think the point about 'closed systems' is vital. In ordinary debates, the speakers are playing from the same deck; that is, the natural world. In these cases, those arguing against theism are only drawing from the natural world and the laws of science as well as predictions that can be made from that understanding. The theists, on the other hand, pick bits of the latter, but always have the 'magic' card to play. The 'magic' aspect cannot be defeated because of its unfalsifiability. Therefore those defending theism are very unlikely to concede ground in a public debate because they always have what seems to be the ace of spades up their sleeve. From my years in Charismania, you are instructed not to listen or think outside of the closed system; therefore, all of the stuff the secularists say at these debates that falls outside of the evangelical worldview is ignored.

Of course, one could also say the opposite. You seem to be arguing that the one side is right and the other wrong, I'm just saying that it is really an argument between people using different languages, where words and ideas are not necessarily held in common.

Also I don't think your characterisation of some guy's behaviour as 'shitty' is really fair. Going on what you say here, his objective is to convert his opponents. Well, presumably the objective of his opponents is to avoid being converted and to avoid the listeners from being converted. I'm not sure that is really a massive difference or that one is 'more shitty' than the other.

quote:
The best of these 'debates' was Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams. It was interesting and useful because it wasn't a debate—there was no point-scoring. There is also a pretty large spectrum of opponents to consider. I've noticed in the examples in the USA that (somehow) evolution is up for grabs as a topic of debate. That doesn't happen in the UK debates (as far as I'm aware).

Rowan Williams is a notoriously hard person to debate because he tends to listen for parts of other people's arguments to agree with. He did exactly the same with Ricky Gervais.

The truth is that it is extremely hard to have a full formal debate with someone who refuses to debate angrily and continually says he likes you and finds things about your position to praise. See also GK Chesterton.

quote:
I disagree that WLC carried out a 'demolition' of Christopher Hitchens. However, I don't think that Hitchens was ready for that kind of debater. WLC won on points, but that's the only way he can fight. He argues around the semantics of definitions (like, what constitutes 'evidence', and creates a platform for himself where anything can be evidence. He presents 'anything' and scores points). WLC does a brilliant job of stacking the deck in his favour, falsifying the claims of his opponents, misleadingly summarising the arguments of his opponents, smearing his opponents and so on. I followed his debates for several years before I learned about his behind-the-scenes behaviour and I allowed myself to listen to his opposition. WLC was soundly beaten by Bart Erhman and Sean Carroll. Although closer to a draw, WLC was exposed by Sam Harris for his dodgy morality of his articulated beliefs and weak moral arguments.

I'm not really fond of Hitchens, who seems to be of the 'I can think it, therefore it is' school of thinking. But I don't know anything about this debate.

Erhman is quite persuasive in text, but not great as an orator, I understand. And Erhman is only really effective if you accept several of his underlying assertions. Which can be fun if you are prepared to lower your guard long enough to see where these assumptions take you, but is not really something most Christian apologists are likely to do.

quote:
I'm aware that this is drifting toward analysis of debates (which might be fine), but my point is this: unlike most other debates, these types of debates are less useful because one side will inevitably rely on unfalsifiability.

K.

I think it is not about one side or the other side, the point is that the whole subject is unfalsifiable. That is the nature of the thing under discussion.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Well, I sort of am arguing that one side is better than the other in terms of debating traditions. One side is arguing for magic, the other is not. As I said in the post, that is not a level playing field. If, in a 'normal' debate, a speaker was accused of unfalsifiability, she or he would likely feel compelled to address that. The theist cannot, other than to say that they believe in magic. Again, as a criticism of the debating forum for this particular set of topics, it is unlikely to be productive for one side to argue for an unfalsifiable magic and other to be left to argue against an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It seems unsatisfactory all around.

Your last comment about Erhman is telling. You claim that 'Erhman is only really effective if you accept several of his underlying assertions.' That's how good arguments work or how bad arguments fail. The fact that you think that even considering the argument amounts to letting down one's guard only highlights my point. The Christian apologist in question is not generally even going to consider evidence outside of the parameters specified by their religion. That is intellectual dishonest and scarcely scholarly behaviour.

K.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Well, I sort of am arguing that one side is better than the other in terms of debating traditions. One side is arguing for magic, the other is not. As I said in the post, that is not a level playing field. If, in a 'normal' debate, a speaker was accused of unfalsifiability, she or he would likely feel compelled to address that. The theist cannot, other than to say that they believe in magic. Again, as a criticism of the debating forum for this particular set of topics, it is unlikely to be productive for one side to argue for an unfalsifiable magic and other to be left to argue against an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It seems unsatisfactory all around.

I disagree, you are simply asserting that philosophy can be analysed with the tools of natural science. I don't think it can. Nothing against the tools of science, they're just not useful here.

And it isn't about the nature of the debate either, there have been philosophers having debating challenging ideas long before scientific methods came along - the difference was that they were not claiming that this was the only way to understand reality, but just a persuasive one. That is the way philosophical arguments work, because there is no way to prove objectively which is correct.

quote:
Your last comment about Erhman is telling. You claim that 'Erhman is only really effective if you accept several of his underlying assertions.' That's how good arguments work or how bad arguments fail. The fact that you think that even considering the argument amounts to letting down one's guard only highlights my point. The Christian apologist in question is not generally even going to consider evidence outside of the parameters specified by their religion. That is intellectual dishonest and scarcely scholarly behaviour.

K.

No, it isn't really.

Take two people talking about the best sports. One has the opinion that cricket is the best, another likes ice-hockey.

If the one likes ice-hockey for the speed and the other likes cricket for the delicate unfolding drama, there is no objective truth about which is better. They are judging the nature of sport on two different realities. That they cannot comprehend the other's perception is not an indication that the one is objectively right and the other is objectively wrong.

When we talk about religion and philosophy, the claim that there is a God is not something which can be objectively proven. So we are in the business of finding arguments to interrogate it that we find persuasive, but ultimately cannot be fully measured, analysed and decided upon.

And whilst all scientific knowledge is like this to a certain extent, clearly religion is in a class of its own given that many people have looked at exactly the same evidence and have come to different conclusions.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
In these cases, those arguing against theism are only drawing from the natural world and the laws of science as well as predictions that can be made from that understanding. The theists, on the other hand, pick bits of the latter, but always have the 'magic' card to play. The 'magic' aspect cannot be defeated because of its unfalsifiability. Therefore those defending theism are very unlikely to concede ground in a public debate because they always have what seems to be the ace of spades up their sleeve.

This statement is just sad bullshit. Whatever one might complain about in these apologetic duels, neither does the theistic side play "magic cards" regularly - because that would be simply self-defeating in these circumstances - nor is the atheistic side relying on "science only" (apologetics 101: scientism is not science). This sort of inane statement is exactly why such discussions rarely hold any interest beyond the clash of personalities. The entire debate is framed a priori in a ridiculously biased setting, if not by the debaters then by the listeners, and all that happens during the debate is boring point scoring that relies on confirmation bias.

As for the value of such exercises: atheists have been succeeding not because of their strength of argument, which generally is piss-poor, but simply because of the lazy "technology proves scientism" assumption of the apathetic masses, who will run after the high priests of the iPhone as much or as little as after those of the cross, crystal pyramids, Jupiter, or what have you. The idea that one can push back against that with such debates is of course silly. What these debates may occasionally do is to point out to your regular I-have-no-clue-but-Jesus-is-my-friend Christian that there are answers to the aggressive "I'm so much smarter than you" sales pitch of atheists beyond chewing your fingernails and singing Kumbaya under your breath.

For the most part though, these debates exist to produce mildly entertaining YouTube videos and sell a book or two to the undiscerning viewer.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

I expected better from you Ingo. I'll let you pick through your own post for the collection of logical fallacies.

Perhaps we'll need a separate thread, depending on how you answer this: do you think that the Christian faith relies on the supernatural for its truth claims?

K.

[ 22. April 2015, 10:57: Message edited by: Komensky ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Interesting points above about courtesy; the Russell/Copleston debate was noted for this, even going so far as offering to improve the other guy's arguments. But I suppose they were from another world really, posh people saying after you. Today you have to grrrrowl and sneer at your opponent, with a few exceptions.

Still available online, I think.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting points above about courtesy; the Russell/Copleston debate was noted for this, even going so far as offering to improve the other guy's arguments. But I suppose they were from another world really, posh people saying after you. Today you have to grrrrowl and sneer at your opponent, with a few exceptions.

Still available online, I think.

Thanks for that. I'll have a look.

K.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I'll let you pick through your own post for the collection of logical fallacies.

Of course, because you cannot point to a single one...

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Perhaps we'll need a separate thread, depending on how you answer this: do you think that the Christian faith relies on the supernatural for its truth claims?

Christian faith by definition is supernatural. The doctrinal content of Christianity is however in part accessible to natural reasoning from observations. And the apologetic debates with atheists generally centre on issues that are so accessible, like for example the existence of (some kind of) higher being. Though where those debates veer into the moral realm, generally we just see clashes of assumptions and assertions, rather than anything resembling an argument. It is true that many Christians believe by supernatural faith also what is accessible by natural reason of their religion. But that just goes to show that one can hold the same truth by different mental means. And given the general weakness and fickleness of human reason, and its near absence in some individuals, it is a good thing that this is possible...

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Thanks for answering. I do regret having mentioned that Christian debaters rely on the the subject of the supernatural—that's something for another thread. Mr Cheesy was right to point out the fundamental problems of the format and the unsatisfactory nature—for different reasons—for both sides. This is not the thread—nor probably even the website—to discuss the problems of demonstrating invisible magic.

What would be a better format for non-theists and theists to argue their cases?

K.

[ 22. April 2015, 11:36: Message edited by: Komensky ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Chesterton also debated with Russell. see http://thehuffexpress.blogspot.co.uk/p/bertrand-russell-in-first-place-imust.html

He also famously debated with George Bernard Shaw on the topic 'Do we agree?'

http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/debate.txt

It is said that debates with Chesterton were chaotic due to his habit of laughing loudly and his jovial demeanour that even his opponents could not help but appreciate.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
What would be a better format for non-theists and theists to argue their cases?

I think the problem is precisely in the arguing of their cases. It is the pleading in front of a public audience that generally makes for a useless discussion framework. The point scoring is part of the setup. I think personal discussions have a much greater chance to occur on a playing field intentionally kept level by both sides, and to focus on issues of actual interest (rather than greatest public impact), in particular if there is mutual sympathy and respect. A pint of beer tends to help... or a cup of tea. Basically, one needs to start relaxed rather than in battle-mode.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

For once, I agree with IngoB. And to be honest, I'd quite like to see a debater like GKC, Christian or atheist.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
What would be a better format for non-theists and theists to argue their cases?
I think the problem is precisely in the arguing of their cases. It is the pleading in front of a public audience that generally makes for a useless discussion framework. The point scoring is part of the setup. I think personal discussions have a much greater chance to occur on a playing field intentionally kept level by both sides, and to focus on issues of actual interest (rather than greatest public impact), in particular if there is mutual sympathy and respect. A pint of beer tends to help... or a cup of tea. Basically, one needs to start relaxed rather than in battle-mode.

Thanks. That's why I mentioned the Rowan Williams—Dawkins 'chat' is a better example, with less emphasis on confrontation. In the debate format, the tendency is for the audience to cheer for their own side, rather than consider carefully what is being said.

K.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

And relaxation is hardly likely in actual debate, where one enters the field with the understanding that the debater you face will be pulling out all available rhetorical stops in an effort to demolish your position and persuade listeners of its incorrectness. That's what formal debate is supposed to be (not that we see much of this any more, at least here in the US).

If atheism had more of an actual position (as opposed to how it's often argued, as an "anti-position," and if theists could avoid arguing from "magic," debate might make sense / be viable.

In terms of proselytizing, though, Ingo's cup of tea and pint of beer is undoubtedly more effective.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Their use is that we can rest assured that cleverer people than us can do metaphysics and all we need is the faith that they have proved God.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Atheist v. Christian debate? Rubbish. As somebody famous once noted, "You cannot reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

Super post! Having read the OP and groaned at the mention of the ghastly WLC, I read yours and all those slightly ruffled feathers were smoothed into place! [Smile]

In my opinion, the more debate the better, because it will show up more and more clearly where objective evidence lies.

(I haven't read other posts yet.)
P.S. Have read the OP again more slowly and see that your point of view is that of a non-believer!

[ 22. April 2015, 12:42: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

IANAP(hilosopher), but is it not a category mistake to apply standards of 'objective evidence' to matters of faith?
That's why, BTW, it's worth debating about the usefulness or beneficence, or otherwise, of Christianity, but not about its 'truth'.

[ 22. April 2015, 12:49: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

Keep coming back to who the audience is that the debater is aiming at. In an atheist/theist debate they're not generally trying to change each other's minds but:

a) providing arguments for their supporters to try out at home; and
b) convince undecided people to favour one view or t'other.

In the latter context, debates have their place for people who like to listen to debates and genuinely think about the arguments.

Anyone on these threads re-thought a position by listening to a theist/atheist debate?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

Why is the tomb empty and whose explanation do you buy? Isn't that what it boils down to? It seems such a debate should take just a few minutes with both sides saying what they take on faith.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Why is the tomb empty and whose explanation do you buy? Isn't that what it boils down to? It seems such a debate should take just a few minutes with both sides saying what they take on faith.

Erm.. no.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
As somebody famous once noted, "You cannot reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

I wonder a bit about this. We hold most of our beliefs about the natural world because we were taught them in school, not because we reasoned them for ourselves. Even if we justify this on the grounds that our teachers were properly educated and therefore trustworthy, that's still something of a post hoc rationalisation.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I wonder a bit about this. We hold most of our beliefs about the natural world because we were taught them in school, not because we reasoned them for ourselves. Even if we justify this on the grounds that our teachers were properly educated and therefore trustworthy, that's still something of a post hoc rationalisation.

I think you are making the same point: at High School we mostly take things on trust (from textbooks, teachers etc). So the 'learning' we engage in there is mostly not about reasoning.

Most people find they can fairly easily replace the things they learned at school with better and more reasoned evidence. But if those things are not exposed to any kind of challenge or time in thought, they tend to stick.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Such interesting posts to read and set the mind thinking. (Sorry that is not a complete sentence!)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
As somebody famous once noted, "You cannot reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

I wonder a bit about this. We hold most of our beliefs about the natural world because we were taught them in school, not because we reasoned them for ourselves. Even if we justify this on the grounds that our teachers were properly educated and therefore trustworthy, that's still something of a post hoc rationalisation.

That reminds me of the old saying that science can explain everything except the important things, and you could adapt that for rationality. My life hasn't been rationally planned; most of it, I sort of fell into or bumped up against.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
As somebody famous once noted, "You cannot reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

I wonder a bit about this. We hold most of our beliefs about the natural world because we were taught them in school, not because we reasoned them for ourselves. Even if we justify this on the grounds that our teachers were properly educated and therefore trustworthy, that's still something of a post hoc rationalisation.

No, 'we' don't. We come to understand what we understand about the natural world through scientific enquiry and explanation. It is nothing of 'a post hoc rationalisation'—unless you learned bad science; which is certainly possible.

K.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Why is the tomb empty and whose explanation do you buy? Isn't that what it boils down to? It seems such a debate should take just a few minutes with both sides saying what they take on faith.
Erm.. no.

Ok, a couple of seconds, then.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

Meanwhile, atheism, whose emphasis on the empirical and rational seems to doom it to minority status so long as human beings retain some hold on their creative, emotive, and imaginative powers, seems thin and flat and bodiless by comparison.

Though not quite an atheist, I resent the Hell out of this statement. Well, the part about rational and creative being opposed.
And, as far as atheism, some people are atheists because they see an incompatibility between reason and faith. Some are because they simply do not believe in god(s). some are because their parents were. In short, the reasons people are atheist are as varied as those for people of faith.
And one can be very rational and be a person of faith.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
How, Martin? Relatively few people actually subscribe to "real" atheism, once they hit any sort of foxhole. Plenty of people ignore religious faith on the straightaway, but that's only because they, like me, simply aren't convinced -- until their personal foxhole arrives. Then they leap to belief, make promises, swear to remain faithful, etc. etc., but that generally only lasts until the foxhole's filled in. Of course there are exceptions.

And, IMO, this is a massive generalisation. And works mainly for those who once believed, but no longer do. And only a percentage of those.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
We come to understand what we understand about the natural world through scientific enquiry and explanation. It is nothing of 'a post hoc rationalisation'—unless you learned bad science; which is certainly possible.

Really? You're entirely self-taught? You've worked out the entirety of western physics, biology, and chemistry for yourself?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
IANAP(hilosopher), but is it not a category mistake to apply standards of 'objective evidence' to matters of faith?
That's why, BTW, it's worth debating about the usefulness or beneficence, or otherwise, of Christianity, but not about its 'truth'.

It depends upon what you mean by objective evidence. If you think that the only standards of objective evidence are those that you can put numbers on in a laboratory, then yes.

But physics is not the only standard of objectivity or truth: we can run from physics through chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, passing history, through cultural studies and arts criticism to philosophy and theology. Each tends with more or less ease towards truth as a goal with objectivity as a more or less distant ideal of procedure.

It is I think true that as Kierkegaard said, objective can never take you the final step to complete commitment. But that doesn't mean you should make that final step against the evidence.
Objective evidence can never decide whether you should love somebody, but it's still best not to ignore evidence that your potential beloved beat his previous wife.

I'm really not convinced that usefulness is in any way a clearer standard than truth anyway. After two thousand years of mass, claims that Christianity is beneficent seem as much a matter of faith as claims that the tomb was empty.

[ 22. April 2015, 18:55: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
We come to understand what we understand about the natural world through scientific enquiry and explanation. It is nothing of 'a post hoc rationalisation'—unless you learned bad science; which is certainly possible.
Really? You're entirely self-taught? You've worked out the entirety of western physics, biology, and chemistry for yourself?

No—that's why I mentioned 'being taught'.

K.

[ 22. April 2015, 19:04: Message edited by: Komensky ]

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Wouldn't the essential debate really be between atheism and theism? Christianity depends - ISTM - on an a priori subscription to theism. I don't see a debate on purely rational grounds at all, however; rather on an essentially aesthetic sense, and hence on psychological grounds rather than on empirical materialistic ones. This may, of course, necessitate some detour into linguistics.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

Good debates provide a sensible basis to frame theistic/atheistic questions. So we can get away from the sterile "you prove God exists/you prove he doesn't" to exploring the reasonable basis for theism.

I know more than a few people who gave up on New Atheism when they heard debates that showed that it's plain wrong to say that to believe in God you have to leave your brain at the door and rely on faith alone.

The best debates I've heard started from the position that both atheism and theism are views which can be reasonably held, and argued around which was the more plausible.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

@Porrige

BTW, when you talk about atheism as a minority position, you have history on your side (always has been a minority view) and contemporary sociology (globally it's still a minority view and shrinking),

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I wonder a bit about this. We hold most of our beliefs about the natural world because we were taught them in school, not because we reasoned them for ourselves. Even if we justify this on the grounds that our teachers were properly educated and therefore trustworthy, that's still something of a post hoc rationalisation.
No, 'we' don't. We come to understand what we understand about the natural world through scientific enquiry and explanation. It is nothing of 'a post hoc rationalisation'—unless you learned bad science; which is certainly possible.

K.

I meant 'we' in the sense of the majority of readers of this website. I don't believe you thought up the valency of carbon atoms all by yourself, for example - it's true that someone used a process of scientific inquiry to derive it, but most of us have to take it on trust.

We are, in general, a lot closer to the Medieval argument from authority, than to the Enlightenment spirit of taking nothing for granted.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Specific example: I think most ordinary people would lose an argument with a creationist, precisely because creationists tend to have elaborate arguments to justify abandoning mainstream science, whereas most people tend to trust science and are content to know that science endorses evolution without knowing the specifics of why.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
No—that's why I mentioned 'being taught'.

I am not following this. Because I cannot see where you mentioned 'being taught'. Ricardus mentioned being 'taught' and you appeared to be disagreeing with what he said.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
How, Martin? Relatively few people actually subscribe to "real" atheism, once they hit any sort of foxhole. Plenty of people ignore religious faith on the straightaway, but that's only because they, like me, simply aren't convinced -- until their personal foxhole arrives. Then they leap to belief, make promises, swear to remain faithful, etc. etc., but that generally only lasts until the foxhole's filled in. Of course there are exceptions.

Many of us, alas, are cupboard-love sorts of creatures, and our belief in "reason" (to the extent we'd recognize it if it dropped into our morning mug-o-whatever) is every bit as wan and wobbly as our belief in death-defying, sin-defeating SuperJesus.

Accusing atheists of not holding to their belief seems unkind. I've been in the situation where the doctors told me I was more likely than not to die. It didn't put a dent in my atheism.
Why are you so sure that the majority of atheists hold your position of just being dilatory about getting around to believing in God.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

Why are you so sure that the majority of atheists hold your position of just being dilatory about getting around to believing in God.

Interjecting. I didn't read Porridge as asserting a general dilatory mindset. I'm sure there are atheists and agnostics in foxholes whose minds are not changed by the threat of immediate death. But I suppose it may concentrate the minds of some agnostics, may produce some reflection in the minds of some agnostics. I suppose it depends on the strength of prior convictions, and what those convictions are.

I once heard a woman interviewed on TV. She found her toddler drowned in about a foot of water in a child's paddling pool in her back garden. (Apparently she was hanging out washing, and for a short time took her eye off the toddler who had been happily splashing around.) She said her previous faith was instantly replaced by a conviction that "there is no God". Traumatic experiences do not necessarily make for clear understanding of anything.

On the more general point, being the sort of person who remembers one-liners, I'm always prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in me. Sometimes that generates discussions, conversations.

But I'm not sure about the value of debates which become point-scoring affairs. Probably because they seem often enough to bring natural combativeness to the fore; a desire to win, rather than a willingness to engage in mutual exploration. Generosity, a willingness to see validity in other viewpoints, seems to get squeezed out.

[As we have daily proof here in the UK in the run up to the General Election.]

Late Edit: I think mr cheesy's sig, which I have just noticed, makes the point very well!

quote:
MR. SHAW: I cannot say that Mr. Chesterton has succeeded in forcing
a difference of opinion on me.

[ 23. April 2015, 08:24: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

It seems that we have a variety of debates and/or debating topics in mind here in this thread. That's probably a good thing. In some cases we are faced with a situation where one of the debaters is a young-Earth creationist. At that point there is very little point in engaging with their argument.

Sam Harris put it like this: “Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. This seems as value-free an utterance as human beings have ever made. […] What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water."? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over.”

Harris is spot on in his analogy—but this takes us back to the rub of the OP. Debates between two intelligent people like Rowan Williams and Richard Dawkins are pleasant, engaging and thought-provoking—from both sides. However, debates between young-Earth creationists and any competent scholar of evolutionary biology or some branch of Earth science is usually excruciating to watch. The only people for whom such an encounter is not a testimony to human stupidity are the unflappable supporters of the 'Answers in Genesis' lot, or others cut from the same cloth.

K.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Late Edit: I think mr cheesy's sig, which I have just noticed, makes the point very well!

quote:
MR. SHAW: I cannot say that Mr. Chesterton has succeeded in forcing
a difference of opinion on me.

The irony is that GBS was arguing that Chesterton agreed with him (the debate was 'do we agree')

So he was apparently arguing that Chesterton had been unable to persuade him that they didn't agree.

But anyway.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think it's a double irony, mr cheesy. I think it shows very well what happens when verbal strutting takes over. We can't even agree about what our agreements and disagreements are.

But YMMV! And I don't mind if it does!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

I think you are making the same point: at High School we mostly take things on trust (from textbooks, teachers etc). So the 'learning' we engage in there is mostly not about reasoning.
[/QUOTE]
In UK schools, 'facts' are of a lower order that reasoning - at least until Michael Gove's 'reforms' come into play.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

In theory, perhaps. But here in Wales- where Mr Gove's writ did not run- I have not been impressed by the critical reasoning ability of many of the pretty bog-standard school leavers who I taught at university. In fact, too often they had the worst of both worlds- they didn't know many facts and they couldn't reason very well. What they were looking for was the 'right'- i.e. approved- answer.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

But I think that is the direct result of the way our education system has ben handled over the last 20+ years.

If "passing exams" is the key to success, and if those exams place a higher value on the correct regurgitation of facts (or arguments) than the assessing of different viewpoints, that result is inevitable. This state of affairs may have come about because (some) politicians value the acquisition of "facts" more highly than reasoning skills, or because it is easier to set and assess fact-based examinations (especially where multiple-choice questions are being used rather than essays).

FWIW I helped lead a student Bible Study group in Lisbon back in the late 70s. It was very difficult to get the students (mostly from African backgrounds) to venture any opinions because they had been raised to believe that "teacher" had the "right" answer for every question. How dare they suggest anything different? That again was a function of the philosophy behind their education system.

When I was at Uni. (early 70s) I had a friend who was studying history. He had an excellent mind. At the bottom of one essay he submitted (in which the facts were not in dispute), his lecturer wrote, "I totally disagree with everything you say, but your argument is excellent". He got an A for it.

[ 23. April 2015, 14:35: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I think you are all being too harsh on the education systems. This is just the nature of being a child - you take things on trust. Part of becoming an adult is examining your own assumptions and testing the things you were told to take on trust.

That said: Gove [Mad]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But I think that is the direct result of the way our education system has ben handled over the last 20+ years.

If "passing exams" is the key to success, and if those exams place a higher value on the correct regurgitation of facts (or arguments) than the assessing of different viewpoints, that result is inevitable. This state of affairs may have come about because (some) politicians value the acquisition of "facts" more highly than reasoning skills, or because it is easier to set and assess fact-based examinations (especially where multiple-choice questions are being used rather than essays).

and more difficult to teach people how to think than what to think.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think you are all being too harsh on the education systems. This is just the nature of being a child - you take things on trust. Part of becoming an adult is examining your own assumptions and testing the things you were told to take on trust.

Small children, yes. But two things: even in small children, encouraging thinking beyond the answer is good for future development and if you do not develop critical skill early, chances are greater that they will not develop fully.* The process of how you will reason as an adult has few strict lines of transition. It is an evolving process.

*how do think the BNP gets members or The Sun, readers?

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

FWIW I helped lead a student Bible Study group in Lisbon back in the late 70s. It was very difficult to get the students (mostly from African backgrounds) to venture any opinions because they had been raised to believe that "teacher" had the "right" answer for every question. How dare they suggest anything different? That again was a function of the philosophy behind their education system.

You'll get much the same in China. Go to Israel on t'other hand and the student is as likely to nick the chalk out of your hand and wax lyrical on why you expectant opinion is a pile of junk.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Can someone tell me what there is to debate within such debates?

My thinking when looking at a painting may be "it's a beautiful painting", and the person standing beside me may be thinking "junk" or "not art".

Likewise my experience of liturgy and the accompanying music is often pleasure, comfort and a meditative calmness. How can a personal experience be the subject of a debate?

Notwithstanding the Mickey Mouse and Jesus Loves Me This I Know born-twice versions of the Christian religion understood by many of the debaters. Crapulous.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
No—that's why I mentioned 'being taught'.
I am not following this. Because I cannot see where you mentioned 'being taught'. Ricardus mentioned being 'taught' and you appeared to be disagreeing with what he said.

Dafyd, sorry if I didn't make the context clear enough. I had assumed that 'being taught' was still the subject.

K.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Can someone tell me what there is to debate within such debates?

My thinking when looking at a painting may be "it's a beautiful painting", and the person standing beside me may be thinking "junk" or "not art".

Likewise my experience of liturgy and the accompanying music is often pleasure, comfort and a meditative calmness. How can a personal experience be the subject of a debate?

Notwithstanding the Mickey Mouse and Jesus Loves Me This I Know born-twice versions of the Christian religion understood by many of the debaters. Crapulous.

I don't quite follow. First of all, who says that judging the value of a painting is entirely subjective? Same goes for music. I think the 'personal experience' stuff seldom enters into these debates (at least that I cam aware of). The point of the Christians who take part in them is that they belief that it is not faith or the supernatural that make their truth claims true, but actual evidence. That's one of their approaches, anyway.

K.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Dafyd, sorry if I didn't make the context clear enough. I had assumed that 'being taught' was still the subject.

K.

But surely if you have accepted a bunch of facts and knowledge by 'being taught it', you haven't reasoned it for yourself. Or at least, you've not done the fundamental work (science) yourself.

I have never extracted all elements in the periodic table. But then, I don't need to.

[ 23. April 2015, 15:47: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The point of the Christians who take part in them is that they belief that it is not faith or the supernatural that make their truth claims true, but actual evidence. K.

Which is stupid, and the wrong approach. There is nothing to prove. The idea that evidence can prove or disprove faith or felt experience is ridiculous. The Christians who take part in such debates are barking up the wrong cross.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The point of the Christians who take part in them is that they belief that it is not faith or the supernatural that make their truth claims true, but actual evidence. K.
Which is stupid, and the wrong approach. There is nothing to prove. The idea that evidence can prove or disprove faith or felt experience is ridiculous. The Christians who take part in such debates are barking up the wrong cross.

I agree. For me, it shows a shift into third person discourse, which obliterates religious experience. How can I demonstrate that to you?

But I suppose it hinges on whether you think reality exists in the third person. I can't get my head round that, it's not even wrong.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

i think it is a common view that the truth can be proven, and if it cannot be proven it isn't true.

Hence those who feel they have a meta-truth (ie a philosophy such as Christianity) feel that all they need to do is find evidence to prove their point, and everyone else will accept it as well.

I think similar things can be said about those atheists who want to engage in this way.

I guess that means they have more in common than they might appreciate.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
i think it is a common view that the truth can be proven, and if it cannot be proven it isn't true.

Hence those who feel they have a meta-truth (ie a philosophy such as Christianity) feel that all they need to do is find evidence to prove their point, and everyone else will accept it as well.

I think similar things can be said about those atheists who want to engage in this way.

I guess that means they have more in common than they might appreciate.

Good points. But Jesus says, I am the truth, so this still wrenches our view of truth and reality by 180 degrees; not a truth in the third person, but this, now, at the still point of the dance.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

Meanwhile, atheism, whose emphasis on the empirical and rational seems to doom it to minority status so long as human beings retain some hold on their creative, emotive, and imaginative powers, seems thin and flat and bodiless by comparison.
Though not quite an atheist, I resent the Hell out of this statement. Well, the part about rational and creative being opposed.

As well you should, IMO. Alas, that's what the run-of-the-mill set points generally seem to come down to: faith versus reason, which I think is rubbish.

AFAICS, most humans have plenty of room for, and readily use and apply, both. We could hardly operate in society otherwise. "Faith" isn't always expressed in religious terms, but most us make steady use of it nonetheless. "Reason" (probably less frequently applied, as many of us seem unpracticed in these skills) is fine as far as it goes, but can it help us enjoy a poker game, laugh at a comedy, admire a meteor shower?

All I'm really saying, lilBuddha, is that few of the people I run into on a daily basis have either time or energy to devote to pondering belief systems (if atheism is one, and I don't really think it is) or developing deep or powerful adherences to one or another system. Most of the people I deal with are more than fully occupied keeping themselves fed and clothed and sheltered and reasonably safe. Most people I see stick pretty much to received and largely unexamined ideas left over from popular culture or childhood experience, and faced with some sort of critical juncture, will leap at any straw that seems to offer hope, precisely because they've got no particular belief structure supporting them.

One reason I visit the Ship is that it affords a little time with people who DO ponder these things, DO examine beliefs, and DO develop thought-out allegiances to one world-view over another. I just don't see much evidence around me that Ship regulars are representative of the majority of our species.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Which is stupid, and the wrong approach. There is nothing to prove. The idea that evidence can prove or disprove faith or felt experience is ridiculous.

I find this attitude unacceptable.

Not that I think that all matters of faith can or must be "proven", certainly not. As mentioned, only certain parts of the Christian belief system are accessible to natural reason. However, none of Christianity can be disproven by natural reason, and I consider that to be of utmost importance. For what can can be disproven, is false, no matter how much faith one might have in it. And in Christianity there is only room for the truth, never for any falsehood.

Hence to categorically remove religion and faith from the realm of evidence and reason is for me simply not acceptable at all. This just is an invitation to have "blind faith", indeed "irrational faith". Ultimately, this leads to sects committing mass suicide in order to be beamed up to UFOs, and other immoral insanity.

That's not my Christianity. That has nothing to do with the Logos, who is my Lord.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The Christians who take part in such debates are barking up the wrong cross.

Maybe so, but certainly not because they value a faith that is never at odds with evidence and reason. That, and only that, is truly Christian. All else is not, no matter how loudly it may shout "Lord, Lord", or indeed how silently it might contemplate Divine mysteries.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Good points. But Jesus says, I am the truth, so this still wrenches our view of truth and reality by 180 degrees; not a truth in the third person, but this, now, at the still point of the dance.

Right. Which is why I have never understood the need to try to defend God or prove the resurrection. If it is true, it'll stand up on its own, without my feeble efforts.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Right. Which is why I have never understood the need to try to defend God or prove the resurrection. If it is true, it'll stand up on its own, without my feeble efforts.

Truth is not just a property of the world, like say colour. Truth is the correspondence of concepts in the mind with reality. And since human minds are discursive, truth is something that needs to be achieved.

Truth has never stood up on its own - it cannot possibly do so, at least among humans. Things are not true in the same way that they are for example red. Truth is an achievement of human effort, and practically speaking, requires its champions.

It may well be prudent humility to say that some truth should rather look to a different champion than to oneself. Fine. But to generally declare that truth will establish itself is just nonsense. Truth is for humans established by human effort, and to work towards Divine truth, as a human being, is a spiritual work of mercy of no lesser importance than say feeding the hungry. Man does not live by bread alone!

[ 23. April 2015, 17:42: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Maybe so, but certainly not because they value a faith that is never at odds with evidence and reason. That, and only that, is truly Christian. All else is not, no matter how loudly it may shout "Lord, Lord", or indeed how silently it might contemplate Divine mysteries.

Which is why the churches with such approaches are empty. We routinely lose these debates to the (forgive me) "check your brain at the door" fundamentalist-charismatic set who accept the literal truth. These groups are filling churches and building new ones. The debate approach works for them because they truly, truly know before the discussion even starts. Just like the atheists.

I don't disagree that there is ultimately no conflict between truths, but we seldom get to this level of learned discourse. In my own Anglican tradition within Canada, we see far more pressure from the groups mentioned above, and precious little of what you reference.

In the context of the broad question of evidence and truth, I have limited or no quarrel with your ideas. But when it comes to the level of debates as the thread sets out, it isn't successful.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Things are not true in the same way that they are for example red.

I'm not sure how that works. You seem to be arguing that things can be red without it being true that they're red.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

I took IngoB to mean that 'red' is an empirically verifiable, 'public' and universal concept which is usually seen the same way by everyone. Even if you are colour blind, it can be explained why you aren't seeing the same colour as everyone else. Truth on the other hand is more complex and its perception more subjective - even if the truth perceived can be claimed to be objective in some sense.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
I took IngoB to mean that 'red' is an empirically verifiable, 'public' and universal concept which is usually seen the same way by everyone. Even if you are colour blind, it can be explained why you aren't seeing the same colour as everyone else. Truth on the other hand is more complex and its perception more subjective - even if the truth perceived can be claimed to be objective in some sense.

I can accept the idea that truth includes things that aren't "empirically verifiable, 'public' and universal concept[s]". What I'm having trouble accepting is that truth excludes things which are verifiable in those ways. ("Truth has never stood up on its own - it cannot possibly do so", etc.)

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
In the context of the broad question of evidence and truth, I have limited or no quarrel with your ideas. But when it comes to the level of debates as the thread sets out, it isn't successful.

Well, I would agree that debates are not a particularly successful evangelisation tool.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You seem to be arguing that things can be red without it being true that they're red.

Truth is the accordance of mind and reality. If something is red, but no mind considers this, then no "truth value" practically exists associated with this redness. Hence this redness is "not true" - but not in the sense of "falsehood" (the thing is not red), but rather in the sense of "not under consideration" (that the thing is red is not being thought about).

Of course, if we talk about something then we are considering it with our minds. That's what gives this kind of discussion its counterfactual flavour. We cannot think not-thinking. If we say that something is red, but that it is also not true that it is red, we feel that a contradiction arises because we are saying this, and hence are considering this redness with our minds, establishing a truth value for it.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Colours are perceived, they are not absolutes. It is said our ancestors could not see blue

http://www.radiolab.org/story/211119-colors/

One does not argue God in or out of existence, the nature of the truth about God is true whether on not I can prove it.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

Agreed. Either God exists or God doesn't. And according to the concept of God within Traditional or Philosophical Theism, either God must or cannot possibly exist. We aren't arguing God either into or out of existence, we are (I think) examining the evidence for and against a particular concept of God being true or existing independently of our arguments, and examining whether a particular concept of God is a coherent one to begin with.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Agreed. Either God exists or God doesn't.

Except that most of the discussions of such topics are about "maybe". And they have little to do with fact or truth. They have to do with pain, fear, sorrow, hope, yearning and other like things.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Agreed. Either God exists or God doesn't. And according to the concept of God within Traditional or Philosophical Theism, either God must or cannot possibly exist. We aren't arguing God either into or out of existence, we are (I think) examining the evidence for and against a particular concept of God being true or existing independently of our arguments, and examining whether a particular concept of God is a coherent one to begin with.

As I understand IngoB's argument, if something "exist[s] independently of our arguments" it cannot be "true", since truth (and presumably falsity) exist only within the human mind.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

I think that our concepts of truth if accurate will be exemplified in the realities they are seeking to describe. In the same way that 2+2=4 is exemplified in the reality of my having two apples and someone giving me two more.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Agreed. Either God exists or God doesn't.
Except that most of the discussions of such topics are about "maybe". And they have little to do with fact or truth. They have to do with pain, fear, sorrow, hope, yearning and other like things.

Absolutely. Humans are finite and fallible. I don't see the two approaches as incompatible. Merely as indicating that humans can approach questions of truth in different and equally valid ways which fit in with our experiences of reality and how we process that reality.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
One does not argue God in or out of existence, the nature of the truth about God is true whether on not I can prove it.

One does not argue God in our out of existence, God exists or not. But the truth about God's existence does not have some kind of ghostly derived existence itself (unless perhaps if you are of the Platonic persuasion). The truth about God's existence must be thought by someone, or as truth it is not actually existent. You could say it is potentially existent insofar that if one thinks about it, then one way of doing so will be true. However, in a sense God does not ever "exist" even if He does exist. Because "exist" is a word, a human mental concept. What God is doing in existing is not exactly what my mind is doing when I think that God is existing. Rather, these two things are mapped to each other. And if this map is correct, then we call that "truth".

All this stands quite apart from the practical question whether I can show the truth about something, say whether God exists. If God exists, and I think God exists, then what I think is true, even if I have no idea how to prove it.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Colours are perceived, they are not absolutes. It is said our ancestors could not see blue.

It's more accurate to say that they could see blue but didn't have a specific term for it. (Unless you mean really distant ancestors, but that would put us in DH territory.)

quote:
Later writers conceded the relative poverty of color terminology among ancient peoples, but denied that it reflected a physical inability to distinguish color. A major breakthrough on the question occurred in 1880 when an opthalmologist named Hugo Magnus organized a study involving missionaries working with primitive tribes around the world. Using standardized color samples and a rigorous testing procedure devised by Magnus, the missionaries found that primitive peoples with a limited color vocabulary nonetheless could distinguish colors every bit as well as persons from highly developed cultures — they just didn't have names for all the colors.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As I understand IngoB's argument, if something "exist[s] independently of our arguments" it cannot be "true", since truth (and presumably falsity) exist only within the human mind.

More properly, truth and falsity is about the relationships of what is in the mind to what is in reality. Practically speaking, these relationships will be evaluated by the mind again. In that sense all truth is in the mind. But still, this evaluation is not just some circular mind loop, but precisely is about something external to the mind.

If we consider a ball and say "this ball weighs 1 kg", then either it does or it doesn't. I'm not saying that our minds somehow create the weight of the ball by thinking about it. But to say that it is true that "this ball weighs 1 kg" is not just something in the ball, like its actual weight is. This becomes apparent when we elaborate what we mean by this. For example, I might say "when I put this ball on one side of a scale, and the 1 kg standard weight kept in some vault in Paris on the other side of the scale, then the scale will be in balance". Here I have started to cash out my concept of weight in terms of actions involving a scale. Of course, there are many other ways in which I can do this with my mind. For example, I could say "if I put a force of 10 Newton on this ball, it will accelerate at 10 m/sec^2". Or I could say "this ball weighs less than a whale but more than a flea". Or I could even say "as healthy adult man, I find it easy to lift this ball". Some of these are more precise, and some of them less. But all are true, because the mapping of "1 kg weight" in my head to the actual ball out there is correct. If this mapping was false (the ball is actually made of lead, and is very heavy), then all these mental associations would collapse.

Still, "1 kg weight" in my head is not the same as 1 kg weight in reality. My head does not slump forward and hit the ground when I think "1 ton weight". These things have different kinds of is-nesses. And truth is what connects one kind of is-ness to the other, it is a relational measure.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

It is hotly debated. Some believe they really couldn't see blue - not just that they did not have words for it.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Even 1kg is largely perception. Is a 1.2kg a kg? Obviously it depends on what is being studied, the limits of measurement, the purpose of the experiment and so on.

1kg of anthrax may well be a different thing than 1.2kg or even 1.02kg. To an astronomer, such differences are probably useless.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Agreed. Either God exists or God doesn't.
Except that most of the discussions of such topics are about "maybe". And they have little to do with fact or truth. They have to do with pain, fear, sorrow, hope, yearning and other like things.
Absolutely. Humans are finite and fallible. I don't see the two approaches as incompatible. Merely as indicating that humans can approach questions of truth in different and equally valid ways which fit in with our experiences of reality and how we process that reality.

That's very gracious. I would tend to hammer the aesthetic and phenomenological side, because I see the vulnerabilities of religion when it accepts the terms set out within natural philosophy or what are labelled 'hard sciences*'.

* my objection is that this terms then defines social sciences and humanities as 'soft' in a pejorative manner, when this is a 'personal construct', i.e., a non-objective personal preference.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Even 1kg is largely perception. Is a 1.2kg a kg? Obviously it depends on what is being studied, the limits of measurement, the purpose of the experiment and so on.

That's not perception as much as purpose.
The problem here I think is there's an implicit assumption that all statements are purpose neutral assertions without context, and therefore when they deviate from objectively true purpose neutral assertions without context, it must be the objectively true bit that's given way. But in reality the objectively true bit is still in place; it's the purpose neutral without context bit that's gone.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
* my objection is that this terms then defines social sciences and humanities as 'soft' in a pejorative manner, when this is a 'personal construct', i.e., a non-objective personal preference.

Er... are you saying that the claim that they are soft in a perjorative manner is the same as the claim that they are a non-objective personal preference; or are you saying that the perjorative bit is a non-objective personal preference?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
* my objection is that this terms then defines social sciences and humanities as 'soft' in a pejorative manner, when this is a 'personal construct', i.e., a non-objective personal preference.
Er... are you saying that the claim that they are soft in a perjorative manner is the same as the claim that they are a non-objective personal preference; or are you saying that the perjorative bit is a non-objective personal preference?

I mean the hard-soft terminology is pejorative, non-objective and is a personal construct. To explain fully, personal construct in the sense that George Kelly used this: a way of making sense of something and contributing to cognitive economy as a summary. Accuracy and ultimate truth of the construct is another thing entirely.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
My thinking when looking at a painting may be "it's a beautiful painting", and the person standing beside me may be thinking "junk" or "not art".

I don't think that's all that can be said. Really good art criticism is all about pointing to things in the picture that you might not otherwise have noticed. For example, here's a piece by the late Tom Lubbock, who used to write for the Independent. That's a really beautiful painting, or I just don't get that, are really just starting points. You can say a lot more.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think you are making the same point: at High School we mostly take things on trust (from textbooks, teachers etc). So the 'learning' we engage in there is mostly not about reasoning.

Most people find they can fairly easily replace the things they learned at school with better and more reasoned evidence. But if those things are not exposed to any kind of challenge or time in thought, they tend to stick.

Everything we believe is based on trust unless we do all the experiments ourselves. Then we still have to trust the scientists who say that this experiment really demonstrates thus-and-such, and the people who make the equipment we used that it does what it says on the tin.

No, outside (maybe) of scientists doing direct research, and then only in their very tiny corner of their field, everything we believe is on trust. Save the details of our own direct experience (and even that is problematic as any philosopher can tell you). Beyond that, everything is trust.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The Christians who take part in such debates are barking up the wrong cross.

Nice figure!

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
i think it is a common view that the truth can be proven, and if it cannot be proven it isn't true.

Hence those who feel they have a meta-truth (ie a philosophy such as Christianity) feel that all they need to do is find evidence to prove their point, and everyone else will accept it as well.

I think similar things can be said about those atheists who want to engage in this way.

I guess that means they have more in common than they might appreciate.

Yeah, they're both human beings.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Yes and no, mt.
Yes in that most people know very little science and no because there is some basis for that trust. Nearly anyone can do small experiments and some maths. And the results are repeatable no matter your beliefs.
But religion is faith. In what someone else has said or written. And the experiments produce different results.
Lose faith in religion and your world view changes.
Lose faith in gravity and the brick will still hurt when it hits your toe.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

There is no truth apart from feeding the hungry.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes in that most people know very little science and no because there is some basis for that trust. Nearly anyone can do small experiments and some maths. And the results are repeatable no matter your beliefs.

But the entirety of science and math is not repeatable by any individual, not even by the greatest genius with unlimited funding, and it has been so for a long time. (I think the tipping point was long before the Renaissance...) The social structures of the actual business of science and math reflects that. We have titles like "Master", "Doctor" and "Professor" because we have had to build hierarchical systems of authority to manage science and math beyond the individual. We have build access restrictions into every step of practical science and math. Your grants will be judged by research councils, your papers will be reviewed by peers, and without membership in an accepted research organisation (like a university), you have little chance seeing any piece of the action.

What you are doing is basically a trust transfer. You did, probably, see the truth of some mathematical theorem that your maths teacher taught you. You did, perhaps, find coherent the explanation of some experiment your chemistry teacher performed for you. And you are presumably impressed by all the technology engineers produce for you, which you vaguely associate with the "success of science and math". Based on that, you transfer a lot of trust to the whole edifice of science and mathematics.

Not that I think you are doing something wrong there. That is entirely reasonable. But it is rather far from the idealistic notion that all of science and mathematics is objective and testable. Maybe so, but in a rather abstract sense that does not in fact allow you to test all that much or come to a particularly objective judgement. Basically, you have faith in the "process" of science and math, and at least to some extent faith in the people behind that process. And in part at least you have that faith because you believe that "objectivity and testability" is a kind of creed of the people involved in that process. You believe that while you cannot really check all this stuff, they can, and will. And you are sort of right. Except that everybody involved, including Noble prize winners, really is in the same situation, just less so for a certain very tight domain that they call their "field of expertise". And if you listen carefully, you can hear them all mutter under their breaths:

"We believe in one science,
the method, the experiment,
explainer of heaven and earth,
and of all that is, seen and unseen."

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But religion is faith. In what someone else has said or written. And the experiments produce different results.

Religion is not just "faith". That's like saying science is experiment, which is also far from the truth. "Religion" indicates a complex socio-cultural system within which "faith" generally plays an important role.

And if you are playing the detached objective observer here, then looking at various religions from the outside they show at least as much convergence as they show divergence. Human religions are in fact not all that varied, which is pretty much why we call them all "religions". A fairer analogy to science would be a situation in which various experimental and theoretical groups are trying to work out some piece of science that has not yet been "nailed down" by some conclusive experiments and their analyses. If you listen to them separately, you may well have the impression that they are proposing very different things. But looked at a whole, one can see that they are all circling around a common centre of inquiry.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Lose faith in religion and your world view changes.
Lose faith in gravity and the brick will still hurt when it hits your toe.

So your point is that in both cases, a clear, objective and highly significant change happens to people?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Everything we believe is based on trust unless we do all the experiments ourselves. Then we still have to trust the scientists who say that this experiment really demonstrates thus-and-such, and the people who make the equipment we used that it does what it says on the tin.

Well, yes on a fundamental level, we are taking very many things on trust. I think here, though, we are talking about a fairly superficial level of understanding about a topic.

Education systems work by telling students the same things over and over again. Each time one is told things, it gets more refined, more information is added and students have the opportunity to research and reason for themselves.

In my view it is not until one is at a fairly sophisticated level of education (which in my observation usually is related to age) that one has obtained the necessary experience to use more than very superficial levels of reasoning. Until then, students just have not been exposed to enough data to appreciate that their experience is a tiny fraction of the known information about that topic, that what they've been taught is (by necessity) simplified, or in a lot of cases relating to High School science, completely wrong.

quote:
No, outside (maybe) of scientists doing direct research, and then only in their very tiny corner of their field, everything we believe is on trust. Save the details of our own direct experience (and even that is problematic as any philosopher can tell you). Beyond that, everything is trust.

Yes, I agree with this. Even scientists are taking a lot of things on trust in a very tiny corner of a field. Sometimes that trust is misplaced.

Anyway, in the context of this debate, this discussion came from this set of comments:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
As somebody famous once noted, "You cannot reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

I wonder a bit about this. We hold most of our beliefs about the natural world because we were taught them in school, not because we reasoned them for ourselves. Even if we justify this on the grounds that our teachers were properly educated and therefore trustworthy, that's still something of a post hoc rationalisation.
No, 'we' don't. We come to understand what we understand about the natural world through scientific enquiry and explanation. It is nothing of 'a post hoc rationalisation'—unless you learned bad science; which is certainly possible.

K.

To my mind, Komensky is here putting one side of the debates he refers to on a higher level than the other because it (the atheist side, on assumes) is based on scientific enquiry whereas the other side is based on trust.

And.. now I've forgotten the point I was going to make. Apologies.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Ingo is, at times, playing the WLC games. You invent a new paradigm whereby anything counts as evidence or proof. In doing so you argue that nothing is really knowable and therefore belief in God fits right in.

Is this the Roman Catholic tradition? Far from it. After centuries of brutal persecution of anyone who questioned the authority of the Church, the Bible or Tradition, we now have a school of apologetics that never needed to exist in previous centuries. In the good old days, you simply had to believe what the Church decreed—or else. Once science began to chip away at the ignorance of the Bible and Tradition (not to mention the brutality of the Church), God of the Gaps appeared. Now they have very intelligent (of which I certainly rank our articulate and intelligent Ingo) apologists who say "no, it's not like that at all! Rather than using brute force to enforce our dogma, we'll now use pseudo-philosphical mumbo jumbo." Hey presto!

Presumably you long for the days when you could just cut out the tongues of your critics?

No thanks.

K.

[ 24. April 2015, 08:02: Message edited by: Komensky ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:

Presumably you long for the days when you could just cut out the tongues of your critics?

That's a little harsh. IngoB is usually wrong, in my opinion, but is admirably willing to engage with his critics.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

You're right. I'm sorry about that Ingo—that snarky comment was not directed at you personally, but rather intended as a comment about the evolution of apologetics. I've visited other (non-academic) forums, but this one is by the far the most interesting and intellectually rigorous. I really do enjoy your contributions.

I'm not always able to prepare my replied carefully and sometimes I allow myself to shoot from the hip.

Best,

K.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Ingo is, at times, playing the WLC games. You invent a new paradigm whereby anything counts as evidence or proof. In doing so you argue that nothing is really knowable and therefore belief in God fits right in.

Since you make personally insulting assertions here, how about you provide some evidence or proof for them? Of any kind? Anything? I didn't think so...

I'm primarily a philosophical realist, with these days strong leanings to the (Neo-)Aristotelian-Thomistic side of things. Aristotle was one of the first empiricists, and it is quite sensible that Denys Turner calls Aquinas a kind of materialist. Yes, my stance is considerable wider than what somebody like Dawkins would understand under realism, empiricism and materialism. But that's because Dawkins and his ilk are narrow-minded. The existence of an external world, and the primacy of observation and reason in understanding it, is very much assumed and defended by the philosophical-theological tradition I have signed up to. If you try to paint me into a different corner, then you are simply demonstrating your ignorant prejudice.

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Is this the Roman Catholic tradition? Far from it. After centuries of brutal persecution of anyone who questioned the authority of the Church, the Bible or Tradition, we now have a school of apologetics that never needed to exist in previous centuries. In the good old days, you simply had to believe what the Church decreed—or else. Once science began to chip away at the ignorance of the Bible and Tradition (not to mention the brutality of the Church), God of the Gaps appeared. Now they have very intelligent (of which I certainly rank our articulate and intelligent Ingo) apologists who say "no, it's not like that at all! Rather than using brute force to enforce our dogma, we'll now use pseudo-philosphical mumbo jumbo." Hey presto!

In historical reality, most of the intellectual activity of Europe from late antiquity to early modernity was maintained or sponsored by the Church and its institutions. And arguably the very idea behind the scientific endeavour was founded in Christian religious belief: the universe is both ordered and understandable, because it was made by an intelligent Creator and because man was made in the image and likeness of that Creator. The systematic biological studies of say St Albert the Great were motivated by the Christian idea that such studies indeed were a path to God. And yes, progress was being made all along, the idea of some kind of intellectual hiatus for a thousand years is just nonsense. For one thing, the entire idea of an international community of scholars, whose academic qualifications were accepted across all the domains of Europe and who would spend much of their life travelling between prominent centres of learning called "universities" spread across Europe - all that is an invention of medieval times (and very much one supported by the Church). They also made continuous technological and cultural advancements, indeed you admire them in gothic cathedrals and in the music you listen to (whose basic structure and notation was invented in the middle ages). For that matter, a late medieval knight in plate armour ready for battle on a horse with stirrups is a showpiece of technological advancements (contrary to Hollywood depictions, such armour would allow one both to do a judo roll and play piano... though mostly it turned one into a fearsome fighting machine).

The enlightenment greats were standing on the shoulders of giants, just like all greats before and after them. The idea of some paradigm-breaking cultural shift is for the most part an anachronistic reassessment in the wake of various cultural and religious wars of the Protestant Reformation, French Revolution, English enthusiasm for royal divorces, etc. History was rewritten to fit the new dominant ideologies and to serve as ammunition in the ongoing power struggles with the Church. But one can know better nowadays, if one wants to. Not that I'm claiming that the Church was some kind of inchoate Research Council, certainly not. But the idea that the Church was in some kind of continuous war against science and rationality until finally the cavalry of the enlightenment rode to the rescue and freed man from irrationality is just plain bullshit.

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Presumably you long for the days when you could just cut out the tongues of your critics? No thanks.

I find it much more satisfying to destroy the arguments of my critics with my own tongue, until they are reduced to spewing forth unsupported assertions and wild ad hominems. It very much amuses me to see people claiming all evidence and reason for themselves, while they produce nothing but vitriolic agitprop and personal insults. The enlightenment myth very much deserves that kind of supporter...

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

The above was crossposted with K's apology above. I screwed up the edit. Some of the heat in response may not be warranted now.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Coolness accepted. Sometimes the inner jerk in me slips out.

K.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In historical reality, most of the intellectual activity of Europe from late antiquity to early modernity was maintained or sponsored by the Church and its institutions. And arguably the very idea behind the scientific endeavour was founded in Christian religious belief: the universe is both ordered and understandable, because it was made by an intelligent Creator

This is a fantasy view. Worse than that, it is a sick kind of positive discrimination. "Sure, the church may have systematically tortured and/or executed anyone who disagreed with our dogma (endorsed by God himself), but the church did pay for a lot of scientific study!".So long as the outcomes of those studies endorsed Church doctrine, they were spared by Rome's torturers. Anyone who has used the Bible as a scientific guide came to the wrong conclusions about the nature of the world and the cosmos. In fact, reading the Bible it is clear that even God didn't understand the world he made. The pattern goes entirely in one direction: there are plenty of things once claimed as fact by the Church which have since been explained by science. There are no examples whereby science offered an explanation that was later replaced by a religious one. The God of the Gaps exists only in the church.

Spare us your Intelligent Design malarky.

Let's talk about something else.

K.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

As far as I am aware, the list of scientific discoveries that were proscribed by the Church because they contradicted Christian doctrine is as follows:

Heliocentrism

Interestingly, many of the Medieval theologians thought there was no way of proving by reason that the world had a beginning - the beginning of the world could only be believed by faith. To that extent they would be more willing than say Ken Ham to admit that creationism is a faith-based rather than a scientific position

[ 24. April 2015, 11:46: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
As far as I am aware, the list of scientific discoveries that were proscribed by the Church because they contradicted Christian doctrine is as follows:

Heliocentrism

Interestingly, many of the Medieval theologians thought there was no way of proving by reason that the world had a beginning - the beginning of the world could only be believed by faith. To that extent they would be more willing than say Ken Ham to admit that creationism is a faith-based rather than a scientific position

In which case, you should read your Bible more carefully.

The early Hebrews believed the world to be disc shaped and covered by a massive solid dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars, (Job 26:11; 37:18).

Archeology has also debunked many claims in the Bible.

There are/were smaller seeds things in the world than a mustard seed.

The creation stories in Genesis don't make scientific sense.

The Sun could never have stood still. Nor the moon.

Forget it. This list will take all day to type. I'm sure you get the picture.

K.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
This is a fantasy view. Worse than that, it is a sick kind of positive discrimination. "Sure, the church may have systematically tortured and/or executed anyone who disagreed with our dogma (endorsed by God himself), but the church did pay for a lot of scientific study!".So long as the outcomes of those studies endorsed Church doctrine, they were spared by Rome's torturers. Anyone who has used the Bible as a scientific guide came to the wrong conclusions about the nature of the world and the cosmos. In fact, reading the Bible it is clear that even God didn't understand the world he made. The pattern goes entirely in one direction: there are plenty of things once claimed as fact by the Church which have since been explained by science. There are no examples whereby science offered an explanation that was later replaced by a religious one. The God of the Gaps exists only in the church. Spare us your Intelligent Design malarky. Let's talk about something else.

I guess your non-jerk phases do not last very long, for this is just anti-historical trash talk. The academic endeavours sponsored directly or indirectly by the Church were not all directed at proving Church doctrine. Back then, just as today, discussions of Christian doctrine and dogma were in the academe largely restricted to the field of theology. St Albert the Great did not open the bible to study biology. He looked at plants. The idea that bible study was in some kind of constant conflict with scientific study is just the secular hagiography of Galilei and the attending academic mythology about heliocentrism written large. But whatever one may think about that particular sorry affair, it simply isn't representative of the relationship of the academe and the Church for over a thousand years prior.

I'm not even sure what you mean by "science explaining factual claims of the Church." Because that sounds like a good thing affirming the Church - but since it is part of a polemic against the Church, it presumably is supposed to say something bad about the Church. So I guess some actual examples would illustrate what you are trying to say here, and indeed would reduce the impression that you are simply talking out of your ass. As for a scientific explanation being replaced by a religious one, I once more have some difficulty imagining what you could possibly have in mind. The bible for example was not written as a scientific report. That's neither what the bible is about, nor is its style particularly conducive to drawing scientific conclusions from it.

The "God of the Gaps" criticism was invented by Christians. It originally was a self-critical reflection on certain argumentation strategies. In the hands of modern atheists it has deteriorated to something like "The Norse believed that Thor made thunder and lightning, therefore you Christians only believe in electricity because we forced you to." The staggering idiocy of such "arguments" I guess at least demonstrates one thing: that self-critical reflection is a lot less common among atheists.

Finally, the belief in an intelligible Creator is not to be confused with "Intelligent Design" or the "Watchmaker" of Paley. A prominent contemporary Thomist like Edward Feser happens to be a staunch critic of Intelligent Design, see here.

And no, I will not talk about something else while you continue to regurgitate falsehood as polemical justification of your dismissive attitude towards Christianity. If you posture up here as the great defender of evidence and reason, then you will have to suffer getting cut down to size by fact and argument.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Thanks for pointing out that there is a difference between I.D. and those advocating an 'Intelligible Creator'.

K.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

I'm not even sure what you mean by "science explaining factual claims of the Church." Because that sounds like a good thing affirming the Church - but since it is part of a polemic against the Church, it presumably is supposed to say something bad about the Church. So I guess some actual examples would illustrate what you are trying to say here, and indeed would reduce the impression that you are simply talking out of your ass. As for a scientific explanation being replaced by a religious one, I once more have some difficulty imagining what you could possibly have in mind. The bible for example was not written as a scientific report. That's neither what the bible is about, nor is its style particularly conducive to drawing scientific conclusions from it.

Actually, we might be getting somewhere. I'm glad to see you admit that Biblical claims are not, ipso facto, true.

K.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Sorry for replying in chunks. I'm trying to eat my lunch at my desk. I'm sorry if it comes across as an anti-Christian polemic—I'm certainly not setting out to do that. Judeo-Christian writings are surely among our early attempts as a species to explain the world—it can be no surprise that we got so much so badly wrong. It would also seem an unfair and anachronistic judgement to criticise them for many of those early attempts. My angle is not an anti-Christian one, but rather to seek to know what is knowable about the world. Step forward Christian apologists and tell me that iron-age peasants have the right answers. They clearly don't and that is demonstrable. Of course, not everything in the Bible is wrong—I accept that.

This brings us back to the problem of debates. You want to argue from a position that your books and traditions are unique from all other books—religious or not. You believe that you are in possession of a special kind of evidence that triumphs the sort accepted by the scientific community. I hear you; but I can also see why this is such a difficult starting place in such debates.

This is the kind of thing I'm thinking about. Ingo, I realise this is a far cry from your angle.

K.

[ 24. April 2015, 12:44: Message edited by: Komensky ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The early Hebrews believed the world to be disc shaped and covered by a massive solid dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars, (Job 26:11; 37:18).

Is it that you think that the book of Job is about astronomy?! Or do you believe that Christianity claims that the bible is true in a literalistic (rather than literal) sense?

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Archeology has also debunked many claims in the Bible.

No, not really. (The question would be in the first place just what the bible is trying to say. Even scripture's historical narratives were clearly not intended as factual reports in a modern journalistic sense. But even if we just consider the bible as a text to be mined for more or less historical data, then it can hardly be said that most of that has been "debunked".)

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
There are/were smaller seeds things in the world than a mustard seed.

When your wife asked you for a book of love poetry for her birthday, you gave her an IKEA instructions leaflet.

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The creation stories in Genesis don't make scientific sense.

Indeed. Neither were they intended to make such sense, nor did Christianity traditionally interpret them as making that kind of sense. Rather famously so, in fact - for example St Augustine's comments on the necessity of interpreting Genesis appropriately are well-known:

quote:
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The Sun could never have stood still. Nor the moon.

Unless by virtue of a miracle, of course. The very point of saying that these heavenly bodies stood still is to point to a supernatural Divine interaction with the world. The ancients were well aware that sun and moon do not naturally stand still.

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Forget it. This list will take all day to type. I'm sure you get the picture.

We are certainly getting a clear picture about you.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Forget it. This list will take all day to type. I'm sure you get the picture.
We are certainly getting a clear picture about you.

IngoB,
Making your insults slightly subtle doesn't make them slightly okay.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
As far as I am aware, the list of scientific discoveries that were proscribed by the Church because they contradicted Christian doctrine is as follows:

Heliocentrism

Interestingly, many of the Medieval theologians thought there was no way of proving by reason that the world had a beginning - the beginning of the world could only be believed by faith. To that extent they would be more willing than say Ken Ham to admit that creationism is a faith-based rather than a scientific position
In which case, you should read your Bible more carefully.

The early Hebrews believed the world to be disc shaped and covered by a massive solid dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars, (Job 26:11; 37:18).

This actually demonstrates Ricardus' point. Because there is no instance of the Church requiring astronomers to believe that the world was flat and held up by mountain pillars or disc shaped.
The Bible 'clearly says' that the moon is a light in the same way that the sun is - no medieval theologian claimed that, nor did the church ever require them to. Every medieval or Renaissance theologian who considered that passage said simply that it was a manner of speaking: the way things look.

The insistence by modern right-wing Christians in the States that the Bible be read in such a way as to override the findings of natural philosophy is historically anomalous. It remains historically anomalous even if you include the Church's opposition to heliocentrism.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Thanks, Dafyd.

There is a passage in St Augustine's Confessions where he tells us he thought the Bible was complete rubbish until St Ambrose explained how many of the passages that were death to him (the phrase used in my edition) should be taken allegorically.

I will dig out the reference later if anyone is interested.

[ 24. April 2015, 13:40: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Judeo-Christian writings are surely among our early attempts as a species to explain the world—it can be no surprise that we got so much so badly wrong.

This seems to me to be a faulty premise that leads to faulty conclusions. These writings were attempts to understand the divine, our relationship to the divine and the human condition. That they were written with a framework based on the then-current understanding of the physical world is hardly surprising, but that doesn't mean the framework is the point of the writings, or even essential to the what the writers were trying to say. The stories of Genesis, for example, are myth (in the proper sense of the word). Factual accuracy is irrelevant to the meaning of myth.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:

This is the kind of thing I'm thinking about. Ingo, I realise this is a far cry from your angle.

K.

I managed to listen to the first part, but that Ken Ham really sets my teeth on edge! Interesting though that some people - too many - can actually subscribe to that sort of thinking.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen: Factual accuracy is irrelevant to the meaning of myth. [/qb]

I agree completely. But not everyone does. Hence we are back to the problems of debate in the OP.

K.

[ 24. April 2015, 15:38: Message edited by: Komensky ]

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Thanks, Dafyd.

There is a passage in St Augustine's Confessions where he tells us he thought the Bible was complete rubbish until St Ambrose explained how many of the passages that were death to him (the phrase used in my edition) should be taken allegorically.

I will dig out the reference later if anyone is interested.

This is confirmation bias. Augustine also though slavery was an inevitable part of humanity. Can you remind us of how Augustine thought non-believers should be dealt with? Was it only torture, or torture and death? I forget which.

You can't have it an not have it—and yet you would like to point to Augustine as the moment when poetic reading of biblical texts became the norm. I would argue against that, is some cases in anyway. Moreover (and sadly) that is not the case today. Otherwise there would be more agreement even within Christian sects.

K.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Thanks, Dafyd.

There is a passage in St Augustine's Confessions where he tells us he thought the Bible was complete rubbish until St Ambrose explained how many of the passages that were death to him (the phrase used in my edition) should be taken allegorically.

I will dig out the reference later if anyone is interested.
This is confirmation bias.

If somebody makes a generalisation ('Christians were historically hostile to scientific enquiry'), and you provide a counterexample that is not confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is when you dismiss or ignore counterexamples to your generalisations.

quote:
Augustine also though slavery was an inevitable part of humanity.

Er... Wikipedia has this to say on Augustine's opinions of slavery. I think Wikipedia is overflattering to Augustine: given that Augustine believes firmly in providence he believes that slavery, as with all other evils, is imposed by God as a punishment. However, he does not think slavery is an inevitable part of humanity, as you have it, and he thinks that in a just society it would not exist.

quote:
Can you remind us of how Augustine thought non-believers should be dealt with? Was it only torture, or torture and death? I forget which.

Neither. If you have primary source evidence to the contrary please produce it.
Augustine did say 'compel them to come in', in reference to a dissident Christian sect (the Donatists) who Augustine (perhaps biased) believed were violent. This is not ideal liberal behaviour, but far from what you're alleging.
Otherwise, as far as I'm aware, Augustine did not advocate coercion of non-believers. I'll consider primary source evidence otherwise if you have any.

Either way, Augustine's opinions on slavery and non-believers are irrelevant to his opinions on the relation between natural philosophy and scripture. Citing them is an ad hominem argument.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
This is confirmation bias. Augustine also though slavery was an inevitable part of humanity.

Inform yourself: 1, 2, 3, 4. To quote St Augustine from page 2:

quote:
Some four months ago, there were people brought together from different places, but especially from Numidia, to be deported from the port of Hippo. This was done by Galatians, for it is only they who, out of greed, engage in such business. ... A member of our church became aware of it, and knowing our policy of helping with money in such circumstances, wished to tell us. ... I was not in Hippo at that time. But immediately our faithful liberated one hundred and twenty people, some from the ship on which they were already embarked, some from private prisons where they were hidden before being put aboard ... I leave it to your imagination to estimate the enormous proportions which the deportation of miserable persons has assumed in other ports. Here in Hippo at least, by the mercy of God, the church is on its guard, so that unfortunate people are rescued from this type of captivity. ... For if we, that is, the bishops, do nothing, will there then be anyone, who has power on the shore, who will not sell these most cruel cargoes, rather than remove one of these unfortunate people from captivity, or stop someone from being put in chains, out of Christian or human compassion?

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Can you remind us of how Augustine thought non-believers should be dealt with? Was it only torture, or torture and death? I forget which.

Do you mean non-believers, or heretics? Augustine is known to have changed his position concerning the Donatists, from insisting on converting them by argument alone to supporting government coercion (which de facto included corporal punishment for some, through public floggings, though mostly property was being confiscated and business disrupted). He did however directly oppose the execution of Donatists by the state. The Donatists themselves often were quite violent, and their Circumcellions terrorised Catholics. Quite possibly Augustine's change of mind cam about due to being personally threatened by Donatist forces. They tried unsuccessfully to kidnap him, and in another instance in a direct attack members of his entourage were wounded. See here: 1 and follow the links to six more pages.

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
You can't have it an not have it—and yet you would like to point to Augustine as the moment when poetic reading of biblical texts became the norm. I would argue against that, is some cases in anyway. Moreover (and sadly) that is not the case today. Otherwise there would be more agreement even within Christian sects.

First, this is not about "poetic reading". The bible is literally true, and this is the basis of any further interpretation. It is just that the literal truth cannot be discerned from a literalistic reading of the text, but must consider the kind of text that was written, the intentions of the author in writing it, and the circumstances and culture within it was written. What is infallibly true by Divine inspiration is what the writer of scripture wanted to convey, but we cannot find out what that is by a simplistic "word by word" analysis. To know what the text is supposed to mean to us, one must know the framework within which it was written. Christianity does not consider its scriptures in the same way as Islam consider its Qur'an. It is not a word by word dictation from God, but Divine inspiration flowing through a human writer as instrument. The text contains the perfect Divine word rendered through the imperfect instrument of a human mind. To reconstruct the former out of the latter is precisely the necessary work of exegesis.

Second, disagreement on exegesis is entirely natural. Precisely because Christians admit that the bible requires further interpretation to discern its literal meaning, one can expect that not all Christians will agree on everything. Ultimately, the text itself cannot decide matters for this very reason.

Third, your attacks above against Augustine are simply a form of an ad hominem, and hence fallacious. Even if Augustine had been an enthusiastic supporter of slavery, and even if he had enthusiastically supported the killing of heretics, he still could have established correct principles on interpreting scripture as far as "physical theory" goes.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:

Is this the Roman Catholic tradition? Far from it. After centuries of brutal persecution of anyone who questioned the authority of the Church, the Bible or Tradition, we now have a school of apologetics that never needed to exist in previous centuries. In the good old days, you simply had to believe what the Church decreed—or else. Once science began to chip away at the ignorance of the Bible and Tradition (not to mention the brutality of the Church), God of the Gaps appeared. Now they have very intelligent (of which I certainly rank our articulate and intelligent Ingo) apologists who say "no, it's not like that at all! Rather than using brute force to enforce our dogma, we'll now use pseudo-philosphical mumbo jumbo." Hey presto!

That's simply not true. The City of God of the Summa Contra Gentiles (to take but two examples) were written as works of apologetic. During that period there was, undoubtedly, an entirely unjustifiable assumption that if the One True Church had the drop on a dissident group politically and militarily they were justified in resorting to it but the idea that Christianity perpetuated itself through terror until the enlightenment obliged it to wheel out apologetics is simply unhistorical. The objection to medieval and early modern versions of Christianity is that they thought that they had demonstrated that Christianity is manifestly true and, therefore, they were not obliged to keep on arguing but could maintain that "error has no rights". But it wasn't the case that they thought that their beliefs did not need to be argued for in the first instance.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

I think we may need a separate thread: 'what constitutes 'evidence' in proving the truth claims of your faith?' That might give more space to various sides to explain their approaches and understanding of things like 'evidence'. Also, we might be able to discuss the historical and modern reception of works by church fathers, etc., and how they might work as evidence.

K.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

The "Introducing me....." Thread in Purgatory may be suitable for that.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re evidence and reason vs. unproven faith:

Not everyone is looking for point by point evidence or rigorous reasoning.

Often, people are listening with their hearts for something that helps, comforts, encourages, relieves, saves them.

Examples:

--Someone (deity, angels, universe) loves me.

--God (in whatever form) exists, or doesn't. "Wow! Yay! What a relief!"

--Things got here *this* way.

--I matter.

--I can be forgiven.

--Relieving suffering is important.

--Maybe there's hope.

Hearing what they've been waiting to hear--or what they've been surprised by--can enliven and feed people.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

"Proof" is the wrong starting point. There's a stack of stuff we believe without "proof" considering it to be resonable in the absence of anything to tell us otherwise. I've no "proof" you lot aren't random computer-generated responses and I'm the only independent creative mind on these boards.

The first test isn't whether belief in God can be proven to be true - just start with whether it's warranted in the absence of a defeater.

[ 25. April 2015, 11:14: Message edited by: Truman White ]

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:

The first test isn't whether belief in God can be proven to be true - just start with whether it's warranted in the absence of a defeater.

Proving a negative. Not a great starting place.

K.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

The "Introducing me....." Thread in Purgatory may be suitable for that.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:

The first test isn't whether belief in God can be proven to be true - just start with whether it's warranted in the absence of a defeater.
Proving a negative. Not a great starting place.

K.

Like I said upthread mate, the most intelligent debates work around why people hold their beliefs and how reasonable or warranted they are. You won't find much reference to "proof" since this demands holding positions that are too easy to challenge.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Yep, I get that; hence why I thought we should stick to topic (and I hold my hands up here for derailing things at times) and have a separate thread, should someone want it, about 'evidence'.

K.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I think we may need a separate thread: 'what constitutes 'evidence' in proving the truth claims of your faith?' That might give more space to various sides to explain their approaches and understanding of things like 'evidence'. Also, we might be able to discuss the historical and modern reception of works by church fathers, etc., and how they might work as evidence.

Firstly, if you're going to talk about debates and debaters, I don't see why the role of evidence belongs in that thread.

Secondly, your phrasing seems to imply that you think all evidence is directly evidence of the truth claims of the faith. So that if Augustine can be cited as a counterexample to the idea that all Christians have been hostile to scientific reasoning until forced otherwise, that counts as evidence for the truth claims of the faith for some reason.

Thirdly, what counts as evidence depends really very much on what proposition someone is advancing and what debate they're advancing that proposition as part of.
Someone could be arguing:
a) 'intelligent design vs evolution';
b) 'science vs religion';
c) 'science vs modern right-wing US-style Christianity';
d) 'Christianity is true vs atheism';
e) 'late medieval Christianity formed a fertile soil for the scientific revolution vs late medieval Christianity inhibited the scientific revolution';
And other debates and subdebates. You appear to be conflating all the debates into one: as if you think that conceding that modern right-wing US-style Christian attitudes to science are not normative for Christianity over the whole course of its history amounts somehow to conceding intelligent design.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Dafyd,

I agree it's been scattergun—and with assumptions made by most of us posting here. The idea for the other thread was not a thread about debating, but to continue Ingo's argument about what constitutes 'evidence' and/or why is does or doesn't matter in terms of proving the truth claims of religion; or—if those truth claims need evidence at all.

K.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The idea for the other thread was not a thread about debating, but to continue Ingo's argument about what constitutes 'evidence' and/or why is does or doesn't matter in terms of proving the truth claims of religion; or—if those truth claims need evidence at all.

Sorry - I meant to say I think discussion of evidence is fine on this thread.
I am not sure what bit of IngoB's argument you're referring to.

What evidence you need to use depends on the kinds of question you're discussing.

How old the universe is and how the present range of species came about are questions that are answered using scientific methods and evidence.

Whether it can be established through reason whether God exists is largely a philosophical question, and so draws largely on reasoning from general abstract properties of the world. If you believe as IngoB does, and as I incline to, that there's a valid argument to the existence of God from 'things happen', you can call 'things happen' evidence if you like, but that's pushing the concept of evidence a bit.

Whether the rearguard action thesis on science and religion is true is a historical question. (By rearguard action thesis I mean the idea beloved by the denser atheist polemicists that Christianity has been fighting every single scientific advance throughout its history and only giving way on each point when it was forced to.) It has to be answered by looking at historical figures attitude's to science and religion, for example, the Church Fathers, or the scholastics. The opinions of the Church Fathers count as evidence for Christian opinions at the time.
Likewise, the question of whether modern right-wing US-style Christianity is typical of Christian attitudes throughout history is also a historical question, answered again by citing past figures from Christian history.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

What you are doing is basically a trust transfer.

Not that I disagree that there is a trust transfer, but I disagree to the level you illustrate.
It is simple. I tell my mobile to ring someone half-way round the earth, and it does. I've concrete evidence of science whether or not I understand all that making that call entails.
Faith, in the religious sense, is a great deal further removed. And it is all trust or perception. Not that I am in any way trying to undermine religious faith.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
"Religion" indicates a complex socio-cultural system within which "faith" generally plays an important role.

And if you are playing the detached objective observer here, then looking at various religions from the outside they show at least as much convergence as they show divergence. Human religions are in fact not all that varied, which is pretty much why we call them all "religions". A fairer analogy to science would be a situation in which various experimental and theoretical groups are trying to work out some piece of science that has not yet been "nailed down" by some conclusive experiments and their analyses. If you listen to them separately, you may well have the impression that they are proposing very different things. But looked at a whole, one can see that they are all circling around a common centre of inquiry.

That we would have commonality should be more obvious than it often appears to be. One, we are far less isolated culturally from each other than we often care to believe and two, we all share the same basic hardware. But that does not then imply that any of the various conclusions are correct.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Again, we are back to the problems outlined in the OP. So long as it is not taken as axiomatic that 'there is a God', Christians should certainly take part in debates (is religion useful, is Christianity a good moral guide, etc.). If 'there is a God' is to be assumed to be axiomatic, we already have the problem of unfalsifiability as well as, quite probably, a use-mention error.

I think Bart Ehrman should have been more cautious with the proposal set forth by WLC 'Is there evidence for the resurrection' and instead agreed on 'Was Jesus of Nazereth raised from the dead', or something along those lines. Erhman is on the few people (though not the best example) to have clearly beaten WLC in debate, but non-theistic debaters need to be more savvy of the games being played by WLC.

K.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Erhman is on the few people (though not the best example) to have clearly beaten WLC in debate, but non-theistic debaters need to be more savvy of the games being played by WLC.

K.

Alright, don't know who these people are. But debates are "won" by perception more than anything else. If all parties are skilled in debate, the debate is perceived as won by whomever the viewer agreed with prior to the debate.
Strength of argument rarely wins over charisma, style or facility with language. Or preconception. At least in ideologically opposite frames.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Erhman is on the few people (though not the best example) to have clearly beaten WLC in debate, but non-theistic debaters need to be more savvy of the games being played by WLC.

K.
Alright, don't know who these people are. But debates are "won" by perception more than anything else. If all parties are skilled in debate, the debate is perceived as won by whomever the viewer agreed with prior to the debate.
Strength of argument rarely wins over charisma, style or facility with language. Or preconception. At least in ideologically opposite frames.

I agree, to at least some extent (possibly completely). In the WLC v Sam Harris debate, Harris focusses on his skills as a speaker, at some points just not responded to some of WLC's main points—but I found Harris much more compelling. Have said that, WLC was particularly weak here.

K.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0