For Wololo Re Critical Thinking About Christianity

[directionless]

Too bad that this thread, which had some significant content when Wololo was involved, has degenerated into the usual bullshit with Ironhorse.

I'm disappointed too. Wololo seemed to be honestly and thoughtfully presenting his ideas and responding to questions. I like to imagine that he stopped participating in the discussion, because he is beginning to realize that religion is bullshit and needs some time alone to think. (I have a colorful imagination.)

[bornagainathiest]

Too bad that this thread, which had some significant content when Wololo was involved, has degenerated into the usual bullshit with Ironhorse.

 

I'm sorry too Ficino.

 

But I think it's important that everyone reading the threads where IH pops should see him for what he really is.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Wololo]

Sorry everyone, I was away again this weekend. Stay tuned for another post. I've had a bit more time to think so I'll be updating a few threads. Unlike when I first arrived here, I'm not going to jump ship as easily. I can ignore the trolls, flamers, and people who are generally unreasonable. There may come a point when there is no longer any progress to be made, but we're not there yet. Stay tuned...

[Wololo]

 

Since time immemorial, humans have to some extent believed in some form of deity or deities.

Actually this is not true. Many primitive tribes do not have deities, but believe in animism, which is nowhere near a deity concept.

 

There seems to be something in us that is predisposed to that sort of belief.

Yes, evolutionary psychologists call this the "theory of mind" and we have it for evolutionary reasons; our tendency to attribute agency kept us from being eaten. It has nothing to do with anything else.

 

This is why it's not unreasonable or extraordinary to consider that there is a creator.

But it is more reasonable to be parsimonious and believe there is NOT a creator. Plus, as Lawrence Krauss shows in his book "A Universe from Nothing", no creator is needed for the universe to come into existence.

 

The rest of the post interestingly suggests a panentheistic God (immanent in and transcending Creation--not a Christian concept), but there's not much else I can really comment on.

 

 

Yes, my generalization was somewhat inaccurate. I'm inconsistently precise. Sometimes I'm very specific, other times, I'm a little too vague. In this case, the statement still applies, but not in a universal sense. Rather, there have always been people who believe in some form of deity (or more than one). Yes, animism and similar spiritual beliefs have always existed, but we don't have concrete evidence that it predates theism of some sort. Even then, perhaps there was some form of spiritual awakening as we became more advanced. That's speculation though, as we really don't know for sure.

 

Please demonstrate to me how religion and spirituality have had an evolutionary advantage for us...especially considering that other animals (including the great apes) lack this sort of behaviour and thought pattern.

 

Actually Radical Orthodoxy argues for the idea that creation itself is an immanent univocal process. It is a fundamentally Christian perspective if one reads the work of Augustine and Aquinas and the like. The Christianity you are arguing against is very 'new', coming into existence only over the past couple hundred years. It is NOT panentheistic. What's important for RO is that creation is about God creating "difference". That is he is separating 'creation' from himself. It is starkly different in that it ceases to be God once it has been 'separated' from him. From what I understand, creation was merely God (who has been defined as infinite) creating a distinction between himself and the created world. It's a barely more than a semantic difference. At its core, creation is a reflection of the divine that is no longer divine

 

Think of it this way. If you cut off your arm, someone can analyze its properties and find that it reflects YOU. It is far from a complete picture of what you are, but by looking at it and learning about it, we can establish things about you. In the case of God, in theory we are taking away from infinity, that is to say that God loses nothing...unlike us if we lose an arm. It is merely that what was once 'a part' of God is now 'God-like'. It certainly shares similarities with panentheism, but the core difference is in fact 'difference'. Creation ceases to be divine when it is made distinct from God.

 

Wololo, I must say that this thread has demonstrated that you've put more thought into your beliefs than was apparent from the first several posts I saw of yours in other threads. I do commend you for being much further along than most Christians.

 

However, you're still demonstrating that you really are not the skeptic that you assert you are. You rely heavily on philosophical perceptions and unsubstantiated claims by the church, which are not real evidence. For example, you keep falling back to this argument:

 

 

People do not die as martyrs for things they know are lies. I'm not sure how I could be clearer. Every single one of the original followers after the death of Jesus went to his or her grave believing what they wrote. If they had made it all up, they would have recanted. Someone would have recanted. None of them did. Clearly they were fervent believers in their own writing. If they weren't absolutely certain in what they wrote, they would have given it up.

 

 

Like you, I used to think this was a strong argument. However, it only seems sound if you assume that all those unsubstantiated details are actually true. It requires that you assume that the Gospels are reliable sources of information (which is undermined by numerous problems in those texts), assume that the characters really existed and had seen a risen Jesus (despite those serious problems in the Gospels), assume that the church tradition of these characters being put to death is true (without any evidence), assume that their deaths were due to their religious beliefs (which is unsubstantiated), and assume that they had an opportunity to recant and refused (which is also unsubstantiated).

 

You've indicated that you don't believe a lot of things claimed by the church (the Trinity, etc.), so why would you blindly assume that the church is correct about their martyr stories? Even if those disciples existed and were put to death, it has been pointed out to you already that Rome didn't kill people for holding religious beliefs, but they did put people to death for being troublemakers. That would indicate that if those disciples existed and were put to death, then the most probable explanation is that their executions were because Rome saw them as troublemakers, in which case there would have been no reason to offer them an escape by recanting their faith. Simply put, the church's martyr stories are highly unlikely to be accurate accounts, and at the very least it renders the martyrdom apologetics claim to be an extremely weak argument.

 

If you were really as skeptical as we are (as you have claimed to be), then you would NOT be parroting that flimsy argument. So, even though you're more of a thinker than most Christians, you're still blindly swallowing completely unsubstantiated stuff that you were indoctrinated with.

 

What I'm specifically addressing is the assumption that it's false. I find it absurd to think that the gospels were made up. The argument doesn't hold water to me and I've explained why. I'm not assuming they're right at all. All I'm establishing is that they are not full of lies. People can be wrong. (The writings of the Bible are not perfect) I'm putting faith in their writings and evaluating them (a process that is not complete).

 

If you want me to go over all of those assumptions with you, we can. It's hard to find the terms to discuss this with all of you because you each have different terms for the debate. Some things we may agree with, but that varies from person to person and I just don't know you well enough to find those points easily. My study of the New Testament is far from complete, so I don't expect my arguments to satisfy. It's something that I'm working on.

 

Of course I don't 'blindly' believe those sorts of stories. It's just that I haven't had the time to explore everything. There's a lot of ground to cover, especially considering my other studies. As some of you know, I am still young...not far into adulthood. There is much for me still to learn. That said, the argument about the martyrs (for example) does make sense. I still have yet to closely examine those stories, but it is certainly something I will do. I'm a questioner...I just don't doubt things to the extreme. I haven't reached the same point as many of you, where I feel the need to just reject everything because some beliefs are cast into doubt. Most of the beliefs I've cast out have been replaced. I haven't lost them (which would be diminishing my Christianity). It has instead strengthened it. There are things I've had to abandon in the process too.

 

Part of the reason I'm here is to flesh some of these out so I know where to pursue in the coming years. I appreciate the chance to be tested and have my beliefs opened up to criticism. I hope that someday some of you are more willing to answer some of my questions (which still get ignored in the rush to attack me.)

 

---- I'm coming back to BAA because that's probably going to be a big post.

 

Wololo, I wish you would describe your beliefs about God and Jesus instead of explaining step-by-step why you came to these beliefs. If we have a clear description of your beliefs then we can try to show how those beliefs contradict science, history, logic, etc.

 

I don't have the background in philosophy to understand your justifications and explanations for choosing your beliefs, but those justifications really don't matter (burning bush, philosophy books, whatever). I suspect that if you will simply tell us what you believe then somebody here can find some holes in your beliefs.

 

Here is a quote from a philosophy of religion website showing some of the possibilities:

Within the Arguments for Atheism section, the arguments are arranged under the following headings: The Presumption of Atheism, The Problem of Evil, Problems with Divine Omnipotence (including the paradox of the stone), Problems with Divine Omniscience, Problems with Divine Justice, Problems with Immortality, Problems with Original Sin, Problems with Petitionary Prayer, The Argument from Autonomy, The Psychogenesis of Religion, and Religion and Memetics.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/arguments-for-atheism/

 

 

The reason I write about how I came to believe them is so that you can all learn about me as a person. There's a lot I won't share with you, but when I tell you about the journey, you learn about how I think. You learn about what led to this point. That is far more valuable than a point by point argument. Discussion keeps this human. I won't post a list of beliefs because that ruins the discussion. It turns into what I call 'proof-text battles' like in Christian circles. You go point by point and end up with a sterile, narrow discussion. I like how this one is going. We're making progress. We're learning.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I like sterile, narrow, point by point discussions because they usually enable the careful use of logic and skepticism.

[Wololo]

Wololo wrote...

Perhaps that's why the vocab came back lacking...but you're on the right track. What I'm arguing is that regardless of cultural and scientific changes to our, the concept of God continues to exist, making it a plausible concept. I wouldn't say it goes unquestioned. Especially over the past few hundred years, it has been very heavily questioned. With the explosion of population on the planet, it's becoming even more popular to question it. Of course, you could certainly argue that the reason it exists still is because of dogma, and there is some truth to that...but dogma does not appeal to all of us. When I hear platitudes from the pulpit...and when I hear other people spouting doctrine like the purest of facts, I wrinkle my nose. If God exists, why should he fear my questioning? I'm a puny human, if there's a God, what threat am I to him? This is why we should question religion and question God...we have nothing to lose either way. Either he doesn't exist and we will confirm this is the case, or he does and we will be vindicated. To not question is just stupid. If I was afraid of questions and hard attacks, I wouldn't be here.

 

It's the way that you're using the word 'reasonable' that I'm taking issue with, Wololo.

Specifically in your response to Vigile in post # 22, yesterday.  Here...

 

Vigile, on 28 Oct 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

People have always believed in gods (ad populum fallacy) and I can't otherwise explain why the universe exists (god of the gaps fallacy), in addition to appeals to emotion are quite the opposite of critical thinking my man. 

 

You appear to me to be a smart guy.  You're just not using your thinking cap. 

 

Wololo wrote...

Logical fallacies exist for proofs. I'm arguing that perpetual popularity makes something reasonable to us. I'm saying that the idea of God is reasonable and not extraordinary. We have a predisposition to it, so to call it outrageous or absurd is just not true.

 

This thread concerns critical thinking, not perpetuated popularity or human predispositions.

Critical thinking uses reason to discover what is reasonable and what isn't.  That which is found wanting is not called reasonable - it's something else.  In this thread you've changed the meaning of the word 'reasonable' to mean something else, like this.

 

1. If God is popular and his popularity is perpetuated, then God is "reasonable" and is therefore not extraordinary.

 

2. If we have a predisposition towards God, then God is "reasonable" and he is therefore neither outrageous nor absurd.

 

Both of these are wrong. Neither of them shows the use of critical thinking and reason.

The first relies on perpetuated popularity, not reason and so cannot be legitimately called, 'reasonable'.  Only something that is reasoned can be accorded the title, 'reasonable'.  If something both popular and perpetuated were reasonable (in the way that you're using that word) then SLAVERY would count as being reasonable.  Slavery has been popular for thousands of years and has been perpetuated for generations.  By your criteria of popularity and perpetuation, slavery is entirely reasonable.  Is that really the way you want the word reasonable to be used?

 

Example # 2 erroneously calls an innate human disposition towards God... 'reasonable'.

Unless you are employing the fallacy of Special Pleading to claim that ONLY our predisposition towards God is reasonable, by your logic, ALL innate human predispositions are reasonable.  Is that really what you're saying here, Wololo?  That our innate human predisposition towards violence is... reasonable? 

 

As mentioned above, only the proper use of reason and critical thinking makes something 'reasonable'.

Using that word in any other way in a thread about critical thinking is disingenuous and/or fatally flawed.   It therefore falls to you Wololo, to use your reason and your critical thinking skills... properly.  For you to define and use the word 'reasonable'... properly.

For you to do justice to the word reasonable.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I have to establish something is reasonable before we can discuss it truly critically. There are so many fundamental things that we don't agree on, so the discussion often doesn't advance very far. How are we supposed to critically evaluate the existence of God if you won't even agree that it's reasonable or possible to believe it?

 

There is more to being reasonable than just popularity. Santa Claus is a popular belief (mostly among children). For them it is a reasonable belief. What changes their mind is that his existence is utterly unsubstantiated, and further, has evidence to the contrary. This is not the case with God. There is evidence, whether it's disputed or not. The belief has persisted for a very long time. Slavery, before we really started evaluating it, was reasonable. People believed that it was totally appropriate and they lived their lives as though slavery was normal. What you're focusing on is the truth of something. I'm arguing that we cannot even start to be critical if we cannot establish that something is worth discussing.

 

If God is not reasonable, then it is not worth discussing anything critically. If you want me to show I'm critical, the only way that's going to happen is if we can agree that God is reasonable to believe in. Then we can being being properly critical.

 

On the topic of defining "reasonable", let's get an actual definition into the discussion.

 

"a :  being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory>

 

b :  not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests>

 

c :  moderate, fair <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price> " - Merriam-Webster dictionary

 

You're implying to me that God cannot be argued with reason...that it is an extreme belief. I want proof of that if that's what you want to assert.

 

Just to be clear, in case I'm missing a connection somewhere: Anything that has the potential to be argued with reason is reasonable until it has been conclusively and firmly demonstrated to be extreme or irrational. I will stand by that definition until it is shown to me that I am wrong. Reasonable DOES NOT EQUAL true. Reasonable merely means worth discussing critically.

[Vigile]

 

I find it absurd to think that the gospels were made up

 

You find claims of walking on water, dead raised, blind seen, wine transformed, fish multiplied, claims that believers, even today, can survive poison and snake bites plausible? 

 

There is more to being reasonable than just popularity. Santa Claus is a popular belief (mostly among children). For them it is a reasonable belief. What changes their mind is that his existence is utterly unsubstantiated, and further, has evidence to the contrary. This is not the case with God. There is evidence, whether it's disputed or not.

 

How is the god claim substantiated?  What evidence? 

[midniterider]

 

I have to establish something is reasonable before we can discuss it truly critically. There are so many fundamental things that we don't agree on, so the discussion often doesn't advance very far. How are we supposed to critically evaluate the existence of God if you won't even agree that it's reasonable or possible to believe it?

 

Aren't we already discussing it critically? Or is this the pre-discussion discussion? The above sounds like some kind of stall tactic. You're trying to establish/maintain credibility while not really saying anything important. Maybe we can get past the definition of the word 'reasonable.'

 

There is more to being reasonable than just popularity. Santa Claus is a popular belief (mostly among children). For them it is a reasonable belief. What changes their mind is that his existence is utterly unsubstantiated, and further, has evidence to the contrary.

 

Or the older sibling spills the beans. So why don't you believe in Santa? And why not? Better yet, why do you STILL believe in Jesus? Probably that popularity thing....It's popular, especially when the family believes...and not too popular to express disbelief when the family still believes. May or may not be your experience...shrugs.

 

This is not the case with God. There is evidence, whether it's disputed or not.

 

This is definitely disputed. Please present your evidence. Better yet, please have God come by my house for lunch. Christians keep saying "There is evidence!", but never show us any.  But, I know for a fact that Santa Claus is real, I have the evidence and will present it after you present your evidence of God.

 

The belief has persisted for a very long time.

 

Long held beliefs are not evidence of the reality of something. People believe knocking on wood brings good luck. Does it?

 

Slavery, before we really started evaluating it, was reasonable. People believed that it was totally appropriate and they lived their lives as though slavery was normal. What you're focusing on is the truth of something. I'm arguing that we cannot even start to be critical if we cannot establish that something is worth discussing.

 

Slavery was the practice of humans treating other humans badly and actually occurred. God, on the other hand is fiction and never occurred. Your analogy is invalid. It is a false comparison. The fact that we are discussing whether or not God exists is evidence enough that the subject is worth discussing. :-) Additional evidence is the myriad threads all discussing whether or not God exists.

 

If God is not reasonable, then it is not worth discussing anything critically. If you want me to show I'm critical, the only way that's going to happen is if we can agree that God is reasonable to believe in. Then we can being being properly critical.

 

So we have to agree that God exists before we discuss whether or not God exists? Billions of people believe in God and nobody can seem to agree which one is the True One so, like I said above, it has been well established that the subject is worth discussing. 

 

On the topic of defining "reasonable", let's get an actual definition into the discussion.

 

"a :  being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory>

 

b :  not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests>

 

c :  moderate, fair <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price> " - Merriam-Webster dictionary

 

You're implying to me that God cannot be argued with reason...that it is an extreme belief. I want proof of that if that's what you want to assert.

 

Just to be clear, in case I'm missing a connection somewhere: Anything that has the potential to be argued with reason is reasonable until it has been conclusively and firmly demonstrated to be extreme or irrational. I will stand by that definition until it is shown to me that I am wrong. Reasonable DOES NOT EQUAL true. Reasonable merely means worth discussing critically.

 

Most anything can be argued with reason, even irrational things like the existence of God. People get into heated arguments about Star Trek characters... they aren't real or true....is that reasonable? Or irrational? Or reasonably irrational? Or neither. If you deny Santa you won't get any presents.

[directionless]

On the question of whether God is reasonable, here is a quote and a link arguing positive and negative:

Before moving to consider the various arguments for the existence of God, it is worth asking the preliminary question How likely is it that God exists?

...

If we begin with the thought that God’s existence is highly unlikely, then it is going to take very strong evidence to persuade us that he does indeed exist.

...

If, on the other hand, we begin our inquiry with an intellectual openness to God’s existence, then we may find persuasive arguments that others would not.

...

The Improbability of God:

...

If there are two explanations of a set of evidence, one invoking God and the other not invoking God, then the explanation that doesn’t invoke God will always be the more economical of the two; it is more economical to postulate any number of finite beings than it is to postulate one infinite being.

...

The Probability of God

...

Swinburne observes that it is simpler to postulate an unlimited force than a limited force. If one postulates a limited force then one is postulating two things, the force and whatever constrains it. If one postulates an unlimited force, then one is only postulating one thing, the force; there is, by definition, nothing that constrains an infinite force.

...

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/god-intrinsic-probability/

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

Wololo, I must say that this thread has demonstrated that you've put more thought into your beliefs than was apparent from the first several posts I saw of yours in other threads. I do commend you for being much further along than most Christians.

 

However, you're still demonstrating that you really are not the skeptic that you assert you are. You rely heavily on philosophical perceptions and unsubstantiated claims by the church, which are not real evidence. For example, you keep falling back to this argument:

 

 

People do not die as martyrs for things they know are lies. I'm not sure how I could be clearer. Every single one of the original followers after the death of Jesus went to his or her grave believing what they wrote. If they had made it all up, they would have recanted. Someone would have recanted. None of them did. Clearly they were fervent believers in their own writing. If they weren't absolutely certain in what they wrote, they would have given it up.

 

 

Like you, I used to think this was a strong argument. However, it only seems sound if you assume that all those unsubstantiated details are actually true. It requires that you assume that the Gospels are reliable sources of information (which is undermined by numerous problems in those texts), assume that the characters really existed and had seen a risen Jesus (despite those serious problems in the Gospels), assume that the church tradition of these characters being put to death is true (without any evidence), assume that their deaths were due to their religious beliefs (which is unsubstantiated), and assume that they had an opportunity to recant and refused (which is also unsubstantiated).

 

You've indicated that you don't believe a lot of things claimed by the church (the Trinity, etc.), so why would you blindly assume that the church is correct about their martyr stories? Even if those disciples existed and were put to death, it has been pointed out to you already that Rome didn't kill people for holding religious beliefs, but they did put people to death for being troublemakers. That would indicate that if those disciples existed and were put to death, then the most probable explanation is that their executions were because Rome saw them as troublemakers, in which case there would have been no reason to offer them an escape by recanting their faith. Simply put, the church's martyr stories are highly unlikely to be accurate accounts, and at the very least it renders the martyrdom apologetics claim to be an extremely weak argument.

 

If you were really as skeptical as we are (as you have claimed to be), then you would NOT be parroting that flimsy argument. So, even though you're more of a thinker than most Christians, you're still blindly swallowing completely unsubstantiated stuff that you were indoctrinated with.

 

What I'm specifically addressing is the assumption that it's false.

 

 

It's a matter of withholding belief due to a lack of any real evidence. Don't forget, though, that I used to believe those stories. It's only after I discovered that the Bible is false and Christianity is mythology that I realized that those martyrdom stories were also unsubstantiated.

 

I find it absurd to think that the gospels were made up. The argument doesn't hold water to me and I've explained why. I'm not assuming they're right at all. All I'm establishing is that they are not full of lies. People can be wrong. (The writings of the Bible are not perfect) I'm putting faith in their writings and evaluating them (a process that is not complete).

 

 

It's not absurd in the least. However, just like you, I used to think that it was. The change for me came from studying the Bible in depth. My initial doubts started with general contradictions in the Gospels, but what really unraveled my faith was discovering that over and over and over again, when the Gospels use an Old Testament quote to prove a fulfilled prophecy, they are constantly taking those OT quotes completely out of context. That in turn shows that they've fabricated the prophetic fulfillments, so if they were trying to pass these writings off as actual history, then such fabrications absolutely do amount to lying.

 

I had intended to respond more, but my time's up and I have to get to work. I'll try to add more later.

[Ravenstar]

"Yes, animism and similar spiritual beliefs have always existed, but we don't have concrete evidence that it predates theism of some sort."

 

http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=aTNUAQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA119&dq=first+evidence+on+animism&ots=t6NXmSoLJ2&sig=Plqbprtaqy3-RVamxPkDvir_eCM#v=onepage&q&f=false

[bornagainathiest]

Thanks for the response, Wololo.  There's a lot of ground to cover here, so I'll go thru things as methodically as I can.

.

.

.

You have to establish something as reasonable before we can discuss it truly critically?

 

Well, since this thread IS about critical thinking, why don't you just do your true critical thinking FIRST...?

Like the Midniterider, I don't see why you have to insert a unneeded step in the process (where you don't apply 'true' critical thinking) before you go on to then apply 'true' critical thinking.  Please justify this step.

 

How are we supposed to critically evaluate the existence of God if you won't even agree that it's reasonable or possible to believe it?

 

Because the critical evaluation of God begins at the outset - at the beginning of the process, not partway thru it.

By conceding that it is reasonable to believe in God, I've already yielded more ground than I should have.  By doing that I've already accepted that it IS reasonable to believe in God, BEFORE the process of 'true' critical thinking begins.  Doing that subverts the critical thinking process and makes this thread pointless.  If I can accept God as reasonable before I've applied critical thinking, then how is that an example of critical thinking at work?  The short answer is... that it isn't.  Once again Wololo, you really need to justify why we need to begin with anything else but critical thinking.

 

This is not the case with God.  There is evidence, whether it's disputed or not.

 

Even so, when it comes to the process of critical thinking, our starting position is always one of skepticism.

We begin, not by accepting that God is reasonable, but by using critical thinking to establish that He is.  That is skepticism, which accepts nothing on faith and demands that everything be tested.  Therefore, acceptance of the evidence without testing is not permitted.  Critical thinking begins with a blank page, not one where the beliefs of others are accepted as reasonable without testing.   So it doesn't matter if the evidence is disputed or not - none of it can be accepted as reasonable because others believe it to be so.

 

I'm arguing that we cannot even start to be critical if we cannot establish that something is worth discussing.

 

You've got it backwards, Wololo.

 

WE don't establish what is worth discussing.  Critical thinking BY us does that FOR us.

That's why we employ it as dispassionately and logically as possible.  It's a totally neutral and unbiased tool for discovering what is reasonable and what is not.  Our personal choices, preferences and beliefs play no part in it.  That's why someone in China can use critical thinking to arrive at the same conclusion as someone in Argentina.  Because both people have put aside their assumptions and beliefs and confined themselves to the logic of the process.  If they did as you suggest and accept what other people have concluded as being reasonable, this would introduce cultural, religious and personal bias into what should be as impersonal and unbiased process as possible.

 

Critical examination of all things from get go will tell us what is reasonable and therefore worth discussing.

We don't make that decision.  Reason and critical thinking does that for us, telling us what to discard and what to keep.  That which it confirms as reasonable stays, that which it filters out, goes.  The former earns the title, 'reasonable' because it has been derived from the use of reason.  The latter cannot and should not be called, 'reasonable' because reason itself has shown that it is not.

 

If God is not reasonable, then it is not worth discussing anything critically.

 

To discover if God is reasonable, what else would you use other than reason itself?

Anything else, by definition, is excluded from the process.  Introducing other modes of thought into what should be a purely reasoned process is a subversion of the process.  That's why beliefs from other times and other cultures, popular or not, cannot be admitted on their own merit.  They have not been examined logically and rationally by US.

 

US, Wololo.  You and me and the other folks in this thread.

 

THAT is our starting point. 

No opinions, beliefs or assumptions from other people can be admitted to the process on the basis of popularity, depth of belief, disputed evidence or anything else.  This thread is about critical thinking by you and I and the other participating members.  The beliefs and assumptions of Philo of Alexandria or Blaise Pascal or Wittgenstein are not welcome here unless they are up for testing by us, according to the rules of critical thinking.  This is not their thread, this is ours.  We do the critical thinking.  We don't accept that they've done it for us and it's therefore kosher.  We begin with a blank page, assuming nothing, accepting nothing and taken nothing as read.  

 

If you want me to show I'm critical, the only way that's going to happen is if we can agree that God is reasonable to believe in.

 

No, Wololo.  There is another way you can demonstrate that you are thinking critically.

Instead of beginning with the untested (in this thread) assumption on your part that God IS reasonable, you can begin from the null position of skepticism and assume nothing about God at all.  You can employ your critical thinking from the outset and demonstrate that he is. Or not.

 

Beginning from any other position is not 'true' critical thinking... to borrow your description.

.

.

.

Re: the dictionary definition of "reasonable"...

 

a is the only acceptable definition of reasonable in the context of this thread. 

As I will demonstrate.  "My neighbor Bob is a reasonable kind of guy."  Here I've used the word 'reasonable' in a properly meaningful and legitimate way - but this sentence isn't a description of Bob's reasoning ability. No.  It's a general and colloquial description of his character and temperament.  There's nothing that relates or pertains to logic, critical thinking or reason in it.  Yet it contains the word, 'reasonable'.  That's because only a, (that which is in accordance with reason) is permissible in a thread about critical thinking and reason.  Other usages of the word reasonable are excluded, because they do not relate to the use of reason in critical thinking.

.

.

.

You are implying that God cannot be argued with reason... that is an extreme belief.

 

Actually Wololo... No, I'm not doing that.

I've not made any such statement, nor have I made any such implication.  It's entirely possible that God can be argued for with reason.  But it's not me who get's to decide if he is reasonable or not.  Nor is it you.  Nor is it anyone from the past.  No person or persons get to make that choice.  This is where you're stumbling!

 

Only reason itself decides if God is reasonable.

Reason itself is the tool we use to decide that issue.  Do you see where you are in error?  You are introducing human bias, assumption and belief into what should be a bias-free, assumption-free and belief-free system of thinking.

 

 

Anything that has the potential to be argued with reason is reasonable until it has been conclusively and firmly demonstrated to be extreme or irrational.

 

No, this is unacceptable. 

It is not possible to know... in advance ...if God has the potential to be argued with reason until He is subjected to critical thinking and reason.  You cannot begin by assuming that He is reasonable or has the potential to be argued reasonably.  You first have to find out if He is either of these things...and to do that you begin with a blank sheet, assuming nothing about Him.  If He is reasonable, then the process of critical thinking will demonstrate this.  If He isn't, then His irrationality will be demonstrated. 

 

Do you now see how my position is neutral on this?

I'm not saying if He can or can't be argued for... using reason alone.  I'm looking to the process of reason to tell me if He can or can't be argued for.  I've made no assumptions.  I've taken nothing as read.  I've not taken it upon myself to assume or believe anything about Him.  I've introduced no intermediate steps where I take other peoples beliefs as reasonable.  Everything is up for testing.

 

 

Reasonable DOES NOT EQUAL true.  Reasonable merely means worth discussing critically.

 

Wololo, please note that I'm not saying that reasonable = true.

What I'm saying is that, in the context of this thread, reasonable = that which has been derived only from reason and critical thinking.  Nothing more than that.  It is you who are introducing 'unreasonable' elements into the reasoning process by insisting that popular beliefs be accorded the status of reasonable, when they haven't been subjected to critical thinking by US. 

 

And I must reject your description of reasonable as meaning, 'worth discussing critically'.

It's not for you or anyone else to determine what is reasonable in this thread.  Only reason itself should be tasked with that job.  That which survives the process of critical thinking can be accorded the status of reasonable.  All other popular, general and colloquial definitions must be rejected.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

I've just re-read your reply and noticed this, Wololo.

 

"Slavery, before we really started evaluating it, was reasonable."

 

 

So are you saying this?

Slavery was reasonable until it was evaluated by reason and critical thinking, at which point it became unreasonable.

 

 

Or are you saying this?

Slavery was considered to be reasonable, until it was evaluated by reason and critical thinking, at which point it became considered to be unreasonable.

 

 

Or something else?

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[directionless]

Wololo, you referred a couple of times to questions that we haven't responded to. I think your posts are so detailed that people are missing your questions.

 

Can you list your questions that need responses?

[Thackerie]

I like sterile, narrow, point by point discussions because they usually enable the careful use of logic and skepticism.

 

Me, too.

[Orbit]

Since time immemorial, humans have to some extent believed in some form of deity or deities.

 

Yes, animism and similar spiritual beliefs have always existed, but we don't have concrete evidence that it predates theism of some sort. Even then, perhaps there was some form of spiritual awakening as we became more advanced. That's speculation though, as we really don't know for sure.

Hi, I have an interdisciplinary PhD in anthropology/sociology and I am here to tell you that you are flat wrong in your speculation that humans have always had deities. They have not, and to this day, do not always have deities. Many tribes today are animistic. Animism didn't disappear when humans evolved more. Animism is not a stage on the way to theism. Theism does not represent "higher evolution". See Wikipedia for that "elusive" evidence you seek. Why are Xtians always saying "we don't know"? We do know.

 

 

Please demonstrate to me how religion and spirituality have had an evolutionary advantage for us...especially considering that other animals (including the great apes) lack this sort of behaviour and thought pattern.

All you need to do is google "theory of mind evolution". Here's a synopsis. On the African grassland, if there was a rustling in the grass, if you paid attention to that rustling, you were less likely to be eaten by a lion that you couldn't at the moment see. This "attribution of agency bias" continues today. When you see a face in a cloud, it is a similar process--the mind tries to make sense out of cues in the environment, because it has survival value.

[bornagainathiest]

Interesting stuff, Orbit!

 

So does the "theory of mind evolution" intersect with Michael Shermer's two articles... ?

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns/

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/skeptic-agenticity/

.

.

.

 

Btw, I did as you suggested and Googled "theory of mind evolution".  This yielded a number of scholarly articles that are quite beyond me.  But is there a link or site you know of that can give me a layman's intro to this, please?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

you were less likely to be eaten by a lion that you couldn't at the moment see.

Heh heh, spot on! good stuff, orbit!

[Orbit]

Interesting stuff, Orbit!

 

So does the "theory of mind evolution" intersect with Michael Shermer's two articles... ?

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns/

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/skeptic-agenticity/

.

 

.

 

Btw, I did as you suggested and Googled "theory of mind evolution".  This yielded a number of scholarly articles that are quite beyond me.  But is there a link or site you know of that can give me a layman's intro to this, please?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Actually BAA, those articles you found are pretty much a good layman's explanation of theory of mind. There is a good youtube lecture I saw once, let me search for that (I'm having trouble finding it right off) and I'll get back to you.

[Orbit]

Interesting stuff, Orbit!

 

So does the "theory of mind evolution" intersect with Michael Shermer's two articles... ?

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns/

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/skeptic-agenticity/

.

.

.

 

Btw, I did as you suggested and Googled "theory of mind evolution".  This yielded a number of scholarly articles that are quite beyond me.  But is there a link or site you know of that can give me a layman's intro to this, please?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

This is good, very accessible, if a little long. It is specifically about the evolutionary cognitive science of religious belief. "Agency detection" is specifically what you're interested in.

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

I'll pick up where I left off in post #85.

 

 

If you want me to go over all of those assumptions with you, we can.

 

 

It's up to you, although I'm personally not all that interested in elaborations on assumptions. This thread is about your claim to be just as much of a skeptic as the rest of us, but assuming fantastical stories to be true without any real evidence is not a skeptical position.

 

 

Of course I don't 'blindly' believe those sorts of stories. It's just that I haven't had the time to explore everything.

 

 

Those two statements contradict each other. I can understand that you haven't had time to explore everything; however, belief in those stories without exploring them is belief without evidence, which is the very definition of blind belief. That may be all you have to go on right now, but it's still blind belief, just as I used to have blind belief in Christian stories.

 

For me, it was the Bible itself undermining Christianity that opened my eyes, and once I saw where the Biblical evidence really leads, the even less historically reliable traditions about the martyrs became a side issue. They're stories intended to prop up previous stories, but those previous stories are clearly extremely unreliable (the Gospels contradict each other multiple times; they abuse the OT by taking verses out of context in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments; they have no contemporary nonreligious writings for confirmation).

 

 

As some of you know, I am still young...not far into adulthood.

 

 

When I was that age, I was still convinced that Christianity was true. The more I learned, though, the more I saw that there are serious problems that undermine its credibility. Perhaps you'll eventually see the problems too. Time will tell.

 

 

I hope that someday some of you are more willing to answer some of my questions (which still get ignored in the rush to attack me.)

 

 

I personally am not rushing to attack you, and I haven't noticed anyone else seeming to either. Please don't mistake one's pointing out of problems seen in your claims as intended as an attack on you.

 

Also, if everyone responded to everything you said, then every post would be very long. There's nothing wrong with people focusing on a few specific points to keep the conversation digestible. You can always move on to other details later.

 

Anyway, I'm not aware of any questions you've asked me that I've not responded to. On the other hand, I did ask you some questions in the Prefailure of Apologetics thread that you did not respond to.

[Wololo]

I'm going to cut my posts into either two or three here so stay tuned...there will be posts on the way. I also need to post a response to another thread that I've left for dead over the past several days. I've got a fresh perspective there. BAA...well that's probably going to be a post of its own. Expect a few posts, people.

 

 

 

 

I find it absurd to think that the gospels were made up

 

You find claims of walking on water, dead raised, blind seen, wine transformed, fish multiplied, claims that believers, even today, can survive poison and snake bites plausible? 

 

There is more to being reasonable than just popularity. Santa Claus is a popular belief (mostly among children). For them it is a reasonable belief. What changes their mind is that his existence is utterly unsubstantiated, and further, has evidence to the contrary. This is not the case with God. There is evidence, whether it's disputed or not.

 

How is the god claim substantiated?  What evidence? 

 

 

I'm not even going to get into miracles. We're so far off from evaluating those. I'd be interested to do so, but there are just too many other things that would have to be established first.

 

The God claim by its very definition can't be evaluated empirically with any sort of persuasiveness. It doesn't take a genius to see that. We're in the realm of that which cannot be known for certain. It may sound convenient, but the reality is that the concept itself is not an empirical one. It's a philosophical argument and that is where it will remain until something comes along and changes that. God is substantiated by philosophical exploration. Sure, there are a lot of things that can be philosophically created, but most of them are very easy to dismiss. If you want to discuss the prospect of God existing, you have to do so philosophically. Nothing empirical that remains will ever be compelling enough.

 

 

 

I have to establish something is reasonable before we can discuss it truly critically. There are so many fundamental things that we don't agree on, so the discussion often doesn't advance very far. How are we supposed to critically evaluate the existence of God if you won't even agree that it's reasonable or possible to believe it?

 

Aren't we already discussing it critically? Or is this the pre-discussion discussion? The above sounds like some kind of stall tactic. You're trying to establish/maintain credibility while not really saying anything important. Maybe we can get past the definition of the word 'reasonable.'

 

There is more to being reasonable than just popularity. Santa Claus is a popular belief (mostly among children). For them it is a reasonable belief. What changes their mind is that his existence is utterly unsubstantiated, and further, has evidence to the contrary.

 

Or the older sibling spills the beans. So why don't you believe in Santa? And why not? Better yet, why do you STILL believe in Jesus? Probably that popularity thing....It's popular, especially when the family believes...and not too popular to express disbelief when the family still believes. May or may not be your experience...shrugs.

 

This is not the case with God. There is evidence, whether it's disputed or not.

 

This is definitely disputed. Please present your evidence. Better yet, please have God come by my house for lunch. Christians keep saying "There is evidence!", but never show us any.  But, I know for a fact that Santa Claus is real, I have the evidence and will present it after you present your evidence of God.

 

The belief has persisted for a very long time.

 

Long held beliefs are not evidence of the reality of something. People believe knocking on wood brings good luck. Does it?

 

Slavery, before we really started evaluating it, was reasonable. People believed that it was totally appropriate and they lived their lives as though slavery was normal. What you're focusing on is the truth of something. I'm arguing that we cannot even start to be critical if we cannot establish that something is worth discussing.

 

Slavery was the practice of humans treating other humans badly and actually occurred. God, on the other hand is fiction and never occurred. Your analogy is invalid. It is a false comparison. The fact that we are discussing whether or not God exists is evidence enough that the subject is worth discussing. :-) Additional evidence is the myriad threads all discussing whether or not God exists.

 

If God is not reasonable, then it is not worth discussing anything critically. If you want me to show I'm critical, the only way that's going to happen is if we can agree that God is reasonable to believe in. Then we can being being properly critical.

 

So we have to agree that God exists before we discuss whether or not God exists? Billions of people believe in God and nobody can seem to agree which one is the True One so, like I said above, it has been well established that the subject is worth discussing. 

 

On the topic of defining "reasonable", let's get an actual definition into the discussion.

 

"a :  being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory>

 

b :  not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests>

 

c :  moderate, fair <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price> " - Merriam-Webster dictionary

 

You're implying to me that God cannot be argued with reason...that it is an extreme belief. I want proof of that if that's what you want to assert.

 

Just to be clear, in case I'm missing a connection somewhere: Anything that has the potential to be argued with reason is reasonable until it has been conclusively and firmly demonstrated to be extreme or irrational. I will stand by that definition until it is shown to me that I am wrong. Reasonable DOES NOT EQUAL true. Reasonable merely means worth discussing critically.

 

Most anything can be argued with reason, even irrational things like the existence of God. People get into heated arguments about Star Trek characters... they aren't real or true....is that reasonable? Or irrational? Or reasonably irrational? Or neither. If you deny Santa you won't get any presents.

 

 

In a sense it's a pre-discussion discussion. How about this, let me try to finish this pre-discussion...do you assert that a creator God cannot exist? This sort of cuts to the chase. If you make that assertion, then you need to prove it because you've just made an absolute truth claim. You'd have to prove that there is no possibility of God existing and having created the universe in whatever manner. If you chose to leave that option open and imply it is possible, then we are making progress. That means that there exists a set of conditions where it is plausible and reasonable that God exists. I can assert that Santa Claus cannot exist and then create a good argument as to why it's impossible. I don't even leave the option open because there is an excellent argument against it. Establishing this doesn't make me any more right, but it shows me whether or not you're an atheist/agnostic or an anti-theist. If you're an anti-theist, I want to know what it is specifically you're denying. If you're just an agnostic atheist, we can move on.

 

A lot of what I'm trying to do is define the terms of our discussion because I'm tired of people dancing all over the place and I'm even more tired of "give me evidence". We haven't even agreed on what evidence actually is. How are we supposed to debate when we're using different terms? Voltaire said: "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms". That's what I'm going to do before I go much further with some of you.

 

We need to establish what evidence is and why that is our standard for evidence. I can present what I feel is evidence day and night and not convince you because you immediately reject it as either 'weak' or 'non-evidence'. I've been trying to establish for quite some time that 'proving' God cannot be done empirically. The small amount of empirical evidence is not convincing. I've tried a few of those arguments and they barely hold enough water with you to keep the letters of the words upright. For me, the stronger evidence is philosophical. It involves the process of asking questions and creating a coherent framework for the world. Some of it is definitely based on empirical observations, but it doesn't rely exclusively on those things. If you don't want to philosophize, I can't argue with you. That doesn't mean everything would be over and you could walk away and call yourself a 'winner'. You would then need to explain to me why empirical evidence is the only valid evidence (and how I could experience that empirically). I will agree it's valid, but to say nothing else is worth bringing up...that would be a hard position to hold.

 

You weren't reading carefully earlier. I was not trying to prove God exists by saying the belief has been held for a long time. I was trying to prove it is reasonable to hold that belief (with counter arguments I need to address from BAA).

 

From reading your posts, you're convinced God is fiction. I'd like to know where that came from. You don't have to prove he doesn't exist, but to state that he is made up...that's a truth claim.

 

FYI to those that are avid readers and actually read that. If you're going to make truth statements that I disagree with, I'm going to ask you for evidence since that seems to be your obsession with me. Yes, I'm going to force you into agnosticism, or you're going to convince me that you hold a logically coherent argument that God is made up or that it is impossible for him to exist and have created the world. Stop making absolute statements and then complaining that I do the same.

 

On the question of whether God is reasonable, here is a quote and a link arguing positive and negative:

Before moving to consider the various arguments for the existence of God, it is worth asking the preliminary question How likely is it that God exists?
...
If we begin with the thought that God’s existence is highly unlikely, then it is going to take very strong evidence to persuade us that he does indeed exist.
...
If, on the other hand, we begin our inquiry with an intellectual openness to God’s existence, then we may find persuasive arguments that others would not.
...
The Improbability of God:
...
If there are two explanations of a set of evidence, one invoking God and the other not invoking God, then the explanation that doesn’t invoke God will always be the more economical of the two; it is more economical to postulate any number of finite beings than it is to postulate one infinite being.
...
The Probability of God
...
Swinburne observes that it is simpler to postulate an unlimited force than a limited force. If one postulates a limited force then one is postulating two things, the force and whatever constrains it. If one postulates an unlimited force, then one is only postulating one thing, the force; there is, by definition, nothing that constrains an infinite force.
...

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/god-intrinsic-probability/

 

 

Sounds like you're trying to invoke Occam's Razor. Damn it's misused way too heavily. It DOES NOT mean that the most economical point is the most likely to be true. It's a heuristic, not a proof. It means that we shouldn't add that which is unnecessary to a theory. It shouldn't be "and God". This doesn't prove or disprove God. It means that you should cut away until you have the essence.

 

I don't like Swinburne and I don't like probability in this discussion. We already have the world. We rolled a 1 on a 1 sided die. It's here. It's silly to roll dice about the existence of God. Either he exists or doesn't, but we have the world anyway.

[Wololo]

 

 

Wololo, I must say that this thread has demonstrated that you've put more thought into your beliefs than was apparent from the first several posts I saw of yours in other threads. I do commend you for being much further along than most Christians.

 

However, you're still demonstrating that you really are not the skeptic that you assert you are. You rely heavily on philosophical perceptions and unsubstantiated claims by the church, which are not real evidence. For example, you keep falling back to this argument:

 

 

People do not die as martyrs for things they know are lies. I'm not sure how I could be clearer. Every single one of the original followers after the death of Jesus went to his or her grave believing what they wrote. If they had made it all up, they would have recanted. Someone would have recanted. None of them did. Clearly they were fervent believers in their own writing. If they weren't absolutely certain in what they wrote, they would have given it up.

 

 

Like you, I used to think this was a strong argument. However, it only seems sound if you assume that all those unsubstantiated details are actually true. It requires that you assume that the Gospels are reliable sources of information (which is undermined by numerous problems in those texts), assume that the characters really existed and had seen a risen Jesus (despite those serious problems in the Gospels), assume that the church tradition of these characters being put to death is true (without any evidence), assume that their deaths were due to their religious beliefs (which is unsubstantiated), and assume that they had an opportunity to recant and refused (which is also unsubstantiated).

 

You've indicated that you don't believe a lot of things claimed by the church (the Trinity, etc.), so why would you blindly assume that the church is correct about their martyr stories? Even if those disciples existed and were put to death, it has been pointed out to you already that Rome didn't kill people for holding religious beliefs, but they did put people to death for being troublemakers. That would indicate that if those disciples existed and were put to death, then the most probable explanation is that their executions were because Rome saw them as troublemakers, in which case there would have been no reason to offer them an escape by recanting their faith. Simply put, the church's martyr stories are highly unlikely to be accurate accounts, and at the very least it renders the martyrdom apologetics claim to be an extremely weak argument.

 

If you were really as skeptical as we are (as you have claimed to be), then you would NOT be parroting that flimsy argument. So, even though you're more of a thinker than most Christians, you're still blindly swallowing completely unsubstantiated stuff that you were indoctrinated with.

 

What I'm specifically addressing is the assumption that it's false.

 

 

It's a matter of withholding belief due to a lack of any real evidence. Don't forget, though, that I used to believe those stories. It's only after I discovered that the Bible is false and Christianity is mythology that I realized that those martyrdom stories were also unsubstantiated.

 

I find it absurd to think that the gospels were made up. The argument doesn't hold water to me and I've explained why. I'm not assuming they're right at all. All I'm establishing is that they are not full of lies. People can be wrong. (The writings of the Bible are not perfect) I'm putting faith in their writings and evaluating them (a process that is not complete).

 

 

It's not absurd in the least. However, just like you, I used to think that it was. The change for me came from studying the Bible in depth. My initial doubts started with general contradictions in the Gospels, but what really unraveled my faith was discovering that over and over and over again, when the Gospels use an Old Testament quote to prove a fulfilled prophecy, they are constantly taking those OT quotes completely out of context. That turn shows that they've fabricated the prophetic fulfillments, so if they were trying to pass these writings off as actual history, then such fabrications absolutely do amount to lying.

 

I had intended to respond more, but my time's up and I have to get to work. I'll try to add more later.

 

 

I'd like to know more about how you feel they're taking them out of context. I'm very interested in that. If you could elaborate, I'd like to discuss it. As I see it, it's all an intricate puzzle that fits carefully together.

 

    Ravenstar, on 03 Nov 2014 - 02:58 AM, said:

 

    "Yes, animism and similar spiritual beliefs have always existed, but we don't have concrete evidence that it predates theism of some sort."

 

    http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=aTNUAQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA119&dq=first+evidence+on+animism&ots=t6NXmSoLJ2&sig=Plqbprtaqy3-RVamxPkDvir_eCM#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

That was pretty speculative, and your explanation was non-existent. If you want a serious response, you need a serious post.

 

Since I 'exceeded the number of blocks of text', that quote had to be copy-pasted. Troll move forum rules, troll move.

[Orbit]

I

 

In a sense it's a pre-discussion discussion. How about this, let me try to finish this pre-discussion...do you assert that a creator God cannot exist? This sort of cuts to the chase. If you make that assertion, then you need to prove it because you've just made an absolute truth claim.

No. We are saying there is no evidence that God exists.

You are the one making the positive claim that God does exist, so the burden of proof is yours.

We do not assert that he does not exist; we assert there is no evidence that he does. Those are two separate things.

 

Evidence consists of non-supernatural, verifiable, and falsifiable facts and data.

 

PS Your posts are really TLDR, can you be more concise?

[Vigile]

I'm not even going to get into miracles. We're so far off from evaluating those. I'd be interested to do so, but there are just too many other things that would have to be established first.

 

But you said it's absurd to say the gospels are made up, yet if you take away the miracles and the passages that simply predate the gospels by hundreds of years in one form or another, you aren't left with much more than a skeleton.  If you wish to claim the gospels reflect the recording of real events, then you have to address the miracles.

 

Go ahead and use philosophy to substantiate god. I'm curious to see what you've got.  I hope it's better than Aquinas, as the greatest thing I can imagine isn't very persuasive to me even though he worked it into a sound argument (where form is concerned).  Warning, this is going to be true of any argument that relies on a priori assumptions.