4/2/09

Dan Barker - Scriptural Misinterpretations and Misapplications, part 2 of 14

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , , , , , ,

43 comments:

  1. mmcelhaneyApril 2, 2009 at 2:32 PM

    Amen! Mariano, this is great. I wholeheartedly agree with your exegesis. Wonderful, how you expound on scripture! God has truly gifted you. I praise God that He allowed you to truly hit the point: Does the Bible say what Dan Barker says it say? As you point out, in a word, "No!". When i hear Dan Barker I often wonder if he is reading the same book! Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  2. jdhueyApril 2, 2009 at 3:13 PM

    http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

    I don't know enough (nor do I care to learn) about the different translations of Bible verses to know if Dan Barkers interpretation is correct. Besides, there are many places in the Old Testament where genocide, pillaging, rape and general nasty behavior is either commanded by or implicitly condoned by that god (not to be confused with the god of the New Testament). http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

    Now it could be that there are special pleadings for each of these verses but honestly, if the Bible was so poorly translated all those different times, what on Earth would make us think that Mariano's preferred translation is the 'correct' one?

    ReplyDelete
  3. ScaryJesusApril 2, 2009 at 4:30 PM

    You see jdhuey, whenever a Christian leaves the fold, the best way to dismiss his argument is impune his understanding of the bible. In fact I'd like to challenge Mariano to come up with one former Christian who understood the bible correctly. He can't and never will.

    ReplyDelete
  4. KenApril 2, 2009 at 8:43 PM

    Jdhuey and ScaryJesus,
    Thanks you both, your comments went a long way towards encouraging me and showing me that I am on the right track.

    One does not know any better and does not care to learn but evilbible.com says it so it must be true—the very definition of New Atheist inspired pseudo-skepticism de jour—what “faith” to just read something at evilbible.com and say, “I believe, I do believe, amen!”

    The other cannot even interact with the case laid out in the post and so waves hands and produces smoke—hey, look over here don’t think about that. Not interacting with the claim versus the point by point response is very, very telling.

    You will note that I made no references to any “different translations of Bible verses” and certainly not to one over another. I translated one single word since Dan Barker premised his entire statement upon one single word which he purposefully avoided translating.

    Also, I like how you both conveniently sidestep Dan Barker’s claim that rape is not absolutely immoral.

    I truly appreciate your readership and comments but I do want to thanks also for showing me why spending lots of time in the comments section is a waste of my precious time.

    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete
  5. mmcelhaneyApril 2, 2009 at 11:58 PM

    I had to ask...if God ever condoned rape...where?
    Also the point Mariano raised about if Barker is correctly saying what the Bible says is important!!! If Barker bases his whole argument on the wrong interpretation then why does anything he says matters? I agree with Mariano that Barker misrepresents what the Bible says. Either he did or he didn't and neither of you proved that Barker was correct and that Mariano has misrepresented what the Bible says or what Barker has said.

    ReplyDelete
  6. captain howdyApril 3, 2009 at 5:48 AM

    @Mariano--

    The question before us, it seems to me, is: "Is the God of the Bible evil?" Rape per se is a side issue, really.

    If that really is what we're trying to address here, then it seems to me that the answer is obvious. Of course the Christian God is evil.

    I mean, think about it: The God of the Bible drowned the whole planet. How can it not be evil to drown the whole planet? I mean, if you don't have a problem with God drowning nearly all air-breathing life on earth, then what could God possibly do that you WOULD have a problem with??

    The given reason for God's heinous act is that people had become wicked. Well, surely there were small children alive at the time. Were they wicked too? Why drown them? Surely there were unoffensive small animals alive back then, such as kittens. Why did God have to drown every kitten on the planet? What, kittens were evil back then, too?

    And remember--This is the same God that parted the Red Sea for the Israelites. That seems to mean that had He wanted to, He could have manipulated the flood waters in such a way that only the guilty drowned, while the innocent didn't so much as get damp. He has superpowers. What--He can part the waters for the fleeing Israelites, but not for terrified children?

    So; yeah, I'd say the God of the Bible is evil in the extreme. After all, if drowning the whole planet isn't evil--what is??

    ReplyDelete
  7. LeslieApril 3, 2009 at 9:02 AM

    Scary said:

    "You see jdhuey, whenever a Christian leaves the fold, the best way to dismiss his argument is impune his understanding of the bible. In fact I'd like to challenge Mariano to come up with one former Christian who understood the bible correctly. He can't and never will."

    Why should it be surprising that the vast majority of ex-Christians did not properly understand the Bible or God? If you're making these types of arguments, you assume that the vast majority of Christians don't understand the Bible properly. We're in the same boat.

    Besides, we all know something obvious about those who leave the fold - it's a process. Notice the general steps: 1)Originally they start out with a few small questions. 2) Eventually they start truly doubting and then they start looking at material like what is found on evilbible.com. 3) They feel like these questions don't have good answers. 4) So they start listening to the people who asked the questions, and adopt their general attitude towards exegesis. 5) Next thing you know, you have a full blown skeptic on your hands.

    Point 3 is where much of the problems arise. There are a lot of people today who have skewed view of the Bible. In my experience, a large portion of ex-Christian skeptics were used to a very fundamentalist/legalistic type of Christianity. So when they get to point 3, they feel like there is only one alternative - the Bible is false. That, of course, is by no means the only alternative.

    I can relate to this process, because I very nearly went through it. I wavered between points 3 and 4 for a while. Thankfully, I had enough training and a solid enough upbringing to think beyond the false dilemma so often imposed at these points. The more I read the material by people like Barker, the more I realize their material is full of crap. It's emotional, shallow hogwash. They see what they want to see in it. As an example, a commenter on a blog I participate in suggested that the Bible is false because it classified bats as birds. I don't curse, but stuff like that gets me extremely close to it, simply because it is so blatantly ignorant.

    I think you guys are smart enough to know that the Bible does not condone rape. So let's leave the meaningless rhetorical/emotional arguments with no solid footing at home.

    Captain Howdy:

    Yes, we wouldn't want God punishing anyone for doing wrong, would we? Punishing evildoers is clearly very evil ......

    ReplyDelete
  8. Scott faceheadApril 3, 2009 at 9:51 AM

    dan barker aims at unintelligent uninformed Christians and ignorant atheists, all of the stuff in his book can easily be refuted by someone knowledgeable in bible, history and logic, it is also hilarious how the dogmatic atheists come to back him up but cannot in anyway refute your assertions.

    look at the comments made by scaryjesus and jdhuey, nowhere in there did they refute a single word of what you said mariano.

    ReplyDelete
  9. captain howdyApril 3, 2009 at 10:44 AM

    @Leslie--

    Yes, we wouldn't want God punishing anyone for doing wrong, would we? Punishing evildoers is clearly very evil ......

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    And what's the proper punishment for people having too much fun? Why, destroy all life on the planet, of course!

    Even the children were evil? Even the puppies and kittens your God drowned were evil too? Are you seriously suggesting that all the pregnant women on the planet deserved to die? Their unborn babies they were carrying deserved to die?


    So much for "pro-life". Even al-Qaeda never tried to kill off the whole world!

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousApril 3, 2009 at 11:18 AM

    Let's start with something easy. Where does God condone Rape in the Bible?

    -BenYachov

    ReplyDelete
  11. mmcelhaneyApril 3, 2009 at 11:27 AM

    @ Captain Howdy

    You asked: "After all, if drowning the whole planet isn't evil--what is??"

    One word answer: Justice.

    Mercy was giving Noah, his family, and all the living creatures on the Ark a way out.

    Your arguments depend on your definitions of "wicked" or "evil". By who's standard are you using. Yours? Instead of judging yourself and others by using your own standards, compare against the standards God has told us he is using. Under those standards, we all deserve death. We all to deserve to die because we can't possible measure up.

    But be grateful for mercy. All those people you are so concerned with about who drowned in the flood had an opportunity to be saved. All the time while Noah and his family was building that Ark, he preached to them warned them. He begged them to repent. They said "No." They mocked him. They spit the chance to live back in God's face. As for the babies and children, I trust that God has taken care of their souls and that God has dealt with them fairly and with justice...I don't know anything more specific than that.

    I'm more concerned with you and ScaryJesus and jdHuey. Are you going to foolishly throw away your chance to be saved as they did before the flood? You are not like the babies and children. You know and understand what you are doing. What's it going to be? Life or destruction? Make the choice Noah did and repent and throw yourself on God's mercy. There's more than enough.

    I'm glad you guys are reading this blog. He's telling the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  12. AnonymousApril 3, 2009 at 11:36 AM

    Well I looked at the link & can't help but laugh. Off the top of my head in regards to Deuteronomy 21:10-14. The Mishna & the Talmud are very clear that a Jewish man MAY NOT demand sex from his wife but the wife may demand sex from her husband.

    So a captive woman can be compleled to on paper marry some guy but he can't force her to have sex with him according to Jewish Law. In fact I would hazard to guess the verse "However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it" implies if she refuses to give up her booty that you can divorce her.

    You know the Torah doesn't exist in a vacumn there is an Oral Tradition that goes with it.

    Even the most hardened Sola Scriptura Protestant admits that. BTW I'm Catholic.

    -BenYachov

    ReplyDelete
  13. jdhueyApril 3, 2009 at 1:25 PM

    I knew about all the atrocities in the Bible from when I was force to go to Sunday School as a child and from when I intentionally read the King James Version cover to cover. I referenced the Evil Bible site just as a handy reference.

    I don't care to learn the nitty gritty details of Biblical exegesis for the same reasons I don't care to learn all the nitty gritty details of The Koran, The Book of Mormon, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, or The Bhagavad Gita. I've read them all but only to know the general content, perspective and feel of the works. Along with the Bible, the detail contents of those books is per se irrelevant. It doesn't really matter if 'proper' reading to the genocides ordered by
    Yahweh in the OT don't mean what they say, when those passages were used by the European settlers as a rationalization for the genocide they attempted against the American Indian. The Southern preachers of the antebellum South justified slavery by citing scripture (they were so persuasive that many abolitionists ended up renouncing the Christian religion). I know from personal experience how the Bible was used as a primary defense of racial segregation.

    Today, theologians and religionists, claim that those lessons of the Bible are the exact opposite of the ones that the Bible 'actually' teaches. Well, BUNK. What is written is not in anyway definitive - it is a hodgepodge of conflicting and confusing stories that people can use as a moral Rorshach inkblot.

    ReplyDelete
  14. LeslieApril 3, 2009 at 3:25 PM

    "And what's the proper punishment for people having too much fun? Why, destroy all life on the planet, of course! ....."

    First, I'd like to point out the following story about the recent killings in germany. Yes, many things that we might consider "fun" are absolutely wrong and deserve punishment. You bet.

    Second, upon what basis would you tell God that he can't do what he wants with his creation? When Calvin and Hobbes ended, I was distraught. I wrote Bill Watterson pleading with him to continue it. But it's his comic - he can do what he wants. If he wanted to end the strip with a violent scene where his characters are all murdered, that would be his choice. While it might disturb me on some levels, I can't see what basis I would have to tell him he can't or should not do it, inasmuch as his relationship to his comic is concerned. Certainly my subjective whims aren't enough.

    Third, God's ultimate concern is ultimate justice. You're looking at things in the temporal sense too much. You're looking simply at life and death here. But there's more to it than just dying here and now. There's eternity to deal with. You need to consider that as well before proclaiming God's supposed injustice.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousApril 3, 2009 at 3:33 PM

    >I don't care to learn the nitty gritty details of Biblical exegesis for the same reasons I don't care to learn all the nitty gritty details of The Koran, The Book of Mormon, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, or The Bhagavad Gita.

    I reply: Therefore by your own admition you are professing willful ignorance of the subject you criticise. Thus your clearly bias & your criticisms are of NO VALUE.

    >It doesn't really matter if 'proper' reading to the genocides ordered by
    Yahweh in the OT don't mean what they say, when those passages were used by the European settlers as a rationalization for the genocide they attempted against the American Indian.

    I reply: Abuse of a thing does not negate proper use of the very same thing. Stalin clearly used his Atheist Communism (i.e. Nothing is immoral if it promotes Wolrd Wide Worker Revolution) to justify his crimes against others.

    Yet I know some beniene socialist peaceniks who would say Stalin perverted "True Communism" & of course all the New Atheist say the same in regards to his Atheism.

    >I know from personal experience how the Bible was used as a primary defense of racial segregation.

    I reply: Peter himself said in his first letter that scripture can be perverted. So why should that suprise anyone?


    >Today, theologians and religionists, claim that those lessons of the Bible are the exact opposite of the ones that the Bible 'actually' teaches.

    I reply: What is your objective criteria for claiming any particular interpretation you make is "authoritative"? Are you some sort of Atheist Pope? Sorry I already have one.
    -BenYachov

    ReplyDelete
  16. AnonymousApril 3, 2009 at 4:43 PM

    >You're looking simply at life and death here.

    I reply: That's the warrant for all Fundamentalist Atheist Moral Arguments against the Existence of God and or the Truth of the Bible.

    For them physical death & suffering are the ultimate evils. Because in their minds this life is all you get. Thus the death & suffering of the innocent are a great waste.

    But for the Christian & most Theists in general it is the loss of the soul that is the ultimate evil not death or temporal suffering.

    The extermination of the Canaanites including the women & children might be considered "evil" if only because if true their deaths meant the end of their existence from an Atheist perspective.

    But you have to disprove the existence of God first for this to be a meaningful objection. OTOH if you disprove God then the Bible is already self-evidently false & should not be trusted.

    For the Atheist to make a meaningful argument against the Christian. He has to show given the presuppositions of Christianity how God ordering the deaths of the Canaanite women & children is truly "evil".

    Of course given that generally Atheism relies on Moral Relativism that can be a logical problem.

    Moral Relativism says there is no objective right & wrong. So you are without an objective criteria to judge the morality of the actions of the Deity.

    BTW as an interesting bit of trivia Maimonides said the ancient Israelites would have given the Canaanites the opportunity to embrace the Seven Laws of Noah & if they refused only then would they be killed.

    Of course if anyone wants to know why that's not the same as forced conversions? I'm here all week.

    -BenYachov

    ReplyDelete
  17. AnonymousApril 3, 2009 at 5:12 PM

    >Well, BUNK. What is written is not in anyway definitive - it is a hodgepodge of conflicting and confusing stories that people can use as a moral Rorshach inkblot.

    I reply: I'm Catholic. If you somehow proved to me that Papal Infallibility was false THAT would not show the non-existence of God or deny the Truth of Scripture.

    I would simply become either Eastern Orthodox or maybe Protestant.

    In another circumstance I might use a variation of this very argument of yours to attack Sola Scriptura or the Protestant doctrines of Private Interpretation & the perpecuity of scriptures.

    But so what? As with trying to refute Papal Infallibility THAT would not show the non-existence of God or deny the Truth of Scripture.

    I think the obvious logical problem here is you hold to a sort of Dawkinish Atheist Fundamentalism that says that religion is so self-evidently false that it is a waste of time to learn anything about it. Dawkins uses the analogy toward his critics to justify his grand ignorance of Religion of "Well I don't have to have a detailed knowledge of leprechaun lore to know that it is false".

    Yeh but the problem I have with that analogy is IF I LIVED in a world where more than 2 billion people believed in leprechauns & I was an aspiring critic & crusader against the established Leprechaun Order COMMON SENSE tells me I should acquire at least a decent knowledge of Leprechaun Lore to make a meaningful, logical & credible criticism of it. Otherwise I just look ignorant, anti-intellectual & foolish.

    Which is of course the fatal flaw in the modern New Atheist movement. Vox Day is right it's not an intellectual movement unlike many atheists of the past.

    -BenYachov

    ReplyDelete
  18. jdhueyApril 3, 2009 at 5:16 PM

    "Also, I like how you both conveniently sidestep Dan Barker’s claim that rape is not absolutely immoral."

    Well, as you pointed out in the post:
    "We deal with the rest of Dan Barker’s response to this question, the part in which he invokes the concept of alien rape voyeurs, in our original essay. Here we deal with his citation of scripture as he responds by stating:..."

    I 'side stepped' the topic because you asked to focus the attention elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  19. AnonymousApril 4, 2009 at 12:13 AM

    "Yeh but the problem I have with that analogy is IF I LIVED in a world where more than 2 billion people believed in leprechauns & I was an aspiring critic & crusader against the established Leprechaun Order COMMON SENSE tells me I should acquire at least a decent knowledge of Leprechaun Lore to make a meaningful, logical & credible criticism of it. Otherwise I just look ignorant, anti-intellectual & foolish."

    It's very simple really: if your god exists, show us the evidence, or show us how to verify its existence for ourselves. Since you are the expert on your particular flavor of god, if you fail even that, then you are in no position to ascribe intellectual merit to your hypothesis, or to require of the skeptic to become as versed in the lore as you are, whether it be Leprechauns or Jehovah; neither hypothesis gets special treatment.

    If an expert in Leprechaun lore claiming that these beings exist can not by any means whatsoever support his claim, then the onus isn't on the skeptic to study Leprechaun lore - the Leprechaunist has failed to corroborate his hypothesis. Until he can offer some evidence, we must reject his hypothesis and ask ourselves, if he is so completely unable to demonstrate the truth of his claims, what convinced him in the first place? If it was just a speculation that he wanted to test, why does he keep clinging to the belief that it is true even though every test came out negative?

    The suggestion might come to us that he was brought up to believe in Leprechauns, and found it hard to give up such a beautiful idea. Or maybe he grew to adore Leprechauns at a later stage, and just really likes the idea, and wants it to be true. We can certainly see how such circumstances might lead someone to believe in the Leprechaun hypothesis - but these are not valid reasons for ascribing it truth value, nor incentive for taking Leprechaun lore seriously as a method for discovering things about nature.

    Now what if it was not just one Leprechaunist, but one billion? This would certainly seem to indicate that there must be something more substantial going on, and that we might have overlooked the evidence the first time. But when we look this time, again we find no more evidence than before, and no matter how mystified we must confess ourselves to be at the presence of so many people believing in Leprechauns, we must again reject the hypothesis for now, and keep wondering what might be the real cause of this strange phenomenon.

    Gratifyingly, some reports of Leprechaun sightings are now coming in, and witnesses tell their stories in front of television cameras of their fabled encounters. Smallish footprints in the back of the garden are discovered and held up as evidence, and someone shows up with a scar on her forearm from a Leprechaun bite some years ago. The hypothesis seems to be supported after all.

    But some doubt materializes when it begins to look like the sightings are never made when a skeptic is looking. And now we hear that some of the claimed sightings were false, and that some people had just made up the stories for the media attention. We realize that footprints can be faked, and that there are other ways that scars can be made aside from Leprechaun bites. Again we must regard this kind of evidence for the Leprechaun hypothesis as very suspect and unconvincing, and for now reject the hypothesis until some stronger evidence comes in.

    Suddenly we hear from another source that "Leprechauns are bunk - in reality these are sightings of Fauns, Dryads and Satyrs, which should be quite obvious if you read our Book of Olympus. Bacchus and Silenus have been lax - we will prepare some sacrifices to amend the situation." But the Leprechaunists don't buy this: "Sorry, but your Book is just a collection of mythical fables with no relevance to reality; our Book is the real thing." Now a third voice enters and suggests that what this is really all about is probably just a wayward minor Tengu playing pranks on the unwitting westerners: "We can send over an Onmyoji exorcist to have a look where those foot prints were found." Now the Olympians are in an uproar, and the Leprechaunists have declared war on the Nippon Onmyoji Kyokai.

    As outsiders to this whole affair, what are we to do on the occasion? We had already rejected the Leprechaun hypothesis, but should we now study Onmyodo and the Book of Olympus in order to ascertain who is right in this matter? Or is there another way of understanding this whole debacle?

    Perhaps what we need to study in order to understand this bizarre phenomenon isn't Leprechaun lore and its siblings, but rather ourselves - the human mind and our societies. Something strange is clearly going on in the heads of a large number of people. Apparently the Leprechaun phenomenon was not unique, but simply one incarnation of many such instances, all across the globe and spanning the recent millennia of our recorded history. Since most of them are conflicting, most of them must necessarily be wrong, and none of them seem to have any better evidence in support than the Leprechaun hypothesis. So we must, for the time being, reject all hypotheses in the Leprechaun category, deal with them all as equally suspect and unfounded, and keep wondering why it is that so many otherwise normal people believe in invisible magical beings.

    And that is why, in my view, a 14-part series on scriptural interpretation is about as meaningful as debating the fine points of Leprechaun lore, only vastly less entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
  20. captain howdyApril 4, 2009 at 1:38 AM

    Marcus McElheney said--

    @ Captain Howdy

    You asked: "After all, if drowning the whole planet isn't evil--what is??"

    One word answer: Justice.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Okay. Explain how "justice" was done to all the children that drowned in your Great Flood. [You'll sidestep this.]



    Mercy was giving Noah, his family, and all the living creatures on the Ark a way out.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    And **** the rest of the world, I guess.



    Your arguments depend on your definitions of "wicked" or "evil". By who's standard are you using. Yours?

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    Who else's standard would I use but mine? Remember, Xtians are asking me to evaluate the claims of the Bible. Well, I have. The claims are almost certainly false and yes, in some cases, downright evil--such as your Holy Book's Great Flood doctrine.



    Instead of judging yourself and others by using your own standards, compare against the standards God has told us he is using. Under those standards, we all deserve death. We all to deserve to die because we can't possible measure up.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Your religion tells us that we all inherited guilt from Adam's transgression. But how can it possibly be fair to punish every human ever born for something somebody else--Adam--did? The answer, of course, is that it isn't fair. This casts reasonable doubt on a major tenet of your religion.




    As for the babies and children, I trust that God has taken care of their souls and that God has dealt with them fairly and with justice...I don't know anything more specific than that.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Yeah. Collateral damage.


    Nope. Your God could have performed a miracle [a la the Red Sea escape from the Egyptians] so that only the revelers and partygoers got swept away, while all the innocent (like babies and kittens) and the Godly (like you) got to watch God's righteous whupass of the guilty like it was a movie.

    But, noooooo. Everybody dies, except 8 people.



    I'm more concerned with you and ScaryJesus and jdHuey. Are you going to foolishly throw away your chance to be saved as they did before the flood?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    You really expect me to worship something that drowned a planet full of cute, fuzzy kittens and small children?

    ReplyDelete
  21. AnonymousApril 4, 2009 at 1:50 AM

    BenYachov:

    It occurred to me that my long metaphor might still fly right over your head, so let me spell it out.

    The point is that we do not come to the question "Does the Judeo-Christian God exist?" from a tabula rasa. We have thousands of years of history, hundreds of precedents of long forgotten and "failed" religions and as many or more still living religions making conflicting metaphysical claims.

    You want us to approach the claims of Judeo-Christian theology as if it were something novel on the scene, and as if it were not the case that you yourself summarily dismiss hundreds of other religions without even examining their claims or reading their books. Why should we, atheists, treat the Judeo-Christian claims any differently from how you treat the claims of the Edda? To us, it's not a matter of Christianity versus "all the other religions" - it's Christianity as just one of all those religions. And all the dead and gone religions are precedents, telling us something about the nature of religions and their metaphysical truth claims, and that the real answer was not to be found in any of their books. What reason have we to believe that Christianity is any different? None whatsoever.

    If we want to look for Atlantis, do we read Homer or do we use satellite imaging? If we want to find out how the human moral sense works, do we read the Bible or do we devise experiments in psychology, sociology and neurology with real people?

    For answering questions about how nature works, the Bible just isn't relevant, and therefore a waste of time to read, interpret and quibble over. A book on Leprechauns would do just as well, and criticizing people for not reading up on Leprechauns is, well, I believe you used the word "foolish."

    ReplyDelete
  22. AnonymousApril 4, 2009 at 10:11 AM

    >It occurred to me that my long metaphor might still fly right over your head, so let me spell it out.

    I reply: I got your metaphor it is a veiled plea for a sola empiricist/neo-logical positivist approach to evidence. But it is not relevant to my point that the New Atheists use irrational polemics & take an anti-intellectual approach to religion. BTW what if the dominate sect of Leprechaunists in this hypothetical world claimed Leprechauns had no material properties? Well then a smart A-Leprechaunists would know the only rational polemic of it must be on either logical, philosophical, forensic grounds, etc. Of course the New A-Leprechaunists, being clueless, will still make an empirical case against it(even thought it’s a blatant irrational category mistake) & the regular A-Leprechaunist will roll his eyes while the New A-Leprechaunist continues to make a fool of himself by failing to recognize his error & calling the regular A- Leprechaunist names like “appeaser”.

    Which is why I have a lot of sympathy for Michael Ruse, Thomas Nagel that they must put up with the likes of Richard Dawkins. I know how they feel since as a Theist I feel the same way when certain Evangelists who shall remain nameless try to use the “Bannana Defense”. Oy vey!

    >The point is that we do not come to the question "Does the Judeo-Christian God exist?" from a tabula rasa. We have thousands of years of history, hundreds of precedents of long forgotten and "failed" religions and as many or more still living religions making conflicting metaphysical claims.

    I reply: Well Lamarkian Evolution makes conflicting claims with Darwin & Dawkin’s Neo-Darwinism claims conflicts with atheist evolutionist Stephen Gould’s Quantum Evolutionary claims. By your logic I should then just throw the WHOLE concept of evolution out the window right? I don’t think so.

    >You want us to approach the claims of Judeo-Christian theology as if it were something novel on the scene, and as if it were not the case that you yourself summarily dismiss hundreds of other religions without even examining their claims or reading their books.

    I reply: Of course I haven’t examined all the competing religions or their books BUT my point is if I was going to polemic any SPECIFIC religion or category of religions (i.e. Theistic, Deistic, Pantheistic, Atheistic, Panentheistic, Animistic, Fetishistic etc) then having a fuctional knowledge of it’s warrents, metaphysics & philosophy is a must for the serious rational polemicist. Sophistry may move the ignorant but it is not rational to knock down strawmen & in the end it bites you in the arse.

    >Why should we, atheists, treat the Judeo-Christian claims any differently from how you treat the claims of the Edda? To us, it's not a matter of Christianity versus "all the other religions" - it's Christianity as just one of all those religions.

    I reply: Because if you take it upon yourself to polemic it’s claims you need to make a credible case not a straw man. An ultimate Boeing 747 argument against the Existence of God is an objectively meaningless polemic against ANY classic western Monotheistic or classic Aristotelian Deistic view of God. At best it might show Azathoth doesn’t exist but the Jew, the Christian & the Muslim don’t believe Azathoth exists in the first place so you aren’t proving anything to them they don’t already know.

    This is just common sense.

    >And all the dead and gone religions are precedents, telling us something about the nature of religions and their metaphysical truth claims, and that the real answer was not to be found in any of their books. What reason have we to believe that Christianity is any different? None whatsoever.

    I reply: Rather if I wish to discredit their books I should learn something about how they actually understand them & then formulate a rational strategy based on that KNOWLEGE. You can’t use an anti-fundamentalist polemic against someone who is not a fundamentalist. You can’t discredit Protestant Christianity by attacking the Papacy. Nor can you undermine Catholicism by attacking the so called perspicuity of Scipture.

    In a like manner most New Atheists thanks to the four horsemen are philosophical materialists, naturalists and reductionists.

    But not all those persons who claim the monker “Atheist” profess any of the above so even I realize I must follow my own advice & not treat all Atheists as if they are one thing.

    >If we want to look for Atlantis, do we read Homer or do we use satellite imaging? If we want to find out how the human moral sense works, do we read the Bible or do we devise experiments in psychology, sociology and neurology with real people?

    I reply: Yeh, I can’t for the life of me figure out WHY I should trust my reasonings in an Atheistic Universe. You can’t prove Empirically that only empiricism leads to truth without begging the question. Plantingia’s arguments seem pretty formidable & I haven’t found a convincing defeater for them.

    >For answering questions about how nature works, the Bible just isn't relevant, and therefore a waste of time to read, interpret and quibble over. A book on Leprechauns would do just as well, and criticizing people for not reading up on Leprechauns is, well, I believe you used the word "foolish."

    I reply: Of course Augustine effectively said we shouldn’t interpret science by reading scripture. But rather interpret scripture in harmony with science.

    In the end the problem with the New Atheist Movement is they dogmatically hold Empiricism up as the only meaningful level of proof & they downplay everything else.

    -BenYachov

    ReplyDelete
  23. AnonymousApril 4, 2009 at 10:30 AM

    @adonais

    How hypocritical can you get! You claim you can't be bothered to even study the claims of Christianity. But yet, if Mariano or a commenter comes on here making a claim against atheism, people like you are outraged that he hasn't made reference to every known study and book on the subject since the dawn of recorded history. It's not about whether you believe it or not, it's simply about respecting your opponent. I sure hope you aren't a professional debator. As much as I disagree with Dan Barker, at least I respect the fact that he has done his homework and tried to justify his position, unlike you.

    ReplyDelete
  24. AnonymousApril 4, 2009 at 1:15 PM

    >As much as I disagree with Dan Barker, at least I respect the fact that he has done his homework and tried to justify his position, unlike you.

    I reply: Personally I'm skeptical about the middle part of the above sentence but other then that right on Joe.

    Cheers!:-)
    -BenYachov

    ReplyDelete
  25. AnonymousApril 4, 2009 at 6:30 PM

    BenYachov: jolly nice rant.

    Joe:

    "How hypocritical can you get! You claim you can't be bothered to even study the claims of Christianity."

    Show me where I said that.

    For my part, I have done a fair amount of reading on the topic, and I am not wholly ignorant of what claims the Christians apologists are making.

    The problem is, you can't use the *Bible* to find out whether those claims are true, and therefore its exegesis is completely pointless in that regard.

    "But yet, if Mariano or a commenter comes on here making a claim against atheism, people like you are outraged that he hasn't made reference to every known study and book on the subject since the dawn of recorded history."

    I don't know wtf you are talking about. I may have some other reasons for being outraged with Mariano, but this isn't one of them, and I have displayed no outrage in this thread (yet).

    I replied to BenYachov who suggested that a proper and scholarly exegesis of the Bible is required for evaluating the truth claims of Judeo-Christian metaphysical doctrine - this is simply not true. We have ways to examine hypotheses which no not rely on Bible studies. We can do mass spectroscopy on a consecrated wafer to see what it's really made of; we can do prayer experiments; we can try to detect souls, ghosts, spirits etc.

    If you make the claim (like Ben implied) that those crucial things that would constitute evidence for God might be of an immaterial nature, well then you have taken refuge in a hypothetical realm that is quite safe from refutation, but also safe from credibility and intellectual merit. If something is neither matter nor energy, and we have no way (by theistic definition) of detecting it scientifically, then how can it possibly influence us humans? You see, science detects interactions. For the immaterial aspects of Christian ontology to have any influence on human lives, it has to, at some point, interact with us material humans somehow, and if it interacts with matter then science can detect that indirectly.

    So you see, BenYachov, I do not need to rely on a "sola empiricist/neo-logical positivist" (the correct answer is fruit salad) approach to evidence: if something interacts with us it can be measured, quite without Bible exegesis, and if it doesn't interact with us, well then it probably doesn't exist, or at the very least it has no way of influencing us and hence doesn't fit the bill of yon Christian doctrine.

    You guys are so steeped in the myth that the Bible is relevant that you don't see how worthless it is as a guide to truth about nature. In this regard it is exactly as worthless as the Metamorphosis, The Edda or the Vedas etc. One does not need to be an expert on these texts in order to see the pattern that I described in my metaphor: they are all religions based on mythical stories, none are supported by evidence, and none agree with another on the details. A rational person will know how to interpret this: most likely they're all equally bunk.

    "It's not about whether you believe it or not, it's simply about respecting your opponent."

    I'll let you in on a secret: respect has to be earned. Telling me that I have no basis for making moral judgments, or that I'll burn forever unless I repent and adopt your particular brand of religious doctrine - this quickly shreds any respect I might have once had for Christian apologists.

    ReplyDelete
  26. AnonymousApril 4, 2009 at 7:09 PM

    Let me do a little exegesis of the Courtier's Reply for you both, since that is what this is really all about.

    Yes, we can invest our intellects into the study of imaginary fabrics if we like, and become experts on all their hypothesized properties. But when it is discovered that they actually do not exist, how relevant is this thing that we have been studying, and what high ground do we have to require of others to invest themselves similarly in what is now seen to be a blind alley?

    Again, we're not facing the question of gods or Leprechauns or imaginary fabrics for the fist time. It has all happened before, hundreds of times, and we have it all on tape. Against this background, the conflicting cries of every modern religion is a plea for special treatment; it is the vain hope of your forebears that this time your religious belief is the correct one, carried over to the present. But nothing has changed. We have it all on tape.

    Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  27. AnonymousApril 4, 2009 at 8:28 PM

    >I replied to BenYachov who suggested that a proper and scholarly exegesis of the Bible is required for evaluating the truth claims of Judeo-Christian metaphysical doctrine - this is simply not true.

    I reply: Rather you can't formulate a meaningful rational polemic based on ignorance. This should seem obvious to anyone with an IQ large enough to tie his own shoe.

    If I was going to defend Gould's Quantum view of Evolution over Dawkin's strict Neo-Darwinism(or vice versa) I should at least have more knowledge about the subject of Evolution beyond a mere 3th grade Text book. I would estimate a college level knowledge would suffice. That should not be hard for an Oxford Professor and yet.............


    >We have ways to examine hypotheses which no not rely on Bible studies. We can do mass spectroscopy on a consecrated wafer to see what it's really made of; we can do prayer experiments; we can try to detect souls, ghosts, spirits etc.

    I reply: Except if you had read any Catholic philosophical & or theological treatises on Transubstantiation & on the Aristotelian concepts of Accidents Vs Substance then you would know spectroscopy on a consecrated wafer is about as useful as trying to prove George Washington was the first president with an X-ray machine.

    Why do all New Atheists keep making these category mistakes? Ignorance is not useful in serious polemics. If you want to disbelieve fine. You are right BTW & I don’t in a lot of things & I haven’t investigated them. I don’t deny it BUT I don’t believe in engaging active polemics against it based on ignorance. I wonder why you do? It’s clearly self defeating regardless of what you believe about God.


    >If you make the claim (like Ben implied) that those crucial things that would constitute evidence for God might be of an immaterial nature, well then you have taken refuge in a hypothetical realm that is quite safe from refutation, but also safe from credibility and intellectual merit.

    I reply: Not true but this is irrelevant to your defense of willful ignorance.

    >If something is neither matter nor energy, and we have no way (by theistic definition) of detecting it scientifically, then how can it possibly influence us humans?

    I reply: Talk to a String Theory theorist sometime or read up on Hawkings & his postulations of ImaginaryTime. While you are at it explain to me Dawkin’s belief in a Multiverse & tell me how that is scientific by your neo-logical positivism standard.

    >You see, science detects interactions. For the immaterial aspects of Christian ontology to have any influence on human lives, it has to, at some point, interact with us material humans somehow, and if it interacts with matter then science can detect that indirectly.

    I reply: Rather we can infer the existence of an immaterial thing by using science to show how the immaterial thing is the more likely explanation. An immaterial thing by definition cannot be detected by empirical means. Also this is based on a Philosophy of Science (not science itself) called Methodological naturalism. Well how can I know, using empiricism alone, I must approach scientific investigation using this particular philosophy? Why not Critical rationalism or Instrumentalism?


    >So you see, BenYachov, I do not need to rely on a "sola empiricist/neo-logical positivist" (the correct answer is fruit salad) approach to evidence:

    I reply: Accept THAT IS by definition what you are doing. At least that is how it looks from where I’m sitting.

    >if something interacts with us it can be measured, quite without Bible exegesis, and if it doesn't interact with us, well then it probably doesn't exist, or at the very least it has no way of influencing us and hence doesn't fit the bill of yon Christian doctrine.

    I reply: Now construct an Empirical Scientific experiment to prove the following claim:

    All things that interact with us can be measured.

    Can you measure my thoughts? Or my abstract ideas? Can you break down my brain in a lab & show people my “love for my Children” in a test tube? After all, if I am just matter & energy alone then so is in fact my “love” for my children.

    Yeh good luck with that. A.J. Flew at the height of his Atheism decades before his adopting of Deism abandoned logical positivism since he knew it was self referential.

    -BenYachov

    ReplyDelete
  28. AnonymousApril 4, 2009 at 8:43 PM

    >Yes, we can invest our intellects into the study of imaginary fabrics if we like, and become experts on all their hypothesized properties. But when it is discovered that they actually do not exist, how relevant is this thing that we have been studying, and what high ground do we have to require of others to invest themselves similarly in what is now seen to be a blind alley?

    I reply: It’s relevant if you are of the opinion religion is harmful or something people need to be talked out of believing. You need to make an INFORMED rational criticism otherwise you are setting up a straw men. How is that rational? It simply isn’t.

    OTOH if you don’t care what others believe & don’t wish to believe in anything other than what you believe or don’t believe in then it’s not subjectively relevant to you.

    >Again, we're not facing the question of gods or Leprechauns or imaginary fabrics for the fist time. It has all happened before, hundreds of times, and we have it all on tape.

    I reply: This is not a hard concept. One need not believe in the existence of God to see it’s obvious self-evident rationality & solid logic. The existence of multiple religions is not a positive argument that NONE of them could be true.

    Just as multiple theories of Evolution is not an argument against evolution being true or false.

    If you don’t understand this simple premise there can be no meaningful exchange between us.

    >Against this background, the conflicting cries of every modern religion is a plea for special treatment; it is the vain hope of your forebears that this time your religious belief is the correct one, carried over to the present. But nothing has changed. We have it all on tape.

    I reply: Ditto what I just said.

    -BenYachov

    ReplyDelete
  29. AnonymousApril 4, 2009 at 11:04 PM

    "Rather you can't formulate a meaningful rational polemic based on ignorance."

    Now you're misrepresenting me, and quickly depleting my store of "respect" that Joe was calling for.

    Show me where I said that ignorance is what we base our opposition on.

    I don't reject the Leprechaun hypothesis because I'm ignorant about Leprechauns (which I happily admit that I am) - I reject it because we actually have a great deal of robust and verifiable knowledge of how the world actually works.

    We don't approach the Leprechaun hypothesis in a vacuum; the hypothesis has to coexists with everything else that we have come to know about nature, and that extra-Leperchaunial knowledge plays a crucial part in how we test and evaluate the Leprechaun hypothesis.

    Although I thought I hammered home this point at least twice, you don't seem to get it. And you start throwing insults around about IQ? Joe could learn something about hypocrisy from you.

    "If I was going to defend Gould's Quantum view of Evolution over Dawkin's strict Neo-Darwinism(or vice versa) I should at least have more knowledge about the subject of Evolution beyond a mere 3th grade Text book."

    If you're going to use analogies, try to use valid ones. I told you already, it isn't a case of pitting two very specialized positions against one another on an empty playing field; it's atheism against a cornucopia of pantheons and religions, many of them long dead and buried which were of essentially the same kind as the present ones.

    I thought I hammered home this point, and yet..

    "I reply: Except if you had read any Catholic philosophical & or theological treatises on Transubstantiation & on the Aristotelian concepts of Accidents Vs Substance then you would know spectroscopy on a consecrated wafer is about as useful as trying to prove George Washington was the first president with an X-ray machine."

    Ah, well ain't that dandy. Aristotelian metaphysics has so much going for it. Whatever happened to the "Real Presence"?

    "Why do all New Atheists keep making these category mistakes? "

    If they do, it is probably because theists have a habit of redefining their categories whenever they feel threatened. Or perhaps the addressed the wrong denomination, which holds a different view than the other twenty-five-odd.

    Of course, the one that you subscribe to, that's the correct one.

    "I don’t deny it BUT I don’t believe in engaging active polemics against it based on ignorance. I wonder why you do? "

    As I explained to you above, I don't argue out of ignorance: I argue out of everything that I know about the world which we can demonstrate for ourselves, and which lends little plausibility to the unverifiable religious claims about immaterial beings and influences. It's absurd. How can you pretend to know in so much detail the attributes and characteristics of something whose very existence can't be verified?

    "I reply: Not true but this is irrelevant to your defense of willful ignorance."

    Either you totally misunderstand or you willfully misrepresent. I believe I have pointed out on several occasions above how I am not at all arguing for ignorance, but quite the opposite. There is the fine matter of choosing what to be more educated on: archaic fables, or the way the world actually works.

    "I reply: Talk to a String Theory theorist sometime or read up on Hawkings & his postulations of ImaginaryTime."

    I was reading Hawking in high school. After that I got a degree in physics, and then one in astronomy. I recently wrote a review of Penrose's The Road to Reality, which I would recommend to you.

    Whatever Hawking once speculated about imaginary time, or whatever trouble string theorists may have in turning their theory into something physically relevant, no one in either camp has ever, to my knowledge, claimed that they're proposing anything outside of the matter-energy-spacetime framework of the natural world.

    "While you are at it explain to me Dawkin’s belief in a Multiverse & tell me how that is scientific by your neo-logical positivism standard."

    I don't know what Dawkins's view is, but I can almost guarantee you that it isn't "belief" in a multiverse in the way that you believe in God. The multiverse is at this point a pure speculation, and that's that. We can entertain the notion in order to pursue further research, but pursuing a scientific speculation does not command commitment to the belief that it must be correct. As for "scientific", it is a scientific theory in the sense that it is an extrapolation based on the laws of the universe as we currently understand them, and it may in the future become possible to rule out certain multiverse theories by observation.

    I don't see how this would be in any way analogous to untestable religious claims that are held to be true by fiat and exempt from investigation.

    "Rather we can infer the existence of an immaterial thing by using science to show how the immaterial thing is the more likely explanation."

    I didn't say anything different. But now: show us where this has happened. An immaterial supernatural thing being inferred as the most likely explanation for an observation.

    "An immaterial thing by definition cannot be detected by empirical means."

    Now you're contradicting yourself - a moment ago you said it can be 'inferred". Well this is pretty much what a detection is. The first extrasolar planets were detected indirectly by observing their host stars. "We infer their existence" and "they were detected by this indirect method" are equivalent statements.

    "I reply: Accept THAT IS by definition what you are doing. At least that is how it looks from where I’m sitting."

    *sigh*

    Are you so obsessed with creating labels for people that you can not think about the merit of what is said? I don't have to be a logical positivist to make the observation that theists are unable to support their claims. Nor must I be a neo-militant empirico-darwinian fundamentalist to make the perfectly simple observation that I just did: that if something interacts with the material world, then we stand a chance of detecting it, whether directly or indirectly. It is a perfectly valid question to ask, if you claim that something which does not interact with the matter that we are made of, how that is supposed to have any influence on us, and what your evidence for this claim is.

    "Can you measure my thoughts? Or my abstract ideas?

    We're getting there. Do you ever read any neuroscience, or are you just confident that it's a gap that science will never be able to fill, so you can safely disparage it?

    'Consciousness signature' discovered spanning the brain
    Brain scan reveals memories of where you've been
    'Mind-reading' software could record your dreams

    "After all, if I am just matter & energy alone then so is in fact my “love” for my children. "

    You are certainly matter and energy and the fundamental level, but I never said that's all you are. You're not reading so well today.

    "Yeh good luck with that. A.J. Flew at the height of his Atheism decades before his adopting of Deism abandoned logical positivism since he knew it was self referential."

    Again criticizing me for a view that I do not hold. Can you only debate fictitious people that you've drawn up yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  30. AnonymousApril 4, 2009 at 11:15 PM

    "I reply: It’s relevant if you are of the opinion religion is harmful or something people need to be talked out of believing."

    So with your first exhalation you set up a straw man, since this is a completely different question from whether a god exists or not.

    "You need to make an INFORMED rational criticism otherwise you are setting up a straw men. How is that rational? It simply isn’t."

    How on Earth is the proposition "there most likely does not exist any gods" a straw man?

    Is this some sort of side issue that's of minor relevance to religions?

    "One need not believe in the existence of God to see it’s obvious self-evident rationality & solid logic."

    You're joking, right?

    "The existence of multiple religions is not a positive argument that NONE of them could be true. "

    I never said it was, but neither is the reification of logical possibility.

    The morphology and history of religions, however, it's definitely a clue about something. Ignore it at your peril.

    ReplyDelete
  31. BenYachovApril 5, 2009 at 4:26 AM

    >Now you're misrepresenting me, and quickly depleting my store of "respect" that Joe was calling for.

    I reply: Rather you have made little effort to understand a simple premise I was advocating that you would think a truly rational Atheist would comprehend. You cannot set yourself up as a professional polemicist of a religion (like Richard Dawkins or Dan Barker does) & display a profound ignorance of the subject at hand. Which is why I personally don't listen to Kirk Camron's criticisms of Evolution.


    >Show me where I said that ignorance is what we base our opposition on.

    You are the one who said of my view, as you characterized it, "that a proper and scholarly exegesis of the Bible is required for evaluating the truth claims of Judeo-Christian metaphysical doctrine - this is simply not true."

    If you are denying a responsible scholarly exegesis of the bible is needed to rationally polemic the Bible then how is what you are saying anything different from what jdhuey said QUOTE"don't care to learn the nitty gritty details of Biblical exegesis for the same reasons I don't care to learn all the nitty gritty details of The Koran, The Book of Mormon, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, or The Bhagavad Gita"?END QUOTE

    This is a defense of ignorance. Plain & simple.

    Do you or do you not agree with jdhuey? It's not hard buddy.

    You also said "I was in no position...to require of the skeptic to become as versed in the lore as you are, whether it be Leprechauns or Jehovah; neither hypothesis gets special treatment."

    Again a defense of ignorance & a clear rejection of competence.

    >I don't reject the Leprechaun hypothesis because I'm ignorant about Leprechauns (which I happily admit that I am) - I reject it because we actually have a great deal of robust and verifiable knowledge of how the world actually works.

    I reply: You are beyond clueless. I'm clearly not arguing the validity of a Leprechaun hypothesis. Rather I was pointing out how foolish Richard Dawkins' excuses were for his ignorance of philosophy, metaphysics & theology by compairing it to ignorance of Leprechauns. I don't take anti-Leprechaun polemics seriously since nobody over fives believes in them. However in a hypothetical world where Leprechauns where the dominate religion that guides civiliization I would take it seriously enough if I rejected it & wanted to polemic it.


    >Although I thought I hammered home this point at least twice, you don't seem to get it. And you start throwing insults around about IQ? Joe could learn something about hypocrisy from you.

    I reply: Your points are meaningless if you demand an empirical standard for what might be an immaterial belief system. I don’t see Quentin Smith making foolish Boeing 747 arguments against Theism. He like Thomas Nagel knows better. Quentin Smith has the common sense to offer philosophical polemics against Theistic claims. He disserves respect for that. Dawkins & the advocates of sola empiricism disserve nothing but ridicule.

    >If you're going to use analogies, try to use valid ones. I told you already, it isn't a case of pitting two very specialized positions against one another on an empty playing field; it's atheism against a cornucopia of pantheons and religions, many of them long dead and buried which were of essentially the same kind as the present ones.

    I reply: Clearly it is impossible to reason with a Fundamentalist regardless if they believe in God or not. Catagorically I reject your implied fundamentalist dogma that all cornucopia of pantheons and religions are metaphysically & philosophically equivalent. You have not proven that is the case. Also to deny your dogma DOES NOT REQUIRE a belief in God or any non-Atheist metaphysical position.

    It's not hard buddy.

    >Ah, well ain't that dandy. Aristotelian metaphysics has so much going for it. Whatever happened to the "Real Presence"?

    I reply: Here is an example of ignorance. A first year seminarian would know the part Aristotelian metaphysics played in formulating a working explanation of the Real Presence according to the doctrine of transubstantiation. He would also know Aristotle defined the term “substance” differently than how modern chemistry defines it. Thus like I said placing a Eucharist under a spectrograph is the same as trying to use an x-ray to prove Washington was the first president.

    >If they do, it is probably because theists have a habit of redefining their categories whenever they feel threatened.

    I reply: Not in my experience. It’s usually because the New Atheist is too lazy to do simple book learning.

    >Or perhaps the addressed the wrong denomination, which holds a different view than the other twenty-five-odd.

    I reply: That would be forgivable if only New Atheists would learn from their mistakes.

    >As I explained to you above, I don't argue out of ignorance: I argue out of everything that I know about the world which we can demonstrate for ourselves,

    I reply: Yet Quentin Smith can formulate a philosophical & logical argument against theism (like claiming an A-temporal Deity couldn’t interact with a Temporal reality)? Where as you are stuck in your narrow fundamentalist sola empiricism/neo-logical positivism & might I add Scientism. So you can’t make a meaningful argument.

    >Whatever Hawking once speculated about imaginary time, or whatever trouble string theorists may have in turning their theory into something physically relevant, no one in either camp has ever, to my knowledge, claimed that they're proposing anything outside of the matter-energy-spacetime framework of the natural world.

    I reply: Well that is debatable since matter-energy-spacetime began at the Big Bang & outside of that is clearly outside the framework of the natural world.

    >I don't see how this would be in any way analogous to untestable religious claims that are held to be true by fiat and exempt from investigation.

    I reply: I never said religious claims where un-testable or exempt from investigation. Now who setting up the straw man? I am advocating the proper categories be recognized.

    >I didn't say anything different. But now: show us where this has happened. An immaterial supernatural thing being inferred as the most likely explanation for an observation.

    I reply: Big Bang for one? Hello? Have you NOT been paying attention to the Atheist vs Theist debate?

    >Now you're contradicting yourself - a moment ago you said it can be 'inferred".

    I reply: I’m thinking philosophically & in philosophical categories. You insist on thinking in purely empirical naturalistic terms. That is why we are talking past each other.

    >Well this is pretty much what a detection is. The first extrasolar planets were detected indirectly by observing their host stars. "We infer their existence" and "they were detected by this indirect method" are equivalent statements.

    I reply: Category mistake! Planets are material objects not immaterial ones. I can build a spaceship & travel to those planets & observe them directly.

    An immaterial thing cannot be observed directly.

     Are you so obsessed with creating labels for people that you can not think about the merit of what is said?

    I reply: Excuse me? This is all you have been doing to me since we began. Your hypocrisy clearly knows no bounds.

    >I don't have to be a logical positivist to make the observation that theists are unable to support their claims.

    I reply: This is a meaningless generalization unless you make a specific charge & argue it by the correct means within the correct category. For example Quentin Smith “a-temporal Theistic God can’t interact within a temporal universe”. That is an Intelligent challenge to the faith vs “a spectrograph of the Eucharist to detect the real presence” which is a clear category mistake & ignorant nonsense.



    >Nor must I be a neo-militant empirico-darwinian fundamentalist to make the perfectly simple observation that I just did: that if something interacts with the material world, then we stand a chance of detecting it, whether directly or indirectly. It is a perfectly valid question to ask, if you claim that something which does not interact with the matter that we are made of, how that is supposed to have any influence on us, and what your evidence for this claim is.

    I reply: So what you are really saying is you don’t have to be an empiricist or a metaphysical naturalist to demand empiricism & naturalism be the sole criteria by which we learn truth?

    You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.

    >Again criticizing me for a view that I do not hold. Can you only debate fictitious people that you've drawn up yourself?

    I reply: You should ask yourself that question.

    >How on Earth is the proposition "there most likely does not exist any gods" a straw man?

    I reply: It assumes all “gods” in all religions are essentially in the same category. They are not. Zeus is a temperal andropomorphic super-being with parts & passions. YHWH OTOH is non-andropomorphic, A-temporal, Eternal Being without parts or passion.
    Of course if Zeus exists then YHWH must not exist & Vice versa.

    One does not have to believe in any gods to know that it is wrong headed to put them all in the same category if one wishes to make a credible case against any particular ones.

    ReplyDelete
  32. BenYachovApril 5, 2009 at 11:16 AM

    >I don't know what Dawkins's view is, but I can almost guarantee you that it isn't "belief" in a multiverse in the way that you believe in God.

    I reply: How do you know how I believe in God? You have not asked me.

    BTW are you unaware Dawkins was asked if he believed in anything he couldn't prove(it is clear "proof" is understood in context to mean verify empirically)? He said he believed Darwinian natural selection explained all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all "deign. He stated this was his belief. Not speculation.


    >The multiverse is at this point a pure speculation, and that's that. We can entertain the notion in order to pursue further research, but pursuing a scientific speculation does not command commitment to the belief that it must be correct.

    I reply: Well that says something about YOUR personal philosophy. But as we can see from Dawkins one CAN believe something they have no empirical proof for. If they believe there is sufficient reason for it.

    I would say the same thing about God. My conclusions are clearly different from Dawkins.


    >As for "scientific", it is a scientific theory in the sense that it is an extrapolation based on the laws of the universe as we currently understand them, and it may in the future become possible to rule out certain multiverse theories by observation.

    I reply: So what are you saying? We CAN'T believe it until it's empirically proven? We can only speculate? Tell that to Dawkins & his views on Natural selection.


    >I don't see how this would be in any way analogous to untestable religious claims that are held to be true by fiat and exempt from investigation.

    I reply: Well a competent Atheist polemicist would know that a spectrograph of the Eucharist to detect evidence for the Real Presence would only be a valid polemical tool against the "Real Presence" if Catholics believed the Accidents or Properties of Bread where changed along with the Substance. So it’s a waste of time.

    Also a competent Atheist would correctly conclude if he could make a convincing philosophical or logical argument against the Existence of the Theistic God then transubstantiation becomes moot.

    It’s not hard buddy.

    ReplyDelete
  33. jdhueyApril 5, 2009 at 12:56 PM

    In defense of willful ignorance

    It is simply physically impossible to become an expert in all fields of study - there has been just too much information gathered over the years. Some of those fields of knowledge have an immense amount of information embodied in them and have tremendous amount of influence in the world we live in - they are also complete bunk. You do not need to know all the intricacies of producing an astrological chart in order to know that astrology is a crock. You do not need to know the formulas for each and ever homeopathic nostrum to know that they are just placebos. You do not need to study the Book of Mormon in detail to know that it is a fraud. Very very often, a layman's knowledge of a field of knowledge is entirely sufficient.

    Now, I know far far more about the Bible than I do about, say, the Koran but I also know that I'm not an expert on it. So, you will note please, that I was acknowledging that I deemed myself to be too ignorant of Biblical scholarship to form a valid comment on whether Dan Barker's or Mariano's reading of that verse is 'correct'. My point was, simply, that it really didn't matter if Barker was wrong about his choice of verses: there are many others that made his point. The Old Testament depicts a bronze age tribal morality that any modern civilized person should (and does) reject.

    ReplyDelete
  34. ModusoperandiApril 5, 2009 at 2:02 PM

    BenYachov "I reply: Well a competent Atheist polemicist would know that a spectrograph of the Eucharist to detect evidence for the Real Presence would only be a valid polemical tool against the "Real Presence" if Catholics believed the Accidents or Properties of Bread where changed along with the Substance."
    Is it just me, or does that make no sense? It is changed, but it's the same. Wikipedia's page on Real presence says; "The consecrated elements retain the appearance and attributes of bread and wine, but are in reality the actual body and blood of Christ." (it's exactly the same, but it's something else. It's magictastic!™)
    Is A or is not A?

    "So it’s a waste of time."
    Apparently. I tend to see things as being what they are. I've never had bread that was still bread, and indeed if measured is exactly the same in every way, but was also people. Granted, I am an outsider, but that sounds nutty.

    ReplyDelete
  35. BenYachovApril 5, 2009 at 2:12 PM

    >Is it just me, or does that make no sense?

    I reply: It's clearly you.

    >It is changed, but it's the same.

    I reply: The Substance has changed not the Accidents. The Accidents remain the same but not the substance. If you are ignorant of the Aristotelian distinction between Substance & Accident then naturally this will make no sense to you.

    >Wikipedia's page on Real presence says; "The consecrated elements retain the appearance and attributes of bread and wine, but are in reality the actual body and blood of Christ." (it's exactly the same, but it's something else. It's magictastic!™)
    Is A or is not A?

    I reply: As plainly stated the Wikipedia is right for once. The Substance of the bread is no longer A but B. The Accidents/Properties of the Eucharists are that of bread.

    I read that Einstein was in fact fascinated by the concept of a Substance without an Accident or Accidents without their corresponding Substance. He used to discuss the matter with Priests all the time. Not that he believed obviously by he found the concept interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  36. BenYachovApril 5, 2009 at 2:38 PM

    >It is simply physically impossible to become an expert in all fields of study - there has been just too much information gathered over the years.

    I reply: Yes but if you are going to set yourself up as a professional polemicist of a particular belief system you should at least display enough education in the subject to be competent.

    Clearly anyone who argues Deuteronomy 21:10-14 authorizes rape is not competent in the field of biblical study or exegesis. They don't need multi PhD's in Near East studies, Anthropology, philosophy, or sociology.

    A competent knowledge of



    There is absolutely no evidence any Rabbi understood this passage to mean you could force a woman to have sex with you against her will.

    At BEST if you want to find a "contradiction" some Rabbis complained this verse seemed to authorize fornication with Gentile Women which is a sin that in other circumstances can win you a summery death penalty.

    But others Rabbis like the great RABBAN argued that marriage was implied & no force to marry against the woman's will was to be done.

    >Some of those fields of knowledge have an immense amount of information embodied in them and have tremendous amount of influence in the world we live in - they are also complete bunk.

    I reply: True but if you want the followers of this "bunk" to take your criticisms seriously you should at least have a competent knowledge of that field.

    Adonis is right in that if a religion or philosophy are specifically making clearly EMPIRICAL claims then naturally they stand or fall on empirical investigation. But not every truth is Empirical.


    >You do not need to study the Book of Mormon in detail to know that it is a fraud.

    I reply: Well the Mormons make claims that can be disputed by Pre-columbian archeology. The Bible doesn't contradict near eastern archeology.

    >Very very often, a layman's knowledge of a field of knowledge is entirely sufficient.

    I reply: Then lay critics of the Bible should be humble enough to know their limits. I don't believe in the Koran. But I saw a criticism of it on Jihad Watch I thought was bogus.

    >Now, I know far far more about the Bible than I do about, say, the Koran but I also know that I'm not an expert on it. So, you will note please, that I was acknowledging that I deemed myself to be too ignorant of Biblical scholarship to form a valid comment on whether Dan Barker's or Mariano's reading of that verse is 'correct'.

    I reply: Then you are a wise man by the standards of Socrates.

    > My point was, simply, that it really didn't matter if Barker was wrong about his choice of verses: there are many others that made his point. The Old Testament depicts a bronze age tribal morality that any modern civilized person should (and does) reject.

    I reply: I'm afraid it does matter if you wish to make a credible claim against the Bible being true & convince the rest of us misguided Christian & Jewish Theists to become Atheists.

    One does not need to believe in God to see the truth I'm speaking.

    ReplyDelete
  37. BenYachovApril 5, 2009 at 2:42 PM

    Wife distracted me so I left sentence unfinished.

    edit:Clearly anyone who argues Deuteronomy 21:10-14 authorizes rape is not competent in the field of biblical study or exegesis. They don't need multi PhD's in Near East studies, Anthropology, philosophy, or sociology.

    A competent knowledge of THE SUBJECT IS NEEDED.

    Now I have work to do.

    ReplyDelete
  38. AnonymousApril 5, 2009 at 8:16 PM

    "If you are denying a responsible scholarly exegesis of the bible is needed to rationally polemic the Bible"

    You are completely missing the point, which, at this stage, is rather amazing.

    I am not even attempting to polemicize the Bible; I'm addressing it's claims, as defended by its apologists, the central claim being that a god exists who created everything.

    You can't use the Bible as evidence for the claims of the Bible, you should know that. One doesn't need to be a Bible scholar to make a list of what the crucial metaphysical claims are, and being a Bible scholar will in no way help you prove the veracity of those claims.

    In my use of the Leprechaun analogy, it shouldn't have escaped you that it was strictly the existence of Leprechauns that was the point of inquiry?

    "Do you or do you not agree with jdhuey? It's not hard buddy."

    I agree with jdhuey, I just put it in different words.

    "Again a defense of ignorance & a clear rejection of competence."

    Nice selective quoting. You left out the first part where I said:

    "if your god exists, show us the evidence, or show us how to verify its existence for ourselves. Since you are the expert on your particular flavor of god, if you fail even that, then you are in no position to ascribe intellectual merit to your hypothesis,..."

    You see, what you consider "competence" on Leprechaun lore or Bible exegesis becomes completely worthless if yon Leprechaun or Jehovah does not exist. Such knowledge of the lore, no matter how important and scholarly you feel that it is, has no value in establishing the veracity of the Leprechaun hypothesis, and must therefore be rejected. The one who is really ignorant is the one who has placed all his beliefs into a fable that turns out to have no truth value - and still keeps clinging to that fable.

    The one defending ignorance is you, BenYachov.

    "I reply: You are beyond clueless. I'm clearly not arguing the validity of a Leprechaun hypothesis. Rather I was pointing out how foolish Richard Dawkins' excuses were for his ignorance of philosophy, metaphysics & theology by compairing it to ignorance of Leprechauns. I don't take anti-Leprechaun polemics seriously since nobody over fives believes in them. However in a hypothetical world where Leprechauns where the dominate religion that guides civiliization I would take it seriously enough if I rejected it & wanted to polemic it."

    Now you're just repeating yourself, with added gratuitous insults to boot - this was exactly the initial argument of yours - your appeal to the masses and defense of irrelevant knowledge - that I addressed in my very first post. I'm not going to repeat myself, see above.

    "I reply: Your points are meaningless if you demand an empirical standard for what might be an immaterial belief system."

    No, you can have your silly belief system, and for sure this belief has an effect on people. But the metaphysical claims of the doctrine are veridically worthless if you can not show that it is these that are causing the effect, and not just folk and group psychology.

    "I reply: Clearly it is impossible to reason with a Fundamentalist regardless if they believe in God or not. Catagorically I reject your implied fundamentalist dogma that all cornucopia of pantheons and religions are metaphysically & philosophically equivalent. You have not proven that is the case. Also to deny your dogma DOES NOT REQUIRE a belief in God or any non-Atheist metaphysical position."

    Aside from the gratuitous labelingfest, what kind of straw man is this? Show me where I said that "all cornucopia of pantheons and religions are metaphysically & philosophically equivalent."

    What I said was: "many of them...essentially of the same kind..."

    Nice misrepresentation and straw man there, buddy.

    "I reply: Yet Quentin Smith can formulate a philosophical & logical argument against theism (like claiming an A-temporal Deity couldn’t interact with a Temporal reality)? Where as you are stuck in your narrow fundamentalist sola empiricism/neo-logical positivism & might I add Scientism. So you can’t make a meaningful argument."

    You're just full of it. You haven't been able to address - not even once - the fact that theists are unable to support their claims, and in asking for evidence I am labelled "sola empiricism/neo-logical positivism & might I add Scientism", which of course is bullcrap.

    Show me where I subscribed to "scientism", will you? You keep making these accusations and never once backing them up.

    "I reply: Well that is debatable since matter-energy-spacetime began at the Big Bang & outside of that is clearly outside the framework of the natural world."

    So why did you bring it up? You thought you could bamboozle me with fancy words. Buddy.

    But you incorrectly help yourself to the view that whatever is beyond our horizon is outside of the natural world. There's no reason to assume that it's supernatural just because we can't know what went on.

    "I reply: I never said religious claims where un-testable or exempt from investigation. Now who setting up the straw man? I am advocating the proper categories be recognized."

    Your reading comprehension is appalling. I wasn't accusing you - it's simply a fact of the "immaterial" or "transcendental" definition - one that you supported - that theology has made itself untestable.

    "I reply: Big Bang for one? Hello? Have you NOT been paying attention to the Atheist vs Theist debate?"

    Are you for real? You think that the Big Bang hypothesis has its most likely explanation as a supernatural phenomenon?

    "I reply: Category mistake! Planets are material objects not immaterial ones. I can build a spaceship & travel to those planets & observe them directly."

    No, the mistake is yours. Even when you "observe" something, that information comes to you via immaterial photons that have energy but no mass. In a sense, all observation and detection is indirect - even when you place your hand against a material object, no direct contact is made by the particles in either object, the force is mediated via immaterial electromagnetic fields.

    But this is pearls before swine, you're just masturbating with semantics anyway.

    "I reply: This is a meaningless generalization unless you make a specific charge & argue it by the correct means within the correct category. For example Quentin Smith “a-temporal Theistic God can’t interact within a temporal universe”. That is an Intelligent challenge to the faith vs “a spectrograph of the Eucharist to detect the real presence” which is a clear category mistake & ignorant nonsense."

    Well then, how about the very first sentence of my first reply, would you be so kind as to address it now? Here it is again:

    "If your god exists, show us the evidence, or show us how to verify its existence for ourselves."

    Pretty please, with a cherry on top?

    "I reply: So what you are really saying is you don’t have to be an empiricist or a metaphysical naturalist to demand empiricism & naturalism be the sole criteria by which we learn truth?"

    You're unbelievable.

    According to your model, I suppose I must first commit myself to being an observationist in order to make an observation, and then I must be an interpretationist in order to interpret what that means, and then I must be interrogatist in order to ask people questions,...etc.

    I don't need to commit to any *ism to make a simple observation and ask a simple question. You claim that God exists. As far as I can see, you're unable to demonstrate that. Why? If it is the case that your definition of God does not allow for independent verification, do I really need to take you seriously?

    "I reply: It assumes all “gods” in all religions are essentially in the same category."

    But you mistake the category - what they have in common is their mythological origin and their resistance against independent verification.

    ReplyDelete
  39. AnonymousApril 5, 2009 at 8:38 PM

    "I reply: How do you know how I believe in God? You have not asked me."

    Because you wrote "I'm Catholic" and I happen to be literate.

    You also declared your unconditional belief in God regardless how many tests come up negative:

    "If you somehow proved to me that Papal Infallibility was false THAT would not show the non-existence of God or deny the Truth of Scripture. I would simply become either Eastern Orthodox or maybe Protestant."

    Must be great being a believer, always being able to move the goalposts and being a moving target when the situation becomes untenable.

    "I reply: So what are you saying? We CAN'T believe it until it's empirically proven? We can only speculate? Tell that to Dawkins & his views on Natural selection."

    What are you waffling about now? Are you suggesting that natural selection is empirically on a par with the multiverse hypothesis?

    You also have a problem with the word"belief". There are more kinds of belief than religious belief, which is of the trust/commitment kind. Scientific beliefs are normally concerned only with propositional correctness, with no dimension of commitment or blind trust. This point is something you need to understand: one does not need to commit to a belief, ever. We can hold beliefs about speculative science if we so wish, but accept that they are speculative and temporary and may need to be revised when we learn more.

    "Also a competent Atheist would correctly conclude if he could make a convincing philosophical or logical argument against the Existence of the Theistic God then transubstantiation becomes moot."

    Well, I agree that transubstantiation is moot, but your premise is false. There is simply no way to prove by logic or philosophy that God does not exist, so you're setting up a fake target. But the converse also holds, you can't prove God's existence by logic or philosophy. Which is why we're left with actual observation and experimentation, if we are to gather evidence on the question.

    ReplyDelete
  40. BenYachovApril 6, 2009 at 1:42 AM

    >I am not even attempting to polemicize the Bible; I'm addressing it's claims, as defended by its apologists, the central claim being that a god exists who created everything.

    I reply: Hello it’s the subject of this post? The existence of God can be known by natural reason alone without the authority of the Bible. Aristotle’s philosophy shows us this fact.

     You can't use the Bible as evidence for the claims of the Bible, you should know that One doesn't need to be a Bible scholar to make a list of what the crucial metaphysical claims are, and being a Bible scholar will in no way help you prove the veracity of those claims.

    I reply: I wasn’t dealing with the metaphysical claims of the Bible. Have you not been reading these posts? I’ve been dealing with non-believing persons who make moral claims ABOUT the Bible (like claiming the Bible allows rape) & pointing out that according to the EVIDENCE that is just not true. So deny the existence of God, the resurrection & life after death all you like. Knock yourself out. But making incompetent claims about it’s teaching based on a willful ignorance of historic exegesis is just unreasonable & clearly incompetent.

    This is like Kirk Cameron (& I’m not knocking him as a person/Christian I like him) putting a plastic alligator’s head on a plastic bird’s body & calling it a missing link.
    It’s just silly & willful ignorance. Why is this hard?

    >I agree with jdhuey, I just put it in different words.

    I reply: Well then as far as I’m concerned you are clearly defending ignorance.

    >if your god exists, show us the evidence, or show us how to verify its existence for ourselves. Since you are the expert on your particular flavor of god, if you fail even that, then you are in no position to ascribe intellectual merit to your hypothesis,..."

    I reply: Dude before I decided to post here I’ve read this blog. I’ve seen your name posted in these comments boxes. Are you REALLY trying to tell me you are unfamiliar with the classic proofs for the existence of God? Just pick one, tell us why you find it flawed & we will go from there. Stop being so ambiguous & disingenuous it’s becoming annoying.

    >You see, what you consider "competence" on Leprechaun lore or Bible exegesis becomes completely worthless if yon Leprechaun or Jehovah does not exist.

    I reply: Wow you are just going out of your way to not understand what I’ve been saying here. I think even jdhuey is getting it if I go by his last post. So what is your malfunction?

    It’s simple genius. U wish to polemic a view YOU KNOW OR BELIEVE IS WRONG. So logic dictates you MUST make a competence criticism of it. You want to claim the Bible teaches a man may overpower a woman & force that woman to have sex with him against her will? Well then you BETTER have the competence to back up your claim or your critique is worthless EVEN IF God doesn’t exist.

    Why is this simple concept so hard for you?

    >Such knowledge of the lore, no matter how important and scholarly you feel that it is, has no value in establishing the veracity of the Leprechaun hypothesis, and must therefore be rejected. The one who is really ignorant is the one who has placed all his beliefs into a fable that turns out to have no truth value - and still keeps clinging to that fable.

    I reply: So you really think one can quote a Bible verse claim it teaches rape, ignore the host of ancient religious scholars who didn’t understand it in that fashion & expect any fair minded person to believe you?

    I don’t believe in the Koran. It’s a false revelation. But on Jihad Watch there are a couple of QUOTES from It the webmaster claims authorizes rape. Well I read those quotes & they seem to teach that a woman is merely obliged to have sex with her husband whenever he asks. That’s not rape. I’m obliged as a Christian Man by the NT to have sex with my wife when she desires (& vice versa). That doesn’t mean the NT is teaching my wife may rape me.

    Now if the guys on Jihad Watch want to convince me the Koran authorizes rape well they will have to show more competence in their understanding of the Koran.

    >The one defending ignorance is you, BenYachov.

    I reply: Whatever you say buddy. You can’t convert a die in the wool faith-head. Even if that faith-head is an Atheist.

    >Now you're just repeating yourself, with added gratuitous insults to boot - this was exactly the initial argument of yours - your appeal to the masses and defense of irrelevant knowledge - that I addressed in my very first post. I'm not going to repeat myself, see above.

    I reply: The “appeal to the masses” was not to say that it was true because a large number of people believed it. It was to show that in that case it would be necessary to take it seriously rather then flippantly. Since it would have a profound effect on one’s life. Leprechaun believers over the age of five are nothing. But Muslisms, Christians and Atheists run governments & build countries. Thus their ACCURATE views are worthy of my time. Ya need to pay attention.



     No, you can have your silly belief system, and for sure this belief has an effect on people. But the metaphysical claims of the doctrine are veridically worthless if you can not show that it is these that are causing the effect, and not just folk and group psychology.

    I reply: Dude you are wonderfully ambiguous. I have no idea what the above paragraph means. Are you talking about actual claims of miracles or the supernatural or internal mystical experience?


    >Aside from the gratuitous labelingfest, what kind of straw man is this? Show me where I said that "all cornucopia of pantheons and religions are metaphysically & philosophically equivalent."

    I reply: I can play this game all night. You said QUOTE” it's atheism against a cornucopia of pantheons and religions, many of them long dead and buried which were of essentially the same kind as the present ones.”. You are making them all equivalent to justify your belief you do not have to know about
    their important distinctions when polemicing.


    >What I said was: "many of them...essentially of the same kind..."

    I reply: Dude you are facing Christians here. I’m by the Grace of God a Catholic Christian. Not all of those other religions are my allies. I refuse to defend polytheism, pantheism, Mormonism, paganism Muhammad as a Prophet etc…


    >Nice misrepresentation and straw man there, buddy.

    I reply: Whatever you say dude.

    >You're just full of it. You haven't been able to address - not even once - the fact that theists are unable to support their claims, and in asking for evidence I am labelled "sola empiricism/neo-logical positivism & might I add Scientism", which of course is bullcrap.

    I reply: If would help if you identified a SPECIFIC claim instead of being so tediously ambiguous.
    If I said “you Atheists are unable to support your claims” & left it at that would you know what I was talking about?

    Also it is a fact that most if not all New Atheist apologists reduce all evidence to the empirical. The SECOND you said we would have to run a consecrated host threw a spectral scanner thingy whatever you tipped your hand. That’s a demand for empirical evidence.


    >Show me where I subscribed to "scientism", will you? You keep making these accusations and never once backing them up.

    I reply: Here is an idea why don’t you plainly tell me what you believe? If you profess “scientism” then just admit it & we can move on. If you don’t then stop making demands for empirical evidence for questions that can only be answered philosophically.

    >So why did you bring it up? You thought you could bamboozle me with fancy words. Buddy.

    I reply: Hello you said QUOTE“If something is neither matter nor energy, and we have no way (by theistic definition) of detecting it scientifically, then how can it possibly influence us humans?END QUOTE I came up with examples of things found in science that have no way to be physically detected to show you the folly of imposing a standard on Theists you don’t impose on the theoretical sciences.


    >But you incorrectly help yourself to the view that whatever is beyond our horizon is outside of the natural world. There's no reason to assume that it's supernatural just because we can't know what went on.

    I reply: The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe. Science works according to the physical laws of our universe but what happens when you go outside the universe where our physical laws don’t exist? If our physical laws don’t apply how can we still be in a natural realm?

    It’s common sense.

    >Your reading comprehension is appalling. I wasn't accusing you - it's simply a fact of the "immaterial" or "transcendental" definition - one that you supported - that theology has made itself untestable.

    I reply: Rather it can’t be verified empirically.

    >Are you for real? You think that the Big Bang hypothesis has its most likely explanation as a supernatural phenomenon?

    I reply: Yes & yes. Sir Fred Hoyle(who was an Atheist) hated Big Bang because it showed the Universe (as it says in the Bible) had a Beginning instead of it being itself Eternal as Einstein tried to do by putting the Fudge Factor into his equations so he could avoid a beginning of the Universe. Also one of the astrophysicists who helped formulate Big Bang was Father Lamaitre. He had no problem with a Beginning.

    You are an astrophysicist & you don’t know this?

    >No, the mistake is yours. Even when you "observe" something, that information comes to you via immaterial photons that have energy but no mass.

    I reply: Materialism is the belief that only matter & the things derived from matter exist. That would include energy. So energy philosophically speaking IS NOT immaterial. Nice try but you remain in error.
    God is not made of energy. If He was he wouldn’t be God.

    >But this is pearls before swine, you're just masturbating with semantics anyway.

    I reply: No I just want to use proper classic definitions so we can clearly define the debate. You seem to want to live in the obscure.

    >If your god exists, show us the evidence, or show us how to verify its existence for ourselves."

    I reply: But you are clearly a materialist & a metaphysical naturalist so you will only except empirical evidence is valid. I already told you to pick an Argument for the Existence of God any argument & tell me why you think it’s off base & we will hash it out.

    Your sophistry is becoming tedious. I reject metaphysical naturalism & materialism. I can’t prove God using methodological naturalism either. That is STILL a category mistake. No proof of the existence of God is done using a methodological naturalism. Any “god” within the Natural Universe is an idol & unworthy of worship.


    > You're unbelievable.

    I reply: I’m quite sure I exist.

    >According to your model, I suppose I must first commit myself to being an observationist in order to make an observation, and then I must be an interpretationist in order to interpret what that means, and then I must be interrogatist in order to ask people questions,...etc.

    I reply: Actually I wasn’t arguing the existence of God. You have been spoiling for a fight for some reason. I was pointing out an invalid argument against the scriptures moral teaching.

    >I don't need to commit to any *ism to make a simple observation and ask a simple question. You claim that God exists. As far as I can see, you're unable to demonstrate that. Why? If it is the case that your definition of God does not allow for independent verification, do I really need to take you seriously?

    I reply: I reject materialism & metaphysical naturalism. Let me turn the tables on you if materialism & metaphysical naturalism are true then show me the empirical evidence of this truth, or show me how to verify it empirically for myself.

    BTW good luck with that.

    If you can’t do this you are employing a double standard. You are asking me to prove empirically my metaphysics yet you are assuming yours without proof. That is not fair.

    >But you mistake the category - what they have in common is their mythological origin and their resistance against independent verification.

    I reply: You are assuming what you have yet to prove. You are begging the question. You are assuming ALL religion is mythological in origin. You are also assuming metaphysical naturalism while calling for an investigation of a Supernatural God based on methodological naturalism. Walking talking category mistake.

    Dude pick an argument for the existence of God or make a philosophical argument for metaphysical naturalism or stop wasting my time.

    >Because you wrote "I'm Catholic" and I happen to be literate.

    I reply: Yet you are ignorant of the contribution Aristotle to the doctrine of the Real Presence? You couldn’t know much.

    >You also declared your unconditional belief in God regardless how many tests come up negative:

    >>"If you somehow proved to me that Papal Infallibility was false THAT would not show the non-existence of God or deny the Truth of Scripture. I would simply become either Eastern Orthodox or maybe Protestant."

    I reply: That’s logically & self-evidently true. Make a philosophical case against God then Scripture, Sola Scriptura & or Papal Infallibility & doctrine in general are self-evidently false.

    >Must be great being a believer, always being able to move the goalposts and being a moving target when the situation becomes untenable.

    I reply: Must be great to be an Atheist being able to beg a question harder then a dog begs for Crispy Treats.

    >What are you waffling about now? Are you suggesting that natural selection is empirically on a par with the multiverse hypothesis?

    I reply: No I’m referring to this.
    http://www.damaris.org/content/content.php?type=5&id=397



    >You also have a problem with the word"belief". There are more kinds of belief than religious belief, which is of the trust/commitment kind.

    I reply: I reject the Dawkinite claim that “Faith” or “Belief” is believing in something without reason or evidence. So does historic Christianity. Even Protestantism.

    >Scientific beliefs are normally concerned only with propositional correctness, with no dimension of commitment or blind trust.

    I reply: Then logically I should not commit to this very claim or blindly trust it.

    >This point is something you need to understand: one does not need to commit to a belief, ever.

    I reply: Then I need not commit to the belief that one does not need to commit to a belief, ever. So I won’t.

    >We can hold beliefs about speculative science if we so wish, but accept that they are speculative and temporary and may need to be revised when we learn more.

    I reply: But we are really arguing philosophy. Your problem is you confuse your philosophies (materialism, metaphysical naturalism) with science. That’s a bad idea.

    >There is simply no way to prove by logic or philosophy that God does not exist, so you're setting up a fake target.

    I reply: How do we know that to be true?

    >But the converse also holds, you can't prove God's existence by logic or philosophy.

    I reply: Yes you can but die in the wood faithheads will never be convinced.

    > Which is why we're left with actual observation and experimentation, if we are to gather evidence on the question.

    I reply: Any you claim you don't believe in Scientism? Kay....What you are doing here is assuming without evidence, logic or proof; methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, & empiricism alone as the sole means to know truth.

    Sorry but THAT is a fake bullet that isn’t even aiming at the target.

    ReplyDelete
  41. AnonymousApril 6, 2009 at 2:29 AM

    "I reply: Hello it’s the subject of this post? The existence of God can be known by natural reason alone without the authority of the Bible. Aristotle’s philosophy shows us this fact."

    Well thanks for informing me of that swiftly, to save me from wasting any more time on you.

    ReplyDelete
  42. BenYachovApril 6, 2009 at 6:03 PM

    The idea that Empirical proof alone is the sole means by which we may know reality cannot itself be proven empirically. Thus the concept is false by it's own standard.

    Of course that does not mean anything we learn empirically must be false.

    ReplyDelete
  43. AnonymousApril 6, 2009 at 8:16 PM

    You keep arguing against a straw man. Show me where, above, I said that empirical analysis is by fiat the only way to know reality. Show me.

    Frankly I'm sick and tired of your baseless accusations. Your reading comprehension is simply terrible. Even where I wrote that "we're left with actual observation and experimentation" - I never said that this is by logical necessity, nor did I say that naturalism and empiricism must necessarily be the sole means to know truth. You keep putting these words in my mouth, as if you are completely unable to deal with what I am actually saying.

    The reason that we are depending on observation and experiments is because we have learned the hard way that this is how we most reliably obtain new knowledge about nature. Aristotle overestimated the powers of deduction. We of course use deductive logic in science, but only as a tool for manipulating already existing information - deduction alone can give no new knowledge. To arrive at true premises, we rely on induction, that is, observation and experiment.

    My statement that we are depending on observation and experiment is itself an empirical conclusion, not a theoretical assertion, and as such it is tentative and may well need to be revised some day. I don't know whether there are other ways of arriving at new knowledge than the scientific ones - but that doesn't give you a free pass to parade your assertions around as if they were evidenced by some mysterious kind of logic you have yet to reveal to us.

    So now, listen very carefully, I will say this only once.

    Even if there are multiple epistemic paradigms for establishing knowledge, none of them is exempt from demonstrating the veracity of claims made within the framework - at least, in those cases where we are concerned with veracity. An assertion by itself simply isn't good enough. This isn't up for debate. Your claim that there exists other ways to knowledge than the scientific ones may well be true, but that doesn't relieve you of the responsibility to demonstrate that your epistemic method is a valid one that yields true statements about nature. If you can't demonstrate this, there is no reason to think that your claims have any truth value whatsoever.

    If it is your claim that Aristotelian logic or metaphysics is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of God, then I think you're out to lunch. But that's just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)