Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 260 of 477 (559074)
05-06-2010 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Pauline
05-05-2010 11:32 PM


Re: A farce by any other name ...
DA writes:
...
How can we agree that the scientific method is useless? It abolished smallpox, it put men on the moon, and it is the reason why we have computers that can communicate over the Internet. We couldn't even be having this discussion if not for the fact that the scientific method totally kicks ass.
... If there is one, just one, atheist out there who honestly, and willingly agrees that we should not and cannot apply the scientific method to understand the supernatural, I might continue my side of discussion.
But you see, that's not what you were asking. At least not consistently. Instead, it looked like you were conducting a kind of "bait and switch" on us, asking a reasonable question and then substituting it with a completely unreasonable one. Since far too many of us have encountered far too many Christians trying to pull that and far too many other dishonest tricks far too many times, we are very quick to spot any hint that you are trying to do the same.
As a Chinese co-worker once told me: "Never tie your shoe in a watermelon patch." If you're in somebody else's watermelon patch and you stop and reach down to tie your shoe, then it would appear to somebody seeing you that you were stealing a watermelon. IOW, avoid even the appearance of doing something wrong.
As it appears to me, you may have originally posed the question as something like "the scientific method is useless for understanding the supernatural", but the version that I first saw and kept seeing until I had dug back far enough through the verbage was "the scientific method is useless". You see? First you made the question specific by qualifying it as pertaining to the supernatural, but then you made it general by letting to apply to everything. That is the "bait and switch" and that is what we all disagreed with.
Why should we agree that the scientific method is useless? Why would anyone even vaguely familiar with the scientific method agree to such nonsense? Why would you expect us to agree to such a nonsensical question?
Is the scientific method able to deal with the supernatural? No, of course not, because there is no way to observe the supernatural or even detect whether it exists. True, we may be able to form hypotheses, but there is no way to test those hypotheses. Now, if the supernatural were to somehow express itself in the natural world, then the scientific method might be able to detect and examine that (know of any such cases?), but it would still be very difficult to test any hypotheses we would form. Besides, the exercise of "explaining" a phenomenon we don't understand yet as having been caused by the supernatural would be falling into the trap of the false theology of "The God of the Gaps", whose effect is to halt all further scientific examination.
I would be willing to allow that you were not actually attempting to commit a "bait and switch", but rather had just gotten sloppy. Just be aware that sloppiness does have its consequences, as you have observed on this thread.
Now, just what is your point with that question? I've seen you asked that repeatedly, but I never could find a straight answer from you.
Also, you have been asked for an alternative method for understanding the supernatural and how it is supposed to work. Again, I have not seen you answer that question. Evading simple and necessary direct questions is yet another tactic that far too many of us have seen far too many Christians use far too many times. Any doubts as to why our patience has been worn so thin?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Pauline, posted 05-05-2010 11:32 PM Pauline has seen this message but not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 262 of 477 (559115)
05-06-2010 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Pauline
05-03-2010 8:05 PM


Why Not Answer Woodsy's Question?
(my emphasis)
Woodsy; Msg 215 writes:
Dr. Sing; Msg 213 writes:
Here, we are dealing with supernaturalism. What, on the planet, is the point in making it subject to the scientific method? There are other, and more relevant, ways to scrutinize this. But atheists somehow object...I don't get it.
OK, great, lets hear about them! What are these other ways? How are they demonstrated to be reliable?
So, the atheists agree that the scientific method is practically useless when it comes to understanding and verifying things in super-naturalism. Okay.
Let's start with this:
. . .
But did you answer Woodsy's simple, direct, and utterly necessary question? No, you did not. You did not even start to answer it. Made absolutely no attempt to answer it. Instead, you redirected our attention away from that question with an entirely unrelated argument. Why didn't you just answer his question? Or at the very least acknowledge it and offer some kind of explanation why you can't answer it ... or explicitly refuse to answer it with some semblance of an explanation as to why?
No, you stated flat-out that you had something, "other, and more relevant, ways to scrutinize {the supernatural}", and then you completely avoided presenting any further information about those "ways". Like far too many other Christians before you have repeatedly done far too many times. Like creationists will go on and on about all this evidence they have for creation and yet they consistently refuse to present it, making it glaringly obvious that they have no such evidence and that they know it yet persist in falsely claiming that such evidence does exist.
Is that your case? That you really don't have any "other, and more relevant, ways to scrutinize {the supernatural}"? Well then why did you falsely claim that you do? Does this "absolute, universal moral code" of yours, which we know full well prohibits telling falsehoods, not apply in all cases and especially not when a Christian chooses to violate it? How "absolute" is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Pauline, posted 05-03-2010 8:05 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Pauline, posted 05-06-2010 9:11 PM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 266 of 477 (559132)
05-06-2010 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Pauline
05-03-2010 8:05 PM


Let's See ...
Let's start with this:
1. Both atheists and theists will agree that morality is surely a major part in human life. The ability to discern good from evil right and wrong takes precedence for more people than not. (there are more theists than atheists. I do not mean to say that atheists live immoral lives, no. Just, that isn't their main focus in life, as it appears. There are other things, like self, accuracy, science, etc that occupy a much bigger part of their lives.)
2. Obviously, in our world, we do not have a universal moral code that everyone follows. Even if there are laws on paper, and more or less similar among countries, people are imperfect, to say the least, in following them.
3. Yet, we all strive to be moral.
4. We all know, for sure, that man cannot ever reach the moral standard he has set for himself.
5. In light of this, there are two possible ways out of this problem. 1) Forget morality and live your life
2) Submit to an absolute, ultimate moral code
6. The absolute, universal moral code is the moral Code of God. There is no personal preference or bias in following this code.
7. Since man already knows that he is imperfect, and cannot perfectly follow God's moral code (he couldn't even his own!), there has got to be propitiation.
8. That is exactly what the Christian God offers. Propitiation.
OK, let's take a look at that. Point by point, or at least until it starts to unravel at #5 and then completely falls apart thereafter.
1. Both atheists and theists will agree that morality is surely a major part in human life.
Agreed. However, in general atheists have a much healthier and more realistic view of morality than do theists. Atheists will see morality as necessary for people to get along with each other and to work together within a society and they will see moral breaches as being bad because they adversely affect ourselves, other people, and even society itself, which would in turn adversely affect ourselves and other people. Barring those who correctly understand the importance of morality despite their religious training, theists will only see the effects on themselves and on others vaguely, if at all, but rather will see morality as strictly involving their relationship with their god and the only consequences of immorality would involve their own soul and their chances in the afterlife.
The ability to discern good from evil right and wrong takes precedence for more people than not.
This sentence is a bit ambiguous. I will assume that you mean that within a given population, some people will give precedence to said discernment and the rest will not, and that the former group is larger than the latter.
OK, yeah. After all, if most of the people in a society didn't care about good-vs-evil (GvE), right-from-wrong (RfW), then that society would be very sorry shape to the detriment of all.
(there are more theists than atheists.
Irrelevent. Though atheists are gaining, but that is also irrelevent. As for the implication that theists are the ones caring more about GvE/RfW, that is preposterous (AKA, "BS"). A great many atheists are very much concerned with matters of GvE and RfW, as well as with social justice and, in the USA, with the preservation of the Constitution and of our constitutionally-guaranteed liberties, for all citizens' sake, not just for our own. Most of the exceptions, atheists who are not concerned with GvE/RfW, tend to be influenced by theistic teachings and attitudes (eg, "When I was a Christian I was taught that if I didn't believe in God then I'd be completely free to misbehave however I wanted, so ... ").
OTOH, far too many theists are not really concerned about GvE/RfW, but rather are only concerned about abitrary rules that they believe they must follow in order to order to escape their god's wrath and punishment -- no, that is quite obviously not the same thing. Plus, most of the pressure and efforts directed against the Constitution and our constitutionally-guaranteed liberties are from theists, because they believe their religion requires it of them.
I do not mean to say that atheists live immoral lives, no. Just, that isn't their main focus in life, as it appears.
And just where did you look? Bother to spend much time associating with atheists so that you could learn what actually does and does not concern them? I didn't think so.
Of course, we would need to determine just exactly what "their main focus in life" means. Let me assume that you meant by that that one spends a lot of time and conscious thought thinking about GvE/RfW and dwelling on it.
Being normal sociable people, atheists' moral sense and conscience forms the basis for most of their daily lifes. As such, morality is part of their being, akin to walking and breathing, and something that they do without really giving it much conscious thought. It comes into play automatically in every dealing they have with other people and even with non-humans. Doesn't mean that GvE/RfW don't concern them, just that they don't have to exert themselves to think about such matters.
OTOH, theists seem to obsess about such matters, applying far too much conscious thought at it. But they don't do it as a matter of morality, rather in the form of worrying over arbitrary rules and questions/images/fears of/from their dogma. True, they also have morality engrained into them that comes into play on a daily basis -- otherwise they would be sociopaths unable to function within society -- , but they give that true morality short shrift, if they notice it at all, in favor of dogma.
There are other things, like self, accuracy, science, etc that occupy a much bigger part of their lives.)
As discussed directly above, atheists don't have to obsess over questions of dogma and so simply function as normal moral individuals without having to give it much conscious thought. So then, yes, they do have more time think about other things. It's kind of like dancing. Every dance has a basic rhythm and a basic step (except for some, like West Coast Swing, which has several basic steps), plus several moves/steps, lead-and-follow, turns, navigating about the floor in such a manner as to avoid collisions, etc. Actually, it's the leader who has the most to think about; in a salsa teacher's description of Beginner's Hell, she lists 25 things that the leader must do at a minimum, whereas the follow only has 4 things in her list. When you begin, you have 1000 things you have to think about all the time, all at once. But then you learn a few things well enough to no longer have to think about them -- a common term for that is "muscle memory" -- so now you only have 997 things to think about. Then 990, then 940, etc, until you have so much stored in "muscle memory" that you are free to think about so much more. One saying among students is that first come the feet, then the hands, then the body, then finally the styling and musicality. In the beginning you have to work so hard to get the feet and basic rhythm working that you can't even begin to think about arm work or styling or cues in the music. It's only after you can free you mind of the mundane basic things that you free yourself to think about the more interesting parts of dancing. Indeed, it gets to a point where if you start thinking about the basic things you're doing, it completely messes up your dancing -- happens a lot in classes when we review the basics, as every dancer must do.
The theists of whom you speak, the ones obsessing all the time over GvE/RfW, are tying up their minds with a lot of extraneous stuff so that, of course, they don't have much time or energy to think about the more interesting parts of life. Whereas atheists, simply living their lives morally by letting their "moral muscle memory" do its job, don't have to waste their minds or energy with useless dogma and thus are indeed free to think about and explore the more interesting parts of life.
2. Obviously, in our world, we do not have a universal moral code that everyone follows.
Agreed. However, you ignore the fact that no universal moral code exists. It is actually irrelevent whether or not everybody follows any moral code, let alone a hypothetical universal code. Every single moral code -- the real ones, not sets of rules that somebody or a committee sits down and dreams up; please note that moral code of the ancient Hebrews was a real moral code, even though it has since been turned into a set of abitrary rules -- is only relevent within its own society. Yes, there are certain rules that are common to most all moral codes, but that is due to commonalities of human societies because of the common factors of human nature and the manners in which humans interact with each other.
Even if there are laws on paper, and more or less similar among countries, people are imperfect, to say the least, in following them.
True, but really not relevent.
3. Yet, we all strive to be moral.
Of course. We are a social species. Our success, both in individual, social, and species survival and in almost all other human endeavors, depends on our ability to work together in a society. Morality is key to that ability, as well as to keeping those societies intact, healthy, and functional.
The only reason one would not strive to be moral is because of mental/social illness and/or acceptance of religious dogma that teaches that they must not be moral. Such as Christianity teaches and preaches about morality being solely dependent on the existence of their god, even to the point that non-believers are supposed to become immoral. Such a foolish doctrine!
4. We all know, for sure, that man cannot ever reach the moral standard he has set for himself.
Obvious and irrelevent.
But let us take this opportunity to examine what happens when we fail to maintain the moral standard. Keep in mind that all our actions have consequences. Moral actions (real moral actions, not just arbitrary rules), AKA "doing right", tend to have consequences that are beneficial, even if not for all parties. Immoral actions, AKA "doing wrong", will have detrimental consequences. For both atheists and theists alike, the consequences will be the same.
So what does an atheist do after having done wrong? The damage has been done, but he should feel the need to try to repair that damage. Apologies would be forthcoming. At the very least, his conscience would bother him and he would at least try to learn from his mistake and try to a not do that again.
What does a theist do? According to doctrine, all he needs to do is to ask his god for forgiveness and then everything is alright once more. But is it really? The damage has been done and no attempt has been made to try to repair the damage, nor even to offer an apology, nor to try to learn from that mistake.
5. In light of this, there are two possible ways out of this problem.
1) Forget morality and live your life
2) Submit to an absolute, ultimate moral code
Cleaned up that formatting a bit for you.
OK. Bullshit! There are more than just your "two possible ways". This is nothing more than a False Dilemma, which is a deceptive practice employed so much by Christians and creationists that it actually forms the fundamental basis of "creation science", known there as their "two-model approach". You take an issue or question which has several different answers and you ignore all of those answers except for two which you then force your victim ... er, the audience to choose between. Of course, you make one of the choices totally unacceptable so that you then force your victim ... er, -- frak it! victim, because that's what he is -- to accept the answer you choose. And that is bullshit! But then that is the Christianity that we observe being practiced far too much.
From that Wikipedia article:
quote:
False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice ("If you are not with us, you are against us.") But the fallacy can arise simply by accidental omissionpossibly through a form of wishful thinking or ignorancerather than by deliberate deception ("I thought we were friends, but all my friends were at my apartment last night and you weren't there.")
When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.
What about the choice to live one's life morally with submitting an arbitrary authority (your #2)? Or live one's life actively exploring moral issues, including the exploration and comparing of a variety of moral codes? Get 100 atheists together and you will most likely get 100 different answers, none of which would be your #2 and only a few of your #1. This choice that you offer us is completely and utterly false.
It is at this point that your attempted argument starts to unravel.
6. The absolute, universal moral code is the moral Code of God.
Now you're piling bullshit upon bullshit and your entire line of reasoning completely falls apart.
There's a famous single-frame cartoon of two scientists standing in front of a chalk-board covered with formulas on the left side (the initial equations) and on the right (the conclusions) and in the middle is blank except for the words, "a miracle happens". The one scientist tells the other whose work this is, "I think that part needs more work."
Just exactly how did you get from #5 to #6? If any absolute universal moral code were to exist (which it doesn't), whatever makes you think that it would be "the moral Code of God", which we recognize as you saying it's what's contained in the Bible? Simply your dogma and absolutely nothing else. That is what makes this bullshit upon bullshit. You need to give your complete reasoning that took you from #5 (which is already bullshit) to #6.
The moral code given in the Bible is not absolute nor universal. Rather, it was the relative moral code of one ancient society, which was then codified in writing and then much later accepted piecemeal by other societies. It's not "the moral Code of God", but rather yet another moral code created by a society of Man, just like all the others.
Even if we were to grant it the status of "absolute and universal", it's not YHWH's (that's your god's name, in case you didn't know), but rather Bel and Anu's. For a written copy of Hamurabi's Code explicitly credits Bel and Anu with that Law. In comparing Hamurabic Code with Mosaic Law, we find very strong parallels between them, such that it becomes obvious that one was derived from the other. Since Hamurabi predates Moses by several centuries, guess which one is the original source. Hence, you should be praising Bel and Anu for your "absolute and universal moral code", not YHWH.
Since the rest of your post was based on bullshit piled upon bullshit, there's no need to try to wade that too.
BTW, do you observe the Day of Propitiation? Your supposed "absolute and universal moral code" demands that you do upon pain of death. Interesting how Christians can just pick and choose which parts of that "absolute and universal moral code" to follow and which to completely ignore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Pauline, posted 05-03-2010 8:05 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Pauline, posted 05-06-2010 10:33 PM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 270 of 477 (559146)
05-07-2010 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Pauline
05-06-2010 10:33 PM


Re: Let's See ...
Please stand by. I left for dance classes immediately after my last post and just now got home.
Considering how long you made everybody else wait for an answer to a simple, direct, and highly pertinent question, a little patience on your part would be in order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Pauline, posted 05-06-2010 10:33 PM Pauline has seen this message but not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 271 of 477 (559148)
05-07-2010 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Pauline
05-06-2010 9:11 PM


Re: Why Not Answer Woodsy's Question?
There now, was that so difficult? Then why did you completely ignore that same request made by several people? And try to draw us off with a great big red herring for Woodsy's request?
Let's look at that question again (with my emphasis added):
Woodsy; Msg 215 writes:
Dr. Sing; Msg 213 writes:
Here, we are dealing with supernaturalism. What, on the planet, is the point in making it subject to the scientific method? There are other, and more relevant, ways to scrutinize this. But atheists somehow object...I don't get it.
OK, great, lets hear about them! What are these other ways? How are they demonstrated to be reliable?
To which you finally at long last respond with:
Philosophy! Metaphysics, Ethics, Logic, Philosophy of religion.
OK, philosophy, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion would likely deal with the supernatural. But ethics? That would deal with morality, but the supernatural? Sorry, I can't buy that one. You need to show some kind of support for that claim. And logic? Sorry, but logic does not deal with the supernatural. Logic is a tool used by other disciplines, but it does not deal with the supernatural -- unless you're trying to pull the same presuppositional nonsense that sac???? was trying to. No, I do not buy that one at all.
You threw in two extraneous disciplines that do not deal with the supernatural, ethics and logic. Please support their inclusion.
OK, now that you have kind of answered Woodsy's first question, What are these other ways?, what about his second much more pertinent question? How are they demonstrated to be reliable?
Well? How are they demonstrated to be reliable? Or are they at all reliable? You know, that's really been the question all along. And it directly addresses Dr. Adequate's request for some kind of evidence. Science cannot deal with the supernatural, but can those other disciplines really deal with the supernatural either?
Here's the thing about the supernatural: we don't know anything about it; we are incapable of knowing anything about the supernatural. So we made stuff up about the supernatural. Even the supernatural itself is something that we just made up. Sure, several of those things were made up milennia ago, but they were still just made up. So all we have are a number of WAGs ("wild guesses") and a mountain of more guesses based on those WAGs that aren't quite as WA'd as the WAGs they're using as their premises, and analysis and critiques of all those guesses.
So then, how are those disciplines you named (the ones that actually count) demonstrated to be reliable in dealing with the supernatural?
If you want to categorize my argument into one of these, that's ethics. Dealing with morality!
As has already been pointed out to you more than once, that argument of yours was extraneous, having nothing to do with the question you were "replying" to. Which makes your action there ethically questionable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Pauline, posted 05-06-2010 9:11 PM Pauline has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 272 of 477 (559150)
05-07-2010 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Pauline
05-06-2010 8:45 PM


Re: Half a circle... is 180 degrees
First, if that message was intended to be a reply to me, then why were you instead replying to Dr. A?
And please explain what part of "do not tie your shoe in a watermelon patch" that you do not understand. If you are not actually trying to pull a bait-and-switch, then isn't it also in your interest to not give the appearance of pulling one?
Should I write this another 200,000 hundred times? Will you believe me then?
First, it's not a matter of my believing it, but rather a matter of keeping your communication clear and keeping you from causing confusion.
For example, in Message 229, you stated:
If the atheists do not agree that the scientific method is useless, then then is debate is useless.
In his Message 245, Dr. Adequate responded to that with:
How can we agree that the scientific method is useless? It abolished smallpox, it put men on the moon, and it is the reason why we have computers that can communicate over the Internet. We couldn't even be having this discussion if not for the fact that the scientific method totally kicks ass.
Was he replying to your other statements that the scientific method is useless in dealing with the supernatural? No, he was not. Instead, he was replying to your new statement that it's useless for anything. I came along only recently, but he's been part of the discussion all along. By not stating what you intended, you generated confusion. Now, it's in creationists' interest to generate confusion, but if you are interested in honest discussion then you do not want to generate confusion, but rather to eliminate confusion. That is what you want, right?
So, should you have to include that "in dealing with the supernatural" qualifier "another 200,000 hundred times" as per your little tantrum? No, of course not! You only need to include it every time you repeat that statement! In order to avoid causing confusion. Such as the confusion that you had caused Dr. Adequate.
Really, it's so obvious I don't see why it has to be explained to you more than once -- having had to explain it to you even once is one time too many. Now, why do I have this feeling that you still will not understand such a basic and obvious concept as making clear statements so as to prevent confusion and misunderstanding.
Evidence is what he wants. And I assume he means evidence from a physical source of some sort. Something tangible! Something that be tested via experiments...since it seems like what he sees is what he believes and what he doesn't see with his eyes, automatically and dogmatically cannot exist!
Do you see the problem, dw1?
It chokes the discussion.
I don't think that you see the problem, Doc.
I forget Dr. A's religious history, but a lot of atheists used to be theists. They bought completely into all the made-up stuff that religion is based on and that religion continues to dream up. They grew out of it, often through a long gut-wretching process of discovering that none of what they used to believe is true.
Now you're trying to drag them back into theism. Well, you're going to need to offer some damned good reasons for them to drink that kool-aid again! Which is something that you have not offered and that you resist trying to offer.
Are you starting to see the problem, Doc?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Pauline, posted 05-06-2010 8:45 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Pauline, posted 05-08-2010 11:46 PM dwise1 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 296 of 477 (559217)
05-07-2010 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 10:31 AM


Yes PaulK, his evidence would stand up...why? Because in a court of law you don't have to have a piece of "gotcha" evidence or the smoking gun (although it helps if you do). I testify in court every week and the evidence used to indict somebody or to find somebody guilty rarely has a smoking gun piece of evidence. The "case" is built upon mounds of evidence. I've seen suspects found guilty when the prosecution could never produce the BODY!!
Then in Message 285:
And you're shaking your head about the origin of life question....prove it to me then. Can you? With evolution...prove it. You cannot. You will do exactly as I am doing. You will use scientific explanations that we DO KNOW for sure about certain things and extrapolate them to the past and say, "it's logical that this started somehow" but you can't prove it directly.
Back in 1982 was when I first encountered Phillip Johnson when he was one of the people offering his opinion on an episode of Nova. As you may recall, he is a lawyer and he had just written his Darwin on Trial in which he criticized evolution for not meeting courtroom rules of evidence. My reaction was, "What an idiot! Science is a police investigation, not a courtroom procedure!" IOW, he was trying to hold scientific evidence to a standard that clearly did not apply. Science isn't presenting a final case in order to have a decision rendered, but rather it is conducting an on-going investigation, searching for clues, following leads or even hunches, forming and testing and eliminating hypotheses, trying to figure out how to account for and explain what's happening (AKA "theory building").
OTOH, the Christian approach that we see presented is not in the least bit like an investigation to solve a mystery. No, they believe that they have the solution to that mystery and they want a decision to be rendered, immediately. Indeed, the urgent demand for their mark, the target of any proselytizing effort, to make an immediate decision right then and there is a hallmark of their proselytizing technique. As a contrast, compare science education with its explicit goal of not compelling belief, but rather only requiring that the students understand the material, with "creation science" "balanced-treatment" materials compelling belief with their repeated demands that the student make a decision right then and there between their thinly-veiled "generic" Creator and "atheistic evolution" (BTW, the smarter elementary-grade students in such classes end up choosing atheism; Livermore, 1981).
So Christian apologists take the courtroom approach, but is their evidence admissible? To be sure, court trials are mainly the two sides trying to persuade the jury to choose in their favor, which means that it is the more persuasive lawyer who will prevail, not necessarily the truth nor justice -- an imperfect system, but arguable one of the best we can come up with. However, we do try to help the truth along by having standards for the admissibility of the evidence. True, the evidence does not need to be in the form of "smoking gun" physical evidence and testimony does play a major role. But there are still standards for evidence and for testimony. One form of evidence that most certainly is not admissible is "hearsay evidence". Even if you try to testify as to what was said in a telephone conversation, that testimony will be challenged and ruled as hearsay and hence inadmissible. Similarly, if you try to present the written testimony of an anonymous "eyewitness" as evidence, would that be admissible?
Rules of evidence cut both ways. If Christians want their religion to effectively be put on trial (McDowell obviously does, calling it "evidence that demands a verdict"), then rules of evidence must also apply to what they present. Anonymous eyewitnesses? Hearsay evidence? Will that "evidence" really stand up in court? Think long and hard about that, because it should be part of discussion of such evidence.
BTW, Thomas Paine rightfully pointed out something about Revelation. Revelation can be Revelation only to the individuals to whom it was Revealed. But the moment they relate that Revelation to another person, it becomes hearsay. And when that second person relates it to a third, it becomes hearsay upon hearsay. And after two millennia, we end up with hearsay upon hearsay hundreds and thousands of times over. In case you need some perspective, think back to that childhood group game of "Telephone", where you're all in a row and the first person is given a message to whisper to the next, who passes it on, and on, and on until the message gets to the last person; then the last person tells the group the message and then the first person does and everybody can see how much it had changed in the repeated retransmissions. Food for thought.
I started studying "creation science" around 1980 and started discussing it on-line on CompuServe in the late 80's. Even though I had a lot of personal experience with fundamentalism through the "Jesus Freak" movement of circa 1970 (that movement, at least in the Real OC, Calif, marked the start of the explosive growth of Christian fundamentalism), I was repeatedly perplexed by the inexplicable reactions of creationists to the plain truth and by their continued use of utterly false claims that had already been revealed to them as utterly false multiple times (I remember one in particular whose false claim I had so decisively demolished that he just dropped the entire subject, then a few months later I saw him presenting the exact same false claim to a newcomer, so I challenged him and he immediately disappeared again ... and undoubtedly repeated the same offense elsewhere, even though he knew he was deliberately lying, which is a very definite issue I have with Christians).
One day in a Yahoo group forum, I was given an epiphany. A resident creationist had repeated a very lame creationist claim which I soundly refuted and to which I ended by pointing out how lame that claim is and, if they really believe that they have so much irrefutable evidence for creation, then why do they only present such lame claims and arguments that couldn't convince anybody. His reply was that I did not find it convincing because I was not already convinced. Whoa! That revealed to me:

  1. Creationists' concern is not with the truth, but rather with convincing people: convincing others in order to convert them (Christians take creationism classes in order to get "ammo" to use in their street proselytizing; unbeknownst to them, they're being handed blanks) as well as convincing themselves that their beliefs are verified by the evidence (sound familiar?).
  2. It doesn't matter how weak or lame any claim is, if it seems to agree with their beliefs, then they will embrace it eagerly.
  3. Creationists who find those claims so convincing cannot understand why non-creationists do not also find those same lame claims equally convincing. So they then assume that we're "fighting God", etc with equally lame "explanations" that completely miss the mark.
I read McDowell a few decades ago. Like most other such attempts, totally unconvincing. So you must find him convincing because you are already convinced.
Think again and think critically: would his evidence really pass muster?
Finally, there's an interesting event early in my military career (late 1970's) one Sunday or Saturday morning when I was biding my time with a book in the base rec center until a detail I had been assigned to. TV had nothing on; there was some lame "sports" show on in which teams were doing lame stuff like tossing frisbees between seats on an amusement park ride. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, DUMB! Then an "older guy" (still young by current standards) asked if he could change the channel. Oh welcome relief! Until it turned out that he had turned to something even dumber. A televangelist. Now, this is an absolutely true story -- the Army parlance is "I ain't shittin' ye, but ... ":
The televangelist presented a scenario to each individual in the audience. They are a member of a conference consisting of a member of each religion on Earth (for some odd reason, no Catholics or mainstream Christians: the only Christian at the conference is a fundamentalist). Each member of the conference presents the sacred document of his faith. What is your ace in the hole? Your sacred document, the Bible, is The Word of God!
Now mind you, I had been away from fundamentalism for a few years. In the early 70's, we were getting proselytized at so aggressively all the time that we normals just got absolutely sick and tired of it. But when I heard that ludicrously idiotic punchline, my jaw literally dropped in shock that anyone would have actually said something so utterly stupid. Just before burst out loud in laughter, I looked around in the room. Most of the people there had just tuned the entire nonsense out completely and were oblivious. The guy who had turned it on was sitting there in rapt agreement with every word spoken. The TV audience also loved it.
Looking back on it, I realize that it was a case of an incredibly lame argument appearing to be absolutely convincing because the audience was already convinced. The task for you now, is to realize that to those who are not already convinced, such lame claims serve much more convincingly as indictments against Christianity and against any notion that any Christians have at least two neurons to rub together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 10:31 AM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 4:50 PM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 298 of 477 (559220)
05-07-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Percy
05-07-2010 10:44 AM


When Christians sit down with Moslems, Hindus and Buddhists to make their case they find that other religions make equally compelling cases, with the emphasis on "equally compelling."
The Seder, the family meal at Pesach (AKA "Passover"), is a family dinner ritual which uses a Haggadah {*}, a kind of a script, in which each family member is given a role to play. At one point, one of the children is to ask the question which leads into the father telling the story of the Exodus: "Why is this evening so different from all the rest?"
Similarly, we need to ask "why is this one particular religion supposed to be so different from all the rest?" Nor is it an impertinent question asked by atheists, since we repeatedly hear Christians claim that their religion is unique and completely different from all the rest. When they present such claims, then they must be able to present admissible evidence to support their claims.
I also read McDowell and found him unconvincing. Though I was pleasantly surprised one day to see a book by him denouncing and warning against Dominion Theology, the idea of replacing the Constitution of the United States of America with an Old Testament theocracy, a movement that directly inspired the Radical Religious Right of the 1980's. Well, at least he had gotten one thing right.
OBTW, did you know that McDowell's section on evolution was ghost-written by member Glenn R. Morton? While he was still a YEC, of course.
{FOOTNOTE * :
In my Rabbinic Literature class, Rabbi Kalir taught us of two different styles of teaching (not necessarily the standard transliterations):

  1. Khalakhah -- a scholorly analysis of the text or idea in question.
  2. Haggadah -- presenting the teaching in the form of a story

He also gave us some insight into joke-telling at that point. You have the punchline. There are all kinds of ways to lead up to that punchline, but the same punchline is always there.
The term "Haggadah" has in the meantime been adopted by the general Jewish population to only refer to the Seder script.
}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Percy, posted 05-07-2010 10:44 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 300 of 477 (559223)
05-07-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 4:50 PM


As others have already pointed out:
Did you ever read the novel, Shogun? Before I read it, I took a university class in the history of Japan. In the mid 1500's, the "Barbarians from the South", the Portuguese, arrived in Japan. Because the Japanese were not on speaking terms with the Chinese, even though both sides sorely needed/wanted trade with each other, those Barbarians became the middlemen of that trade. During the late 1500's, a private, Nobunaga, had risen up through the ranks to unify Japan and lead her in a war of conquest against Korea, but his lowly origin prevented him for assuming the title of "Generalissimo Who Quelled the Barbarians", Shogun. When he died in 1582, he left Japan to be ruled by his four generals as regents. In 1600, fighting among his regents led to the victory of one, Tokugawa Ieyasu, whose Tokugawa Shogunate ruled from 1600 to the mid-1860's when Admiral Perry opened Japan to the West. A decisive factor in the final battle against his arch-rival, Hideyoshi, as we were taught in class, were about 300 musketeers (samurai armed with muskets, a decidedly Western weapon).
Also in 1600 was the arrival of a Dutch ship to the shores of Japan, along with its English pilot, one William Adams. Adams quickly became a confidant and advisor to Tokugawa Ieyasu and, under the Shogunate became samurai and Tokugawa's trade advisor. It is openly known that Adams, Anjin-sama, was the inspiration for Clavell's character Blackthorne. And that Clavell directly connected him with the training of the musketeers, though I cannot find references connecting Adams to the same.
OK, Clavell's novel was based on actual history and parallels much of that history fairly well. Does that make everything that Clavell had written true?
Imagine any fictional novel which embroils its characters in the midst historical events and even uses actual historical characters. Furthermore, that author maintains the standard of utmost historical accuracy. Does that automatically mean that that author's fictional characters actually existed and did and said exactly what the author has written?
Each piece of evidence needs to stand on its own. No evidence gets to ride on the coattails of other historical references. True, the more individual parts of a narrative that can be corraborated will led more credibility to other parts, but that alone is not proof for those other parts.
Of course, because you are already convinced, you find those "evidences" convincing. But since you are discoursing with those who are not yet convinced, you must set more stringent standards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 4:50 PM Flyer75 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 325 of 477 (559573)
05-10-2010 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by Apothecus
05-10-2010 9:27 AM


Another factor would be theists misidentifying themselves as atheists. These would be theists who use the loophole offered to them by their doctrine, that if they don't believe in God then they are free to do whatever they want guilt-free.
Case in point is a local creationist activist, Bill Morgan, who misidentifies himself as a former atheist; from one of this tracts (my emphasis added):
quote:
Eventually I made it to ninth grade. While in a Biology class, the teacher was teaching us about evolution and placed the same chart {the classic Time-Life ascent of man chart} up on the wall. I still remember it. I sat there and studied that chart for a long time. It was on that very day that I recognized a major conflict existed between what this teacher was saying and what the Bible taught. Should I believe my science teacher, who is teaching man has ascended from ape-like animals, or do I believe mommy, daddy, and that book (the Bible) that says God made man instantly from the dust of the ground?" I reasoned that this teacher is a scientist after all, so this must be valid information.
. . .
In ninth grade I chose to go with the science teacher, and considered myself to be an atheist for about 14 years. I took many more science classes in high school and in college (I am a Mechanical Engineer), and none of these classes changed my beliefs, if anything they reinforced my atheist beliefs.
. . .
Question! Why in 6th grade did I think the drawings were ridiculous, but in 9th grade I believed them?
Was it because I was more intellectual? No. Was it because the Biology teacher explained it so convincingly? Not really. The real reason for my becoming an atheist in 9th grade can be summed up in one word...hormones. In 6th grade I did not have much temptation in my life. Perhaps my biggest sins were a lie here and there, throwing snowballs at the school bus and riding my minibike where I shouldn’t.
But in 9th grade a whole new world opened up to me. The temptation of drinking, drugs and premarital sex presented themselves to me at exactly the same time I was being taught evolution. I knew the Bible said that being drunk and having sex outside of marriage was wrong, but here is my science teacher, telling me the origin of man is completely contradictory to what the Bible taught as the origin of man. I felt excited.....and decided the Theory of Evolution was for me, after all the Bible was scientifically wrong on the very first page!! I considered myself to be an atheist. As an atheist I no longer had to abide by any rules but my own. If I wanted to get drunk, no problem, if I wanted to try to have premarital sex no problem, I now belonged to the evolution "religion" (religion meaning a system of beliefs built on faith) that allowed me to sin without guilt.
First, even though his tract kept claiming that it was evolution that had turned him into an "atheist", we see him admitting his real motives and inadvertantly exposing the real culprit as being his religious training. Also, he told me in an email that even as an "atheist" he prayed to God every single night. That clinched the fact that he was only pretending to himself to be an "atheist"; atheists don't pray to any gods.
I'm sure that Bill Morgan is not the only Christian who has used that same loophole in their doctrine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Apothecus, posted 05-10-2010 9:27 AM Apothecus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024