Some people seem to have the strange idea that God really exists for the people who believe in God, but does not exist for atheists. No side is in error, reality is just what you believe.
This makes no sense to me.
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Another argument for atheism- the argument from explanatory vacuity
A redated post.
1) If Billy Graham were to fall ill, many Christians all over the world would pray for his recovery.
2) If Billy were to recover, they would all praise God and credit him with the healing.
3) If Billy were to die, they would say that it was not God’s will for Billy to recover.
4) But if God can be used to explain why something occurs but also why something does not occur, then it really does not explain it at all.
5) But if this is so, the appeal to God explains nothing.
6) If God explains nothing, then we should simply deny God’s existence.
7) Therefore, we should believe that God does not exist.
1) If Billy Graham were to fall ill, many Christians all over the world would pray for his recovery.
2) If Billy were to recover, they would all praise God and credit him with the healing.
3) If Billy were to die, they would say that it was not God’s will for Billy to recover.
4) But if God can be used to explain why something occurs but also why something does not occur, then it really does not explain it at all.
5) But if this is so, the appeal to God explains nothing.
6) If God explains nothing, then we should simply deny God’s existence.
7) Therefore, we should believe that God does not exist.
Christians are gaining in numbers, not atheists
I am redating this post.
According to this report from Inside Catholic.
HT: Bob Prokop
According to this report from Inside Catholic.
HT: Bob Prokop
Dinesh D'Souza on Atheism and the Science Card
I'm a little dubious about using the absence of any scientific argument in the billboard campaign for atheism as evidence for much of anything. But are atheists entitled to assume that science is on their side?
just plain snobbery
A redated post.
Shulamite made a comment about my reference to "just plain snobbery" as as reason why Lewis is not taken seriously amongst philosophers. It reminds me of when I was in my first year of teaching introductory philosophy at the University of Illinois. I informed my students that there were about 18 full-time teachers at the U of I, and as best as I could tell 17 of them were atheists. One student raised his hand and asked "Those atheist teachers, do they think of themselves as the supreme beings?" I didn't answer the way I should have, which would have been to say "well, not all of them."
Shulamite made a comment about my reference to "just plain snobbery" as as reason why Lewis is not taken seriously amongst philosophers. It reminds me of when I was in my first year of teaching introductory philosophy at the University of Illinois. I informed my students that there were about 18 full-time teachers at the U of I, and as best as I could tell 17 of them were atheists. One student raised his hand and asked "Those atheist teachers, do they think of themselves as the supreme beings?" I didn't answer the way I should have, which would have been to say "well, not all of them."
God should have made it obvious, so why didn't He?
That seems to be the theme of Loftus' discussion here. It seems to require a very different world from the world we live in, a world in which religious ambiguity is eliminated.
Such a world, in my view, would eliminate the possibility of real choice, because it would be perfectly obvious, not only that there is a God, but it would also be perfectly obvious what we ought to do. Further, we could know that in doing what we ought to do, we would be rewarded, while if we do what we ought not to do, we would be punished. Who but a complete fool would do what is right?
Such a world, in my view, would eliminate the possibility of real choice, because it would be perfectly obvious, not only that there is a God, but it would also be perfectly obvious what we ought to do. Further, we could know that in doing what we ought to do, we would be rewarded, while if we do what we ought not to do, we would be punished. Who but a complete fool would do what is right?
Atheist tracts?
When I was interviewed for the radio station, the interviewer told me that he goes down to Mill Avenue (one of the main thoroughfares going through Arizona State University) to spread the Gospel, and when he does so he often runs into activists atheists who engage in atheist evangelism there. I asked him if they passed out tracts, and he told me they did.
I always thought the Outsider Test for Faith was eminently tract-able. You could even make it look like the Four Spiritual Laws. Then you could walk up to some unsuspecting believer reading their Bible and ask them "Have you taken the Outsider Test for Faith?"
Remember when atheists used to say they weren't trying to convert anybody?
I always thought the Outsider Test for Faith was eminently tract-able. You could even make it look like the Four Spiritual Laws. Then you could walk up to some unsuspecting believer reading their Bible and ask them "Have you taken the Outsider Test for Faith?"
Remember when atheists used to say they weren't trying to convert anybody?
A conversion to....agnosticism?
Robin Le Poidevin's book is an introduction to agnosticism, in which he defends agnosticism not only against theism, but against the New Atheism. What is interesting is that, a decade or so ago, he wrote a book entitled Arguing for Atheism, which is reviewed by Keith Parsons here.
So, in one more decade.......
HT: Steve Hays.
So, in one more decade.......
HT: Steve Hays.
Always be prepared to give a reason for the atheism that is in you
There is some discussion on Christian CADRE on whether atheists are closed-minded and angry. Here is my response:
I have sometimes wished that atheists had some sort of authoritative statement in their writings equivalent to I Pet 3:15, which says "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."
We've all seen people on the internet with Angry Atheist Syndrome, who can't find any room in their minds to acknowledge any point made by Christians, however legitimate it might be. Some people abandon their faith and then go on a crusade against what they once believed in. But that is by no means universal. Blue Devil Knight, a staunch atheist, has a reputation for fair-mindedness on Dangerous Idea. On the other hand, Christians fight dirty, sometimes, too.
All of us get angry from time to time, myself included. I think some people feel angry and betrayed if they were Christians once and then found it all unbelievable. I think the "delusion" rhetoric is also partially to blame.
I have sometimes wished that atheists had some sort of authoritative statement in their writings equivalent to I Pet 3:15, which says "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."
We've all seen people on the internet with Angry Atheist Syndrome, who can't find any room in their minds to acknowledge any point made by Christians, however legitimate it might be. Some people abandon their faith and then go on a crusade against what they once believed in. But that is by no means universal. Blue Devil Knight, a staunch atheist, has a reputation for fair-mindedness on Dangerous Idea. On the other hand, Christians fight dirty, sometimes, too.
All of us get angry from time to time, myself included. I think some people feel angry and betrayed if they were Christians once and then found it all unbelievable. I think the "delusion" rhetoric is also partially to blame.
Deconversion, Skepticism, and the intellectual Mount Olympus
As someone who abandoned Christian soteriological exclusivism in 1974, and as someone who has at least universalist sympathies, I can assure you that the fear of hell is not keeping me in the fold. Conversions and deconversions are difficult and life-changing experiences. It's funny, when I talk about Lewis's experience as the most reluctant convert in all England, (you know the passage in Surprised by Joy, surely), people point out quite correctly that however thought-out that experience might have been, it provides no guarantee that he reasoned correctly. And the same observation must be made of your leaving the fold. (Of course, some people go further and say that Lewis was really converted by wishful thinking despite the fact that he said he was accepting something he very much did NOT prefer to be true. And of course, I could use exactly the same tactic on your deconversion.)
I don't think I have a naive view of human cognitive powers. What the sciences tell us is that it is very difficult to be rational. What I deny is that there is some position of "skepticism" that is some intellectual Mount Olympus from which we can escape our tendency toward bias. Leaving the fold doesn't cure it. Getting an Outsider Test diploma doesn't cure it. What we have to do is make a lifelong effort to think well, and that remains difficult whether you are a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or an atheist.
One way of expressing my doubts about the outsider test is just to deny that there really is an outside. There is none. Wherever you go, there you are. We can imagine ourselves having different intellectual predispositions from what we have and then looking at the evidence to see if we would be persuaded by that evidence if we were differently predisposed. That's an interesting and worthwhile procedure, but hardly an experimentum crucis for religious beliefs.
I don't think you even understand the function of the Bayesian models that I use. I would never say, in any non-relative sense, that the Resurrection is 94% probable. I think that rationality is a matter of adjusting our current beliefs based on evidence, and so the Bayesian model just tells you what to do in the light of evidence. It allows me to "map" how people with different fundamental beliefs can be influenced by evidence and can adjust our beliefs in the light of that evidence. It also explains how reasonable people can disagree about religion without either side being open to charges of irrationality. That doesn't look like a game to me. You have a better model? Tell me about it.
I've always been aware of human irrationality. It's just that when atheists tell me that it all lies on the side of the believer, I consider THAT to be psychologically naive.
I don't think I have a naive view of human cognitive powers. What the sciences tell us is that it is very difficult to be rational. What I deny is that there is some position of "skepticism" that is some intellectual Mount Olympus from which we can escape our tendency toward bias. Leaving the fold doesn't cure it. Getting an Outsider Test diploma doesn't cure it. What we have to do is make a lifelong effort to think well, and that remains difficult whether you are a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or an atheist.
One way of expressing my doubts about the outsider test is just to deny that there really is an outside. There is none. Wherever you go, there you are. We can imagine ourselves having different intellectual predispositions from what we have and then looking at the evidence to see if we would be persuaded by that evidence if we were differently predisposed. That's an interesting and worthwhile procedure, but hardly an experimentum crucis for religious beliefs.
I don't think you even understand the function of the Bayesian models that I use. I would never say, in any non-relative sense, that the Resurrection is 94% probable. I think that rationality is a matter of adjusting our current beliefs based on evidence, and so the Bayesian model just tells you what to do in the light of evidence. It allows me to "map" how people with different fundamental beliefs can be influenced by evidence and can adjust our beliefs in the light of that evidence. It also explains how reasonable people can disagree about religion without either side being open to charges of irrationality. That doesn't look like a game to me. You have a better model? Tell me about it.
I've always been aware of human irrationality. It's just that when atheists tell me that it all lies on the side of the believer, I consider THAT to be psychologically naive.
Burden, Burden, who's got the burden
This is Raply McInerny's essay arguing that, contrary to popular opinion, the burden of proof is really on the atheist.
I know Keith Parsons responded to this, and I linked to him earlier. But I would like some responses to this essay, first.
I know Keith Parsons responded to this, and I linked to him earlier. But I would like some responses to this essay, first.
The Outsider Test, Onions, and Inconvenient Truths
The outsider test is kind of like an onion. On the outer layer, there is a legitimate appeal to be fair to opposing views, to counteract bias, etc. At that level it operates as a kind of golden rule for beliefs. So it is sometimes helpful to imagine yourself as an outsider to your religion, treating it with the same kind of skepticism with which you treat other religion.
But if it is restricted to religions, then people who are not within a religion get an automatic pass, since it isn't hard for an atheist to say he is just as skeptical of Christianity as of Islam, since he believes both to be false and delusional. Should atheism get a free pass here? I know a lot of Christians who work very hard at coming to terms with the "inconvenient truths" for the Christian belief system. If you go to a Society of Christian Philosophers meeting, the best-attended session is always the session on the problem of evil. And then I see atheists treating their own view like a slam-dunk, as if there are no inconvenient truths for their world-view. You get the argument that their position is different because it is a non-belief, rather like not collecting stamps. You get the argument that allegiance to science somehow gives them a free pass. It is like pulling teeth to get some people to realize that confirmation bias doesn't stop once you go out the church door and shake the dust off your feet.
And, you get the argument that we can judge who has "really" taken the outsider test, based on whether the one claiming to take the test has reached the same conclusions about religion that the atheist has reached. They say, "This is the conclusion I have reached, I consider it to be true, so if someone comes to an opposing position, it MUST be because of insider bias, of a failure to REALLY take the outsider test." This in the area of biblical scholarship, where there is little consensus, and a lot of presuppositional issues to deal with as well as evidential issues. Here Tim McGrew's distinction between the heuristic and diagnostic uses of the outsider test is important. It isn't the test I object to as the way it ends up being construed, and the idea that atheists can look at their own answer key to test whether someone has really taken the test or not.
I have never seen an overall superiority of atheists to theists in the area of maintaining that constant struggle to come to terms with the inconvenient truths for their own philosophies. If anything, it has always looked to be to be the other way around.
I realize this is not really an answer to the specifics of Arizona Atheists's response to me. I will get to that, I hope, in the next day or two.
But if it is restricted to religions, then people who are not within a religion get an automatic pass, since it isn't hard for an atheist to say he is just as skeptical of Christianity as of Islam, since he believes both to be false and delusional. Should atheism get a free pass here? I know a lot of Christians who work very hard at coming to terms with the "inconvenient truths" for the Christian belief system. If you go to a Society of Christian Philosophers meeting, the best-attended session is always the session on the problem of evil. And then I see atheists treating their own view like a slam-dunk, as if there are no inconvenient truths for their world-view. You get the argument that their position is different because it is a non-belief, rather like not collecting stamps. You get the argument that allegiance to science somehow gives them a free pass. It is like pulling teeth to get some people to realize that confirmation bias doesn't stop once you go out the church door and shake the dust off your feet.
And, you get the argument that we can judge who has "really" taken the outsider test, based on whether the one claiming to take the test has reached the same conclusions about religion that the atheist has reached. They say, "This is the conclusion I have reached, I consider it to be true, so if someone comes to an opposing position, it MUST be because of insider bias, of a failure to REALLY take the outsider test." This in the area of biblical scholarship, where there is little consensus, and a lot of presuppositional issues to deal with as well as evidential issues. Here Tim McGrew's distinction between the heuristic and diagnostic uses of the outsider test is important. It isn't the test I object to as the way it ends up being construed, and the idea that atheists can look at their own answer key to test whether someone has really taken the test or not.
I have never seen an overall superiority of atheists to theists in the area of maintaining that constant struggle to come to terms with the inconvenient truths for their own philosophies. If anything, it has always looked to be to be the other way around.
I realize this is not really an answer to the specifics of Arizona Atheists's response to me. I will get to that, I hope, in the next day or two.
A Reply from Arizona Atheist
After some confusion about what website I was talking about, Arizona Atheist has finally responded to my arguments concerning the outsider test for faith. I am to busy and the moment to provide a response, but if someone wants a crack at it, they can certainly be my guest. I should say something back in a few days. He should certainly be credited with providing some serious dialogue on the matter.
God, the external world, and the burden of proof
Atheist: I'm not making a claim that something exists. You are. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
VR: I claim that the physical world exists. You deny it, and say that it is an illusion. Gosh, it looks like I've got the burden of proof. What am I going to do? Kick a stone?
VR: I claim that the physical world exists. You deny it, and say that it is an illusion. Gosh, it looks like I've got the burden of proof. What am I going to do? Kick a stone?
C. S. Lewis's Spirits in Bondage
This is a pdf of Lewis's early poems, which he titled Spirits in Bondage. The poem, Ode to a New Year's Day, shows his atheism at the time.
C. S. Lewis was never a real atheist
A redated post.
According to this essay from an online secular humanist site, which indulges extensively in the "horse laugh" fallacy.
This reminds me of something. Oh I know. Those Christians who say that if you deconvert, you never were a Christian to begin with.
According to this essay from an online secular humanist site, which indulges extensively in the "horse laugh" fallacy.
This reminds me of something. Oh I know. Those Christians who say that if you deconvert, you never were a Christian to begin with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
