AcesLucky,

Your posts carry this delightful, frenzied intensity as if you are a hunter who just caught the elusive black puma in a trap. Rest assured, there is no problem. I just began presenting a two minds view of the incarnation which, as I will explain further in my next post, will allow us to have Christ ignorant of certain truths qua humanity while omniscient qua divinity. The other option, which I will also consider in a subsequent post, is called kenoticism. More on that to come.

So take a deep breath and keep reading.

AnAtheist.Net,

Some preliminaries:

There are many grounds to believe "God exists" is true and many grounds to believe "God does not exist" is true. I think the cumulative weight of the former is stronger, whereas you presumably accept the cumulative weight of the latter. If you think there is a ground for theism or for atheism that is sufficient to convince any rational person, you are mistaken. Finally, people are very rarely theists or atheists or Republicans or Darwinists because of one ground or evidence.

With all that said, I have discussed innumerable grounds for the existence of God in the last several months, everything from the information in DNA to Kevin's experiences.

@ RD

I wrote: "it is my understanding that Jesus is supposed to be sin free. In that regard, he is to be infallible."

To which you wrote: "I believe that is mistaken. If you asked six year old Jesus how old the earth was, do you think he would have said 4.6 billion years? Not likely."
--

Not likely??????????? With Certainty! And I can prove it with your own words!

You stated, and I quote:

---
The Greek word "houtos" can be translated "he". The translation makes good sense here since John equates "the Word" with the man Jesus.

John's understanding of word is rooted in Jewish thinking (not surprisingly since he was a Jew). Thus, he is equating Jesus with the creative word by which God made all things in Genesis 1 and Psalm 33:6 in particular.

He is also making the equation knowing that his Greek readers will be thinking of the concept of logos or word in Stoicism as that unifying principle of all things (which the Stoics DID NOT take to be personal).

A rough equivalent for John's claim today might be "The GUT (or Grand Unifying Theory of physics) became flesh..."
---

Take note, my friend: Jesus, according to your own apologetics, is in fact the very "Word" that made all things! (John 1:1-3)


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3 (KJV)

--
The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood.
---

Remember?

Sorry, RD, but if Jesus doesn't know the age of his own creation then we mere mortals are magnitudes smarter than the omniscient.

Are you truly suggesting the Creator doesn't know the age of his own creation? (It's beginning to sound a lot like Apologetics, isn't it?)

In my response to Paul Burnett on December 14, 2009, 6:10PM, I claimed that I coined the phrase “Delusion of Certitude.” I found out I was wrong. I thought I did, but the phrase was used at least as early as in the 1950s. I also noticed that at least one person used it describe the “Law of the Excluded Middle,” which is a form of the incompossibility argument where, if A is true, then B is false and it is impossible for there to be anything between A and B.

RD - "That said, there are a couple different issues. (1) Provide grounds to believe that a given belief is properly basic. (2) Provide grounds to believe that a given belief is true."

Have you done (2)? Because I am interested in (2).

AcesLucky,

"it is my understanding that Jesus is supposed to be sin free. In that regard, he is to be infallible."

I believe that is mistaken. If you asked six year old Jesus how old the earth was, do you think he would have said 4.6 billion years? Not likely.

(More on that in a subsequent post.)

Sorceror, just because something is a "forced move" doesn't mean the belief is rational, still less that it constitutes knowledge, unless you actually hold to a particularist epistemology (which is incompatible with your initial delination of what constitutes proper basicality). In other words, forced move is another way of conceding that your initial stipulations of what constitutes proper basicality is too narrow. Good on you! Revise your definition.

@ RD

Why do I equate fallibility with sin?

Assuming you mean in the case of Jesus, it is my understanding that Jesus is supposed to be sin free. In that regard, he is to be infallible. Do you not agree with this?

Rauser - Based on what you've said, how do you justify your memory beliefs, or your belief that your neighbor is a person rather than a cyborg... or that your sense perception is generally reliable?

Based on logic, there are some assumptions that, while not possible to absolutely prove, are essentially "forced moves". Assuming their converse is effectively sel
f-defeating. As Woody Allen so pithily summed up epistemology: "Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?" I can't prove I'm not a brain in a vat,
for example. On the other hand, if I assumed I was... then what? What would I do differently? The only practical thing to do is assume that my senses have some
correspondence to an external reality, and remain open to inconsistencies or issues. Like, say, optical illusions - I can use a straight-edge to determine tha
t a line that appears bent is actually straight. (Based on a long chain of more fundamental, internally-consistent deductions.) Neurology offers an account
of optical illusions that's consistent with the other evidence available to me.

Almost all the notions you list are open to that. For example, how do I know I'm awake right now as I write this? Because I've trained myself to have lucid dreams. And you know how you do that? You get into the habit of periodically checking throughout the day; "Am I awake or dreaming?" One test that I've found to be consistent is to read something, look away, and then read it again. If you're dreaming, it will have changed. It's not absolute certainty, of course, but it's something that I, "to a very large (but finite) degree, believe to be true", because it's consistent with my experience and with other propositions I've
found to be useful and predictive.

As to the idea that the world "was not created five minutes ago with apparent age", well that's another "forced move", like provisionally trusting sense data. Let's assume it was poofed in five minutes ago. Then what? What should I do differently because of that?

Sorceror,

I'm a fallibilist foundationalist.

"I keep my axioms as limited as possible. Basic rules of logic, pretty much - from which you can get math and reasoning, etc. I only add axioms if it can be shown that the existing set doesn't account for something."

Based on what you've said, how do you justify your memory beliefs, or your belief that your neighbor is a person rather than a cyborg, or that you are awake as you read this, or that the world will not end in five minutes, or that it was not created five minutes ago with apparent age, or that the next person you ask for directions will likely provide correct directions, or that Caesar Augustus lived or that your sense perception is generally reliable?

AcesLucky,

Why do you equate fallibility with sin?

MGT2: "You have to move on from this fantasy test. It does not work."

No, positing explanations that cannot be tested as a matter of principle -- does not work.

Or, it works as well as every other possible explanation that cannot be tested.

It makes no predictions.
It explains nothing.
It cannot be falsified.
It should not be taken seriously.

People who honestly think they are on to something should be handled with kid-gloves in the beginning, but if they simply cannot understand how reality works, eventually you have to break it to them more harshly. Your beliefs about supernatural creatures having an effect on the world (especially ones that you can discover) are indistinguishable from insane blathering.

How can you be skeptical of the leprechauns?

I have my answer -- what's yours?

MGT2: "You can't be serious!"

I suggest you read RD's "On taking people seriously" Dec 06,2009, 10:04AM.

You set me up too perfectly not to say it.

@MGT2

You said:

---
"You missed it, didn't you? It went right over your head. I told you that you could not understand. I told you to ask somebody. But you chose not to and missed it, again."
---

Uh, I asked you!

ConverseAtheist

First a fantasy test, now a game? You can't be serious!

MGT2: "You have to move on from this fantasy test."

Ok, let's play the theologian game. You must be making the argument that my classifying belief that God talks to people and belief in telepathic leprechauns as equally foolish, silly, and unfounded -- is not justified. Can you present a defeater?

ConverseAtheist

"No, you suggested to us that we listen, not ask."

Are you for real? Does every word have to be spelled out for you? Come on!!

ConverseAtheist

I suggest you read RD's last post to you, December 15,2009, 9:50AM. That is good advice. You have to move on from this fantasy test. It does not work.

MGT2: "I told you to ask somebody. But you chose not to and missed it, again."

No, you suggested to us that we listen, not ask.

MGT2: "Maybe you should listen to someone with spiritual discernment."

MGT2: "What you consider foolishness is wiser than any wisdom you can hope to have. Because what you consider foolishness is Godly wisdom beyond your present reach. You cannot comprehend it so you call it foolishness. ConverseAtheist and AcesLucky, you would be the “natural man” in the following scriptures 1 Cor 2:13-14 "These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.""

Want a list of things that I find foolish?
The belief that telepathic leprechauns report to me from anywhere on earth.
The belief that God talks to people.

If you're the defender of "All Foolish Beliefs," go ahead and claim the title for yourself -- I promise I won't argue with the title. If you think those two beliefs are not of the same foolishness, I'd love to hear why.

Could either belief be correct? Sure. If you think one of those beliefs deserves to be considered less foolish than the other, (especially if you want that belief to be taken seriously), you have your work cut out for you.

MGT2: "You CAN NOT understand spiritual things because you do not acknowledge the Spirit of God. So I repeat, from a believer’s point of view, after reading what you say and ask all I can say is that you really do not understand spiritual things."

You, MGT2, cannot understand leprechauns because you do not acknowledge the Spirit of the Leprechauns. So I repeat, from a leprelogian's point of view, you really do not understand leprechaun things.

Is your argument more convincing w/ regard to leprechauns or the Holy Spirit? About the same to me, how about you? You believe in leprechauns now?

MGT2: "The Delusion of Certitude. I define the delusion of certitude as maintaining that one’s position is objectively correct to the exclusion of any contrary evidence, and the denial of the influence of personal belief. Many of those responding to RD suffer from the delusion of certitude."

I've asked you to propose a test that would distinguish our two beliefs on offer -- leprechauns and God. You won't.
I've offered a test -- I wrote a 12 digit number on my wall; and God failed.
If you wrote a 12 digit number on your wall; my leprechauns would fail as bad.
Propose a test that the the worldwide telepathic leprechauns would fail that God would pass. I know, I know. It doesn't work like that, I don't understand spiritual things, you can't test God. I've always been fine with the absolute failure of God and the leprechauns. The part you might not like is that you can't complain that they should not be considered equally foolish unless you give us a way to figure out which is more foolish.

AcesLucky,

You missed it, didn’t you? It went right over your head. I told you that you could not understand. I told you to ask somebody. But you chose not to and missed it, again.

@MGT2

You asked:

---
"And you left the light for the darkness?"
---

No. To right the darkness for the light. (Ain't metaphor great?)


You quoted something that said, "...to save those who believe..."

MGT2, did you ever wonder why in religion belief was more important than wisdom? Because...

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
-- Voltaire


You said:

---
NOTE: What you consider foolishness is wiser than any wisdom you can hope to have. Because what you consider foolishness is Godly wisdom beyond your present reach. You cannot comprehend it so you call it foolishness.
---

Question: If you cannot comprehend it, how do you know it's "Godly wisdom" especially if its foolish? Is Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse foolish? Therefore it's true and is Godly wisdom, right?

Uh,... No!

Gullibility is neither godly nor wisdom. Faith cannot tell the difference.


You said:

---
"NOTE: You CAN NOT understand spiritual things because you do not acknowledge the Spirit of God."
---

Pretending that your statement is true -- which is purely made up; why is it then that you do not understand spiritual things?

Here look, straight from the bible: Genesis 1:14

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"

Suppose that there is a firmament, tell us, please, what "signs" is the bible talking about? Pick one. Any star; and tell us what it is a "sign" of. Surely you acknowledge the Spirit of God and thereby possess this spiritual understanding. Please, do say something inspired. Pick a star and tell us what it is a sign of.

Thanks. This ought to be interesting, as I will be listening to someone with spiritual discernment.

PS: Perhaps you can straighten out those other denominations, too. Clearly their differing interpretations mean they have no Spirit of God to guide them like you have.

@ Rauser

You wrote:

---
"AcesLucky complains that I am seeking to protect my Christian belief, not challenge it."
---

Then you'll accept the challenge to test if the words of the sinless God Jesus are true? (Is that a "yes?")


You wrote:

---
"The problem is not that I'm trying to protect Christian belief somehow but rather that falsification is a high threshold of evidence. It is difficult to falsify any range of beliefs about events two thousand years ago."
---

No it's not. If a person wrote, 2000 years ago, that the entire earth was flooded with water and everybody on earth died as a result, except about eight people, and we have verifiable artifacts from all around the world at that time showing life everywhere continued (never having been bothered by a flood), it would prove unequivocally that the story of the flood was false.

Wouldn't you agree?


You wrote:

---
"As for quoting a range of verses, as with any sentences extracted from a larger work, these come from within an interpretive framework."
---

I sense a side-step. Keeping on track, the ONLY interpretive framework we are currently concerned with is, IS IT TRUE!


You continued:

---
"Do you really think that the verses you assemble reveal that the disciples believed Jesus guaranteed that they could have a flashy new chariot, Armani sandels, and an Egyptian wench just by praying? If you really do believe this, then you're only deluding yourself."
---

Ha! The change of subject! The typical side-step.

RD, I couldn't care less what the disciples thought (and it's not about me); that's not the conversation! The conversation is whether or not the words of Jesus, as repeated in many ways in the bible, ARE TRUE!

Are the words of Jesus true... or are they false?

Why did he repeat himself over and over again if he didn't mean them? He gave example after example of his powers and told how to do it. He gave his word. He made it perfectly clear, without ambiguity.

All I am asking is did he speak the truth?

I cautioned with a clear statement:

"Pay attention to the mental gymnastics you go through to show why these words of Jesus DON'T mean what they say (even though he says it in various places, to different people, at different times [so claiming "context" isn't going to work]). Let's see what you come up with..."

And what did you do? You came up with a different way to claim "context" by exclaiming "interpretive framework!"

Ha! You cannot get yourself to admit the truth. Either what Jesus said (and made perfectly clear) was false OR the narrative concerning Jesus is itself false.

Why won't you admit this outright? You do it on the slide!

You state: "Do you really think that the verses you assemble reveal that the disciples believed Jesus guaranteed that they could have a flashy new chariot, Armani sandels, and an Egyptian wench just by praying?"

Here you are admitting that you won't get stuff "just by praying" as if it's a no-brainer. But the SIGNIFICANCE of your admission is that you won't get stuff by praying in such a fashion as was stated by Jesus! (You omitted that on purpose!)

It's not getting stuff by praying, but having prayers answered according to what Jesus promised! Your Armani example was another attempt to side-step the real issue; having prayers answered according to what was promised by Jesus!

I stated earlier "In apologetics, the game is to make every effort to explain away any fact that would disprove a dogma or denominational interpretation."

Once again you have fulfilled that to perfection. (As I promised I would demonstrate.)

And so I ask you sir, how is it that you believe with all your heart that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse?

(Suddenly the apologetics hat comes off, doesn't it? But for someone else, it goes on. And nothing you say is going to change their faithul belief, is it? Why is that? Same as with you.)

I assure you my friend, your commitment is not to truth but to faith. Unfortunately, faith is epistemically invalid. By the confirmation bias of forcing evidence to fit the belief and discarding or deforming everything else, it is nothing more than pretend.

Rauser - I'm not a coherentist in the philosophical sense. I'm a foundationalist, but with two caveats.

First, I keep my axioms as limited as possible. Basic rules of logic, pretty much - from which you can get math and reasoning, etc. I only add axioms if it can be shown that the existing set doesn't account for something. (For this reason I can't go with God(s) as an axiom - a la Laplace, "I had no need of that hypothesis.")

Second, I accept that even axioms can be disproven. Consider that although Euclidean geometry is more intuitively appealing to humans, Einstein showed that Hyperbolic geometry actually describes the universe better. I guess I would say that human beings don't "know at least one thing", in the sense of absolute certainty. But there are quite a few things we, to a very large (but finite) degree, believe to be true.

Rauser - It's true that Crick was - for a while - worried about the difficulty of abiogenesis (the origin of life from nonliving materials) and proposed, among other candidates, that life might have originated elsewhere and then been transported (possibly deliberately) to Earth. But he acknowledged he'd been overly pessimistic in this 1993 article: http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/7/1/238.pdf

As to Meyer, "Signature in the Cell" apparently wasn't sent to potentially critical reviewers - a bad sign. And I've seen Meyer misuse the term 'information': http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/07/stephen-meyers-honesty-problem.html

Reading his own op-ed ( http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/15/jeffersons_support_for_intelligent_design/ ) he specifically
claims that "DNA functions like a software program. We know that software comes from programmers." This rings extremely hollow to me, since I actually wrote
a simulation that developed new, clever software by mutation plus selection. And I know that information didn't come from me, because several of the developments didn't just surprise me - they actively confused me and I had to spend a fair amount of effort sussing out how they worked: http://ingles.homeunix.net/sofware/minev/intro.html

Look, if you think that believing that leprechauns communicate with people is sillier than believing that God speaks to people today, that's your case to argue. There is zero that you have offered to distinguish the two beliefs -- or any superstitious thinking with believing that God has talked with people.

Let's call
(G): belief that the omniscience creator of the universe talks to people giving them verifiable information that they otherwise could not have.
(L): belief that pervasive non-physical invisible leprechauns report of people giving them verifiable information that they otherwise could not have.

RD: "I have explained the concept of prima facie proper basicality and defeaters as well as a posteriori and a priori approaches to discerning which beliefs are properly basic."

Right, and these concept apply to G and L equally. And you have never demonstrated how a belief as stupid as L can be defeated by your tests -- which is fine. You have a series of intellectual hoops a critic has to go through before deriding belief in God, the same series of hoops that you cannot navigate to criticize L. What should we conclude from this? That G and L are both equally unassailable beliefs in the ways you consider valid criticism of ideas? Fine, I'll let you have that, too. That implies both beliefs have equal credibility to an outsider.

If you propose an intellectual or argumentative hurdle that one has to overcome to demonstrate that a particular belief is mistaken/silly/wrong, but also shields an infinite list of absolutely insane beliefs from criticism, don't get upset when this fact is pointed out.

RD: "I also pointed out that there is no neutral position to decide which beliefs are prima facie properly basic and so we make those decisions relative to our epistemic communities."

Are you arguing that not just believing that 'God can talk to people,' but believing that 'God told your friend that his wife was pregnant through a three year old telling him that a baby in the bath with his mother' is a properly basic belief?

RD: "I also pointed out that people tend to treat as "inexcusably mysterious or strange" those sources of belief formation that they themselves do not accept. The idealist finds an external world a strange belief, the occasionalist finds causation a strange belief, and the atheist find beliefs about God likewise inexcusably strange."

And the theologian finds beliefs about leprechauns inexcusably strange -- and yet you doubt the leprechauns!

I don't remember, did you ever address whether an atheist believing "that every theist who has ever 'heard God talk to him' is deluded and dangerous" is properly basic?

AnAtheist.Net observes:

"If the point of those posts and comments were not, after all, to convince other epistemic communities of the proper basicality of your religious beliefs then you were just spinning your own wheels."

Which posts? My incarnation series or all my posts?

First off, not all religious beliefs are properly basic. (By the same token, not all beliefs of reason or sense perception are properly basic.)

That said, there are a couple different issues. (1) Provide grounds to believe that a given belief is properly basic. (2) Provide grounds to believe that a given belief is true.

What I am seeking to do here is discuss logical problems with the incarnation with the end of seeking a coherent account of incarnation. If such an account can be constructed then it would remove one stumbling block to Christian faith.

Sorceror,

"I can't get behind "properly basic" beliefs. I'm much more of a "fallible foundationalism" kind of guy."

I don't know what you mean by "get behind" but if you are a fallible foundationalist, and you believe that human beings know at least one thing, then there is at least one properly basic belief.

Perhaps you are actually a coherentist qua noetic structure?

Anyway, I agree the qualities you identify as helpful in seeking the truth generally. But we should be careful not to stipulate erroneously that a limited set of methods are the only ways to gain rational beliefs or knowledge.

Sorceror,

There's no problem explaining the origin of biological information. Yeah, that's why Francis Crick proposed his panspermia thesis. I highly recommend Meyer's "Signature in the Cell". Whether or not you agree with ID, he states the problem well.

The silence is almost deafening.

"I also pointed out that there is no neutral position to decide which beliefs are prima facie properly basic and so we make those decisions relative to our epistemic communities."

Well, perhaps there is the crux of it. If the point of those posts and comments were not, after all, to convince other epistemic communities of the proper basicality of your religious beliefs then you were just spinning your own wheels.

Rauser - I can't get behind "properly basic" beliefs. I'm much more of a "fallible foundationalism" kind of guy. I don't know if absolute truth is possible about non-mathematical propositions. What I look for instead is consistency, usefulness, predictive power, and so forth. Proving something true is vastly harder than proving something false, so I - like science in general - tend to look for ways to prove things wrong. Propositions that survive a lot of that end up having a great deal of 'consistency, usefulness, predictive power, and so forth.'

Rauser - you assert, "one of those major controversies: the origin of biological information".

Nope. That is not a controversy in evolutionary circles at all. Mutations of various kinds add information all the time. (Based on the mathematics of information theory, it could hardly be otherwise.) Natural selection then filters this new information.

The people who disagree with this don't use any coherent definition of information. Every single time I've looked into it, they've made basic mistakes in mathematics or reasoning.

There are certainly controversies in evolution; the pace of speciation, the relative importance of developmental pathways, the "evolution of evolvability", etc. "The origin of biological information" is not among them.

ConverseAtheist,

As you now present to MGT2 your "compare God with the Lucky Charms mascot" method I am compelled to quote the summary of our extended discussion that I just provided in this thread. It is sad that you cannot even engage these arguments, and thus continue to emulate the kettle's obsessive focus on the pot:

I have explained the concept of prima facie proper basicality and defeaters as well as a posteriori and a priori approaches to discerning which beliefs are properly basic. I pointed out that stipulative a priori attempts to delimit properly basic beliefs suffer from a range of problems (e.g. self-referential defeat; arbitrariness). I also pointed out that there is no neutral position to decide which beliefs are prima facie properly basic and so we make those decisions relative to our epistemic communities. I also pointed out that people tend to treat as "inexcusably mysterious or strange" those sources of belief formation that they themselves do not accept. The idealist finds an external world a strange belief, the occasionalist finds causation a strange belief, and the atheist find beliefs about God likewise inexcusably strange.

AcesLucky complains that I am seeking to protect my Christian belief, not challenge it. (If you think that’s true read my book Faith Lacking Understanding.The whole book engages logical, moral and plausibility defeaters to Christianity without providing any “easy” answers.)

The problem is not that I’m trying to protect Christian belief somehow but rather that falsification is a high threshold of evidence. It is difficult to falsify any range of beliefs about events two thousand years ago.

As for quoting a range of verses, as with any sentences extracted from a larger work, these come from within an interpretive framework. Do you really think that the verses you assemble reveal that the disciples believed Jesus guaranteed that they could have a flashy new chariot, Armani sandels, and an Egyptian wench just by praying? If you really do believe this, then you’re only deluding yourself.

AcesLucky
“I was a believer for many, MANY more years than not.”

And you left the light for the darkness?


ConverseAtheist and AcesLucky, you would be the “Greek” in the following scripture

1 Corinthians 1:21-25 (New King James Version)
21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

NOTE: What you consider foolishness is wiser than any wisdom you can hope to have. Because what you consider foolishness is Godly wisdom beyond your present reach. You cannot comprehend it so you call it foolishness.

ConverseAtheist and AcesLucky, you would be the “natural man” in the following scriptures

1 Corinthians 2:13-14 (New King James Version)
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

NOTE: You CAN NOT understand spiritual things because you do not acknowledge the Spirit of God.

So I repeat, from a believer’s point of view, after reading what you say and ask all I can say is that you really do not understand spiritual things. You do not even know how to understand what you read in the bible.

Maybe you should listen to someone with spiritual discernment.

MGT2 wrote:

---
Reading what you say and ask, from the point of view of a believer, all I can say is that you really do not understand spiritual things. You do not even know how to understand what you read in the bible.
---

Re: the point of view of a believer:

I was a believer for many, MANY more years than not. To this day, I have never called myself an atheist (I still have remnants of faith). But if belief requires credulity, then you may be right. I no longer put on the veil of faith before reading. I am not looking for Confirmation, but for what is true.

Realize that truth does not require the assistance of faith, but only honesty. Not pretend honesty, but the real McCoy.

Here's an example of "pretend" honesty: "...you really do not understand spiritual things." Are you insinuating that someone else does? You maybe? What exactly is a spiritual thing? Something from the divine? And what is that?

It's something you and others make up (pretend)!

Are you aware there are over 1,000 differing denominations of the Christian faith in the United States alone, all with differing beliefs on various interpretation of the bible? Which one of those has the correct understanding? If the Holy Spirit is any guide it is in clear contradiction with itself.

But then... what guide? What Holy Spirit? You know as much about any Holy Spirit or any god as anyone. That is to say... nothing!

There is not one statement that you (or anyone else) can say about any god whatsoever that you can demonstrate to be true! You know this, and I know this. It's called PRETENDING, or more fashionably... faith.

And until you do, I believe I can say with a high degree of certainty that "...you really do not understand spiritual things!" (Or more precisely, nothing you understand about spiritual things can be substantiated as true.)

MGT2: "Did you even recognize the theme running through those verses, especially the postscript? Of course, not, otherwise, you would not ask `So let's do some "theological" science shall we?'"

It's rather simple. If you are talking about reality, you have two choices when you make claims about the God or leprechauns communicating with people.
Choice A: Give people a way to verify whether you are talking nonsense.
Choice B: Admit that your beliefs about God speaking to people can't be distinguished from a person who believes leprechauns report to him telepathically.

If you cannot do A, then don't be surprised that people take your "God talks to people" claims as seriously as "Leprechauns tell me things." Which, RD apparently wants us to take very seriously.

Perhaps you have zero evidential requirements for claims. Ok fine, you believe in God, Jerry believes in telepathic leprechauns. Congratulations, the people who deal with reality professionally take the belief that "God talks to people" and "leprechauns communicate telepathically" equally seriously -- and they should.

AcesLucky

Reading what you say and ask, from the point of view of a believer, all I can say is that you really do not understand spiritual things. You do not even know how to understand what you read in the bible.

Did you even recognize the theme running through those verses, especially the postscript?

Of course, not, otherwise, you would not ask “So let's do some "theological" science shall we?”

@RD Rauser


You said:

"Of course I never said that.I said you could falsify the resurrection belief, which as Paul recognized is the core of faith, by producing Jesus’ body."

[Which as I said was an impossibility because 1. no one could ever tell if it was Jesus, and; 2. if Jesus didn't exist no body could ever be found anyway! Your test can never be performed; which was my point.]

So to the question: "What evidence would you accept that would conclusively and unequivocally prove that Jesus, as described in the bible, was a false narrative?"

Your answer illuminates the mind of the apologist; make sure no evidence could ever be produced that would disprove the story.

See? Your answer seeks to PROTECT your belief, not to challenge it (as in the scientific methodology).


You said:

"You could provide evidence that Jesus never existed quite easily: e.g. by producing first century documentary evidence pointing to the fabrication of the historical person Jesus for a conspiracy."

RD, I could show you about 10 'Son God' stories very similar to the Jesus story, each predating Jesus, and you would not accept them as evidence that Jesus was just another.

But more importantly, if you believe the Jesus narrative is true, then you should be able to test those words against today's facts. Like why he said he'd be back before some of them died, and yet you agreed they are all dead and Jesus is not back!

Clear, logical, a slam dunk in any fair court; but you go the extra mile to make the words of Jesus not mean what they say! (The mind set and job of the Apologist.)


Why would you do that? Answer: your commitment is not to truth, but to faith.

---
I said: "In apologetics, the game is to make every effort to explain away any fact that would disprove a dogma or denominational interpretation."

You said: "Strange, I'm an apologist and I don't play any such "game".

I just showed that you do. Want to see it again?

Here: Pay attention to the mental gymnastics you go through to show why these words of Jesus DON'T mean what they say (even though he says it in various places, to different people, at different times [so claiming "context" isn't going to work]). Let's see what you come up with...


Jesus says in many places and in many ways that he (and or god) will answer your prayers:


Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
John 14:12-14 (KJV)


*** RD, Notice how DIRECT that statement is: If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it! *** But let's make CERTAIN of his context by comparing it with other statement he makes *in that same context*.


---

Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. 22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
Matt 21:21-22 (KJV)
---

Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.
Mark 11:24 (KJV)

---

Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Matt 18:19-20 (KJV)

---

Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
Mark 9:23 (KJV)

---
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
Matt 7:7-11 (KJV)

---

There are others but I chose only the passages where Jesus was doing the actual talking to minimize the usual suspects (interpretation, metaphor, context, parable, etc..).

Now, given all that Jesus said about he and his father answering prayers and performing feats of magic, shall we see if he was lying (or at least the narrative is false)?

Because if Jesus is sin free, he cannot lie; his words MUST be true as spoken. And isn't it the word of a god? So let's do some "theological" science shall we?


Say when.


PS:

And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
Matt 17:20 (KJV)

Paul Burnett

As predictable as your response was, it really establishes what I said.

And, let me remind you, I coined the phrase, and I define my meaning. But it proves my point in that you ignore my definition and replaced it with yours.

However, had you asked, I would tell you that the delusion of certitude goes against everything faith stands for because it is the denial of faith.

That is what I am saying.

But you didn't ask because you are certain that you know what I meant.

"MGT2" complained: "By not using the entire statement you change what I actually said."

Sorry, I didn't (and don't) read it that way - I quoted enough of your statement to get the gist of it. It doesn't change the meaning - "denial of the influence of personal belief" just makes Mark Twain's quote that much more poignant, if anything.

And thank goodness no scientists ever exclude or fudge any data, just because the data don't fit their preestablished theories. You know, like global warming. Scientists would never falsify or adjust their findings because they follow a set methodology.

Oh wait, they did. Nevermind.

Paul Burnett

By cutting short my definition, you made my point. By not using the entire statement you change what I actually said.

"MGT2" wrote about "The Delusion of Certitude. I define the delusion of certitude as maintaining that one’s position is objectively correct to the exclusion of any contrary evidence..."

That's just another definition of faith - as Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." This is demonstrated by "Flood Geologists" and other creationists who deny the facts of evolution, biology and almost all branches of science, by denying and excluding any contrary (but overwhelming) evidence.

As I read RD’s post and the frenzied responses, it became clear that he stepped on a “hidden” wound.

I would like to introduce a phrase, The Delusion of Certitude. I define the delusion of certitude as maintaining that one’s position is objectively correct to the exclusion of any contrary evidence, and the denial of the influence of personal belief. Many of those responding to RD suffer from the delusion of certitude. Even Richard Dawkins does not go so far.

The scientific methodology involves the formulation of a hypothesis. No hypothesis can be formulated without a set of basic assumptions. Assumptions are made based upon our perceptions which are themselves influenced by beliefs, customs and culture. So the starting point is the same for the scientist, the philosopher, and the theologian (who is both philosopher and scientist).

The hidden wound is the fact that those who like to minimize the theologian’s scientific credentials know that he as much a scientist as any other. But they have to maintain their denial, otherwise, their arguments fail.

What seems more reasonably debatable is outcome, which can be biased by personal preferences. However, the post is about where the inquiry starts. It seems the Pot is calling out the Kettle.

ConverseAtheist,

On your three year old: "If he says something that ends up being true -- amid a vast litany of false claims -- is this evidence that God speaks to us?"

I dunno, maybe. Let's say he says ten things that don't turn out, and then he says that on July 11 2010 at 10:20 AM a Cessna will crash land on the White House lawn as God's judgment of Barack Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan, and the prediction turned out perfectly, would that be evidence for God's action? Some would think so, others would think it a fluke, and that assessment would depend in part on their background beliefs.

AcesLucky,

On the issue of falsification, you grumbled that if there was no Jesus to begin with then Christianity couldn't be falsified by finding a body in the tomb: “You gave an unfalsifiable, impossible, test guaranteed to never change your belief! (Tantamount to, I had to first find the body of Jesus to prove he didn't exist!)” Of course I never said that.I said you could falsify the resurrection belief, which as Paul recognized is the core of faith, by producing Jesus’ body.You could provide evidence that Jesus never existed quite easily: e.g. by producing first century documentary evidence pointing to the fabrication of the historical person Jesus for a conspiracy.

Next you write:“In science the method is to put forth an hypothesis and then try to find facts that DISPROVE it!” In other words, you test your hypothesis. No kidding, and that’s exactly what we’re doing here qua the Christian claim of incarnation. Are you trying to be ironic?

“In apologetics, the game is to make every effort to explain away any fact that would disprove a dogma or denominational interpretation.”

Strange, I’m an apologist and I don’t play any such “game”. There are dogmatists such as you describe everywhere. Some are in Christian apologetics, but others are in atheist apologetics.

Finally, I wrote: “Rather it is an argument that rational method begins with a background set of beliefs and argues with respect to those assumptions."
I am delighted that you agree here: “Absolutely! The difference is in whether those background beliefs are based in demonstrable fact, or indefeasible commitments to faith. One is epistemologically valid, the other is not.”

Heh heh heh. You should read back in this blog the extensive discussions regarding proper basicality. Just to whet your appetite: is it a demonstrable fact that background beliefs must be based in demonstrable facts? And anyway, what is a demonstrable fact?

Randal wrote that evolutionary biologists "are beginning with the working assumption that biological information did not arise through a designed process..."

Did you mean a "design process" rather than a "designed process"? You're adding another layer of implausibility to the pseudoscience of intelligent design creationism if you posit that the "process" of intelligent design creationism was itself designed. And you are introducing an infinite regress: If the intelligent designer was designed, who or what designed the designer, and who designed that designers' designer, and so on? Or is this just one more miracle, the invoking of which proves once again that intelligent design creationism is religion, not science?

RD - "I gave a couple examples to demonstrate just how your objection was spurious."

In my reply I dismissed those examples and reaffirmed my objection. Apparantly you missed that.

"This objection begs the question by assuming that Christianity is false."

No it doesn't. My objection merely points out the fact that when theologizing one is not constrained by the requirement of empirical tests and, therefore, empirical reality. The question of divinity is not something that can be test or confirmed. All that it requires is enough of a imagination to come up with a myriad ways in which divinity and humananity are apparently compatible. But by the end of the day, what have you really proven? A confirmation about how reality operates or your own cleverness? Again, how do you test hese ideas? Revelation? How closely they confirm or adhere to the preconceived dogmas of the church? It seems that my objection is far from spurious.

"..the dogma of naturalism.."

I don't take naturalism as a dogma but as a starting point. It is a working methodological assumption that is necessary to do empirical research. I am willing to be shown false. Perhaps you will come in here with a post one day demonstrating a miracle or that you really did have a divine intuition. Although I keep returning to this blog I am not holding my breath.

"Back to the same old issues."

These are issues that you did not adequately address before and you once again skirt here. Instead of making your case, you ask a bunch of questions. No matter how they are answered your argument is still not advanced. So make your case. How can Alex (I believe he was Alex) know when his feelings are god-induced and when they are not? At least with our other perceptions we have a pretty good idea. But Alex and those he is trying to convince are left guessing or falling prey to self-delusion and confirmation biases.

I would say that you're wrong, but you haven't even made enough of a claim to be wrong. You're not even wrong -- that's how far you are from reality.

How does one know whether God is being channeled by a three year old? Does he glow? If he says something that ends up being true -- amid a vast litany of false claims -- is this evidence that God speaks to us?

If a three year old says there's a monster under his bed -- and there isn't one. Does this count as God telling lies? Why or why not?

AcesLucky,

I'll happily address your concerns tomorrow. Cheerio all.

AAN,

"You could not adequately explain, for example, how one could properly distinguish intuitions or feelings about God from mundane psychological phenomenon and self-deception."

Back to the same old issues. Okay, how do you distinguish when you're sleeping and when you're awake? How do to discern that your cognitive faculties are reliable (e.g. that you do not have an inverted spectrum)? How do you discern which memories you have are true and which are false? And are your beliefs of reason, sense perception, and memory unjustified until you have a defeater to every defeater to those beliefs?

AAN,
My post was responding to your spurious claim that the theologian is uniquely culpable for “assuming his conclusion”. I gave a couple examples to demonstrate just how your objection was spurious.
So now you come up with a new objection: “Unlike the philosopher of mind or the biologist, the theologian is not constrained by an empirical reality….” This objection begs the question by assuming that Christianity is false.
I also get a whiff of Myers “Courtier’s Reply” in what you write. I know this is futile but I’ll try anyway: instead of dismissing a disciple you are not familiar with it, either withhold your judgment or investigate its sources and methods. You could start with Alister McGrath’s The Genesis of Doctrine.
How many Christians surrender the “dogma” of the incarnation? About as many atheists as surrender the dogma of naturalism.

Ethan,

Try reading beyond "Isolate and destroy" and you'll find out what it means: namely, separate theologians from other academics (e.g. scientists and philosophers) and then undermine their intellectual credibility.

There, now that your charge is dissolved you can get on to discussing the argument.

Look up "ad hominem" in a dictionary and then get back to me with an explanation of what ad hominem about this post.

I KNOW what "ad hominem" means. It's an argument against the person, instead of addressing the arguments made.

You do it right off the bat: Now I take AAN's intention here to be that of "isolate and destroy".

Right there, you are not responding to AAN's argument, you are attacking what you imagine his intentions to be.

That's ad hominem.

"Ah, I see. Start with a conclusion. Look at the facts. Find a way to make them fit the conclusion that you started with. The work of the theologian."

AnAtheist.Net is correct. The statement is true. This is why I asked you point blank in another post: "What evidence would you accept that would conclusively and unequivocally prove that Jesus, as described in the bible, was a false narrative?"

You gave an unfalsifiable, impossible, test guaranteed to never change your belief! (Tantamount to, I had to first find the body of Jesus to prove he didn't exist!)


But to your response: "How wonderfully naive of you not to realize that this is a central methodology in science and philosophy." ... is NOT true. Perhaps in philosophy where the only experiments that can be performed are "thought" experiments, this may be true, but it is not true in science (unless it is poor science, indeed). In science the method is to put forth an hypothesis and then try to find facts that DISPROVE it!

A true scientist knows she can find a million facts to support her conclusion. She need only find "one" fact to prove it wrong. And that is far more efficient, and why such hypotheses are put before a peer review.

In apologetics, the game is to make every effort to explain away any fact that would disprove a dogma or denominational interpretation.

If I showed you a passage where God gives the order to murder everyone (man, woman, child, cattle) but the murderers may keep the little virgins girls for themselves, you'll still find a way to make it good and say God is the epitome of love.

If I showed you where Jesus says to follow him you must hate your family and sell everything you have, you'll find a way to say it doesn't mean what it says! (Because doing what he says would be a bad idea, so you find a way to make it "mean" something else).

You'll say, "interpretation" "context" "parable" "metaphor" the usual cast of suspects. But if Jesus is exempt from lying, then EVERYTHING he says must be taken at face value or it would be false.

It somehow never means what it says when it contradicts or is clear evil or dumb. If God is love, how do you explain the god of the Old Testament? Easy! That was for those "other" people, not us. [But notice it doesn't make the evil go away, just redirects the conversation.] Familiar?

You said:

---
"But once AAN concedes the legitimacy of philosophical projects qua atheism, he has cut his indictment of theology at the knees because the atheistic philosopher is functionally identical in terms of method with the Christian theologian. Both begin with certain data and then seek to explain that data relative to a background set of beliefs."
---

That is only a half truth. One set seeks to establish truthfulness via repeatable demonstration by non-biased third parties (blinds and double-blinds), while the other set seeks to dismiss any fact that disagrees with pre-established concepts.

Example: If given a believer in a god that says the earth is three days older than the stars and science demonstrates that belief to be a factual falsehood, the believer in said god will still believe, and dismiss the facts outright or invoke "parable", metaphor, zeitgeist, etc.. Do you not know this to be true?



A scientist, on the other hand, having to "demonstrate" her findings must change her beliefs to accommodate the facts. Is God a demonstrable, repeatable fact? No! No scientist could therefore "start" with such a hypothesis until a god could be demonstrated to exist in the first place, never mind the belief that it created the stars on day four. Big difference between the two (scientist and theologian) isn't there!

Re: "...evolutionary biology is racked with controversies, as indeed are all major theories in science."

Of course! That's what science is! Science exists on the fringes of what we DON'T know! That's why scientists put so much stock in demonstrable facts!

And in regards to Intelligent Design? I.D. implies an intelligent design-er. Which is perfectly fine. But until you can find one, it's not science.

You wrote: "Rather it is an argument that rational method begins with a background set of beliefs and argues with respect to those assumptions."

Absolutely! The difference is in whether those background beliefs are based in demonstrable fact, or indefeasible commitments to faith. One is epistemologically valid, the other is not.

An addendum: That Jesus is divine is not a "background set of beliefs" but a specific claim. That the mind is a phsycial property of human brains or that biological information arises through an evolutionary mechanism are also both specific claims - each with various levels of testable evidence to support them. What evidence is there that any human was also divine?

RD - "You ignore all this and post the same old questions."

Because you continually have failed to provide decent answers to these questions. Your posts about the basicality of certain religious beliefs were not successful and did not convince me and apparently did not convince CA either. You could not adequately explain, for example, how one could properly distinguish intuitions or feelings about God from mundane psychological phenomenon and self-deception. Given the extreme subjectivity of said beliefs, there is no firm basis to accept conclusions reached through these vague feelings as on par as those arrived at through seeing or hearing something directly. Someone who is interested in empirical reality wants to know how this supposedly works and how it can be tested or confirmed. At best you have offerred anectdotle stories of apparant prescience or an interesting coincidence that might not be. So what.

I do not agree with your claim that what you are doing is no different from these other examples.

In both cases, the philosopher and the scientist are working under the methodological assumption of naturalism. The scientist in particular (although these philosophers are not aloof to science) then goes into the lab and tests these ideas against empirical reality. The biologist, in particular, does not start with the conclusion that biological information is not designed and then sit on his couch and make arguments to support that conclusion. He goes into the lab and perform tests in an attempt to figure out how that might work. The "conclusion" that mind is material is not a starting point but the result of numerous advances in neuroscience and neurotechnology that have allowed us to more thoroughly probe the dependency of concsioussness on the brain. This gives rise to further hypotheses which can then be tested. And so on.

So far as I can tell, the "conclusion" that Jesus is God and was always God is just that - a dogmatic faith belief that has been enshrined as orthodox. Unlike the philosopher of mind or the biologist, the theologian is not constrained by an empirical reality but only by his own creativity and ability to imagine "soclutions" to such absurd problems as how a flesh and blood foetus that is not physically all-knowing can still be all-knowing. How do you test these ideas? Revelation?

CA,

We've been over this issue ad nauseum. I have explained the concept of prima facie proper basicality and defeaters as well as a posteriori and a priori approaches to discerning which beliefs are properly basic. I pointed out that stipulative a priori attempts to delimit properly basic beliefs suffer from a range of problems (e.g. self-referential defeat; arbitrariness). I also pointed out that there is no neutral position to decide which beliefs are prima facie properly basic and so we make those decisions relative to our epistemic communities. I also pointed out that people tend to treat as "inexcusably mysterious or strange" those sources of belief formation that they themselves do not accept. The idealist finds an external world a strange belief, the occasionalist finds causation a strange belief, and the atheist find beliefs about God likewise inexcusably strange.

You ignore all this and post the same old questions. The best I can say is, reread all the posts in which I discussed the above topics.

Ethan,

Look up "ad hominem" in a dictionary and then get back to me with an explanation of what ad hominem about this post. While you're at it you might explain whether you agree with the atheists and evolutionary biologists I mentioned here, and if so then why the method is legitimate for them but not a theologian.

Now I take AAN's intention here to be that of "isolate and destroy". In other words, separate the theologian out from other academics with the charge that he or she is engaged in an intellectually self-serving and thus irrational and illegitimate enterprise of proving the conclusion.

No, AAN simply pointed out what you were doing. You had a conclusion you wanted to reach, and decided to force-fit the facts afterwards. In other words, you were using invalid reasoning.

And now, of course, you're simply attempting an ad hominem argument against AAN. Which is more invalid reasoning.

RD, when you talk about "God Speaking Today" -- you are so vague that it strains the idea of 'meaning something' to its absolute breaking point.

Say something specific -- what does it mean to say God speaks today? Anything from a 3 year old saying something cryptic that turns out to be true, to a voice in a guy's mind that tells him his wife will live.

If a three year old says there's a monster under his bed -- and there isn't one. Does this count as God telling lies? Why or why not?