tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post5142490206177516031..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Defense Lawyers for JesusMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-77006534280172853022011-09-15T01:46:00.161-07:002011-09-15T01:46:00.161-07:00He who loses money loses much;
he who loses friend...He who loses money loses much;<br />he who loses friends loses much more;<br />he who loses faith loses all.Fresh Gardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07321496696487687435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-38193596817994102442011-09-14T03:59:04.656-07:002011-09-14T03:59:04.656-07:00"Can you honestly say that you are truly open..."Can you honestly say that you are truly open to the possibility that God exists?"<br />I've changed my mind on things before, and I can do it again. The problem I've found is that there's a really low standard for what constitutes a case for God, and by rejecting that I'm accused of being close-minded.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-85565663249244323882011-09-13T11:23:43.944-07:002011-09-13T11:23:43.944-07:00I find that christians are nothing more than skill...I find that christians are nothing more than skilled liars.Judy Weismongerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01326339537688644426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-21400641597666748032011-08-25T00:58:13.897-07:002011-08-25T00:58:13.897-07:00Happy moments, praise God.
Difficult moments, seek...Happy moments, praise God.<br />Difficult moments, seek God.<br />Every moment, thank God.Sweet Lilyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04613556729394471187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-82962584474197097772011-08-18T03:37:54.467-07:002011-08-18T03:37:54.467-07:00its nice to read a useful article for beginner lik...its nice to read a useful article for beginner like me. Some of points from this article are very helpful for me as I haven’t considered them yet. I would like to say thank you for sharing this cool article. Bookmarked and sharing for friends.<br /><a href="http://www.turbochargerpros.com/turboparts/Audi/Allroad_Quattro/Turbocharger.html" rel="nofollow"> Audi All Road Quattro Turbocharger</a>pixymagichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190649164739045330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-60155279536377846792011-08-17T18:46:39.367-07:002011-08-17T18:46:39.367-07:00For those who would enjoy watching Craig exposed f...For those who would enjoy watching Craig exposed for the snake oil salesman that he is, please check out his forthcoming debate with English philosopher Stephen Law on October 17,2011. The event is being hosted by Premier Christian Radio's Unbelievable! program and the question being debated is the existence of God. Tickets for the event (to be held at Westminster Hall in London) are available through Premier Christian Radio's website.The Atheist Missionaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07191035196328725888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-5926582933259140062011-08-10T14:01:40.395-07:002011-08-10T14:01:40.395-07:00This is an excellent post Matt, spot on. Many ath...This is an excellent post Matt, spot on. Many atheists are baffled by William Lane Craig (ie. how can he not see the weaknesses in his arguments?) but I think what you have described here is THE key to getting inside his head.Respectful Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-10537477602670028362011-08-07T14:33:11.621-07:002011-08-07T14:33:11.621-07:00Keith, Matt is not asserting a strawman. Craig ma...Keith, Matt is not asserting a strawman. Craig may be bright but I wouldn't let him clean my basement: <a href="http://www.atheistmissionary.com/2010/10/why-i-wouldnt-let-william-lane-craig.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.atheistmissionary.com/2010/10/why-i-wouldnt-let-william-lane-craig.html</a><br /><br />Matt also makes an excellent point when he observes that atheists can also fall victim to cognitive biases. I would be the first to admit that I am biased against acceptance of the miracles described in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, etc. It is precisely because of this bias that I spend far more time studying apologetic arguments than arguments knocking them down.The Atheist Missionaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07191035196328725888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-29679299272719626342011-08-06T19:31:37.485-07:002011-08-06T19:31:37.485-07:00Suspend all questions and doubts, no matter how le...<b>Suspend all questions and doubts, no matter how legitimate, until you can devise a way to engineer or rationalize them into conformity with the prior belief. </b><br /><br />That's a pretty bad misrepresentation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-22333338621026545982011-08-04T13:11:18.823-07:002011-08-04T13:11:18.823-07:00Reginald Selkirk, my main disproof of Santa is tha...<i>Reginald Selkirk, my main disproof of Santa is that I know that the presents under the tree at Christmas are put there by parents and not Santa...</i><br /><br />Remember, the goal of this exercise is to never give up, no matter how preposterous the position gets. So here are some counters:<br />1) The presents are really from Santa, but he let your parents pretend to have supplied them in order to enhance their image in your eyes.<br />2) YOUR parents bought YOUR presents, but that doesn't necessarily apply to all the other children.<br /><br /><i>If Santa could live in the Ocean, and he wasn’t detected by the USS Nautilus back in 1958, then we could use sonar to detect his vessel, or do a visual search using subs.</i><br /><br />I didn't say anything about a vessel, he lives in a cave under the sea floor. The entrance is very well camouflaged. If any subs tried searching, they would certainly suffer electronic failures. Santa's transit sub wasn't present at the time, or it doesn't show up well on sonar due its being reindeer-powered, or he uses stealth technology. Or Santa, as is well-known, has excellent intelligence gathering systems, and would know when search subs were around, during which time he would temporariliy move to his alternate undisclosed location.<br /><br />And so on. To repeat, there need not be any evidence that such a state is actually true, the goal is simply to dodge the counter-arguments by whatever means necessary.<br /><br /><i>In regards to your Bigfoot example, how would a hairy ape-like creature travel to another dimension?</i><br /><br />As I thought I pointed out, the 'Bigfoot is from another dimension' is not my own, that is an actual argument supplied by a Bigfoot proponent (which I am not).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/ronmower3.htm" rel="nofollow">link</a><br />Lapseritis said conventional Bigfoot investigators have not found the creature because they are limited in their belief that Bigfoot is "simply a relic hominid that never became extinct." "That really may be true," Lapseritis said in a telephone interview. "But in addition to that, (Bigfoot) may literally be, as I've discovered, a paraphysical, interdimensional native people that have told me and other people telepathically that they were brought here millions of years ago by their friends, the star people."<br /><br />Strange indeed, but is it stranger than the claims put forward to defend God from disproof? In the case of God, we have such bizarre claims as that God is both a temporal and atemporal being (Craig).Reginald Selkirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09295966091652856726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-8553227934897264802011-08-04T11:59:36.842-07:002011-08-04T11:59:36.842-07:00Now, suppose that you offer me evidence against th...<i>Now, suppose that you offer me evidence against this position. I then retort, "I refuse to be persuaded. The worm orobouros would not lead me wrong. I am confident that the evidence will eventually prove me right. You cannot understand, because the worm has not spoken to you".<br />Do you suppose that an asterisk would be justified?</i><br /><br />JS Allen, I suppose our natural tendency is to be wary of outlandish claims such as this, but it is not rational to simply dismiss someone’s arguments out-of-hand because of their background or beliefs. It doesn’t matter if someone is an atheist, agnostic, Christian, goat worshiper or Orobourosist, we still must evaluate their arguments as objectively as possible. If the Orobourosist said trust me because the worm said so I wouldn’t trust them, but if the Orobourosist presented some good evidence and sound arguments then as a rational person I would listen and evaluate their arguments, and perhaps be persuaded by them.Keith Rozumalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075074084646770559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-36964745061393483432011-08-04T11:41:53.874-07:002011-08-04T11:41:53.874-07:00What is your disproof of Santa, that you've se...<i>What is your disproof of Santa, that you've searched the entire surface of the Earth and he can't be found? OK then, he lives under the ocean at the North Pole. Visiting all the chimneys in the world would require him to move too fast? Well then, he uses a wormhole so he actually doesn't have to travel far at all. Imagine that for every argument you made against Santa, I was willing to come up with a counter, no matter how preposterous. I could point out one argument which has actually been put forward by a Bigfoot believer: Bigfoot lives in another dimension, and returns there after his forays into our world.</i><br /><br />Reginald Selkirk, my main disproof of Santa is that I know that the presents under the tree at Christmas are put there by parents and not Santa. If Santa could live in the Ocean, and he wasn’t detected by the USS Nautilus back in 1958, then we could use sonar to detect his vessel, or do a visual search using subs. Our current knowledge of wormholes indicates that an entity the size of Santa would not fit in a wormhole, so your wormhole explanation is implausible. <br /><br />In regards to your Bigfoot example, how would a hairy ape-like creature travel to another dimension? Besides time traveling in the fourth dimension, which seems incredibly implausible for a creature like Bigfoot as the challenges are immense, the fifth through the 11th dimensions are merely theoretical. The problem with all of the defenses of these material beings is that they are bound by physical laws. As material entities they are just as subject to entropy and the other laws of physics as you and I. <br /> <br />Your claim that the idea of a necessary being is made-up is surprising since you and I are living in a universe in motion. What causes and sustains the universe/multiverse if there is no uncaused cause or unmoved mover? The fact that we are living in a universe/multiverse (assuming a multiverse exists) that is contingent on something else is proof that a necessary being exists. Without God the universe/multiverse and everything in it would cease to exist.Keith Rozumalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075074084646770559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-27803481797908200722011-08-04T10:42:04.419-07:002011-08-04T10:42:04.419-07:00"Aren’t you committing the genetic fallacy wh...<i>"Aren’t you committing the genetic fallacy when you say that we need to put an asterisk by Craig’s arguments because he believes in the testimony of the Holy Spirit? The origin of his belief doesn’t affect the force of his arguments."</i><br /><br />Of course it does. The fact that he is willfully abandoning objectivity doesn't mean that his conclusion is necessarily wrong, but it justifies a HUGE asterisk next to his arguments.<br /><br />Try turning it around. I and a small band of cult followers claim to have been privvy to the "internal witness" of the sacred worm orobouros. This worm tells us that we are living inside a simulation of a weapon system. The purpose of the simulation is to test various initial properties (laws of the universe) within certain constraints, to see which configuration leads to maximum entropy the quickest. Any apparent sign of negentropy (life, sentience, etc.) turns out to just be even more efficient ways of generating entropy -- life accelerates death. To the extent that we recognize death, destruction, and ultimate nothingness as the purpose of existence, we will be serving the goals of the simulation. As we understand more about physics, the evidence tends to support the conclusion that the laws of the universe are optimized to generate entropy. Any life-affirming religions that appear are clearly contrary to physics and work against the purposes of the simulation.<br /><br />Now, suppose that you offer me evidence <i>against</i> this position. I then retort, <i>"I refuse to be persuaded. The worm orobouros would not lead me wrong. I am confident that the evidence will eventually prove me right. You cannot understand, because the worm has not spoken to you".</i><br /><br />Do you suppose that an asterisk would be justified?JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-60252798836858098852011-08-04T10:04:27.919-07:002011-08-04T10:04:27.919-07:00Yes, Matt, thank you for the Santa principle—it’s ...Yes, Matt, thank you for the Santa principle—it’s an excellent tool for disproving physical entities, or at least showing that they are unlikely.<br /><br />I’m sorry if I have misunderstood what you said about Craig. My understanding of what Craig was saying in the video is that if some current evidence contradicts the testimony of the Holy Spirit then given enough time, thought and further evidence then he believes that the evidence would eventually agree with what the spirit says. I know that he said at a recent debate that there could be evidence that would make him question his faith such as a proof that Christ wasn’t really resurrected. It is true that he wrote, In Reasonable Faith that, “Philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology.” However, later on he writes, “We know Christianity is true primarily by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Spirit. We show Christianity is true by presenting good arguments for its central tenets.” How does Craig’s belief in the Holy Spirit cause his arguments to be false? Aren’t you committing the genetic fallacy when you say that we need to put an asterisk by Craig’s arguments because he believes in the testimony of the Holy Spirit? The origin of his belief doesn’t affect the force of his arguments.Keith Rozumalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075074084646770559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-43667316084097430072011-08-04T09:25:22.890-07:002011-08-04T09:25:22.890-07:00Taken from reasonablefaith.com in an attempt to po...Taken from reasonablefaith.com in an attempt to point out straw men.Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786844757672182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-6703310729603280862011-08-04T09:23:28.106-07:002011-08-04T09:23:28.106-07:00culture is overwhelmingly secular and even atheist...culture is overwhelmingly secular and even atheistic. I met many theological students when we lived in Germany whose professors had exposed them to nothing but radical biblical criticism and anti-Christian scholarship. These students held on to Christian faith in spite of the evidence. It was far, far worse in Eastern Europe and Russia. I wish I could convey to you the spiritual darkness and oppression that existed behind the Iron Curtain during the days of the Soviet Union. I remember asking one Russian believer, "Have you no resources to help you in your Christian life?" He replied, "Well, there is an encyclopedia of atheism published by the state, and by reading what is attacked there, you can learn something. But that's about all." These bothers and sisters endured horrible oppression and atheistic indoctrination by the Marxist regime and yet did not abandon Christ. As I emphasized in my answer to Question #13, evidence varies from generation to generation and from place to place and is accessible only to those privileged few who have the education, leisure time, and resources to explore it. God has provided a more secure basis for our faith than the shifting sands of evidence and argument, namely, the indwelling Holy Spirit.<br />Moreover, this conclusion seems in line with New Testament teaching on the witness of the Holy Spirit. While non-believers reject New Testament teaching, Christians should take it seriously. Ponder, then, John's words:<br />And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. . . . If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God that he has borne witness to his Son. He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. He who does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne to his Son (1 John 5:6-10).<br />As Christian believers we have the testimony of God living within us, the Holy Spirit, whose testimony exceeds in force all human testimony.<br />So in answer to your question, Kyle, I think that in fact God will not allow someone to be in a position in which the rational thing for him to do is to reject God and Christ and separate himself from God. Given that God is essentially all-loving, I'm inclined to say that such a thing will not only never happen, but that it is, indeed, impossible. It follows that Christians who have apostatized have done so in defiance of the Holy Spirit's work by quenching or grieving the Spirit, so that what they did was in the end irrational.<br />Does that imply, Adam, as your sceptic says, that I think "evidence is unimportant when compared with faith?" No, because he's drawing a false contrast, comparing apples with oranges. Faith is not the issue here, but the ground for faith. Must the ground for faith be evidence? That is the question. We've already seen that evidentialism is bankrupt. Many of the things we know are not based on evidence. So why must belief in God be so based? Belief in God and the great truths of the Gospel is not a blind exercise of faith, a groundless leap in the dark. Rather, as Plantinga emphasizes, Christian belief is part of the deliverances of reason, grounded in the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, which is an objective reality mediated to me from God. <br />What is true is that evidence, as it is defined in these discussions, plays a secondary role compared to the role God Himself plays in warranting Christian belief. Should we, then, ignore strong evidence if it shows that our faith is probably false? Of course not! My work as a philosopher exemplifies the effort to confront objections to Christian belief squarely and to answer them. But most Christians in the world don't have that luxury. For them they may have to hold to their Christian belief even though they lack an answer to the alleged defeater. What I insist on is that, given the witness of the Holy Spirit within them, they are entirely rational in so doing.Truth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786844757672182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-27426806457523585592011-08-04T09:23:04.984-07:002011-08-04T09:23:04.984-07:00A person who knows that Christianity is true on th...A person who knows that Christianity is true on the basis of the witness of the Spirit may also have a sound apologetic which reinforces or confirms for him the Spirit's witness, but it does not serve as the fundamental way in which he knows Christianity to be true. If the arguments of natural theology and Christian evidences are successful, as I claim they are, then Christian belief is also warranted by such arguments and evidences for the person who grasps them, even if that person would still be warranted in their absence. Such a person is doubly warranted in his Christian belief, in the sense that he enjoys two sources of warrant. So evidential arguments on behalf of Christianity are, in my view, sufficient for knowledge of Christianity's truth but they are not necessary for knowledge of Christianity's truth. <br />Now the question both of you pose concerns the role of defeaters of Christian belief. Properly basic beliefs can be defeasible; that is to say, they can be defeated by other incompatible beliefs which one might come to accept. In such a case, the individual in question must either come up with a defeater for the defeater or else give up some of his beliefs if he is to remain rational. Thus, for example, a Christian who encounters the problem of evil is faced with a potential defeater of his belief in God. Christian apologetics can help to formulate answers, such as the Free Will Defense in response to the problem of evil, in order to defeat the putative defeaters. <br />But Plantinga also argues that in some cases, the original belief itself may so exceed its alleged defeater in warrant that it becomes an intrinsic defeater of its putative defeater. He gives the example of someone accused of a crime and against whom all the evidence stands, even though that person knows he is innocent. In such a case, that person is not rationally obligated to abandon belief in his own innocence and to accept instead the evidence that he is guilty. The belief that he did not commit the crime intrinsically defeats the defeaters brought against it by the evidence. Plantinga makes the theological application by suggesting that belief in God may similarly intrinsically defeat all the defeaters that might be brought against it.<br />Plantinga does not to my knowledge clearly commit himself to the view that the witness of the Holy Spirit is an intrinsic defeater-defeater. Such a thesis is independent of the model as presented. But I have argued that the witness of the Spirit is, indeed, an intrinsic defeater of any defeaters brought against it. For it seems to me inconceivable that God would allow any believer to be in a position where he would be rationally obliged to commit apostasy and renounce Christ. It seems to me rather that in such a situation a loving God would intensify the Spirit's witness in such a way that it becomes an intrinsic defeater of the defeaters such a person faces. <br />Now it might be said, that God would, indeed, not permit a person to fall into circumstances where the rational thing for him to do is to apostatize and turn his back on God, but what God would do is provide sufficient evidence to such an individual so that he is able to defeat through argument and evidence the alleged defeater. I grant that such a view is possible (how could anyone who believes in middle knowledge think differently?). But as I look at the world in which we actually live, such a view strikes me as naïve. <br />The vast majority of people in the world have neither the time, training, nor resources to develop a full-blown Christian apologetic as the basis of their faith or to defeat the sundry defeaters which they encounter. I have been deeply moved by the plight of Christians as I have traveled abroad and seen the sometimes desperate circumstances in which they find themselves. In Europe, for example, the universityTruth Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786844757672182664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-47773303324517117502011-08-03T17:27:43.150-07:002011-08-03T17:27:43.150-07:00Theological arguments are often appeals to intuiti...Theological arguments are often appeals to intuition. What is intuitively correct about how the world works is invariably factually false and what is factually true is invariably non-intuitive or counter-intuitive. For example, it is intuitively correct that solids are mostly matter when in fact solids are mostly space. Intuition fails to find the factually true answers so consistently that we are justified in a priori discounting answers based solely on intuition. Theists have a tendency to do the opposite, they place appeals to intuition on par with (or even over) empirical evidence as a method for justifying beliefs about how the world works.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-34422620368767612212011-08-03T15:14:32.907-07:002011-08-03T15:14:32.907-07:00This is more of a side issue, but your example of ...<i>This is more of a side issue, but your example of equating the defense of the existence of unicorns with the defense of the existence of God is a false analogy because we can use the Santa Principle to determine that unicorns don’t exist on the earth. The second is that unicorns are not necessary beings while God is.</i><br /><br />I'm not sure you've heard all the best arguments for Santa and unicorns. What is your disproof of Santa, that you've searched the entire surface of the Earth and he can't be found? OK then, he lives <i>under the ocean</i> at the North Pole. Visiting all the chimneys in the world would require him to move too fast? Well then, he uses a wormhole so he actually doesn't have to travel far at all. Imagine that for every argument you made against Santa, I was willing to come up with a counter, no matter how preposterous. I could point out one argument which has actually been put forward by a Bigfoot believer: Bigfoot lives in another dimension, and returns there after his forays into our world.<br /><br />My point is that God proponents have gone further in their evasiveness to disproof than the Santa and unicorn proponents. Daniel Dennett points out that folk gods did not start out with immunity to scientific investigation, they all interacted regularly with the natural world in ways which should be easily detectable. As our scientific understanding and tools have advanced, God has <i>evolved</i> to be ever more distant, and ever more nontestable. Of course, at the same time He becomes ever more irrelevant.<br /><br />Take this "necessary being" idea. That is a made-up concept to sidestep God around an attempted disproof. There is no reason to believe that God actually exists necessarily.Reginald Selkirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09295966091652856726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-74827150535078121712011-08-03T14:53:29.656-07:002011-08-03T14:53:29.656-07:00Watch the video Keith and listen carefully to what...Watch the video Keith and listen carefully to what C says. He is resolved to only use arguments insofar as they can serve Jesus.Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-9308817111075798192011-08-03T14:49:18.298-07:002011-08-03T14:49:18.298-07:00"One difference for the theist is that evolut...<i>"One difference for the theist is that evolution does not appear to have built us to disbelieve. So the believer has his more of his neurobiology to worry about. Our brains work against our objectivity."</i><br /><br />I think that's too broad a claim. Evolution has wired our brains to be objective and disbelieve a great many things (otherwise, we'd be wiped out), but credulous about other things. Both atheism and theism embrace certain innate human predispositions, while suppressing others in the name of "higher truth". And a great many propositions of modern theism work strongly against what people are predisposed to believe. It's easy to see how a "hyperactive agency detection" module could lead to the totemistic religions and belief in witches and ghosts -- but human DNA hasn't really evolved since then, and modern theism explicitly rejects these things. If anything, modern monotheism looks like something created by a priest with Aspergers who is trying to rid his race of innate superstition. It doesn't really look like something that would spontaneously emerge from our evolved nature.<br /><br />Anyway, if we're trying to make a case that atheists are uniquely overcoming human predispositions "in the service of truth", the strongest case would be in overcoming teleological thinking. Teleological thinking <b>is</b> a deep-seated human impulse that is often wrong, and is often very difficult to overcome. Beyond that (which, admittedly, <b>is</b> pretty huge), it's not as clear to me who has the upper hand in overcoming self-delusion. BTW, I think it's completely possible to systematically analyze the question and come to conclusions based on hard data; it just doesn't seem like people care.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-31767009880107377792011-08-03T14:48:58.432-07:002011-08-03T14:48:58.432-07:00Thanks Keith. You realize that I wrote up and expl...Thanks Keith. You realize that I wrote up and explained the version of the Santa principle that you are lecturing me with, right? And you realize that you're missing the point about Craig and Wolterstorff completely, right?Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-3463996489248097882011-08-03T14:45:28.859-07:002011-08-03T14:45:28.859-07:00"Even if we had a perfect picture of how reli...<i>"Even if we had a perfect picture of how religious belief has evolved in the brain, what would that mean for either side? I would imagine Platinga would still offer up the fact that God engineered us for belief, while others like Dennett would still paint it as a hallucinatory side effect of human evolution."</i><br /><br />At a minimum, I think it would force a major change in how Christians defend belief. It would shift the argument to a more fruitful place, IMO. For example, the explanatory role of "revelation" would be <i>very</i> different if we could point to certain belief features as being inevitable results of an evolutionary process.<br /><br />I compare it to the way that we had a lot of open questions about evolutionary biology and altruism. And then when started using computational tools to model things, informed by game theory, it changed the whole conversation.<br /><br />Some interesting questions off the top of my head:<br /><br />1) We're the only species we know who have religion. How might religion vary across species (and how might it stay the same)? If we kill off all of the other animals, we'll be the only species with legs, too. But that doesn't mean that legs are the only or best form of locomotion, or that our form of religion is the only one that might arise through an evolutionary process. Knowing which parts of the human experience of religion are essential cross-species and which are arbitrary (maybe all of it?) would change the conversation.<br /><br />2) Religion seems to sit on top of intentionality. We can't explain intentionality evolutionarily, except by pointing out that it's a useful "stance" (Dennett's view). If we had a really strong story from natural selection to intentionality to religion, it could make a case for science being the ultimate religion. If, instead, we have to look at religion as just a stance on top of a stance, then we have to evaluate it separately.<br /><br />3) Tons of interesting research could be done about "hyperactive agency detection". Autism, invisible friends, animism, etc.<br /><br /><i>"I'm unsure as to what type of data Christians could use to support the existence of Heaven"</i><br /><br />By empirical evidence, I mean evidence to support the claim that Christians or atheists are simply believing what they want to believe. It wouldn't be difficult to test these claims and form a much more nuanced picture. Lots of people reject Christianity because Christian beliefs are unappealing. And lots of people adopt atheism even though they find Christian beliefs more appealing. Everyone (atheist and Christian alike) brags about how they were compelled by the truth to believe even though it was contrary to their nature. I don't believe any of them, and I want hard empirical evidence.<br /><br />There is also the fascinating question of what people actually believe versus what they profess to believe. It's trickier, but not impossible, to measure this empirically. Until we have solid empirical evidence, both sides just claim the high ground.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-61264988260142439732011-08-03T14:31:17.558-07:002011-08-03T14:31:17.558-07:00This is more of a side issue, but your example of ...This is more of a side issue, but your example of equating the defense of the existence of unicorns with the defense of the existence of God is a false analogy because we can use the Santa Principle to determine that unicorns don’t exist on the earth. The second is that unicorns are not necessary beings while God is.<br />The Santa Principle says that a person is justified in believing that X does not exist if all of these conditions are met:<br /><br />1. the area where evidence would appear, if there were any, has been comprehensively examined, and<br />2. all of the available evidence that X exists is inadequate, and<br />3. X is the sort of entity that, if X exists, then it would show.<br /><br />So, using premises one and two we can say that unicorns don’t exist on earth because we have never seen any evidence of them. Since unicorns are said to be physical beings we should have found some evidence of them by now. Even if you assume that they are hiding in some very remote region then we should have at least found a unicorn skull that verify their existence. However, we haven’t found any evidence of them so we can say with near certainty that unicorns do not exist on earth. Notice, however, that the Santa Principle says that the, “Area where evidence would appear, if there were any, has been comprehensively examined,” so we can’t say that we have searched the entire universe for unicorns. It could be possible that a planet 1,000 light years away has unicorns running around on it. Now, when we turn to using the principle to test whether God exists there are problems. God is said to be an immaterial being who does not reside on the earth. Since we currently do not have the ability to perceive immaterial beings we can’t say that the area where God exists has been comprehensively examined. God could very well exist in heaven, but we simply do not have the capacity to see him.<br /><br />The second difference between unicorns and God is that the existence of unicorns is not necessary while the existence of everything is dependent on God. Unicorns, if they exist, would just be like lions, bears or humans in that nothing is dependent on their existence, so unicorns could conceivably exist or not exist. If unicorns didn’t exist then the universe and the earth would still exist. However, God is said to be an immaterial, eternal omnipotent being who must exist if the universe and everything in it is to exist. God is the uncaused cause that formed the universe and sustains it. Without God noting would exist. If unicorns were to exist then they would be dependent on God too. They would need to live in a universe on a planet, things that would not exist if God did not create and sustain them. As a material, biological beings unicorns would also be ultimately be dependent on God. Unicorns would be dependent on organs to survive and those organs would be dependent on cells and those cells would be dependent on elements and those elements which would be dependent atoms and so on, but we would get to point where subatomic particles would need to be dependent on something to exist. If there is something in the chain of being that is dependent on something that doesn’t exist then that thing couldn’t exist and then that means that everything in the chain of being that depends on that thing wouldn’t exist either. This means that all material and beings are dependent on God who is the uncaused cause--an agent of pure act.Keith Rozumalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075074084646770559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-15553919088994210572011-08-03T14:23:09.203-07:002011-08-03T14:23:09.203-07:00Can you honestly say that you are truly open to th...Can you honestly say that you are truly open to the possibility that God exists? Do you have any presuppositional beliefs, such as naturalistic materialism, that makes the possibility of God’s existence untenable? Do you think that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are truly open to the possibility that God exists? When you are “Proving the Negative” aren’t you essentially just doing what William Lane Craig does, but in the negative form? Just as there are some theists that want God to exist, aren’t there some atheists, such as Thomas Nagel, who do not want God to exist? Is it even possible to be truly free from emotions and presupositional beliefs when it comes to evaluating God’s existence? <br /><br />I think you are making a straw man out of what Craig said. Craig believes that the various arguments for God’s existence, taken together, show that God’s existence is probable. He knows that an absolute proof of God’s existence is not possible, given our current background knowledge, but he believes that there are arguments that can persuade some rational people to believe that God’s existence is likely. However, he believes the Holy Spirit testifies to believers that God’s existence is true. This is more of a sense that God exists. This sense that God exists and is interacting with believers is taken on faith.Keith Rozumalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075074084646770559noreply@blogger.com