The Importance of the Audience in Religious Debate

 I've struck up a conversation with a so-far polite gentleman on another blog I frequent. Out of courtesy to the blog's owner/operator, this gentleman, a Christian theist, asked me if I'd like to continue the exchange of thoughts in a PM format..i.e."email". I declined that offer because I don't believe that either party's mind will be changed in such exchanges. On the other hand, there are people on the fence out there who are experiencing honest doubt right this second who could therefore benefit from observing exchanges between theist and atheist, judging for themselves whose arguments best stack-up and align with what we call "logic". I, of course, contend that my arguments best align with logic. If I didn't, I wouldn't have these beliefs. And it should be noted that I changed my mind once, I'll do it again under the right circumstances.

It is for these reasons that I'm happy to keep the exchange of thoughts going right here; right now, in a public format.

Moving right into things, this gentleman, heretofore called "UE", had this to say....

 I'm not here to tell you what you should think, just to express my own views. So I couldn't believe most of what you have said because for me it would be contrary to evidence and logic.

I can appreciate that. Thx. However, I contend that you are implicitly telling me what to think, since you are a Christian and Christianity claims to provide the answers to life's greatest questions, including how we and the universe have come to exist. And furthermore, there is a threat of bodily harm as a consequence hanging over my head if I don't adopt this belief, which would require me to start thinking the way that you think if I want to avoid this (supposed) consequence.

UE goes on...

I think differently to you:

1. I think a claim about you having cognitive dissonance is on about as sure a foundation as a claim that all christians do.

2. I think all of us have a blend of objective and subjective beliefs, and I am not convinced on the basis of this discussion that I have any more subjective or less objective than you.

3. Non-belief doesn't require blind faith any more than christianity does, but many unbelievers have it just as many christians do. I would need more "blind faith" to disbelieve than I would to believe - that is why I believe.

4. I don't believe I am using a God of the gaps argument for I base my views on the latest science. When the science is updated (science of the gaps???) I will update my views, just as scientists do.

5. The fact that there are differences between our relationships with others and my relationship with God doesn't say one bit about the aspects of the analogy which I used. All analogies fail at some point, but the important thing is to test them at the point in which they are being applied.

RE: 1. Strongly disagree. Whatever resultant skepticism I have due to cognitive dissonance, that skepticism is applied evenly and across the board. For instance, I disbelieve the supernatural claims of all religions. Conversely, the Xian theist makes an exception for the supernatural claims of Christianity, while they are at least skeptical of the supernatural claims of opposing religions, if not dismissing those claims out of hand. Therefore, my "foundation" as described above leaves less room for error than that of a Christian, who doesn't apply skepticism comprehensively.

RE: 2. Strongly disagree. Once more, the "foundation" on which your chosen brand of religion rests is, in part, due to your compartmentalizing your beliefs. My critique of theistic claims is therefore at least more objective than yours, because I reject them all, whereas, you reject all but Christianity's supernatural claims. If you cannot (or will not) concede this self-evident point, then conversation on the matter is pretty much pointless.

RE: 3. You are essentially saying that "non-belief" and "Christian belief" are on equal grounds, so I have both a comment and question, with the question being first: Are you suggesting that "non-belief" is on equally flimsy grounds as Christianity? Or are you conceding that non-belief is right up there with Christianity in being plausible??? It seems that one or the other must be true. My comment is this: Assuming that "non-belief" requires "blind faith", feel free to explain how your non-belief that "Poseidon" controls the tides requires "blind faith", assuming you agree that gravitational pull controls the tides, not "Poseidon".

RE: 4. You seem to be implying that there is no conflict between modern science, and Christianity and its bible. How you could tell me such a thing with a straight face is, idk, astonishing to me. In any case, the bible is chalk full of heinous scientific blunders. There is not a "firmament"(a dome) holding up the "water" in the sky. There is not, to the best of my knowledge, one scrap of scientific confirmation for any of the following:

talking snakes, talking vegetation, coming back from the dead, virgin births, giants, unicorns, witches, people who can heal disease with bird's blood, and the list goes on. One scientific theory is that the universe has always existed in one form or another. Have you "updated" your view on "creation" with that theory? I'll wager that you haven't.

RE: 5. I agree that analogies aren't perfect nor are they meant to prove anything. They are used to illustrate a point or comparison. Well, I still maintain that your claimed "relationship" with an invisible, inaudible, non-corporeal, immaterial being is not on equal grounds with that of a "relationship" we have with our friends and family. I also adamantly disagree that the latter type of "relationship" requires "as much faith" as the former. So, in my view, the analogy falls short of being analogous with your premise.

   But suppose your principle is true - that we can't call something an answer if it raises another question. Then that rules out science. All current events and states can be explained in terms of laws and previous states, and in the end, all science starts at the big bang, which you have already admitted you cannot explain. So since we both agree that science does in fact explain lots of things, the principle you applied to God cannot be true.

Here's the glaring difference: Science admits when it doesn't know something, in this case, how the universe came to be(which shoots down your "science of the gaps" hypothesis).  If you can't explain how "God did it!", then at the end of the day, the only honest answer is "I don't know" when it comes to an explanation for the existence of the universe. So, yes, you most certainly are using a "God of the gaps" argument when you are asked to explain how the universe came to exist and you answer, "God did it!". And furthermore, "all science" does not "start at the big bang". This idea that, well, science either knows everything, or it knows nothing at all, is an ill-conceived idea. "Science" doesn't pretend to know why an over-ripened apple falls to the ground. No, science knows and can explain how "gravitational theory" works. Science isn't answering that question with another question as you are when you answer with "God did it!" to the question of how the universe came into being.

So it remains true to me that God is a better explanation than no explanation and I could never accept your reasoning to negate that because it is based on a wrong principles and bad logic.

Here you are being self-refuting, as you are conceding that, rather than pleading ignorance..i.e..saying "I don't know", you'd rather plug that gap in your knowledge with a "God", and further, you call that a "better explanation", when it really explains nothing at all. Ironically, you are employing the very "bad logic" that you accuse me of using when I admit that I don't know something. I suppose it would also be "bad logic" if I should lose my car keys and say, "I don't know where my keys are", and it would be "good logic" to say... "Gremlins must have taken my car keys again!", because, after all, the latter is a "better explanation" than none at all. If that seems amiss or silly to you, then good, you immediately know how your reasoning sounds to me. 

Ad Hominem: Revisited

ad hominem: adjective 

1) appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather to one's intellect or reason
2) attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument

Ref: Dictionary dot com

In the wake of posting my last article, it seems that there was a bit of backlash from the female Christian blogger who read and remarked on another article by a Christian Pastor, an article which was essentially Pt. 1 of a sermon titled, "The Pathology of False Disciples".

Putting that sermon aside for a sec', said Christian blogger evidently saw something I had written on her own blog, subsequently leading her back to my blog.

**I now interject that I have gone on record many times to say that Christians and Christian beliefs are a big source of my blogging subject matter. I mean, there is always plenty of material to work with, and recently had been one such time** 

Moving on, the Christian blogger came here and took issue with what I had written on my last blog post, suggesting that I overlooked the context of who the bible verse was talking about. But instead of addressing it here, she did so on her own blog. Note, I don't mind being straightened out if I'm actually in error, as trust me, I'm the last guy on earth who wants to sit here and defend my errors.

So, the Christian blogger contended that in "John 6" there is a "crowd" that (supposedly) witnessed Jesus and his (alleged) "miracles", and these people "spiritually defect", despite (allegedly) having seen those "miracles" firsthand.

Cutting to the chase---there are 9 points that were referenced on this Christian blogger's post, each one describing characteristics of "false disciples", AKA, "spiritual defectors". Again, as to not defend my errors, I am willing to concede that "John 6" deals with the people of that time period, and specifically, the "crowd" mentioned. Let the record show that "Atheists" are not... repeat, NOT mentioned.

Now, here's what I'm not willing to concede: I'm not willing to concede this notion that the sermon in question isn't talking to today's Christians about today's "spiritual defectors", E.g...what signs to look for. It most certainly is. What I'm also not willing to concede is that, of those whom today's Christians count as "spiritual defectors", former believers who've turned "atheist" aren't included. Christians most certainly do include the former-believer-turned-atheist as a "spiritual defector", as I've been told, point-blank, that I was never a "True Christian" by many a believer. Thus, my conclusion on this matter is that there was some equivocation going on in my being corrected.

But right now I want to get back to "ad hominem": In the Christian blogger's retort, which BTW, consisted of three short paragraphs, I count three ad hominem attacks. She could have corrected my "context" error without saying that my "outraged reaction" was "set on 11". She could have pointed out the "context" without calling me a "sneering internet atheist". And lastly, she could have pointed out the "context" of the biblical passage without telling me that I should not expect to use her blog as a "forum" for my "expertise on all things", and BTW, the latter is both ad hominem and a strawman fallacy.

An expert on all things? Hardly. But do I know my fallacies? Yes. And I have a good reason to know them. And if there's any "expert" on my own experiences with Christianity and its "Christ", mark my words that this would be me, not you(Christian blogger). That, in a nutshell, is my argument against this lecture on the "spiritual defectors".

And BTW, I don't moderate comments here. Anyone is invited to use reasoned arguments to contend a point or make their case.

The Pathology of a True Believer

Disclaimer: This article is a spin-off of an article mentioned on a Christian blog I recently linked to, and the article is entitled, "The Pathology of False Disciples". I won't provide a link because, unless you are a believer it will likely only infuriate you, and this is especially if you are a former believer. Nonetheless, for anyone curious to see the entire article, you can paste the title into your browser, and the article in question will likely pop up.

 For now, the Christian blog I mentioned happened to provide the tell-tale signs of a "spiritual defector", which are the following....

...are attracted by the crowd. The bigger the crowd, the greater their interest.

...are fascinated by the supernatural.

...are interested in earthly or physical benefits.

...are indifferent to worship, (true worship)

...seek prosperity; money, bread, health, satisfaction

...makes demands on God. They want a mechanism to manipulate God to get what they want.

...do not find their desires fulfilled in Christ because they have no appetite for the bread of life.

...don't understand divine revelation because they can't. They prefer lies.

...have no interest in embracing the cross and no tolerance for a crucified savior

Seriously, I don't know whether to laugh or cry half the time, but there you have it.

I'll deal with them one by one in red...

1)  attracted by the crowd. The bigger the crowd, the greater their interest.

Um, what "crowd"? Theists currently out number non-theists in my country. As for my "interest", I am interested in what it most likely true about the world I live in. 

2) fascinated by the supernatural.

'Sorry, I don't believe in the "supernatural" no matter how much the good Pastor and his brethren in Christ jump up 'n down and insist that I do believe in it. If anything at all, I'm fascinated by the people who believe in the "supernatural", and in particular, those who claim that an invisible, conscious creator-being exists and cares about what I believe, what I eat, what I wear, and what positions I use in the bedroom. That sort of claim fascinates me, yes.

 3) interested in earthly or physical benefits.

Yup. Just like you, if you are a Christian reading this right now. I'm doing whatever it takes to survive, just like everyone else. For example, I'm interested in physically returning home to my family every day, so I wear a seat belt when I drive to increase the odds that this will happen. Now, do Christians not wear seat belts, or something? I also get frequent physicals as "preventative" medicine, because I want to stay here as long as I can to be with the people I love. Sooo? what?....only Atheists get check-ups, then?  

4) indifferent to worship, (true worship) 

:raises hand::  I'm actually indifferent to both "true worship" and "false worship". That's right, I don't think it's reasonable to "worship" that which I don't believe exists. Now, if you want to talk about the time that I used to believe in a "God", okay, I worshiped as much as the average worshiper.

5)  seek prosperity; money, bread, health, satisfaction

Like the astute among us know, to have even the very basics in life requires money. And if our health doesn't matter, then good grief, I guess nothing matters, does it? This again raises the question of why Christians get physicals and go to doctors if they aren't seeking "health". And about "satisfaction", are not Christians seeking satisfaction by worshiping "God"? Methinks my hypocrisy meter would be pegging right now if I had such a thing.

6) makes demands on God. They want a mechanism to manipulate God to get what they want.

What I "want" from any "God" out there is one thing, and one thing, only, which is this: The evidence that would convince me of his/her/its existence, and BTW, he/she/it would know exactly what that evidence would be if he/she/it is "omniscient". Once I'm convinced of such a thing?..fine, then people can talk about pretend to know the ways in which I want to "manipulate God".

7)  do not find their desires fulfilled in Christ because they have no appetite for the bread of life.

I have an appetite for acquiring true beliefs, and by extension, discarding false beliefs. If "Christ" is the "bread of life" and it can be demonstrated in some meaningful, objective way, fine. At that point I will have to reconsider my position. Until then?.. I do not now, nor will I ever, accept "because I say so" or "because the Bible says so" as "demonstrable evidence". Please-oh-please let it penetrate.

8) don't understand divine revelation because they can't. They prefer lies.

Actually, what I prefer is consistency over double-standards. For instance, I contend that I understand enough about "divine revelation" that I can dismiss, out of hand, the proposition that Muhammad sat in cave and took dictation from the Almighty Allah, and I'll wager that Christians won't have a problem with me doing this. I reject the "divine revelation" that Moroni buried some magical, golden tablets in the side of a hill, and again, this is because I understand enough about "divine revelation" to reject "Mormonism". IOW, "divine revelation" isn't necessarily evidence, and any Christian who is consistent must concede this.

9) have no interest in embracing the cross and no tolerance for a crucified savior.

Guilty! I no longer have an interest in "embracing the cross", whereas, I once did; and I no longer believe that there was any "savior" or anything to be "saved" from, whereas I once did. It would logically follow that since I no longer believe those things, that I wouldn't embrace those things. But that's not what the "True Believer" is contending. No, they are contending that I never believed or had tolerance in the first place, which is their way of dismissing my experiences out of hand without giving it a nano-second of consideration, which will be the inspiration for my response/spin-off, beginning right now:

The Pathology of a True Believer:

..."True Believers" frequently attach the word "True" onto "Christian"..i.e.."True Christian", erroneously  thinking that when/if someone counters what they believe to be the universal ideal of what "Christian" means to them, that they, the "True Believer" are uniquely legitimate, while the person they've dismissed is not legitimate. It should be noted that the type of Christians who do this would never, ever, ever allow anyone to tell them that they aren't a "True Christian". Funny, that.

..."True Believers" frequently tell former believers that they never "truly" believed in the first place(or were never "truly saved"), which, if you think about it, produces a pretty damning dilemma, which is, it implies that "True Believers" cannot change their minds. Yes, once a "True Believer", always a "True Believer". Once a "True Christian", always a "True Christian". So much for that whole "free will" rigmarole, I guess.

..."True Believers" believe that since they view themselves as rotten to the core, that, oh, then everyone else is rotten to the core, by default. Moreover, if the "True Believer" believes that "Jesus" has been good to them, then they will not accept that "Jesus" hasn't been equally "good" to every believer. IOW, "True Believers" contend that if a former believer contends that "Jesus" was not "good" to them, never mind being completely AWOL, then they never knew "Jesus" is the first place. Again, it's a case of the "True Believer" taking his or her magic "be gone" wand, and waving it in the face of former believers.

..."True Believers" contend that everything...EVERTHING is in "God's hands". If that's actually true, then my apostasy, being a "thing", would mean that this, too, is (presumably) in "God's hands". Yet, curiously, you will frequently find the "True Believer" bloviating on the matter of my apostasy, usually in the form of ministering, which, at best, would be to second-guess the mind of God.

Conclusion: In my experience with "True Believers" who are vocal about their version of "Christianity", they are consistently hypocritical, condescending, and most of all, they are mistaken about their beliefs. The central tenets of the "Christian Faith" are covered and debunked throughout this blog.

Shalom!

ADDENDUM: I have been informed by the owner/operator of the Christian blog that I linked to that the context of the above-mentioned 9 characteristics are attempting to describe "the crowd" from the biblical passage "John 6". In other words, it's for the people who (supposedly) witnessed Jesus' miracles, but "defected" anyway. This is equivocation. As if we are to believe that the good Pastor's sermon is merely a "history lesson" and that there isn't an underlying "moral" that's applicable to today. 'Not buying it. Today's "True Believers" say the exact same things about today's former believers, AKA, "false disciples", including, those who become atheist.

Willful Ignorance: Honor it?

Anyone who's familiar with the popular networking site Facebook probably knows that one of its main uses is to share famous (or not so famous) quotes on one's own timeline, or in some cases, on other people's timelines. This, more often than not, is done to let people know where you stand, whether that be politically, spiritually, or whatever the case may be. The quote above is from a woman named Sanaya Roman. Without doing any sort of search, my guess is that she is some sort of "metaphysical" proponent, whether that be an author, a practitioner, a guru, or maybe even all three. Then again, she may be none of the above. But it's really not important, because I want to address the content of the quote.

  If we take her quote at its face-value, it seems very compassionate, empathetic, and even attempts to be reasonable. It's very "Live and Let Live"(another quote). She says, "There is no one 'right' way to grow". 'Sounds reasonable and diplomatic enough, doesn't it? Sure. But yet, we must assume something right away, and that is that the person who's presumably about to "grow" actually wants to "grow". In order to grow, it seems to me that the very first thing required is that one must be able to entertain the notion that one could be wrong about where they're currently at. Incidentally, when I was a bible-believing Christian, at some point I must have considered the notion that I was wrong, because I'm no longer a believer. Moreover, I am still open to the idea that there could be an invisible, conscious, creator-being, but if there is, with as much confidence as I can tell you that "square circles" don't exist, I can tell you that the deity delineated in the pages of the "Holy Bible" does not exist. The reason in a nutshell for how I arrive at this, is that said deity's attributes are mutually incompatible and that this deity defies, and often times, spits directly into the face of logic.

Logic

So, about "logic". There might very well be different paths, yadda, yadda, when it comes to personal growth. I don't think anyone would argue differently. However, there is only one "logic". There is not "his logic", "her logic", "their logic", "your logic", etc. 

Thus, if we can agree that finding out what is actually true about the world we live in is an integral and necessary part of growing and expanding our horizons, then we have to think logically. And before I go further, by definition, "faith" is agnosticism, at best. At worst, it is an intellectual cop-out and a reason to stay willfully ignorant. Theists who harbor and profess belief on "faith" are not applying logic evenly nor comprehensively. For instance, they are not applying the same "logic" that they use to determine that the other guy's "god" is a figment of their imagination, so in actuality, they are not using logic at all. There is no, "Well, by Christian logic, Hell is real, and I'm right!". 

With all of this being said, if someone wants to remain on a "path" that keeps them willfully ignorant and/or has them compartmentalizing their beliefs, that is certainly their right, a right which I support. However, I do not feel that I should necessarily respect the "path" they've chosen, as Ms. Roman admonishes us to do. I do not find anything "beautiful" about willful ignorance, and I will not "honor" the person who is at a place in life where they say that I deserve to be burned with fire 24/7 for all of eternity because I don't believe as they do. Surely such beliefs are the exact opposite of "inclusive"? 

In closing, Ms. Sanaya, while she is attempting to teach compassion and tolerance, she is forgetting (or ignoring) that some of the "paths" that people are on cause division and make the world a more unsafe place than it needs to be. And if these "paths" lead people to a place that they have no intention of leaving, then I'm afraid her quote misses the mark. No one can "grow" in faith.