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.