You Should Be Skeptical Your Faith Passes the Outsider Test for Faith
I have heard from several Christians who claim to have bit the bullet by admitting their faith should pass the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF), only to conclude that it does. Surprise! The fullest presentation of it online is to be found here. Having received this feedback I revisited the argument again in a chapter for The Christian Delusion. One of the many things I do in that chapter is to argue that Christians ought to be just as skeptical their own faith passes the OTF as they are when Mormons or Muslims claim the same thing. Why not, right? That's what outsiders do.
53 comments:
Critical thinking is very important, but at what point does "self-sufficiency" blind us to our own ability to reason IF we are logical victims of depravity?
IOW, if there is an Infinite Creator and we are infinitely small and therefore infinitely weak (and logically weak) based on the fact that we are NOT omniscient, at what point do we assert self-sufficiency as supreme?
What if you are a victim of self-deception BECAUSE of self-sufficiency?
Yes, I WOULD indeed ask the question "why is it wrong to be skeptical of skepticism?" Especially if skepticism ASSUMES man can reason independently of a Creator Who sustains him?
There are at least two concepts which compete here. One is to ignore the possibility of self-deception because of depravity and likewise ignore the possibility that you are even an enemy of the Creator Who created you (because you have been corrupted in some way).
The other is to logically recognize that IF there is an Infinite Creator THEN you are completely dependent on Him - in His universe (especially given the logic that you infinitely weak).
But this is just the beginning...
When skepticism appears to have a monopoly on one form of skepticism...
more logic is needed.
Question everything. It just might lead you in the correct direction.
I had a choice to make about my future career as a Master of Divinity student at seminary who also had a BA in Bible from a conservative Christian University: As I gained factual knowledge, I could ignore objective facts and live in denial (thus, safe guarding my doctrinal faith) or I could be honest. I now choose to be honest rather than religious.
As a result of bring objective scholarship into a Southern Baptist church (a text such as Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament), I was told that any texts used had to be approved by the pastoral staff of the church or they were not to be brought into any Sunday school class. I was also told the only two texts to be used in a Sunday school class were an English Bible and the Southern Baptist Sunday School Quarterly.
The final time I tried to inject open scholarship, I was told that the church staff would cancel any class I taught! This was done, not because I was rude, not because I was immoral, not because I was unethical, but simply because I demanded that indoctrinated people given the choice of, not what to think, but how to think.
Now that I’m a relative atheist on the Biblical god, I usually invite evangelical Christians (who leave a Gospel tracts in public places with their churches name on the back) to a free meal if they will simply sit down with me for an hour or more and talk to me about Jesus and salvation.
Fact of the matter is that most all “unsaved” people are view as atheist / agnostics until they “accept Jesus” and are “saved” by controlled and manipulated facts (such as the ones that got be kick out of my Southern Baptist church).
Like the two young Mormon missionaries tell potential converts, “We are looking for someone willing to be taught.” I used to tell them "I was willing to be taught" and invited them to lunch. Now the LDS Mission Board has placed me on a do not visit list.
Indeed, truth in Christianity is highly subjective and very controlled to create a desired out come…sectarian salvation!
In other words, one is saved by limited facts and denial in a process called “faith”.
The lack of empirical evidence of this infinite creator being sustaining anyone or anything, outside of personal anecdotes that can't be shown to be true to others; as well, the many competing sects of your singular religion, as well as those of others around the world and throughout time, seem to preclude your assumptions.
From an outsider's perspective, that is. Feel free to dismiss it.
Go bend over backwards more in abject deference to the god of death. I'm sure it needs more reminding that it's so awesome.
"The lack of empirical evidence of this infinite creator being sustaining anyone or anything, outside of personal anecdotes that can't be shown to be true to others;"
If this was aimed at "me" I would argue that there is indeed empirical evidence of "a" Creator and that such evidence mathematically can indeed lead to the logical conclusion of an Infinite Creator...but that will be a long subject msthematically and scientifically.
Either way, if it was directed at me - it was incongruous to skepticism having a monopoly on one form of skepticism.
If you start a little further back in the progression of logical fallacy of Strong Atheism and work your way through the conclusions that lead you to orthodox monotheism...then it is logical to admit your finitude existence in comparision to an Infinite Creator.
Without dealing with all of the alleged assertions in the progression, you will not see how the Creator is concluded rather than assumed.
And you should be skeptical regarding your unbelief also...especialy the atheism that you claim. But no, you'll continue to accept that by FAITH now won't you???
"I usually invite evangelical Christians (who leave a Gospel tracts in public places with their churches name on the back) to a free meal if they will simply sit down with me for an hour or more and talk to me about Jesus and salvation."
That's great. You do realize that they pray for you. Where can I get this "fee meal?" However, you can't react to the imperfections of a particular denomination and allow this to affect YOUR personal relationship with a Giving Savior.
Think about it logically, for a second... If it had been a Textus Receptus Only Fundamentalist Baptist church...wouldn't you have just found a different church where you could practice better scholarship?
Breckmin
Being skeptical of skepticism is a self-refuting argument.
Hi Chuck O'Conner,
If I may ask a similar question of you, I think what the district superintendent was asking is do you apply the same level of scrutiny to your own ideas and beliefs that you demand of others? I think it is a fair question.
Hi Harry H. McCall,
As I am sure you are aware about Southern Baptist churches, they are primarily places of worship, not places where "objective scholarship" is discussed. You would get no more traction there than you would asking the New York Times to give Rush Limbaugh a regular news column.
But let me ask you also. Do you consider yourself a "scholar"?
Would you say that you are qualified to present a fair and balanced case to your audience in the Sunday School class? Would you consider yourself biased or objective in the way you presented the information? I would think that, if you deem it fair to bring that book into the Sunday School class, would those be fair questions to ask of you? Both sides, yours included, would have a vested interest in these questions. What say you:)?
Gleaner,
You need to define the terms otherwise you are equivocating.
Your assumption presupposes that being skeptical of supernatural ideas operates under the same methodology of skepticism that being skeptical of natural ones does.
It doesn't.
Of course I am skeptical of all kinds of modes of skepticism.
I am skeptical of your mode of skepticism because it looks to equate naturalism with supernaturalism and therefore commits the fallacy of equivocation.
I just find evidence to validate the truth claims of naturalism and therefore soften my doubts. I don't see the same level of evidence for supernatural claims and therefore remain doubtful.
All religious people do the same thing in respects to theology that contradicts their particular supernatural beliefs.
Breckmin,
Don't stop now. You're on a roll. Show us your "proofs"--tee hee--especially since you're the one claiming the proof and the existence.
And did you just make up a logical fallacy, "strong atheism"? How about the fallacy of "strong monotheism", since we're playing for fantastical fallacies.
"Breckmin,
Being skeptical of skepticism is a self-refuting argument."
"skeptical" and "skepticism" are just English words and their imperfections will be exposed in close dissection...so let's go with this..
please demonstrate how it is a self-refuting argument to "doubt" your own ability to be perfectly "skeptical?" Please demonstrate how self-sufficiency is somehow the logical assumption for processing truth...
this should be fun.
"Show us your "proofs"--tee hee--especially since you're the one claiming the proof and the existence."
Proof requires honesty and correct definitions that does not eliminate the correct answer because of invalid assumptions based one circular reasoning.
If someone is not either honest enough to admit that "information comes from Intelligence" or that "complex mechanical working systems" are always designed, or that IF-THEN algorithmic programming is always programmed..OR they have imposed to circular assumption of naturalism as a requirement which eliminates the correct answer as even something to consider as evidence...then there is no reasoning with such a person.
Deceptions are spread through invalid assumptions based on circular reasonings, invalid inductions and ridiculous possibilites. These are the tools of the enemy who seeks to deceive you in anyway "possible."
We can start with the logical fallacy of Explicit Atheism and move toward agnostical theism. Each step requires honesty and logic in order to make a reasonable conclusion.
"And did you just make up a logical fallacy, "strong atheism"?"
Actually that was something that was all over the AOL Forums back in the mid-90's. You would think
it would have received more publication.
"How about the fallacy of "strong monotheism",
Strong monotheism is based on both evidence and relationship. Let's talk about the evidence since you don't believe in all of the worship and praise songs that are
being sung around the world.
Breckmin: IOW, if there is an Infinite Creator and we are infinitely small and therefore infinitely weak (and logically weak) based on the fact that we are NOT omniscient, at what point do we assert self-sufficiency as supreme?
What if you are a victim of self-deception BECAUSE of self-sufficiency?
RE: In other words: Hell, what’s the use! We as humans are defeated even before we even start. So, once the supposed concept of God (as up held by human formulated theology) is accepted, any objective person has just sawed off the tree limb of knowledge they were sitting on.
Realistically, the Bible NEVER attacks intelligence, but praises humanistic wisdom and even has God rewarding tricksters such as Jacob in Genesis.
Moreover, both the terms for wisdom in the Bible Qoheleth (Hebrew) and Sophia (Greek) are feminine, yet women are property to be sold in the Hebrew Bible and are told to keep quit and keep their faces covered by Paul in the New Testament.
So, it is very clear that your above statement has more in common with popular theology than objective Biblical reality.
Secondly, please tell me just how a debased and sinful humanity can even began to preserve and protect the Hebrew text with the various Massorah pointing systems and the use of Qere-kethibh if your premise of human depravity was not anachronistic? (But then again, Christianity is so open to scholarship, I’m sure your Sunday school texts have never has discussed the above least the human dogmatic theory of Biblical Inspiration be completely busted).
Funny, isn’t it, just how your theology of humanity depravity up holds Christian creedal dogmas! Talk about circular reasoning!
Breckmin: That's great. You do realize that they pray for you. Where can I get this "fee meal?" However, you can't react to the imperfections of a particular denomination and allow this to affect YOUR personal relationship with a Giving Savior.
RE: Only in a universalistic way they pray for me: Just as Catholics pray for Jehovah Witnesses; as they pray for Baptist; as they pray for Mormons; as the pray for Greek Orthodox who pray for all the other lost Christians who are viewed as non-believing heretics.
As to the free meal, hey, I’m in Greenville, SC (My blog description lists my email address, home town). So just where are you? If you are in Georgia, North Carolina, or even Tennessee, than I drive up your way so you can share the Gospel with me and I can share Biblical scholarship with you.
If not, please tell me which denomination you are affiliated with and have one of their apologists meet with me here in Greenville on your behalf.
Shalom,
Harry
Breckamin,
You are confusing the person who is skeptical with the methodology of skepticism and thereby committing the fallacy of equivocation.
Of course as a skeptic I am skeptical of skepticism so I practice empiricism as my method of skepticism to quiet my skeptical doubts.
You?
Breckmin:
>> What if you are a victim of self-deception BECAUSE of self-sufficiency?
Right.
The alternative would be to return to the Dark Ages when people were denied both the relevant information and the critical thinking tools to analyze the data, and were told to simply trust their religious and political leaders to know and do what was best for them. Life was sooo much better when people didn’t question their beliefs and learn effective methods to differentiate true from false beliefs.
I think that self-sufficiency was one of the best traditions born out of the Enlightenment. The idea that one is free to question one’s beliefs and to critically appraise them in an effort to differentiate true beliefs from beliefs that are held due to biases, distortions and wishful thinking was one of the most liberating in the history of mankind.
Are you seriously objecting to each individual’s intrinsic right to be sceptical and to provide them with the tools to know what to believe, what not to believe, and what to remain agnostic about?
>> I would argue that there is indeed empirical evidence of "a" Creator and that such evidence mathematically can indeed lead to the logical conclusion of an Infinite Creator...but that will be a long subject msthematically and scientifically.
I would LOVE to read the scientific and mathematical evidence for the existence of a Creator.
>> If you start a little further back in the progression of logical fallacy of Strong Atheism and work your way through the conclusions that lead you to orthodox monotheism...then it is logical to admit your finitude existence in comparision to an Infinite Creator.
It is only logical if one assumes the existence of an Infinite Creator to begin with. Just like it would be logical to admit your two-legged hornlessness compared to magical unicorns.
>> please demonstrate how it is a self-refuting argument to "doubt" your own ability to be perfectly "skeptical?"
It is self-refuting, because it presupposes what it refutes. Scepticism is an epistemic attitude in which one doubts certain beliefs with the intention of critically appraising them to determine whether they are really true. To be sceptical about scepticism would mean to doubt the ability to doubt. That is incoherent, because you are using DOUBT in order to refute DOUBT. Got it?
>> Please demonstrate how self-sufficiency is somehow the logical assumption for processing truth...
It is only a logical assumption to process truth if you believe that individuals have the capacity to appraise their beliefs when provided with the requisite information and the tools to critically analyze them.
If you disagree with this assumption, then you are left with exclusively relying upon authority figures to determine the veracity of all of your beliefs. And if you happen to come across a belief that you find hard to believe, then you have to suppress your scepticism, shut up, and just continue to toe the party line.
I think that the former assumption enhances the dignity of humanity whereas the latter assumption turns human beings in servile beasts and lemmings.
Harry,
I think I love you.
You are awesome.
Breckman:
>> If someone is not either honest enough to admit that "information comes from Intelligence" or that "complex mechanical working systems" are always designed, or that IF-THEN algorithmic programming is always programmed..OR they have imposed to circular assumption of naturalism as a requirement which eliminates the correct answer as even something to consider as evidence...then there is no reasoning with such a person.
First, not all information comes from intelligence. That is an assumption that must be demonstrated. I can easily point to the information contained in weather patterns as analyzed by meteorologists as a counterexample to your claim. Unless you want to deny that weather patterns contain information? And if they do contain information, then why assume that they are the product of intelligence, and not just due to the natural laws that guide the patterns?
Second, “complex mechanical working systems” are sometimes designed, but not always so. Simply using the argument from ignorance is insufficient to demonstrate the truth of your position. It is not enough to just say that “X is really, really complicated! I can’t imagine how it could have been built up over a long period of time with small random changes, and so it must be impossible! And if it’s impossible for such a process, then it MUST be God!” Just because scientists have not uncovered ALL the evolutionary steps of all complex biological entities does not imply that God did it. And it is interesting that all the examples of irreducible complexity that creationists mention HAVE hypothetical evolutionary mechanisms to explain their design.
Third, naturalism is an assumption only in the sense that it is the only thing that we all experience in our lives. All our thoughts, feelings, dreams, and experiences are mediated by natural processes in the brain-body-environment interactions. All our experiences of supernatural entities are natural in the sense that they involve thoughts, feelings and sense experiences, which are all natural phenomena. The only way to disprove naturalism is to give an example of a supernatural entity that manifested itself without going through our natural capacities of thought, feeling and experience. Good luck with that.
Gleaner63: As I am sure you are aware about Southern Baptist churches, they are primarily places of worship, not places where "objective scholarship" is discussed.
RE: It appears that holds true with their seminaries too. Let see: Fire all women professors (Even though the terms for wisdom in the Bible Qoheleth (Hebrew) and Sophia (Greek) are feminine), force all seminary faculty to sign a limiting subjective agreement as to just what can and will be taught and fire those who do not.
Yet you say that: Southern Baptist churches, they are primarily places of worship, not places where "objective scholarship" is discussed. I would respond that they don’t know when worship stops and objective scholarship begins.
Gleaner63: But let me ask you also. Do you consider yourself a "scholar"?
Would you say that you are qualified to present a fair and balanced case to your audience in the Sunday School class? Would you consider yourself biased or objective in the way you presented the information? I would think that, if you deem it fair to bring that book into the Sunday School class, would those be fair questions to ask of you? Both sides, yours included, would have a vested interest in these questions. What say you:)?
RE: Is truth fair and objective? Could Frank M. Cross of Harvard and James M. Robinson of the School of Theology at Claremont, California have ever taught (presently) in ANY Southern Baptist college, university or seminary? (Google up their academic achievements and the compare them with any Southern Baptist professor now teaching. That‘s what I call objectivity!)
And if you think they could have, then all women and fired professor would still be teaching in their seminaries still.
Fact is (and the bottom line is this): If the Gospels are true, than objective truth does not need defending. If it is not, then fire whose who open any student’s eyes. That is, if it is not true, than the only way to whitewash it is to fire professors and force those who want to teach to sign a subjective contract limiting knowledge.
Shalom,
Harry
Breckmin,
Singing praise to something does not make it real, nor does it imply that the thing you're singing about is real. Pretty big assumption.
And, of course, you're ignoring other belief systems and deities with minutiae that contradict your faith, but that's fine, because, you know, yours is the one true god.
I wonder if Breckamin will admit how wrong he has been.
"It is only logical if one assumes the existence of an Infinite Creator to begin with."
Or if one concludes an Infinite Creator based on the philosophical and mathematical requirements of being able to create all existence, all matter, and exist at all levels of infinite inner space as well as "outer" (anthropomorphic) infinite 3 dimensional spatial existence.
There is a progression of conclusion which is not being addressed here which makes it appear circular rather than concluded.
Breck,
Are you serious?
Everything you post exhibits intellectual dishonesty. It's offensive.
"It is self-refuting, because it presupposes what it refutes."
It depends completely on your usages of the words and what meanings you are trying to communicate when questioning.
"Scepticism is an epistemic attitude in which one doubts certain beliefs with the intention of critically appraising them to determine whether they are really true."
How do you know that you have the objectivity to employ this as it relates to your own relationship to a Creator? Please be specific.
"To be sceptical about scepticism would mean to doubt the ability to doubt."
What is wrong with questioning the ability to doubt specific things.
Is all belief truly equal? Is all knowledge equal? Is all doubt equal and independent of any knowledge? Is not "doubt" a form of belief itself? Even if you claim that "you don't know" are you not claiming to know or believe that "you can't know" based on the alleged lack of evidence?
How is doubt independent of any
belief? Please be specific. How
is it independent of knowledge?
"That is incoherent, because you are using DOUBT in order to refute DOUBT. Got it?"
It depends on what you mean when you say "skeptical of skepticism" because it depends completely on your definition of "skepticism" as it relates to a quest for empiricism or questioning itself.
If I say "Is it wrong to question
questioning?" that is different from "is it wrong to be skeptical
of "skepticism" IF skepticism employs a certain criterion for such questioning.
Either way, we have to address conceptually what "doubt" is specifically. If you say "doubt" is "disbelief" or "without belief"
you have to substantiate that such a concept is even possible once you have learned enough to become "aware" and have any knowledge at all. All knowledge is based on some belief. If you do not doubt your own belief in your current knowledge then the question remains...
"what is doubt?" and how is it independent of any belief whatsoever? You can't escape knowledge...and therefore you can't escape belief.
There is so much going on here with the relationship of belief and knowledge that all we are demonstrating is that "pure doubt"
doesn't really exist because you can't escape believing in something once you have knowledge.
Breckmin,
Just to reiterate Chuck's response. Philosophers and theologians have been arguing these issues for literally centuries, and none of them have come up with a satisfactory set of arguments that match what you claim to have. Not a single one of these arguments are airtight cases with perfect logic and premises, and yet you claim to have such knowledge.
You're either much smarter than anyone who has come before, or you don't realize there are problems with the arguments you are using. Until you present something that indicates that you have found some new, never before tried arguments that demonstrates some amazing new insight, I'm going to assume these arguments aren't nearly as good as you think they are.
"I wonder if Breckamin will admit how wrong he has been."
I will admit that everything I post is imperfect and needs more clarification.
We all believe "something." Even
when we claim that "we do not know"
at that point in time we are believing that "based on our current knowledge" we can't know for certain. That also is a form of belief.
Belief is inescapable once you have alleged knowledge.
Question everything..because everything is based on prior belief.
What when you question..pray for protection - lest you fall into deception.
Breck you said,
"There is so much going on here with the relationship of belief and knowledge that all we are demonstrating is that "pure doubt"
doesn't really exist because you can't escape believing in something once you have knowledge."
I admitted as much and instructed you on your logical fallacy.
What brand of skepticism are you practicing when you posit all of your questions?
"What when you question..pray for protection - lest you fall into deception."
Go here, http://zdenny.com/
You will find someone to co-sign your BS.
Your word games are idiotic.
"It is only a logical assumption to process truth if you *believe* that individuals have the capacity to appraise their beliefs"
So you admit that you are starting with belief? So you have to "believe you can assess your own beliefs" Is this what you are saying?
"when provided with the requisite information and the tools to critically analyze them."
Requisite information? What if you don't have ALL the information?
Wouldn't you need ALL information in order to be self-sufficient?
Partial information can lead to pseudo conclusions.
If you use a reductio argument to claim that no one is omniscient and therefore no one is self-sufficent where will this point?
You would need to be omniscient in order to be self-sufficeint?
This is no accident btw.
Breck,
You said, "Requisite information? What if you don't have ALL the information? Wouldn't you need ALL information in order to be self-sufficient? Partial information can lead to pseudo conclusions."
Time for you to learn another logical fallacy. Ever hear of the "black and white" fallacy?
From: http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Circular%20Reasoning
Black-or-White
The black-or-white fallacy is a false dilemma fallacy that unfairly limits you to only two choices.
Example:
Well, it’s time for a decision. Will you contribute $10 to our environmental fund, or are you on the side of environmental destruction?
A proper challenge to this fallacy could be to say, “I do want to prevent the destruction of our environment, but I don’t want to give $10 to your fund. You are placing me between a rock and a hard place.” The key to diagnosing the black-or-white fallacy is to determine whether the limited menu is fair or unfair. Simply saying, “Will you contribute $10 or won’t you?” is not unfair.
I'd suggest you stop digging. You really are making yourself look stupid.
Go visit ZDenny. He will affirm your incoherence as enlightenment.
"Your word games are idiotic."
Imperfection in words are inevitable because of their applications and multiple meanings.
Until we have a perfect language we will ALL be guilty of idiotic until we see the imperfection of what is really going on here.
Question everything. It just might lead you in the right direction.
Logical humility to cry out for salvation from logical inability.
Partial information *can* lead to pseudo conclusions."
"Time for you to learn another logical fallacy. Ever hear of the "black and white" fallacy?"
Lies and false beliefs *can* have elements of truth which are contained within their belief structures or within the means of reasoning which led you to error.
"Everything you post exhibits intellectual dishonesty. It's offensive."
This is general and doesn't deal with any specific point, argument or reasoning.
Breck
You show with your insistence on equivocation that you don't understand the meanings of words. Go visit Z you will find a kindred spirit.
Breckmin:
>> How do you know that you have the objectivity to employ this as it relates to your own relationship to a Creator? Please be specific.
I’m not too sure what you are getting at. Are you asking me how I could possibly have the critical appraisal tools to determine whether my beliefs about God are true or not? Do you deny that humans have the ability to evaluate their beliefs for veracity? If we lack such ability, then relativism reins supreme, because there would be no way of differentiating true from false beliefs. Furthermore, how exactly WOULD one go about deciding whether to believe in Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, or any of the other deities that have been around in human history? If you undercut reason and logic, then what is left? Blind faith?
>> What is wrong with questioning the ability to doubt specific things.
Nothing is wrong with doubting the ability to doubt specific beliefs. If that is your position, then it is not self-refuting. I thought you were doubting scepticism itself, which would be self-refuting. Personally, I think that one can doubt anything, but there are reasonable and unreasonable doubts, and thus one must be careful to not doubt things that have an excessively high probability of being true.
>> Either way, we have to address conceptually what "doubt" is specifically. If you say "doubt" is "disbelief" or "without belief" you have to substantiate that such a concept is even possible once you have learned enough to become "aware" and have any knowledge at all. All knowledge is based on some belief. If you do not doubt your own belief in your current knowledge then the question remains...
"what is doubt?" and how is it independent of any belief whatsoever? You can't escape knowledge...and therefore you can't escape belief.
First, “doubt” is a complicated phenomena that can mean different things. Doubt1 can mean the suspension of endorsing a belief for the purposes of objectively examining it for truth. Doubt2 can mean the rejection of the truth of a belief on the basis of its unlikelihood to be true. So, you are right that we must be careful which meaning of “doubt” we are using, because doubt1 represents the beginning of the sceptical activity and doubt2 represents one possible end of the sceptical activity, i.e. rejecting the belief that was examined.
Second, doubt is not independent of any belief. It absolutely relies upon beliefs, because without them, there is nothing for doubt to operate upon.
>> There is so much going on here with the relationship of belief and knowledge that all we are demonstrating is that "pure doubt" doesn't really exist because you can't escape believing in something once you have knowledge.
First, you are correct that one cannot doubt2 all of one’s beliefs, because that would lead to radical scepticism, and the utter inability to function in the world. However, one certainly can doubt1 all of one’s beliefs. In other words, one can easily suspend belief in all our beliefs in order to examine them for truth. However, one will quickly realize that this quickly leads to having to believe in some beliefs, which rules out doubt1 for all our beliefs.
Second, you must remember that just because someone has knowledge (i.e. assents to justified true beliefs) does not imply that those same beliefs are forever blocked from future doubt. New information may be discovered that calls previously certain beliefs into question, and thus open to doubt.
"The key to diagnosing the black-or-white fallacy is to determine whether the limited menu is fair or unfair."
I don't believe that fair exists..but that is a different discussion.
I am NOT asserting that the choices are either "Infinite Creator" or atheism. What I am asserting is that "Infinite Creator" can be the result of
*conclusion* rather than circular assumption.
Breckmin:
>> So you admit that you are starting with belief? So you have to "believe you can assess your own beliefs" Is this what you are saying?
First, of course I start with beliefs. It does not follow that I am not able to criticize the beliefs of others, or even the beliefs that I started out with.
Second, you have to be careful of equivocation. I believe that I can assess my own beliefs, but only in the sense that I assent to the truth of that proposition, mainly because it is a demonstrable fact that people critically appraise their beliefs. However, this is different from believing in this belief in the sense of religious faith. Be careful not to confuse the two, or else your argument will commit the fallacy of equivocation.
>> Requisite information? What if you don't have ALL the information?
Wouldn't you need ALL information in order to be self-sufficient?
Partial information can lead to pseudo conclusions.
First, it would be great to have all the information, but it is not essential. I am not after absolute certainty, for the very reason that I will never have all the information. However, I am after plausibility and likelihood, given the information that I do have access to. That is the limit of the human condition that we all operate under, and it does not follow that we should stop the quest for truth and understanding, simply because an impossible standard cannot be met.
Second, I think you need to define “self-sufficient”, because I think we are operating according to different definitions. Some clarification would be helpful.
Third, you are right that partial information can lead to false conclusions. So what? It does not follow that one needs ALL information in order to arrive at ANY conclusion. When the information that one has consistently points towards the truth of a specific concept, then why is that not good enough to put a high degree of plausibility for the truth of that concept? It will never reach 100% certainty, but so what?
>> You would need to be omniscient in order to be self-sufficeint?
Again, define “self-sufficient”, please.
"New information may be discovered that calls previously certain beliefs into question,"
This is why I want to discuss the systematic theology that removes the alleged "probablility" that somehow the God of Abraham does not exist.
Breckmin:
>> I am NOT asserting that the choices are either "Infinite Creator" or atheism. What I am asserting is that "Infinite Creator" can be the result of
*conclusion* rather than circular assumption.
I think that the reason why such arguments are felt to be question-begging is that they contain assumptions about supernatural entities that no-one can possibly know with any degree of certainty.
For example, you describe an infinite creator, but why do you reject the possibility of a very, very powerful, but finite creator?
The best that you can offer are speculative fantasies, because you do not have any direct knowledge or experience of the supernatural entities that you describe. Without evidentiary justification of the assumptions of theistic discourse, it all becomes hopelessly arbitrary and based upon personal preference.
If you deny this, then go ahead and provide a non-question begging logical argument for the existence of an infinite creator.
Breck
I thought you had a math proof for god, now you want to talk systematic theology? And you say aren't intellectually dishonest?
Evangelicals, who post Gospel tracts on cars at random and left them in ATM’s a restroom, are doing what my Black’s Law Dictionary calls “Fishing” a term Jesus even used for Peter to do(Be ye fishers of men).
Sooner or latter, lets say, out of 500 Gospel tracts left in public, an individual (with limited knowledge and hurting with emotional needs) will think: Hey, this makes sense! This explains everything!
What most people like this want the easy way out. They want someone else to do their thinking for them and Dogmatic Christianity is more than eager to do just that!
In the end, a person with an emotional state is finally consumed and controlled by a religious emotional state.
Now the world appears to make sense: God and the Bible are good. Man and Satan are bad. Case closed and so is the religious mind!
Breckmin needs a super hero/villain nickname.
How about the Obfuscator? Maybe the Convollutor? The Deflector? The Deceptor? So many to choose from!
Dguller, you are a machine of reason and rationale and I appreciate the effort you put into your responses.
And I do want to touch on the idea shortly of preconceived beliefs when arguing ideologies. I can only speak for msyelf, but becoming a skeptic was the result of believing completely in God, and then one day, being just honest enough to accept that I MIGHT be wrong. From there, when I studied and thought about certain positions, they came from a postion of belief in God, but through rationale and evidence to the contrary, I came to accept that I WAS wrong all along.
Now I don't consider it necessary to constanty evaluate your preconceptions, but only evalute how your preconceptions might color your perception of the body of evidence in front of you.
When I recently spoke to a former churchmate of mine, I asked him if he would admit that he MIGHT be wrong. He refused! The only thing he conceded is that he "can't prove his beliefs" but he was completely reticent to acknowledge the notion that he may not be correct. His experieces were the trump card.
He continually berates me about how I should cast doubt upon my reasons for apostasy, claiming that I left simply because I no longer wanted to follow God, but he is unwilling to cast doubt on his reasons for why he believes, completely convinced that his experiences are enough to overrule any need for doubt.
It's dishonest, and it's unhealthy. Doubt and skepticism may be the greatest virtues we as humans know, but most Christians are unwilling to exercise them. Is it fear? Is it some misplaced notion of loyalty to their God? Is it the fear of exclusion from the religious society they've become so fond of?
It's funny that Christians consider it humility to admit they may be wrong about certain theological interpretations, but never admit they may be wrong about the bedrock of their worldview....their God may not exist.
Anthony and dguller
I'm encouraged by both of you. Thanks.
Anthony:
>> Now I don't consider it necessary to constanty evaluate your preconceptions, but only evalute how your preconceptions might color your perception of the body of evidence in front of you.
I agree.
I would add that it is impossible to be so vigilant about one’s beliefs and preconceptions to the point of avoiding error altogether. That is not a realistic goal. However, by being aware of the multiple cognitive distortions to which one is highly susceptible, one can reduce the possibility of making a mistake.
I think that it is extremely dangerous to be completely oblivious of one’s capacity to deceive oneself in order to support a belief structure that one has become highly invested in. People must learn that their ideas and beliefs are not unfiltered and unbiased representations of reality-in-itself, but are products that involve many underlying processes, some whose purpose is to discover truth, and others whose purpose is to maintain the status quo belief structure.
Unless one realizes these underlying psychological dynamics, one will be structurally incapable of knowing which beliefs are true and which are products of conformity, biases, distortion and wishful thinking.
Like you, I find religious believers to be fundamentally incapable of acknowledging this truth, because it would open the gates of doubt, which they fear for a variety of reasons, most of which have to do with their deep need to maintain their belief structure as it underlies their self cohesion and group solidarity. This is all well elucidated by the theory of cognitive dissonance. And as you said, once a little doubt is permitted, a slippery slope is stepped upon, and there is a real danger of sliding all the way down to atheism.
If I may recommend some books that I have found extremely helpful to assist me in being on guard for my own capacity for self-deception:
1. “Don’t Believe Everything You Think” by Thomas Kida
2. “Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)” by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson
They are extremely eye opening!
>> It's dishonest, and it's unhealthy. Doubt and skepticism may be the greatest virtues we as humans know, but most Christians are unwilling to exercise them. Is it fear? Is it some misplaced notion of loyalty to their God? Is it the fear of exclusion from the religious society they've become so fond of?
There are dozens of possible reasons to explain the Christian refusal to open themselves to doubting their fundamental beliefs, including some that you listed. The problem is that none of those reasons provide sufficient justification for their beliefs, and are ultimately a form of rationalization to justify maintaining their belief structure.
And that’s just sad.
Breckmin wrote:
" Is not "doubt" a form of belief itself? "
In my own experience having numerous discusions with Christians over the years, this is a common tactic. Label virtually any and everything a "belief". One seemingly bright fellow once even suggested to me that direct sensory experience was just another form of belief!
Unless you are willing to twist meaning and usage beyond practical use, the answer is No.
Doubt is not a form of belief.
Black is not a form of white.
Hate is not a form of love.
Sobriety is not a form of addiction and not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
It is like the efforts by creationists to reduce all history and science to mere opinion. Some people believe that infectious disease is caused by germs and bacteria. Others believe it is caused by demon possession. So let's teach the controversy and allow all opinions equal time. Isn't that the basis of fairness and science? There's the sperm / egg theory of reproduction and the stork theory. Let's teach them both in medical school.
I've encountered this sort of thing so many times it has led me to wonder if embracing a religion somehow alters or distorts the very ability to reason. It seems each religion has it's own form of 'logic' or reasoning that may be internally consistent but makes it difficult to communicate with others outside that religion. This is one reason why believers and atheists often just talk past each other.
Zenmite:
You are absolutely correct.
Believers typically employ fallacies of ambiguity in their arguments, and most commonly the fallacy of equivocation. The examples that I have encountered on this website involve the terms “reasonable”, “faith”, and “trust”.
For example, “faith” is defined as “assent without absolute proof”, and then it is argued that if one has “faith” in reason, then one has no grounds to criticize someone having “faith” in God. The fallacy is that faith in God is fundamentally different from faith in reason, despite them sharing the superficial similarity as lacking absolute proof, because they differ in terms of both the degree of evidence that supports their veracity and the consequences if they were false.
On the one hand, reason is absolutely essential to any attempt to uncover whether a belief is true or false, and if it were rejected, then we would be left with radical relativism, because we would lack any reliable way to tell when our beliefs are true or false. On the other hand, God is not absolutely essential to our ability to know the true from the false, and the consequences of his non-existence would be that the world is fundamentally natural without this specific supernatural fantasy.
In other words, if reason is rejected, then we have utter CHAOS, but if God is rejected, then we have NATURALISM. So, having “faith” in reason is different from having “faith” in God, just like “seeing” a person in front of me is different from “seeing” a hallucination. Yes, they both share the concept of “brought to visual awareness”, but one cannot therefore conclude that in both cases we are “seeing” something real.
I could go on and on about this, but the really sad thing about this is that they are usually completely oblivious to their use of this fallacy, and are so utterly shocked that they could be so sure about something so wrong that they engage in sophistry to try to defend their fallacious reasoning.
dguller,
You said, "I've encountered this sort of thing so many times it has led me to wonder if embracing a religion somehow alters or distorts the very ability to reason."
It does because reasoning demands that you start with an appreciation for authentic individuality. Religion is predicated on group-think and provides the benefit of safety in numbers. If I am truly going to reason then I have to be willing to risk we will disagree. Any covenental church wipes that possibility away with the demand that membership adhere to doctrine. Once certain ideas are off limits to scrutiny than the practice of reasoning will follow.
It's dishonest, and it's unhealthy."
You would have to be omniscient regarding his experiences and relationship in order to judge him.
"Doubt and skepticism may be the greatest virtues we as humans know,"
This is because you do not understand how LOVE trumps the inevitable existence of evil (sin, disobedience, distrust in the Creator - not what we perceive to be evil circumstances).
"but most Christians are unwilling to exercise them."
Question everything with critical thinking. But when you DO question..it is logical to pray for protection from your own agenda.
"Is it fear? Is it some misplaced notion of loyalty to their God?"
Wisdom DOES begin with the respectful fear of the Holy Creator..but perfect LOVE casts out all fear because you understand that your Creator is in control.
There is NO fear in discussing anything. There is NO fear in questioning. There is nothing to be somehow "uncomfortable" with once you are equipped with a Sword of truth that exposes invalid assumptions.
Let's start with the circular reasoning assumption of what is so called "natural." And how you know that "natural" even exists as a concept that is independent of Theistic sustaining order and power?
If you say "the empirical world is all we see" - this does NOT differentiate between your assumptions between natural and supernatural...neither does it deal
with the circular assumption that all "conclusions" must be naturalistic as well. If you require naturalistic explanations for naturalistic observations..you are not only eliminating theistic implication..but you are also requiring circular reasoning.
If designed processes like crystalization are assumed to have come into existence independent of a Creator...then these assumptions can deceive you as well (however there are still issues regarding entropy to address even with crystalization).
Question everything..but when you question pray for protection.
"Is it the fear of exclusion from the religious society they've become so fond of?"
Exclusion from religious society can come just from pointing out imperfections in the "bible."
Loyalty to a Holy Creator and an Incredible Savior - Jesus Christ of Nazareth - is a more logical explanation to proclaim the reality of your personal relationship to Him.
There IS a proof for God involving mathematics as a langauge which could not have been invented by humans...but just like all proofs.. it depends on your a priori and how you process such information. It doesn't prove the God of Abraham...that is a different argument.
"Second, I think you need to define “self-sufficient”, because I think we are operating according to different definitions. Some clarification would be helpful."
Logical humility is the recognition of your weakness as infinitely approaching zero (on the scale of an Infinite Creator once a Creator is CONCLUDED and not just assumed).
The idea that I can somehow be self-sufficient - when all of the electrons in my body are known by the Infinite Creator and sustained by His powerful order - is non-sequitar. That is why it is ridiculous pride.
Let's look at non-sequitur.
What specifically in born-again Christianity is non-sequitur?
Let's get specific. There are thousands of things to answer in John's book and I believe they can all be answered.
"What brand of skepticism are you practicing when you posit all of your questions?"
The brand of skepticism that knows it is logical to be EQUALLY skeptical of defining the empirical world as so called "natural" as it would be equally skeptical of theistic implication.
Until you deal with true skepticism, you are asserting a monopoly on skepticism as claiming the empirical observations you make lead you to the conclusion of defining it as "natural."
The philosophy of naturalism is based on this circular reasoning...
and the true skeptic would identify it.
Post a Comment