My Strategy for Debunking Christianity (Once Again)
Christians are already atheists (skeptics) of all other religions, so all I need to do is get them to be atheists (skeptics) of their own religion. If I can do this they will be forced to think for themselves and no longer rely on the Bible or Christian theology for the answers to existence. Here's how I debunk Christianity. I've decided to do for Christians what I myself experienced. It is/was liberating to become a freethinker rather than, as Voltaire quipped, "a nonthinker." You see, there is a big difference between historians and apologists. Historians want to know what happened in the past. Apologists assume their faith is true and then do whatever it takes to defend it. Apologists cannot say, "Oh, maybe the evidence isn't there after all." Nope. They feel a huge responsibility to defend the faith for their respective clientele. I can even grant believers that some sort of deity exists. Big deal if she does! As I have argued a hundred times before it makes no difference. Why? Because natural theology is (or should be) dead.
25 comments:
I think that was a little-question begging. Debunking Christianity based on the variety of denominations? (from the linked post) Christians have used the Nicene Creed very nicely to demark the essentials of the faith. Are there plenty of debates about the non-essentials? Sure. How does it then follow that God does not exist?
I thought your comment about apologetics was question-begging. Christians clearly have the upper hand. There is no good response to Kalaam (the quantum gravity fails because it can't give the second law, and the b-theory fails for a variety of reasons). There is no good response to the fine-tuning of the laws of physics because the multiverse has many problems.
Justin, it's Kalam not Kalaam.
Christianity from the beginning has been such a mixed bag that one wonders if there is a core to it at all. But even if there is such a core Christians have killed each other to the tune of ten million people according to Voltaire who counted them conservatively. Eight million Christians killed each other during the eight French Wars of Religion and the Thirty Years War. And of course many still condemn others to hell.
If you really want to act like the answer man here you should at least read my books. Until you do you're not seriously engaging what I have said, nor are you effectively defending what you believe.
Justin -
Your man Polkinghorne has this to say about the "Kalaam" argument :
Kalam Cosmological argument I am currently reading debate (book) between William Lane Craig and Sinnett-Armstrong. Craig is of course up with his Kalam Cosmological argument (Do you think that is valid by the way? Do you have any objections to it as a physicist?). It is on the first premise "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" that Sinnett-Armstrong is saying something which I need clarification on. He is saying that one intrepretation of Quantum Physics says that particles CAN infact come out of nothing. I think it was called the "Copenhagen" interpretation and this was appearantly favorised by the majority of scientists today. What can you tell me about this? Is it possible that the universe popped out of nothing because of quantum mechanics allowing things to begin to exist without a cause?
Response Arguments for the existence of God may be persuasive but like all philosophical arguments that try to infer deep reality from observation they can never be conclusive: one can always dispute the premises. It is certainly possible to formulate the Kalam Cosmological Argument so that it is formally valid (ie the conclusions do follow from the premises) and it probably does show that either the Universe was caused by an Ultimate Creator or there is an infinite regress of causes or the Universe is ultimately un-caused.
It’s true that current versions of Quantum Theory allow for the spontaneous emergence of particles from the Quantum Vacuum. But the Quantum Vacuum is not “nothing” in any sensible philosophical sense, it seems in some sense to be a field of infinte energy that pervades the whole universe (you have to do some tricky maths to cancel out the infinities to do sensible calculations).
However since it is known that only 4% of the matter and energy in the Universe is made of what we understand as matter, and most of the universe seems, on current understandings, to be “dark matter” and “dark energy” about which we know nearly nothing, and no-one knows how to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity (the much-hyped String Theory looks increasingly like a dead-end) it is unwise to assume that current understandings of cosmology represent the last word.
(full quotation detail available)
Now if he has those reservations, why don't you? It is a simple question.
I too take issue with the cosmological argument, as well as the derivative kalam version.
I went to town showing all the fallacies (almost ALL of Craig's rhetoric rests on logic fallacies) and I recently gave a devastating critique of the kalam cosmological argument on my blog.
Anyone who is interested in seeing the kalam argument thoroughly debunked can read it here:
http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.com/2010/04/common-sense-atheism-could-use-some.html
Funny thing Justin...the distance from Kalam, even if true, to Zombie Jesus being his own son and killing himself on a cross 2000 years a go is a long way.
Even if Kalam were true (and given the special pleading Craig needs to go through to escape his own premise that everything that begins must have a cause, it isn't) it may simply prove that Chulthu or FSM are god, not Yaweh.
Its a good thing Kalam is self-contradictory....
Hi Andre,
I think it was called the "Copenhagen" interpretation and this was appearantly favorised by the majority of scientists today. What can you tell me about this? Is it possible that the universe popped out of nothing because of quantum mechanics allowing things to begin to exist without a cause?
I like Copenhagen interpretation. It is a non-deterministic interpretation of physics and I learn on a similar interpretation for a defense of free will. But while the Copenhagen is non-deterministic, it does not undermine Kalaam. The premise is not "everything has a cause" but rather, "everything that begins to exist has a cause". Empirically speaking, particles do not come to exist uncaused. They come to exist because of quantum fluctuations - basically wrinkles in the fabric of space-time. Quantum mechanics has uncaused events, but not uncaused creation out of nothing.
Hi Tristan!
I checked your linked article and am impressed. It thought it was very thoughtful and well-done.
You make a lot of points and I don't can't easily cover them all in the commment thread - that is what happens with knowledgeable opponents! Would you like to have a formal debate about the Kalaam Cosmological Argument?
If not, then please suggest what you feel to be the strongest of your objections to Kalaam and I'll post my response in this thread.
John for someone who is going to singlehandedly correct all the believers of the world, you make a serious error in the beginning. All Christians are not in fact atheists as to the faith systems of non-Christians. We maintain that Christianity works for us as individuals, but believe that other systems, such as Hindu, Native American, Jewish and so forth are perfectly fine vehicles for reaching God as well. We are drawn to the system that touches us.
Although it seems to be pleasing to arrogantly think that we don't think for ourselves as you put it, most of us do. The bible doesn't tell us what to believe, it tells us what others have believed, and helps us shape the questions we ask. Christian theology, similar to philosophy seeks to understand. And you might remember that most philosophers, including Voltaire, were believers, although admittedly many were deists. Theology gives a framework for examining questions of deity. Like all other philosophical methodologies, it is just as subject to agreement and criticism. Aristotle is still being argued about today, and perhaps always will. You are gravely unjust in simply dismissing this as some way by which religion dictates to us the believer.
Remember as well that atheists don't operate in a vacuum. You were not born that, you learned this behavior and belief system, what we call the worship of the human intellect as superior. It is merely whom you follow.
That I find other arguments more cogent that those you do, is but the equal right of all humans.
Hi Sherry,
All Christians are not in fact atheists as to the faith systems of non-Christians. We maintain that Christianity works for us as individuals, but believe that other systems, such as Hindu, Native American, Jewish and so forth are perfectly fine vehicles for reaching God as well. We are drawn to the system that touches us.
I disagree with your unitarianism. Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the light. No one comes to the father but through me." (John 14:6)
There is a vere simple reason why Christians are "atheists" about other faiths:
(1) Christians are justified in their faith
(2) The Christian faith and other faiths (and atheism) make mutually exclusive truth claims.
I don't know the first thing about Hinduism. I don't know the first thing about Buddhism. I don't know the first thing about Islam. But pace Luftus, I am not applying the outsider test of faith to them and finding them lacking because I just don't know anything about them.
But because of (1) and (2) I am justified in rejecting them.
Needless to say, (1) and (2) do not entail atheism! The "one less God" argument is very poor.
Remember as well that atheists don't operate in a vacuum. You were not born that, you learned this behavior and belief system, what we call the worship of the human intellect as superior. It is merely whom you follow.
Sorry, but all babies are born atheists. How can they be anything else ? They have no beliefs except "feed me". Religious beliefs are taught later. If you do not teach the child any religion, they will automatically grow up to laugh at the ridiculous ideas of christianity. Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in any God or Gods. It does not have to be taught.
Christians are already atheists (skeptics) of all other religions
Uhm.. no.. we're not. There are converts, for instance, who have been previously involved with Far-Eastern religions, like Yoga or Buddhism, and who witnessed levitation first-hand: we don't try to offer naturalistic explanations for this. We don't deny that the "gods" of the nations exist.. what we do is equating them with demons (Psalm 96:5).
They feel a huge responsibility to defend the faith for their respective clientele.
As long as you don't understand (or don't believe) that we're not less honest than you, and that we're no more in this "to defend the faith for [our] respective clientele" than you are trying to "to defend [lack of] faith for [your] respective clientele", every attempt at dialogue is doomed.
I love it when the Christians disagree on doctrine.
Which one has the Holy Ghost on their side? The Unitarian or the Orthodox? Tune in next time for Christendom smack-down.
The intense sincerity of these arguments between believers on invisible justifications is kind of funny.
To Justin: I'm not a unitarian, and you are reading the bible as a fundamentalist would. Most of us aren't fundamentalists. I am Episcopalian and I can tell you that perhaps a majority of the TEC believes that other faiths are fine vehicles for relating to God.
To Clare: your argument fails because if it were true, no religion or belief in a God or gods would EVER have been developed. Atheism is a learned behavior like any other. You read material and you agreed with, it made more sense to you than whatever religious material if any you read. You chose atheism. Does that make you unable to think for yourself? I doubt it. Well it's not true of most Christians either.
To Chuck: your enjoyment is nice. But then if we were in total agreement you would claim we were cultist mesmerized by doctrine. You are lacking in facts: we don't believe that the Holy Spirit of God resides only with "our side" for most of us don't claim "sides" as you put it.
You can choose, as you have apparently to define the world soley on the basis of empirical evidence. THat you close your mind to other possibiilities is your choice. You worship at the holy grail of your methodology. I find your methodology fine for many things, I just don't see it as necessarily the only method to be used in the world.
Sherry,
The Gospel of John contradicts your notion of where Christians believe the Holy Spirit resides.
I love how Christians like to move the goal-posts to satisfy their need to feel all transcendent.
I could care less what you and Justin believe. I agree with him that you are wrong and agree with you that he is wrong. You both are wrong to me.
Justin M-
I'm not against debating my position, but I simply don't think there is anything to debate here.
What I wrote was a thorough refutation of the kalam cosmological argument as presented by Craig.
I succeeded in showing that all of Craig's premises are either a priori suppositions or else describable logic fallacies.
I gave many examples, as you'll recall from reading my article, so I can't say I really can debate something which is so thoroughly "debunked."
What I can offer, is what I think the cosmological argument shows in general: it shows that we simply don't know (yet) what the initial cause of the universe, space and time, and the whole shebang was.
This may not always be the case, we may one day find out, or perhaps we'll never find out.
But I feel that I definitively presented how this realization, in of itself, doesn't necessitate a need for theistic belief. So the desire for God to be the Creator of the universe is simply a Christian desire, but one which is unfounded, at least unverified, for the reasons I gave.
But if you have in mind something more substantial to debate, then I'm all ears.
Hi Tristen,
All right, let's do it here.
1. Your post makes it appear as though there are only two live options among cosmologists: Ekpyrotic or Baum-Frampton. But in point of fact, those are both extremely speculative theories. At this current point in time, the good old fasioned Big Bang is what has the empirical support. Quentin Smith himself makes that point in your post. Now, I understand that atheists will want to pin their hopes on these speculative theories, but to say that these two theories falsify the finite universe is to massively overrun the current state of the evidence. But let's take each of them in turn.
2. Ekpyrotic. This can be easily dismissed. You are probably familiar with Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin's proof that eternal inflation has a finite past. Well, they've extended it to cover Ekpyrotic.
3. Baum-Framptom. This is a theory of an infinite multiverse and it is so wildly speculative that it makes eternal inflation seem as tame as basset hound. It has many problems. (A) it introduces fine-tuning that cannot be explained, (B) it predicts that there are causally separated parts of the multiverse, but each region has perpetually increasing entropy. But we do not observe this. So Baum-Frampton simply move all the entropy to other regions. That's very ad hoc. What is the mechanism? (C) But even that does not work because given infinite time the entropy should expand to the point where you get collisions between regions. We do not have that and there is no explanation. In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology Craig and Sinclair report that they correspond with Frampton and that this topic is being investigated. Xin Zhang has criticized this and there has been some back and forth between Zhang and Frampton. At the end it appears taht Frampton does not have a good model for the turnaround that keeps each universe in its causally separate region. (D) Cosmologists Banks and Fischler argue that there will be an inhomogeneity in the fluctuations which prevents the cycling from even working.
Now, perhaps these problems can work out. Perhaps these new cyclic theories will work out better than other attempts to make the universe eternal. But to argue that this falsifies Kalam is just plain wrong. The weight of the evidence right now overwhelming favors the more old-fashioned Big Bang.
There is a lot more in your post. I just picked the first objection you make. If you'd like to go into more detail I'd be happy to. But so far you running far ahead of the evidence.
Justin M-
I think you missed the point I was trying to make with first example I gave.
I wasn't saying those models of the universe were correct or that they disproved the big bang.
I don't know how you even reached that conclusion. I never said anything of the sort.
What I did show was that what Craig stated on his website, that the idea the universe could create itself was absurd, was in fact a huge *confirmation bias as there were genuine scientific theories of how the universe may have created itself.
That's all I was intending to show. Of course, I agree, these models are still unverified, but with the recent detection of dark flow, it just may suggest the Ekpyrotic model is testable. Only time will tell, but this would be more than Craig could claim about his hypothesis.
At no point did I say this evidence falsifies the kalam argument. In fact, it depicts how Craig's claims become less trustworthy because he relies on a confirmation bias and refuses to look at any other possibilities--including genuine scientific theories... which he calls absurd.
Yet, as I pointed out, if the idea of the universe created itself or from nothing is absurd, then there can be no appeal to the existence of God on the basis of God causing himself to exist--since this would be equally absurd.
So we are left with the tacit assumption that God is eternal and has always been. Based on what, might I ask, can we know this? The Bible? Because the Bible says so? Not good enough. Since we can't look beyond the big bang (at this current time) it is a fact that the empirical evidence for anything outside or beyond the known universe is unknown, and for all we know completely non-existent.
And so, all I can say is that to posit a deity of any kind is a God of the gaps argument, and is a faulty hypothesis. No ifs ands or buts about it.
This sets us up for later problems, such as the logic fallacies Craig employs, faulty causality etc., a priori suppositions, and philosophical conjectures to show that the idea of God is at least (philosophically) plausible, therefore reasonable.
But I should warn you that this is a different thing than accually proving something is scientifically possible lending credence to it actually being real in the first place.
Allow me to clarify my last comment.
It is scientifically possible to throw a baseball fast enough and hard enough that it could pierce a brick wall with shattering efficiency.
It is scientifically plausible that one could throw a baseball at the wall so that it would come out the other side an ice-cream sunday. (Although highly unlikely.)
Yet what is merely plausible may only ever be hypothetical. If it is possible, then we know it is at least testable, and therefore can be verified or else disproved.
It seems to me that only things which are quantifiable, i.e. identifiably provable, could be akin to the truth. Therefore, as a rule of thumb, I tend to be highly skeptical of things which are merely plausible and thus far unverifiable.
So even though it sounds nice, I'm not holding my breath for that ice-cream sunday.
Now to claim it's an invisible all loving ice-cream sunday which exists beyond space and time--not to mention the most delectable, delicious, heavenly ice-cream sunday imaginable--and that in a twist of fate it created me!... well that's a little more difficult to prove--and so far fetched as to be unbelievable. The big bang proves this exists how, again?
That's why I don't put any stock into the kalam cosmological argument as presented by Craig.
Hi Tristan,
I wasn't saying those models of the universe were correct or that they disproved the big bang.
I don't know how you even reached that conclusion. I never said anything of the sort.
What I did show was that what Craig stated on his website, that the idea the universe could create itself was absurd, was in fact a huge *confirmation bias as there were genuine scientific theories of how the universe may have created itself.
That's all I was intending to show.
Craig's intuition is confirmed by our best, empirically grounded theories about the nature of the universe. Could this be overturned by a radical new theory? Sure. That's what quantum mechanics did to atheists who argued that the universe was deterministic. But until such an unlikely revolution in physics happens, Craig is within his rights. His arguments against Baum-Frampton and the Ekpyrotic serve to bolster this point. Those theories are so wildly speculative that they make eternal inflation look as tame as a pet bunny rabbit.
It seems to me that only things which are quantifiable, i.e. identifiably provable, could be akin to the truth. Therefore, as a rule of thumb, I tend to be highly skeptical of things which are merely plausible and thus far unverifiable.
1. Oh boy, now I have to back through the philosophy of science all over again.
2. Rather than do that, I'll point out that Kalam was developed in 400 AD. That was about 1500 years before the discovery of the Big Bang. Christians made a claim that went against the three finest minds in Western History: Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein. They held that the universe was finite. In all the history of western civilization I don't think anyone has gone further on a limb and been proven right.
Justin,
You said, "Christians made a claim that went against the three finest minds in Western History: Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein."
Muslims formed this argument, not Christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument#History
You expose your scholarship as apologetic and defensive toward a specific superstition rather than humble and truth-seeking when you mistakenly ascribe this idea to Christians.
Your are a polemicist whose objective is inserting his particular god within a knowledge gap, you are not a thinker who is seeking theoretical explanations that offer explanatory power.
Why don't you examine your motives and recognize that your brain power helps you feel cozy and safe within your control belief but it is not intellectual honest (e.g. Christians formulated the Kalam; does not aid society; nor is it humble scholarship?
Sherry, I was an atheist long before I learned to read- for as long as I can remember. I expect you were a Christian before you could read too, as I expect you went to Church with your parents. I didn't read about atheism until I read "Why I am not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell at about age 15 or 16.
Hi Chuck,
I'm not one of the Wikipedia bashers, but we do need to be aware of its limitations. There are mistakes in Wikipedia. In this case, it is wrong about Kalam. Averroes actually cited John Philoponus and reproduced his argument in one of his commentaries. Islamic scholars did a lot to develop the argument, but Philiponus was the first to raise some of the points.
Secondly, while I am not wrong about this, I am wrong about many things. I do not think that makes me a polemicist. Everyone makes mistakes. Next time why don't you correct people with a little more gentleness and humility?
Justin you need to offer a citation if you wish for me to believe you
Also I offer the standard of gentleness and humility that people exhibit and since you've shown yourself to be an arrogant liar I show you very little.
Have you read George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God?
I haven't gone through, and read all the comments.
But, here's my question. I feel it's related to the topic.
Do any of the atheists or agnostics posting here feel that it is possible for someone to be a Christian, and a free-thinker at the same time?
I truly don't understand why it's automatically assumed that all the people of faith are "non-thinkers."
It goes so far against my own experience in the church.
And, conversely, is it possible for someone to be a non-theist, and totally close-minded, and biased against any concept of the divine.
I'm not trying to be snarky. But, how do we even define what it means to be "freethinking," in the first place.
It seems almost impossible to be human, and not reflect some kind of bias.
Post a Comment