My Engaging Debate with Paul Moser
Almost every time I have engaged Dr. Paul K. Moser on Facebook, he has berated me as being below him. This time was different, probably because it was noted that Dr. James Sennett had highly praised my first book, WIBA.
Moser denigrated Dr. Daniel Dennett in this meme. It prompted a good discussion, starting with this response by Mark J. Mathews:
Richard Carrier and John Loftus express the same sentiment in their platforms. I'm also willing to engage their evidence for God's non-existence, if it's such a slam dunk. In fact, I'd be willing to resign my ministry tomorrow.
Okay, I thought. I'll respond. If Paul Moser reads and considers everything I said and linked to, I would think his faith took a hit. Two days ago I had posted my initial statement. Here's the rest of the engaging story:
Loftus:
I'm sure
there's no objective evidence for a god who does the miracles as reported in
the Bible. To see this check out my book, The Case Against Miracles. Here is a good introduction to it.
Accordingly, we can simply
dismiss such claims and a god who reportedly does them, as I argued in a peer
reviewed paper published by Internet Infidels, "What’s Wrong with Using Bayes’ Theorem on Miracles?" LINK. For needed background
information click on my name at Internet Infidels.
I hope this helps! It should at
least be interesting.
At this point Sennett commented and I mistook him for saying something about Carrier and myself, so I responded and was set straight.
'Objective evidence'? There's a slippery notion, and why suppose that God would want to supply such evidence, whatever it is. Controversial stuff here. No room for canned answers.
Loftus:
No canned answers here!
Moser:
Evidence is variable in a way that objectivity and truth are not.
Loftus:
Pure sophistry
and you don't even know it, Paul! Ask for definitions of evidence all you want,
but I know two things: 1) Joseph was convinced Mary was telling the truth of
her pregnancy via a dream, something no reasonable person would accept, or
include in a gospel (Matt. 1).
2) We know what does not count
as evidence and yet, that's all you've got! See my post, "What Would Convince Us Christianity is True?" LINK.
Loftus:
I understand where you want to go with this. However, one's views of evidence must be based on concrete examples, or it's pure sophistry.
One thing for sure is we know what does not count as extraordinary evidence of the objective kind. Second- third- fourth-hand hearsay testimonial evidence doesn't count, nor circumstantial evidence, nor anecdotal evidence as reported in documents that are centuries later than the supposed events, which were copied by scribes and theologians who had no qualms about including forgeries.
We also know that subjective feelings or experiences or inner voices don’t count as objective evidence when it comes to biblical miracle claims, nor someone who tells others his writings are inspired, nor divine communication through dreams, or visions.
The intractable difficultly is that there is no miracle claim in the Bible that has anything other than hearsay subjective testimonial evidence for it, along with Paul's subjective visions, hardly the stuff that reasonable thinkers require. Even if believers think the testimonial evidence trail is stronger than that, it still wouldn't satisfy us if we were evaluating an 18 hole-in-one's in a row tale.
Moser:
'Concrete evidence', unlike truth and objectivity, varies among people. You fail to see that.
Loftus:
Faith is the problem, faith in a given
supernatural religion. It gives believers permission to accept things they
would never accept in any other area of life. You see it in the multitude of
other religions. You fail to see it in your own religious faith. Eliminate
faith based answers and you'll see what I see.
While I don't think you're
reading my links, here are two more essays for you.
1) Psychic Epistemology: The Special Pleading of William Lane Craig.
2) The Demon, Matrix, Material
World, and Dream Possibilities.
Moser:
The problem here is that you seem clueless about what faith in God is, acc. to the Apostle Paul. It requires genuine evidence and is not a leap in the dark. You tend to go after the easy cases. Not helpful.
Loftus:
And you are clueless as to what reasonable people should accept. Throw your credentials at me all you want, as you usually do. There are respected Muslim scholars who will throw their credentials at me too, to no avail.
Moser:
Credentials? What have you been reading? Let's come back to reality. Start with saying what 'objective evidence' is? Note how you have ignored this key issue.
Loftus:
I have said what it isn't. What reason do you have to disagree?
Moser:
We need to know what it is and requires. Then we can ask what reason, if any, God has to act by your proposed standard. We'll see if you're playing God here.
Loftus:
It's evidence that is admissible in court. Because God wants us to know the truth. I'm only asking what a reasonable person requires to believe. Why would God create us as reasonable people and then not give us what reasonable people need to believe?
So again, I have said what objective evidence isn't. What reason do you have to disagree about any of my suggestions? I can know what it isn't without being required to state what it is, if what it is shows your faith has an illegitimate basis to it.
Moser:
We have no reason to hold that God wants to be tried in a public court; on the contrary, the Biblical God insists on evidence that is hidden from some people. So, your standard is irrelevant to the process of inquiry about God. You might consider relevant passages in Isaiah and the gospels.
Loftus:
Since you're talking about "the Biblical god" then see my essay, "Does God Exist: A Definitive Biblical Case." LINK.
Moser:
Of course I mean the Biblical God acknowledged by Jesus and Paul. No biblical inerrancy here. Psalms 5 and 11, e.g., get God wrong, and they contradict Jesus on God.
Loftus:
So I take it you didn't read what I wrote based on good biblical scholarship? Okay. Respond when you find the time to read that link and the others I sent. --Cheers!
Moser:
Your fundamentalism of earlier days hasn't left you: You throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater. That's a dangerous practice and a fallacy, to boot. Separate the good from the bad, and come to reality. Otherwise, your sweeping atheism will fail to convince careful inquirers.
Loftus:
I didn't jump ships in one leap. I went through several stages, from a conservative evangelical, to a moderate, to a liberal, to a deistic existentialist, to being agnostic, and ending with atheism. This took me 12 years of intense research before the prevalence of the internet. I understand each of these stages, each of these theologies, and also atheism very well. I've seriously considered them all. There is nothing you can say to me I have not believed and said myself.
As to convincing others goes, its a very tough task, especially because of childhood indoctrination, the threat of Hell, and the fact that atheism is the last viewpoint a believer will ever consider in their journey from childhood fundamentalism to non-belief.
Speaking of which, I spelled out how to change the minds of believers, which will help you understand how hard that task is (Hint: it's one of the most difficult challenges but I like big challenges): How to Change the Minds of Believers.
Moser:
How is the mind of a fundamentalist atheist such as yourself to be changed? Hint: There's a volitional component that allows you to quench and reject the Spirit of God. One way to do that is to tell fairy tales about the nature of evidence. Be cautious. Much is at stake.
Loftus:
Throwing the pejorative word "fundamentalist" at me does not describe my informed views about the theologies I have rejected for good reasons, as not being evidence-based, and/or logically tenable. If it means someone who's sure of his views then I'm sure, just as you're sure in your views. I had to be sure, really sure, since even now you throw the threat of hell at me. I had to be sure not to take that threat seriously, just as you don't take the Muslim threat of hell seriously, or other theistic sects who have their own imaginary threats of hell. Rejecting an indoctrinated religion that has a threat of eternal conscious punishment in hell requires near certainty (my views on hell evolved as I came to more liberal views, but I started there). I really struggled in my journey of 12 years, trying desperately to find good reasons to believe, contacting scholarly friends along the way, going to Pentecostal churches in search of another personal experience (such as my initial conversion experience, which I later saw as contrived and non-veridical), or witnessing a real miracle, and crying out nightly at one point to a deaf God to help me along the way, to no avail.
If anyone is telling himself fairy tales you are. Otherwise you would answer me, rather than skirt the issue. Again, I have said what objective evidence isn't. What reason do you have to disagree about any of my suggestions? I can know what it isn't without being required to state what it is, if what it is, is an illegitimate basis for a reasonable faith.
As to conversion
and deconversion stories and what they tell us, see my essay, "The Evidential Value of
Conversion/Deconversion Stories. Mittelberg's 'Confident Faith'" Part 7. LINK.
In it, I quote James Sennett who has experienced serious doubts.
**ADDED Sunday 8 AM**
Moser:
The way you ignore standard distinctions to protect your fundamentalist atheism is standard fundamentalism. Time to own it. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water, as fundamentalist atheists typically do. Your past fundamentalism lingers with you, despite your rhetoric.
Loftus:
We know what does not count as objective evidence and yet, that's all you've got!
I find it bizarre that your brain shuts down at that point. Again, we're talking about how we know your God acted in history with miracles like the virgin birth of the 2nd person of the trinity, that Jesus turned water into wine, that he raised Lazarus from his tomb who was never interviewed or heard from again, that God actually inspired what some men wrote, like the claim God dictated 7 letters to the 7 churches in Revelation 2-3, all of which establish the Christian doctrines you believe. Sure, these events have some minimum possibilities to them, but given the number of religious faiths in history and today's world the probability is that your faith is also false.
Anyone, and I mean anyone who claims to know these events occurred without using the tools of the historian, and instead relies on a spirit guide like a psychic does is literally deluded. Anyone who defends these claims as historically established is, well, stupid (sorry).
Again we know what does not count as extraordinary evidence of the objective kind. Second- third- fourth-hand hearsay testimonial evidence doesn't count, nor circumstantial evidence, nor anecdotal evidence as reported in documents that are centuries later than the supposed events, which were copied by scribes and theologians who had no qualms about including forgeries.
We also know that subjective feelings or experiences or inner voices don’t count as objective evidence when it comes to biblical miracle claims, nor someone who tells others his writings are inspired, nor divine communication through dreams, or visions.
The intractable difficultly is that there is no miracle claim in the Bible that has anything other than hearsay subjective testimonial evidence for it, along with Paul's subjective visions, hardly the stuff that reasonable thinkers require. Even if believers think the testimonial evidence trail is stronger than that, it still wouldn't satisfy us if we were evaluating an 18 hole-in-one's in a row claim.
Loftus again:
What you need to take seriously is that almost every doctrine you believe, based on your spirit guide from the other side, has been disputed by others who claim to be Christians who claim that same spirit guide, some some disputes of which led to massive bloodshed. All the spirit guide had to do was to send the same truths into the heads of them all.
John W. Loftus is a philosopher and counter-apologist credited with 12 critically acclaimed books, including The Case against Miracles, God and Horrendous Suffering, and Varieties of Jesus Mythicism. Please support DC by sharing our posts, or by subscribing, donating, or buying our books at Amazon.
0 comments:
Post a Comment