The Arrogance and Ignorance of Keith Parsons
Showing posts sorted by date for query Victor Reppert. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Victor Reppert. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Methodological Naturalism Again, When Will it Stop?
Victor Reppert is at it again.
I don't think any scientifically minded person is opposed to methodological naturalism. Science cannot work without it. The problem comes when one draws the conclusion from it that metaphysical naturalism is the case. So you're opposed to it only if people conclude nature is all there is, that is, only if it's used as an argument to atheism.
Your faith-based arguments are that there is either a reliable source of knowledge about the world other than science, or that your god lives in the gaps of scientific knowledge, or both. But those arguments of yours go against the probabilities.
Why don't you tell us what that other source of knowledge is, and compare its merits to the scientific enterprise? Why don't you admit how many times science has forced you to move the goal posts, such that for centuries when theologians didn't think science could solve a problem science marched past it?
Why don't you address why your god set the world up this way, such that reasonable people will follow the probabilities? Even if for some reason your god could not create the world like this, why don't you admit your God failed to provide the necessary objective evidence that would overcome the methodological predisposition to naturalism?
If you want a serious discussion you must address these issues.
I don't think any scientifically minded person is opposed to methodological naturalism. Science cannot work without it. The problem comes when one draws the conclusion from it that metaphysical naturalism is the case. So you're opposed to it only if people conclude nature is all there is, that is, only if it's used as an argument to atheism.
Your faith-based arguments are that there is either a reliable source of knowledge about the world other than science, or that your god lives in the gaps of scientific knowledge, or both. But those arguments of yours go against the probabilities.
Why don't you tell us what that other source of knowledge is, and compare its merits to the scientific enterprise? Why don't you admit how many times science has forced you to move the goal posts, such that for centuries when theologians didn't think science could solve a problem science marched past it?
Why don't you address why your god set the world up this way, such that reasonable people will follow the probabilities? Even if for some reason your god could not create the world like this, why don't you admit your God failed to provide the necessary objective evidence that would overcome the methodological predisposition to naturalism?
If you want a serious discussion you must address these issues.
New Book, "The Illusion of God's Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing"
This new book is written by computational biologist John C. Wathey. LINK. According to one reviewer on Amazon, Wathey
...cuts to the heart of religion’s appeal: the strong emotional pull of belief and its promise to fill what has been called “the God-shaped vacuum in our hearts and minds.” As the author notes in his preface, the New Atheists have “largely ignored the real reason that most believers believe: their personal experience of the presence of God.” This book examines that subjective religious experience, offering a cogent description of its likely biological and psychological underpinnings.It looks like a fantastic book. I would prefer the book was titled The Delusion of God's Presence, but that's just me. Regardless, gone is the cockamamie notion of the authenticating private subjective witness of a god in our lives (i.e., the god named holy spirit). Anyone who takes it seriously is indeed deluded. There are Christian apologists like Norman Geisler and Victor Reppert (I think) who don't agree with it, like me. What they should see is the lengths Christian apologists will go to defend their evangelical faith. And since that's obviously the case here, they should reflect on the lengths they themselves go to defend their evangelical faith.
What Does It Mean To Be Open-Minded? Or Closed-Minded?
Open-minded people are willing to honestly consider evidence that could change their minds. Closed-minded people will not. No one is completely open-minded. No one is completely closed-minded.
There are two problems we face in order to cultivate the intellectual virtue of open-mindedness. The first is to learn what constitutes evidence, since most people are unreasonably persuaded because of anecdotal evidence, or fallacious arguments substituting for the lack of evidence, or even peer-pressure or the accidents of birth into a particular family or a different culture. The second is to learn to avoid confirmation bias as much as possible, which Michael Shermer calls "the mother of all biases." [In The Believing Brain, p. 259].
Once we learn about these problems and recognize them as the serious ones they really are, and that they stand in the way of a clear-headed investigation of the truth, we can proceed to be honest investigators of the truth. We would know what kind of evidence to look for and be better able to see any bias we might have and adjust for it.
There are two problems we face in order to cultivate the intellectual virtue of open-mindedness. The first is to learn what constitutes evidence, since most people are unreasonably persuaded because of anecdotal evidence, or fallacious arguments substituting for the lack of evidence, or even peer-pressure or the accidents of birth into a particular family or a different culture. The second is to learn to avoid confirmation bias as much as possible, which Michael Shermer calls "the mother of all biases." [In The Believing Brain, p. 259].
Once we learn about these problems and recognize them as the serious ones they really are, and that they stand in the way of a clear-headed investigation of the truth, we can proceed to be honest investigators of the truth. We would know what kind of evidence to look for and be better able to see any bias we might have and adjust for it.
My Interview of Professor Keith Parsons About The Philosophy of Religion
The following interview took place as I asked Keith a question via email, to which he responded as his time allowed. Then I would ask him another one, and so on. This was not debate, because I was restricted to asking questions. Even though I threw a few hardball's it wouldn't be fair to characterize this as anything more than a discussion. I interviewed him for the purposes of learning his views more or less, and that's it.
----------
John: The first question I must ask is why are you teaching a PoR class? Is it just one class, or are there others? Didn't you say you would no longer do so?
Victor Reppert Is Determined to Crack The Outsider Test for Faith, But Once Again Fails
Over the years no other Christian apologist has tried to find a fault with the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) as much as Victor Reppert has, even though I'm fairly convinced he has not read the book on it. I would think if a scholar wants to critique an idea he should read the book first, wouldn't you? Anyway, once again Victor Reppert is at it, with a bit of a different twist.
When it comes to the fear of religion what is he talking about? From my experience, and the experience of countless ex-Christians, the fear of hell kept us in the fold much longer than we would have been if we didn't fear hell. Hell is the cradle to grave threat that keeps Christians in the fold. It's THAT fear, more than any possible fear of religion, that needs to be overcome by far, hands down, no iffs ands or buts about it.
But Reppert isn't done. He just used this as an example to introduce his main point.
Isn't fear of religion at least a possible biasing factor? And if so, shouldn't any real test concerning religious belief have the capability of counteracting it. If the test only counteracts pro-religious biases but not anti-religious biases, then the test is faulty.I find this to be a very self-serving. The mother of all biases is confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias), which is the strong tendency to search for and/or interpret information in ways that confirm one's biases. People of faith have this problem evaluating their own religion because faith itself is a cognitive bias that misjudges the probabilities in favor of faith. Faith gets in the way of dispassionately evaluating one's inherited faith. Surely Reppert cannot disagree with this. If nothing else, just think of the millions of people who have inherited a different faith, and ask what keeps them from leaving their faith. The OTF is meant to help people with faith overcome their faith bias precisely because they need it. Non-believers don't have it precisely because we are non-believers. Take for example a Hindu raised in a Hindu culture who accepts the Hindu religion but is evaluating Islam to see if it's true. What real concern (as opposed to a feigned concern in the service of an apologeticial Jedi mind trick) would Reppert actually have that such a Hindu might have a confirmation bias problem when it comes to Islam, since s/he is not a Muslim? None, none that I can see. Any confirmation bias s/he has would be for Hinduism.
When it comes to the fear of religion what is he talking about? From my experience, and the experience of countless ex-Christians, the fear of hell kept us in the fold much longer than we would have been if we didn't fear hell. Hell is the cradle to grave threat that keeps Christians in the fold. It's THAT fear, more than any possible fear of religion, that needs to be overcome by far, hands down, no iffs ands or buts about it.
But Reppert isn't done. He just used this as an example to introduce his main point.
At Victor Reppert's Blog My OTF is Called A "Dangerously Stupid Idea"
Do Christians Worship the Same God As Muslims and Jews Do? The Larycia Hawkins Test Case
Jack Cottrell is a Christian professor and author of many books and articles. I know him personally as a professor within the Christian Church and Churches of Christ (non)-denomination of which I was a part of before my deconversion. I've run into a lot of defenders of Christianity like Paul Moser, David Marshall, Victor Reppert, Randal Rauser and others who have said what Cottrell disputes. They have said they worship the same god as Muslims do, by a different name. The aforementioned defenders do so to de-fang the bite of religious diversity. This is typical of what they say.
Well forget them all, Cottrell argues differently right here, and strange as it sounds I agree with him. Now enters Wheaton College, the college that is home to the Billy Graham Center for Evangelism. They agree with Cottrell since they're planning on firing professor Larycia Hawkins for saying Muslims and Christians worship the same God, what Paul Moser, David Marshall, Victor Reppert, and Randal Rauser have all said! Strange isn't it?
Perhaps Cottrell and Wheaton College are forgetting the problem of religious diversity which I stress, which these Christian defenders are responding to when making that claim? Religious diversity is real and deep and world-wide. To say they worship the same God helps minimize the problem of religious diversity but it's disingenuous coming from people who are not honest in defending their faith. To honestly admit they don't worship the same God raises the bar of religious diversity where it rightfully belongs. I see this as a stubborn dilemma Christians must face. Are they worshiping the same God, or not? If so, see what professor Cottrell says. If not, then admit the problem of religious diversity is real and deep and worldwide, and that it's a powerful defeater to the epistemology of a sect-specific Christian faith. Here is Paul K. Moser's response to this news:
Well forget them all, Cottrell argues differently right here, and strange as it sounds I agree with him. Now enters Wheaton College, the college that is home to the Billy Graham Center for Evangelism. They agree with Cottrell since they're planning on firing professor Larycia Hawkins for saying Muslims and Christians worship the same God, what Paul Moser, David Marshall, Victor Reppert, and Randal Rauser have all said! Strange isn't it?
Perhaps Cottrell and Wheaton College are forgetting the problem of religious diversity which I stress, which these Christian defenders are responding to when making that claim? Religious diversity is real and deep and world-wide. To say they worship the same God helps minimize the problem of religious diversity but it's disingenuous coming from people who are not honest in defending their faith. To honestly admit they don't worship the same God raises the bar of religious diversity where it rightfully belongs. I see this as a stubborn dilemma Christians must face. Are they worshiping the same God, or not? If so, see what professor Cottrell says. If not, then admit the problem of religious diversity is real and deep and worldwide, and that it's a powerful defeater to the epistemology of a sect-specific Christian faith. Here is Paul K. Moser's response to this news:
John Loftus Takes On Christian Apologists Norman Geisler, Frank Turek, William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, Gary Habermas, Dave Hunt, Ben Witherington III, Victor Reppert, Gregory Ganssel, Craig Evans, Stewart Goetz, Daniel Wallace, Plus Others for the Win, and Guess Who Won?
I did! Here's the story.
A former Christian named ToonForever described why he no longer believes:
A former Christian named ToonForever described why he no longer believes:
I decided that in order to avoid prejudicing myself toward my doubts, something I always accused T of doing when she left the faith, I would find a well-recommended apologetics book and give God the first and best chance of answering my questions and calming my fears.
For the Pro side of the argument, I downloaded to my Kindle Norman Geisler’s [and Frank Turek's] I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.
I already knew what book I would choose for the Con side of the conversation. I wanted to read the book that made me the most afraid, because that would be the greatest challenge. If I could get through that with my faith intact, I could set aside my doubts and at least approach the meditation question with the confidence that would come from overcoming what to me was the sternest challenge I could find. So I downloaded Loftus’ Why I Became an Atheist (Revised & Expanded).
I got a blank steno pad and started reading Geisler.
Dr. Victor Reppert's Concise Explanation For Why He Believes
I have allowed Christian scholars to post here at DC without my initial comments. [See tag below]. The following is one single comment left by Dr. Reppert in my combox. I thought it was worthy of further consideration. Dig in. I expect he'll defend what he wrote. I've taken the liberty to number his paragraphs for ease, should you wish to discuss them. Please, no ridicule.
Another "Stupid Atheist Meme"
- Ed Brayton: This is fucking inane. Cat's don't pray! Some atheists (not me) are just stupid.
- Jeff Lowder: I agree. I consistently criticize atheists when I think they are being rude or straw manning theists or theistic arguments.
- Victor Reppert: Who's to say God answers all prayers anyway? He has his omniscient reasons.
On Ridiculing the Ridiculous Ridicule Deniers
The saying at left is an example of ridicule, in case it isn't obvious. The same goes for this post of mine. The saying was submitted by a person named Chris to a committee of three seeking permission to use it on his Facebook page. The members of the committee include Victor Reppert, Jeff Lowder and John Loftus. Reppert demanded this committee should exist and wanted to be on it. He argued that a person who uses ridicule must be able to defend the basis of the ridicule before using it. Lowder cannot recognize some kinds of ridicule and argued it isn't as effective at changing minds as a reasoned debate. Loftus didn't want on this committee but in order to break any deadlock, he begrudgingly agreed under protest.
Let's listen in as they discuss this submitted piece of ridicule.
Let's listen in as they discuss this submitted piece of ridicule.
Sir_Russ Dismantles Victor Reppert On Ridicule
Vic complains about the commenters here at DC, saying they attack him. They most certainly attack his ideas. By contrast his commenters personally attack atheists and have little substance beyond that. So compare them to what sir_russ wrote below. There is some snark going on in it, but his reasoning and writing are very good.
Victor Reppert and Jeff Lowder Again On Ridicule
Reppert still doesn't get it and it stuns me. Maybe he refuses to consider anything I say because I'm, well, an atheist, and he knows atheists are wrong about everything! ;-) He thinks one must come up with a argument and be able to defend it--on the Harvard Yard or something?--before being entitled to ridicule a belief. For one must be careful not to end up ridiculing a true belief. Of course, Reppert surely wants to be on the committee that decides which beliefs are false and deserving of ridicule, I'll bet.
Is he serious? I think he is.
Is he serious? I think he is.
Quote of the Day, By Faisal Saeed Al Mutar On Ridicule
Now Victor Reppert has gone on record as stressing ridicule is unwarranted. So what does he advocate when it comes to Muslim militancy? A lot of us, me included, don't know that much about Islam. But we know killing and maiming others is wrong. Does Vic really think ridicule should not be used by us against these Muslims? Most of us don't really know any other way to express ourselves. I think ridicule can open the Muslim mind up to consider arguments to the contrary. It can be the grease that helps unscrew the mental bolts that shut off a reasoned discussion of their faith. And if Reppert can see this with regard to the faith of others, then he should have no principled objection to the use of ridicule itself.
More On the Effective Use of Ridicule
If you have ever read Plato's Dialogues you know Socrates ridiculed his opponents. Anyone who has read the ending of the Euthyphro dilemma sees this plainly:
A Refutation of David Marshall's Book Rebuttal of My OTF, Part 1
I've decided to write more than just one post about Dr. David Marshall's “rebuttal” to my book The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF). I will attempt to show why Marshall's book, How Jesus Passes the Outsider Test: The Inside Story,
is really bad. In fact, it's so bad I'm using the word "refutation" for what I'm about to do to it. I hardly ever use that word because refutations are usually unachievable in these kinds of debates. If I'm largely successful then it also says something about Dr. Randal Rauser, that he will say and endorse anything in order to defend his Christian faith. No educated intellectual worthy the name would have written Marshall's book. No educated intellectual should think it's worthy of any kind of a blurb either. Rauser blurbed it saying, “Delightful riposte . . . rhetorical wit and the cosmopolitan vision of a true world citizen!” On his blog Rauser additionally recommended it saying, "While I don’t think much of Loftus’s faltering attempt to make an enduring contribution to serious academic discourse, I do think highly of Marshall’s eloquent rebuttal of it." Drs. Miriam Adeney and Ivan Satyavrata also recommend Marshall's book.
Here we go then, little ole me against four, count 'em, four Ph.D.'s. What chance might I have? How dare I even try?
is really bad. In fact, it's so bad I'm using the word "refutation" for what I'm about to do to it. I hardly ever use that word because refutations are usually unachievable in these kinds of debates. If I'm largely successful then it also says something about Dr. Randal Rauser, that he will say and endorse anything in order to defend his Christian faith. No educated intellectual worthy the name would have written Marshall's book. No educated intellectual should think it's worthy of any kind of a blurb either. Rauser blurbed it saying, “Delightful riposte . . . rhetorical wit and the cosmopolitan vision of a true world citizen!” On his blog Rauser additionally recommended it saying, "While I don’t think much of Loftus’s faltering attempt to make an enduring contribution to serious academic discourse, I do think highly of Marshall’s eloquent rebuttal of it." Drs. Miriam Adeney and Ivan Satyavrata also recommend Marshall's book. Here we go then, little ole me against four, count 'em, four Ph.D.'s. What chance might I have? How dare I even try?
The Definition Refutation: Christians, You Don't Get To Define The Word "Faith" For Us
Victor Reppert, David Marshall and Randal Rauser have repeatedly said atheists must abide by their definitions of the word "Faith"--then they have all defined that word differently. *cough* Not so. Not at all. Not even close. Here is the definition refutation of such tomfoolery:
David Marshall's Newest Book
I'm a bit curious to see what Marshall says that might be new in his book, but I can't find it on Amazon yet. Marshall writes about it here. What I'd like to know is how Randal Rauser can reject the OTF and yet endorse Marshall's book. In any case the Arizona Atheist wrote a nice review of Marshall's chapter in "True Reason" seen here.
A lot of atheists instantly embrace the OTF since it seems so intuitively obvious. What they don't realize is how much effort it takes to defend it from believers who are impervious to reason. What I predict is that when the OTF comes up in an online forum, Christians will bring up Marshall's book, or some other one, and say I've been answered. If you as an atheist intend to use the OTF, you had better know how to defend it. So you should read how I do so in my book, The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion Is True.
I cover every major objection to it such that neither Marshall nor anyone else can even put a dent in its armor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)