click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Why the “I Just Believe in One Less God than You” Argument Does not Work
by C Michael PattonApril 13th, 2011
141 Comments
Considering all of the conversations with atheists I have had recently, I thought I would bring back to light the fallacy of this common argument.
“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts
This is a quote that is found often on the lips of atheists these days. It can be summed up this way: “I don’t have to take the time to reject Christ any more than you have to take the time to reject all the millions of gods that are out there. It just happens by default. The justification for my atheism is the same as yours with respect to your rejection of all the other possible gods.”
While I understand the spirit of this quote, I think it fails to understand some of the very basic beliefs that Christians are claiming about their God as opposed to “the other possible gods.”
I have heard my favorite atheist, Christopher Hitchens, compare belief in Jesus to belief in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Clause. This is really saying the same thing using different illustrations. But he also likes the “I don’t believe in other gods thing too.” As he once said, “No, I don’t believe in Yahweh. I don’t believe in Hercules either.”
As effective as these types of implicit appeals of association might be emotionally, they miss the mark completely. All assume a parallel that is simply not present when the claims are understood and the evidence is considered.
Take the “I don’t believe in Hercules” argument for example. This assumes a parallel between belief in Christ and a belief in any one of the millions of gods that have ever existed, especially those who belonged to a system of religion which espoused many gods (polytheism). These type of systems are represented by ancient Egyptian, Canaanite, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman cultures (as well as others today). There is really not too much difference between the basic philosophical structure of each.
There are two primary reasons why I believe drawing parallels between belief in these gods (or Tooth Fairies) are misleading:
1. The type of belief
Whether we are speaking of this from a political or rural position, the commitment to religious pantheonism (note: not “pantheism”), especially of the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman world, don’t have as committed adherents as we often think. The religious culture that Christianity demands needs to be distinguished here. People did not really believe in Shu, Nut, Hercules, Baal, Wearisomu, Enki, Utu, Diana, and the like in the same way that people believe in Yahweh. Their belief was more of a social convention which included all the pressures that such a system demanded. Their gods were more “faddish” than anything else. Their existence was rather fluid, changing and even morphing into other gods and sometimes moralistic ideals such as “justice” and “reason.” This is why the Caesers could so easily deify themselves and expect people to jump on the bandwagon. Did these people really suddenly believe Caeser was a god? If so, what does this say about the type of belief they had? Both in the philosophical world of the day and among the laity, “belief” as we think of it, was not present.
Don’t get me wrong. I know that we have “faddish” Christianity today where people follow the tide of the culture in believing in Christ the same way that people believed in these ancient gods. In this social folk religion, there is a parallel. But the basis for belief in these other gods was founded on social convention, not philosophical, rational, and historic necessity as is the case with Christianity. Christianity exists not because of rural pragmatism, but because of historic events.
2. The type of god
More importantly, the gods of these pantheons were/are not really gods in the proper sense. In order to call them such is a misunderstanding of what “god” means. In other words, they were functional deities who carried a role that was expedient to the life and happiness of the people. They were the gods of rain, sun, crops, war, fertility, and the like. They were the “go-to” immanent forces who had no transcendence or ultimate creative power. They were more like superheroes from the Justice League than gods. In this system, human beings and these gods shared the same type of life, having similar problems and frustrations. The deistic philosophy of the people did not center around a “universe” in which one god was controlling and holding all things together, but a “multiverse” where each god was responsible for his or her respective career. Therefore, these gods would have much more in common with the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause than they would with the God that the Bible describes.
While most systems had a “top dog,” if you will (Zeus, Re, Enlil, Marduk, etc), these were not thought of as the ultimate creators of all things who, out of necessity, transcend space and time. They were simply really, really powerful beings that happened to be caught up in the same world we are. More powerful than us mortals? Yes. But none qualify for the title “God.”
Christianity believes in only one God (monotheism). We believe this not simply because we want to have the most powerful being out of the millions, but out of theological and philosophical necessity. We believe that God created all things out of nothing. We believe that existence necessitates a “first cause” or an “unmoved mover.” This first cause is by definition God. Simply put, whoever started it all (the time, space, matter creation) is the only true God. There cannot be multiple first causers. God, while able to interact and love mankind, must transcend all that we see and know. He must be outside of our universe holding it all together, not simply the most powerful actor in our current play. We are simply talking about two different species here. One that is transcendently holy, both ontologically (who he is in essence) and morally (what he does) and the other which is but a hair’s breath from us.
In the end, the theistic type of God espoused by Christianity cannot be compared to the pantheon of gods of polytheistic religions. It is comparing apples to oranges.
Let’s look at this statement again:
“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts
I understand perfectly why Stephen F Roberts and Christopher Hitchens reject all the other gods. It is because they reject polytheism. But I don’t understand how this parallels to the rejection of the Christian God. It is a slight of hand to make such a comparison (effective as it may be). People believe in these two completely different things for completely different reasons and, therefore, must reject the two differently. The same arguments used against these gods cannot be used effectively against the Christian God. Once polytheism as a worldview is rejected, all the millions of gods go with it. I don’t have to argue against each, one at a time.
My time is up, but I understand the much needed sequel. While there is a philosophical barrier that does not allow us to equate belief in the Christian God to belief in the myriad of gods in polytheistic systems, this does not mean that the Christian God cannot be compared to the god of Islam. However, if Stephen F Roberts would have said, “When you understand why you dismiss Allah, you will understand why I dismiss Yahweh,” then it would be philosophically correct. The comparison would be in tact and the conversation would not be manipulated into this accept-all-or-nothing resolve. However, it still would not make sense. I do reject Allah and my reasons are very specific. But they are not the same reasons why he rejects Christ.
Similar Posts:
- Why I Reject Other Gods: An Answer to Stephen F Roberts
- “The Nephilim Have Been Found” or Yet Another Example of Really Bad Apologetics
- Top ten signs you are a fundamentalist Christian
- A Letter to (Some) Atheists
- Why is there Something Rather than Nothing?
141 Comments
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40
“Christianity exists not because of rural pragmatism, but because of historic events.”
Outside the Bible, which can only confirm itself, and Josephus, who mentions Jesus only briefly in relation to his (at the time according to Josephus) more significant brother, what historic evidence have you to verify that Jesus existed or was crucified, rose from the dead, etc? Even the multiple versions of Mary Magdalene’s story in Mathew, Mark, Luke and John contradict each other, so even the bible can’t confirm itself.
The Shroud of Turin was faked. The fabled Holy Grail was presumably lost. The alleged city Nazareth is a tourist trap. There’s no evidence outside the bible that babies were slaughtered in a search for the baby Jesus, or that Pontius Pilate allowed Barabus to go free and had Jesus put to death.
Atheists compare Jesus to Santa and the Tooth Fairy because there is no historical validity. It is fiction. ALL religions are scams. Wake up.
Like or Dislike:
1
I agree that a different argument is needed against polytheism than against monotheism, but I think we should look to the evidence when presented something like this. Why believe in God? The beginning of the Universe, fine tuning, beginning of life… Why Christianity? Well documented, accurate texts, fulfilled prophecy, falsifiable claims that show themselves true. Why not Judaism or Islam? Because if you follow the texts & prophecies to their logical conclusions you can show the problems with these faiths. Using things like these I think we can explain why accepting Christianity is not the same as accepting other beliefs.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18
“People did not really believe in Shu, Nut, Hercules, Baal, Wearisomu, Enki, Utu, Diana, and the like in the same way that people believe in Yahweh. Their belief was more of a social convention which included all the pressures that such a system demanded.”
Bald assertion that cannot be backed up with a knowledge of history, or even an examination of the Bible for that fact.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14
As Scott has pointed out, the assertion that adherents of polytheism did not believe in their gods in the same way that Yahwists believed in their God is largely unfounded. Polytheism was indeed fluid, but then again, so was Yahwism. The fact is that many polytheists were willing to sacrifice their children to placate their gods. If that’s not robust belief, I don’t know what is.
As for your main point, I think you’re right to say that the statement you are examining would be better applied to other monotheistic religions in order to be sure that you are comparing like with like. However, I think what muddies the water in this regard is that while Christianity conflates the God of philosophical monotheism with YHWH of the Old Testament, YHWH as he appears in the Bible does in fact bear comparison to other deities. In fact, he encourages it, insisting that he consistently beats them at their own game. This is why many atheists find the comparison appropriate.
Like or Dislike:
2
C Michael Patton said:
“1. The type of belief
Whether we are speaking of this from a political or rural position, the commitment to religious pantheonism (note: not “pantheism”), especially of the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman world, don’t have as committed adherents as we often think. The religious culture that Christianity demands needs to be distinguished here.”
Paraphrase: christianity has adherents that are more committed, compared to followers of other gods.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html
Like or Dislike:
2
This analogy is imperfect but it should help to show what is wrong with this atheist assertion.
One person may prefer red for stop signs. Another green. Still others think that any colour can be used and no standardisation is necessary, and others promote the use of all colours on every sign.
The atheist response is like saying you can’t agree on what colour to use because there are in fact no colours. Colours do not exist.
Dropping from one god to no gods isn’t a continuation of the number of God’s argument, it is a completely different argument.
Like or Dislike:
3
I usually just respond to the “tooth fairy” crack by pointing out that the tooth fairy didn’t inspire the Sistine Chapel, Paradise Lost, Les Miserables, Handel’s Messiah, and so forth.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7
This issue stems from atheists being unwilling to recognize the difference between “god A” and “god B”. They find a couple similarities (including the term), then assert that they are identical; thus if “god A” can be shown to not exist, then it follows that “god B” does not exist either.
The problem is that we don’t determine identical identity by the presence of similarities, but by the presence of differences. If there are differences, then it is not logically valid to equate “god A” to “god B”. Hercules is not identical to YHWH in virtue of their differences; therefore the ontological status of Hercules does not imply the ontological status of YHWH.
What needs to be demonstrated is that an attribute of the god is impossible. If two gods share an attribute that is impossible, then they both can be stated to not exist. But the impossibility is not derived based on the gods being the same god.
This is a common logical mistake that atheists make frequently.
Like or Dislike:
1
ZachsMind,
The response to your question is too log to fir in a reply here. I suggest you borrow a copy of “The Resurrection of the Son of God” by N.T. Wright. He has done significant historical legwork.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
It seems to me that Roberts et al. get it wrong in one of two possible ways, depending on how one construes polytheism. His objection fails to account for the yawning metaphysical chasm between naturalism and non-naturalism (of whatever type).
1: If polytheism implies non-naturalism (and for this argument it really doesn’t matter what form of non-naturalism you’re talking about – any form will do), then the first philosophical cleavage will be between naturalism (which the truth of atheism would seemingly imply) and non-naturalism (which the truth of either Christianity or polytheism would imply). Given this argument, the question of one God vs. multiple gods is really an intramural question between non-naturalists.
2: If polytheism’s gods are non-transcendent, is the physical universe the ultimate thing? If so, polytheism seems to reduce to just a stranger form of naturalism. In this case, the question again is naturalism (polytheistic) vs non-naturalism…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13
I do not equate all gods/Gods or religions. I know that every single one is unique and every single one can distinguish itself from every other religions. I just don’t think that this justifies faith in any specific one when they all suffer from the same shortcoming, i.e., lack of evidence.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
Vinnie is right, and I’ll add that neither the fervency of believers nor the specific qualities of the deity in question qualifies as “evidence” for said deity.
Even if it was true that christians have a quantitative difference in the manner of their beliefs vs believers of other gods, that is completely disconnected to proof of their position.
Likewise the specific characteristics of YHWH are in no way proof of his (its) existance.
I’ve heard apologists say one proof of christianity is that no other religion claims that its god dies for the sins of people. But that doesn’t constitute logical proof of the claim. It is evidence that in antiquity there was a cult that developed beliefs as a result of events. Its leader was crucified and his followers had to develop some rationale.
Like or Dislike:
2
“Outside the Bible, which can only confirm itself, and Josephus, who mentions Jesus only briefly in relation to his (at the time according to Josephus) more significant brother, what historic evidence have you to verify that Jesus existed or was crucified, rose from the dead, etc?”
There is one glaring problem with this statement. For the vast majority of events in antiquity we are lucky if we have one contemporaneous source written within the first century after the event in question. Yet historians seems to accept that these events did in fact occur, and that the sources are reliable. One ultimately has to argue special pleading in the case of the Bible for it to not be accepted as historically reliable.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11
Yet historians seems to accept that these events did in fact occur, and that the sources are reliable.
Which events and which sources are you talking about? Based upon my reading, historians subject every source to the utmost scrutiny and carefully qualify all their conclusions. They never take ancient accounts at face value.
For example I cannot imagine any credible historian thinking that the words attributed to Caesar are actually verbatim transcripts of his speeches rather than the ancient historian’s interpretation of the kind of things he might have said. When historians read the Socratic dialogues, they recognize that Plato may have put his own words in Socrates mouth for his own purposes. Christians, on the other hand, insist upon treating the words in the Gospel of John as exact quotes from Jesus rather than the author’s theological interpretation.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
“Outside the Bible, which can only confirm itself…”
That is a very misleading and assumptive statement which borders on question begging.
1. Why is it that sources outside the bible are more credible?
2. “the bible” is not one source. The BT alone should only be thought of as 27 ancient documents, each standing on their own. There is no reason in this context to group the documents.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8
1. Why is it that sources outside the bible are more credible?
Imagine relying only on the writings of Joseph Smith and his most devoted followers to write the history of the Mormon church from the time Smith first claimed to have seen the Angel Moroni to the time Brigham Young led the Latter Day Saints to Utah. If you did not view your sources with an extremely skeptical eye, you would end up believing a lot of nonsense. You would believe that the Angel Moroni appeared to several people besides Smith and that several people saw the Golden Plates. You might even believe that Smith was the faithful husband of a single wife as Smith’s polygamy was hidden from most members of the church. It is only because we have sources that give us the perspective of outsiders that a credible history of the Mormons can be written.
Like or Dislike:
0
Vinny, I’m not going to be drawn out into a discussion of Mormonism. But your thesis that only non-Mormon sources make a credible picture of Mormon history possible is absolute rubbish.
Just about every credible work of Mormon history in the past few years has been written by faithful Mormons.
For instance, Todd Compton’s book “In Sacred Lonliness” detailing the experiences of the wives of Joseph Smith. Or Richard Bushman’s “Rough Stone Rolling” which is the new definitive biography of Joseph Smith.
In fact, the Mormon scholarship on Mormonism tends to be – as a whole – far superior to the non-Mormon scholarship – since most of the latter comes from brain dead, two-bit operations like Ed Decker out on the fringe of the Evangelical counter-cult movement.
That’s all I plan to say about Mormonism – but the best stuff on it is coming from the FAITHFUL. Not outsiders.
Outsiders generally don’t care about the subject. Certainly not enough to write credibly about it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
Seth,
I couldn’t care less whether the authors are Mormons or not. If they are credible histories, then I am sure that they made extensive use of primary sources that included the perspectives of non-Mormons and ex-Mormons on the events in Palmyra, Jackson County, and Navoo. If they simply relied on the official church accounts of those events, then I would suspect that they are not worth the paper they are written on.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
As a former born-again evangelical who has become an atheist, I agree that the “one less god” argument is fallacious. The question is: gods or no gods? If you answer “gods, but only one true God” that is really no different from answering “gods, but only the Hindu pantheon.”
Theists believe in invisible supernatural entities. Atheists don’t. While it is true that the reason I don’t believe in God is the same as the reason you don’t believe in Zeus, that doesn’t make you an atheist. It merely makes you illogical and inconsistent.
Like or Dislike:
0
Like primitive Christianity – there are no “official church accounts” from the formative years of the LDS Church.
Everything had a kind of fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants feel. You have published revelations, but they came from all over the place.
But I digress…
Like or Dislike:
1
Seth,
I realize that the Gospels and Acts were not viewed as the official church accounts at the time they were written, but they did eventually come to be accepted as the authoritative version of events as well as the authoritative sources. Unlike with the Mormon church, we have no way to know whether non-Christians or ex-Christians of the 1st century might have told the story differently, but we cannot think critically about our sources without allowing for the possibility.
Like or Dislike:
1
When teaching Western Civ, I describe polytheistic pantheons as analogous to a consulting firm; people appeal to various gods as needed for specific benefit. As your needs change, the god you sacrifice to changes. Monotheism and polytheism are different qualitatively, not just in the quantity of gods.
Like or Dislike:
0
a nice video of fr. Staniloaie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQcdBa2CFew&feature=player_embedded
Like or Dislike:
0
The point of this post was not to prove Christianity, but to demonstrate the illegitimacy of a particular argument. Michael does this well.
Faith in Christ is qualitatively different than the belief of polytheists; the Incarnation leads to a unique understanding of divine-human relations including the imitation of our God as the basis of a moral/religious framework.
Zeus also became flesh. He was a terrible father and an unfaithful husband. I’m sure there were adherents of Zeus who did likewise, but they did not base it seriously off of divine precedent.
As far as the validity of the 27 different first-century texts relating to Christianity that we now call the New Testament: it’s striking to find 27 such sources. A historian wouldn’t take them at face value, but wouldn’t discard them out of hand, either. There’s not such a plethora of sources that historians can afford to dismiss some of them out of hand altogether just because they’re insider sources. That’s sloppy.
Like or Dislike:
2
Gary,
I would not suggest dismissing anything out of hand. I am simply suggesting that they be subjected to the same kind of critical thinking that any other ancient document would be. For example, I am not aware of any Graeco-Roman historian who believes that the sea really receded in deference to Alexander the Great in order that his army could pass even though the event was reported during Alexander’s lifetime by his official biographer.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
The point of this post was not to prove Christianity, but to demonstrate the illegitimacy of a particular argument.
This seems to be splitting hairs. Michael attempts to demonstrate that the particular argument is illegitimate by virtue of the God and beliefs of Christianity being unique among all religions. That would seem to necessitate proof of Christianity’s claims.
Like or Dislike:
0
Suppose that you had collected by shovel a ton or so of pebbles from the bottom of a river and I demurred when you asked me to sort through them to find a good sized diamond. I might say that the difference between you and I is that I believe there is one less good size diamond in that pile than you do. Clearly, the statement is irrelevant to whether there is a diamond (or more than one) in the pile or not. While what I believe rules my decision making, it is otherwise trivial to the fact, whatever it is. I may despise manual labor or theology, but that is not pertinent. Things that are are not subject to slogans and defending slogans is not relevant to the existence or non-existence of persons. Your view as to whether this submission is made by a person or by some technical wonder in no way effects my existence (or non-existence).
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
Forget the polytheists and let’s look at the argument in the context of Islam.
You don’t wake up each morning fretting over the fact that Muslims believe Christ was not divine and that Mohammed’s opinions on the subject are infallible. Neither do Muslims worry about not believing that Christ was divine. And yet they have the same (arguably greater) belief and commitment to their religion, with as much history to gird them, as does the Christian.
Christians are atheist with respect to Islam just as Muslims are atheist with respect to Christianity. And Atheists are atheist with respect to both.
Like or Dislike:
0
ZachsMind – We know its you Richard !!
Like or Dislike:
0
Vinny,
1. “Which events and which sources are you talking about? Based upon my reading, historians subject every source to the utmost scrutiny and carefully qualify all their conclusions.”
Pretty much EVERY ancient event is what I’m talking about. The Battle of Thermopylae, Hannibal crossing the Alps, the lives of Sophocles, Plato and Aristotle, the exploits of Alexander the Great. All have exceedingly thin contemporary evidence (and what little contemporary evidence there is often comes from sources who were in the employ of the government) and any complete history was in most cases written centuries later. Yet the fact that these events occurred, and many of the details of these events, are not in dispute.
Like or Dislike:
2
2. “Why is it that sources outside the bible are more credible?
Imagine relying only on the writings of Joseph Smith and his most devoted followers to write the history of the Mormon church from the time Smith first claimed to have seen the Angel Moroni to the time Brigham Young led the Latter Day Saints to Utah”
Who else are you going to rely on?? I mean what do you expect? Someone who doesn’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead to state that “Jesus rose from the dead?” Of course not! Those who saw him rise from the dead are going to believe he rose from the dead and are going to be the ones who attest to that fact. The fact that they believe what the saw does not make what they state false. The fact that I believe I saw Car A rear end Car B and then tell the police doesn’t make my statement false – it makes me a witness. If you think I am lying about what I claim to have seen you should at least posit a motive for why I would lie.
Like or Dislike:
1
3. Long story short. When an ancient document purports to record history, has all the marks of a historical document, and reads like ancient history there is a general assumption made among ancient historians that the document is history unless there is good reason to believe otherwise. In the case of the New Testament the best reason historians have for rejecting it as history is that it contains supernatural events which is perhaps the most blatant case of question begging in history.
Like or Dislike:
1
The contentions that christians are “atheist” with respect to the Muslim god seems illogical for several reasons.
First, “atheism” means having no belief in any god, not just not believing in a particular god. Using “atheism” to mean the latter makes the word “atheist” equivocal and contradictory, which is why this argument seems to have merit, but doesn’t.
Second, are Christians atheist about the Muslim God? Insofar as the Muslim God is Creator, one, eternal, sustains existence, is existence, etc., how are Christians atheist about that God? They may think that Muslims misunderstand some important truths about God, i.e, his triune nature, etc., but they don’t disbelieve in that God. In fact, the God of the Muslims is the God of the Christians because there is only one transcendental and imminent God, but Christians would say that Muslims have some important details wrong.
Disagreement over details does not mean denial.
Atheists need to explain what they are…
Like or Dislike:
1
“You don’t wake up each morning fretting over the fact that Muslims believe Christ was not divine and that Mohammed’s opinions on the subject are infallible. Neither do Muslims worry about not believing that Christ was divine.”
I actually disagree with this to some extent. If one accepts Orthodox Christianity, but rejects Islam, Mormonism, Judaism, or some other monotheistic religion they should have a reason for doing so. Now you are probably correct that most people sitting in a pew, or kneeling in a mosque haven’t given this issue a second thought. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t, or that the more scholarly among them haven’t dealt with the issue.
Like or Dislike:
0
Right – volumes of material has been written on why certain Calvinist notions of deity are superior to Mormon notions of the same, and vis versa.
No Calvinist would say that if you’ve rejected the Mormon notion of deity, you’ve automatically got grounds for rejecting the Calvinist notion of the same. And no Mormon would claim that just because the Calvinist image of God has been rejected, the Mormon notion should be automatically rejected too.
The whole notion is nonsensical.
Like or Dislike:
0
“I actually disagree with this to some extent. If one accepts Orthodox Christianity, but rejects Islam, Mormonism, Judaism, or some other monotheistic religion they should have a reason for doing so.”
They have very good reasons for doing so. The Koran says that Christ is not the son of God, but rather merely a prophet. Indeed, Islam condemns you to Hell for believing Christ to be divine.
That’s kind of a deal breaker.
Like or Dislike:
0
Which passage in the Koran says that Nick?
Like or Dislike:
0
Especially considering that the Koran gives Jews and Christians special status as “people of the book” and considers their belief in the same God (Allah) to be praiseworthy – even if they get some details badly wrong in the Muslim view.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Which passage in the Koran says that Nick?”
5:71-75
19:30-40
Like or Dislike:
0
Nick,
We might be talking past each other here. I’m not saying that Orthodox Christians don’t have good reasons for rejecting Islam – we (I am one) in fact do. That being said the simple fact that something condemns me to hell for what I believe does not make it wrong or provide me with warrant for rejecting it out of hand. In other words I would not consider that a good reason.
Like or Dislike:
0
“…the simple fact that something condemns me to hell for what I believe does not make it wrong or provide me with warrant for rejecting it out of hand. In other words I would not consider that a good reason.”
Are you saying that all our religions are the same?
Like or Dislike:
0
Sean Osborne (post #19)
It puzzles me when former born again Christians come to be atheists. I am much the opposite, having been a skeptic for most of my life and then became a Christian in my middle age.
What clinches it for me is the indwelling of the spirit. Nothing explains that except the Bible. The life changing power that we see in Peter before and after Pentecost – I have seen that in other Christians and in myself. It scares and saddens me that someone could have that life changing event and then still fade away to deny God. I pray that God will once again open the eyes of your heart.
Like or Dislike:
2
I did not have to go far in the post to find faulty reasoning.
You say:” All assume a parallel that is simply not present when the claims are understood and the evidence is considered.”
No matter how many times you make claims for evidence–there is no evidence. This is why Christians have faith. Faith is belief WITHOUT evidence.
And yes, Vishnu, Zeus, et al, are just as valid as your god is, so the little aphorism of “believing in one less god than you do”…..makes perfect sense.
Like or Dislike:
1
“What clinches it for me is the indwelling of the spirit.”
Antioch,
If you reflect honestly on your subjective experience (“indwelling of the spirit”) there are a number of things that could account for it. Many people experience similar feelings of “oneness” or “rapture” or bliss-cum-serenity. Yet they aren’t compelled to adopt supernatural beliefs or assign the same to them.
What makes them wrong and you right?
n
Like or Dislike:
1
“you saying that all our religions are the same?”
Where in the world would you get that from anything I said? Certainly Christianity and Islam which make contradictory claims concerning the diety of Christ can’t both be right. However, the fact that Islam condemns all non-believers to hell (just as Christianity arguably does) doesn’t make the Islam wrong anymore then the fact that Universalists believe all go to heaven makes them right. My point ultimately that a religions claims concerning who is going to heaven or hell is a red herring and irrelevent as to whether or not one has warrant for either thinking that the religion is true, or conversely warrant for thinking it is false.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cathy,
“Faith is belief WITHOUT evidence.”
This may be a definition of faith, but it is not the Christian one. Faith is not belief without evidence, but rather belief without evidence that is a 100% conclusive. All human beings, even atheists, exercise a degree of faith in numerous matters. For instance when I sit down in a chair at a restaurant I believe that the chair is going to hold my weight and I am not going to go crashing to the ground. Now I have warrant for believing this, based upon the fact that the chair looks sturdy, others in the restaurant are sitting in similar chairs haven’t fallen to the ground, and similar chairs have held me in the past. Yet I can’t say for certain that in this particular instance, at this particular moment in time, this particular chair will hold my weight without performing some very weird tests in a restaurant setting. It is very likely it will hold but not conclusive, so I exercise a degree of faith that the chair will hold me when I choose to sit down.
Like or Dislike:
0
Nick,
Are you asking as a believer or as a non-believer? It’s not clear from your posts.
If you are a believer then you know and I think are just testing me. Acts 2:38. When I did that, that’s when my life changed. Habits I was not proud of but could not stop are gone from my life. The proof is in the fruit.
If you are a non-believer, my words can try to explain what happened to me, but that is, as you say, a subjective experience. Although, it is one experienced by millions of Christians throughout history. As I said above, it is explained right in the Bible – a book I did not know well before my conversion but a book that has a whole new deeper meaning afterward because of the work of the spirit.
You can dismiss the experience as some sort of bliss or manufactured emotion. Unfortunately, I think there is a lot of that in the Christian world. But is there one Christian you know and respect who has shared with you his/her testimony?
Like or Dislike:
0
“My point ultimately that a religions claims concerning who is going to heaven or hell is a red herring and irrelevent as to whether or not one has warrant for either thinking that the religion is true, or conversely warrant for thinking it is false.”
Michael T,
I get that, but it seems orthogonal to the point.
The original post attempted to refute the notion that the reasons Christians have for not believing in the God of the Koran and Mohammed as God’s most recent prophet are the same ones Muslims have for not believing that Christ is the Son of God. Atheists simply apply that same rationale to both (and other) gods.
Like or Dislike:
2
“If you are a believer then you know and I think are just testing me. Acts 2:38. When I did that, that’s when my life changed. Habits I was not proud of but could not stop are gone from my life. The proof is in the fruit.”
So essentially you read a book, reflected on what you read and how it made you feel and opened yourself up to a transcendental experience, after which you felt changed, in a non-trivial way. That experience, in and of itself, does not testify to the truthfulness of the existence of a god. Consider that millions of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Jews throughout history claim the same experience.
Consider also that people who have read The Fountainhead, The Autobiography of Ben Franklin or The Hobbit can lay claim to the same transformation.
Like or Dislike:
0
When did the topic of this thread become – proof positive that God exists?
Because wasn’t it supposed to be originally about why a common criticism against God is not valid?
Like or Dislike:
1
Michael,
Your example illustrates the problem for Christians who claim to KNOW such things as the Trinity. Your chair example does not work. In this example, you use science and the Hypothetico-Deductive method, because your trust that the chair will hold you up is based on previous evidence. Your past experience warrants that claim. Faith, however, is belief WITHOUT evidence.
The Christian philosopher,” Søren Kierkegaard argued that objective knowledge, such as 1+1=2, is unimportant to existence. If God could be rationally proven, his existence would be unimportant to humans. It is because God cannot rationally be proven that his existence is important to us. “(wiki)
Experience does not count as evidence, as Hindus, and Muslims, etc, all have religious “experiences” If the experience argument worked, then Brahman must also be true!
What Paul said “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”–is nonsensical.
Like or Dislike:
0
Also, if you believe arguments from WL Craig and other apologists amount to evidence, you would be mistaken. Their arguments are based on arguments that were refuted many years ago, and their recasting of these arguments are no better.
On my blog, (aisforatheist5760.blogspot.com) I provide critiques of these arguments.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cathy,
Using Kierkegaard to define faith is like using Barth to define Trinity. His view is going to be far outside the mainstream, bordering on (though not quite) unorthodoxy. Fideism is not the mainstream Christian view.
Faith is belief according to the evidence, not against the evidence. Read Isa 40-48 to see blind faith condemned by God. The chair example is a wonderful way of looking at faith. The reformers had three components that went into saving faith:
Notitia: knowledge
Assensus: intellectual assent or conviction (based on evidence)
Fiducia: trust
The last one is the one that you are trying to say is faith.
To assert that WL Craig’s evidence is refuted is merely an assertion that carries no value. It would be like me saying, “Atheism’s arguments have been refuted many years ago,” and then simply point you to a site. In reality, your overstatement should be toned down to this “In my opinion, their arguments are based on arguments that have been refuted.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cathy,
CMP said most of what I wanted to say above, I did want to comment on this statement though.
“Experience does not count as evidence”
I think it is important to define experience because by a very generic definition science relies largely on experience. It is with our experential senses that we conduct scientific experimentation. So you might want to say something like this instead, “subjective emotional experiences do not count as evidence.”
I would agree that a subjective emotional experience would not be convincing evidence for another person. However, I disagree, in that I believe such an experience, in the absence of hard evidence to the contrary, would provide the individual having the experience with warrant for believing what they believe. Thus the “internal witness of the Holy Spirit” provides sufficient warrant for someone who experiences this to believe, but would not be sufficient for someone who hasn’t had this experience to believe.
Like or Dislike:
0
C Michael Patton
The definition I gave for faith is not Kierkegaard’s–it is the definition of the word itself. Faith, by definition is belief without evidence.
Faith is only good if it is faith in the right thing after all. To put it bluntly, scientists do have “faith” in their theories, but those theories must be tested and confirmed before their “faith” becomes “knowledge.”
What evidence do you have that has been tested and confirmed for the existence of the Christian God, that the Christian god is the only god, or that Jesus existed as a son of God–or that Jesus is God?
My arguments against Craig are not by mere assertion, as my counter arguments to Craig’s arguments show that Craig’s arguments fail. Evaluate them for yourself.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael T
The experience argument works for every religion. Interestingly, Hindus have experience with their gods, Christians with Jesus, and Muslims with Allah and so on.
What they experience is related to their own beliefs, and no one’s experience with their particular god is any more valid than the experience of others with their particular god.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cathy,
Your definition is A definition of faith, but not the Christian definition. Isaiah 40-48 demonstrate conclusively that the God of the Bible is no fan of blind faith. Luke says that Christ appeared by “many convincing proofs.” Your definition is simply Fideism. Again, there are three elemements to Christian faith: notitia, assensus, fiducia. If you are going to argue agaist Christianity, it would help if you knew how Christians thought about such an important and central concept. It has a long tradition.
Your statement is assertion plus a link. I could make the same statement: “Atheism has been conclusively debunked. See http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog.” I don’t expect you to read all through it even though I do think that I demonstrate that atheism is the most intellectually bankrupt worldview there is. However, assertions don’t do much. And this blog post is not about proving or disproving theism. It is about the invalidity of the cliche used by many atheists
Like or Dislike:
0
Cathy,
1. You can’t force a definition of faith upon a group of people who have never had that understanding of the word. This is a textbook case of creating a strawman. For its entire history the mainstream of the Christian Church has rejected the definition you are giving. It is simply not what we mean when we use the word “faith.” As such your arguments are of little relevance on this matter.
2. Two people who believe contradictory things can both be warranted in their belief even if they both can’t be correct. We see this all the time, whether it be political issues, economic theories, or even competing scientific theories (see the different theories on quantum mechanics for instance). Two people can believe completely contradictory things (for instance in order to get out of a recession is it better for the government to spend money or give tax cuts) and both have good reasons for believing what they believe. Warrant is not the same as being right.
Like or Dislike:
0
3. As to your supposed refutations of WLC and others you can point me to your blog (which I looked at briefly and failed to see any novel objections) and I can point you to 20 others which address your objections (not to your satisfaction of course) and then you can point me to 20 others that respond to those (not to my satisfaction of course) and we can go on ad nauseum for days. Of course all this goes way beyond authors point with this post which was simply that the existence and evidence for any god must be evaluated independently of another god. Now perhaps the ultimate reason for rejecting the god is the same (e.g. not enough evidence), but the evaluations must be independent.
Like or Dislike:
0
C Michael Patton
I am willing to accept your definition of faith, which is:
” Faith is belief according to the evidence, not against the evidence.”
Now, what “evidence” can you present that would show that the Christian god or any other gods or goddesses exists?
What evidence do you have to show that the Christian god is the only god? What evidence do you have of the Trinity? What eveidence do you have that heaven and hell exist? What eveidence do you have the people will be resurrected?
My definition of knowledge is “true, justified belief” and this is based on evidence. Now, what is your definition of knowledge? Provide it and I will work with it.
I am willing to accept argument by experience as evidence. Therefore, if I accept your experience as evidence to be fair, I also accept the Hindu experiences as evidence for Brahman, Vishnu and Krishna. I accept the Muslim experiences as evidence for Allah, and so on and so on–and the writings in their holy…
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael T
Either people counter the arguments, or they do not. People can agree to disagree, but this is neither here nor there in regards to the validity and soundness of an argument. Now, as you seem to suggest, most people do not judge arguments based on their merit, but by their emotional response to it–which is why people will believe things without any evidence.
The fact that you are not specific in addressing my arguments, is a sign that you judge arguments primarily based on whether they agree with your position or not–and not on their merit. So, if you care to address one of my arguments, then I will pay attention to what you have to say. Otherwise, your mere assertions do not bother me…:)
Like or Dislike:
0
The shotgun of questions are all very good and worthy of discussion. But, again, the subject of this post is very limited to the invalidity of the cliche.
If you would like to see all the arguments in favor of theism and against atheism that I make, mingle through the atheism category on this blog.
You might start here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/03/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-the-only-six-options/.
This shows how irrational atheism is from the perspective of ontology. I merely point you there if you are serious about learning. But this thread is not for that discussion.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cathy,
“Either people counter the arguments, or they do not.”
Who decides whether or not a argument has been sufficiently countered?
Like or Dislike:
0
C Michael Patton
Your arguments in the post offer no new revelations. If you read my post, and the comments and the replies, a viable explanation for the universe is “in its own nature” In the comment section of this post, I dealt with some of the issues discussed in your link.
I will say more on this as I have been working on a post which provides support for the existence of the universe being “in its own nature” which addresses the objections raised in your post.
Your mere assertion that, “This shows how irrational atheism is from the perspective of ontology.” is just another case of, to paraphrase, “As to your supposed refutations which I looked at briefly and failed to see any novel objections and I can point you to 20 others which address your objections (not to your satisfaction of course) and then you can point me to 20 others that respond to those…” but here I will not stoop to your low standards and judge arguments based solely on whether they agree…
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael T
To answer that, I recommend you take and Intro to Logic and some classes in Philosophy. If you have already done this, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the process.
Sometimes, people will just have to agree to disagree.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cathy,
I understand the process and I have taken logic. I was simply making clear what you just admitted. Namely that people can disagree about whether a conclusion follows from the premises or the premises are valid, or if there are hidden premises, and so on.
As to saying “see my blog.” I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but in a comment/forum type setting this is generally considered bad form. If you have a argument make it and then if you really feel the need say something like “see http://www._____” for more information and sources. Simply posting websites or blog posts is actually quite impolite and a lot of people like myself simply won’t pay attention to those who insist on this type of behavior.
Like or Dislike:
0
From “Sean Osborne” #19
“Theists believe in invisible supernatural entities. Atheists don’t. While it is true that the reason I don’t believe in God is the same as the reason you don’t believe in Zeus, that doesn’t make you an atheist. It merely makes you illogical and inconsistent”
I don’t think Atheists have an answer or explanation of everything (…please if you are able to fully elucidate where thought, love or even gravity come from, please enlighten me). So, what seems illogical and inconsistent, is to prematurely eliminate a possible explanation of things that are or appear to be supernatural.
Scientific method would require that we pursue every avenue of explanation and go where the evidence leads us.
By eliminating a possible explanation, or presuming a cause in advance, of natural phenomena, you have unfairly biased yourself against something that may end up being the truth.
Strangely enough, that also demonstrates a type of faith…
Like or Dislike:
1
“I don’t think Atheists have an answer or explanation of everything (…please if you are able to fully elucidate where thought, love or even gravity come from, please enlighten me). So, what seems illogical and inconsistent, is to prematurely eliminate a possible explanation of things that are or appear to be supernatural.”
Do we require doctors to have a cure for every disease before admitting that disease is probably not caused by your neighbor giving you the ‘evil eye’? No.
“Scientific method would require that we pursue every avenue of explanation and go where the evidence leads us.”
Precisely. *Where the evidence leads us.* The evidence for any one religion is no better than that for any other. So if we examine all of the claims and honestly do our best to develop competing hypotheses that could provide alternative, more likely, explanations for that evidence then it leads you down a path where the claims of religion appear increasingly tenuous and without merit.
Like or Dislike:
0
Please take a breather for a moment. There is a distinction between discussion and two groups talking past each other or genuine argument and meaningless polemic.
If I am interested in dialog with you, I can’t just refuse to meet your argument with comment that denies a responsible answer is even vaguely required. Otherwise my comments are self-promoting, not about discussion.
In fact, there are two ways to approach the argument. Let G= God is and let -G= God is not. The argument G may not be provable scientifically, but the argument -(-G) is testable – that is the preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that natural process within the cosmos is insufficient to explain what we find.
A solution for this may be of two kinds: open and closed. In the open case, solutions such as a multiverse may be used; in the closed case, not.
If it can be demonstrated that only the closed solution is possible, one then must be willing to go back and parse different belief systems.
Like or Dislike:
0
“that is the preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that natural process within the cosmos is insufficient to explain what we find.”
Huh? Says who? Just because we don’t yet have natural explanations for every last detail doesn’t mean there are not natural explanations to be discovered.
Imagine if, in the 1600s, we adopted your point-of-view with regard to medicine. “It’s clear that we don’t have natural explanations for why people get sick. So clearly we must consider supernatural explanations as just as likely and worth pursuing”.
Like or Dislike:
0
Nick, I’ve never liked that particular apologetic either.
As you rightly point out, it leaves the evidence for God in a constant state of shrinking as human beings make more and more advances in knowledge. It becomes a sort of “God-of-the-Gaps” theory, where once you understand something, it’s not longer valid evidence for God.
As a believer in deity, I think that is a very dangerous trend, and it’s one of the main reasons I reject the Intelligent Design movement.
I consider God to be just as present in phenomena we think we understand, as in phenomena we do not understand. I consider theology, properly understood, to be the inquiry about the biggest picture possible for a human – our place in the overall universe, and our meaning in it. I consider science to be a discipline falling under theology, not an alternative, or opposing force to it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Nick,
My argument is in regards to “theists believing in ‘supernatural invisibile beings’” and how, or if, those things may or may not be explained by natural phenomena.
‘Science’ cannot currently explain the origin or substance of every phenomena that we can observe (e.g. ‘thought’).
The possibilities are 1) We ‘can’ explain everything we observe or 2) We ‘cannot’ explain everything we observe.
At this point in our history, we ‘cannot’ explain everthing. Therefore the possibility of things that are unexplainable or supernatural is still valid–at least until ‘everything’ is explained.
If you presume that man can and someday will be able to explain ‘everything’, then you believe (or have faith) that man is capable of, and will attain, infinite knowledge.
I infer from what you say that we don’t have to have complete knowledge before we ‘probably’ can know what is true or not true. Well, that may be the case in some instances, but it is not science
Like or Dislike:
0
…but it is not science.
Like or Dislike:
1
Michael T.,
Many classicists think it possible that the Socratic dialogues are not verbatim transcripts. In fact, they consider it entirely possible that Plato occasionally put his own words and ideas in Socrates mouth and that it may be impossible to determine whether specific words or ideas originated with Socrates or Plato. Such scholars are not deemed to hold an anti-Socratic agenda nor are they deemed to harbor anti-philosophy presuppositions.
On the other hand, when a scholar suggests that the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John reflect the author’s understanding rather than Jesus’, he is likely to be accused of trying to destroy Christianity. Moreover, Christians believe that an incorrect conclusion on the question may lead a loving and benevolent God to subject him to eternal torture.
Secular scholars apply the same standards to the Bible as other ancient writings. Christians don’t.
Like or Dislike:
0
Nick and Seth:
You both seem to have missed the point. I was merely stating that the proposition -(-G) is defined as scientifically testable and if true, then the preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that natural process within the cosmos is insufficient to explain what we find. No analysis was intended or offered. I was merely stating that one cannot choose either open or closed models because it satisfies ones predilections. In actuality, considerable data has been available some time, but to go there is to hijack Michael’s blog, which I have no intention of doing. Rather, I am reacting to the view in this discussion that science must uphold a point of view, for the scientific enterprise exists to collect and interpret data. It is not a theistic or atheistic enterprise: to make it so subverts it. When the Soviets decided that there was socialist and capitalist science, they fell down a three decade long rabbit hole.
Like or Dislike:
0
By the way, just to satisfy my curiosity, how many of you have practical experience in the physical, biologic or cosmological sciences? Some of you seem a little naive about the scientific enterprise in its actual practice. Perhaps, its just a misapprehension on my part.
Like or Dislike:
0
“t this point in our history, we ‘cannot’ explain everthing. Therefore the possibility of things that are unexplainable or supernatural is still valid–at least until ‘everything’ is explained.”
Damon,
We need to distinguish between “possible” and “probable”. To your point above, yes, it is possible that the supernatural explains things that are as yet unexplainable. It’s also possible that another explanation is that we’re living in a computer simulation and the “super-beings” who programmed the simulation are they themselves living in simulation. Recurse on that a few times.
Both are possible, but one is more probable. Hint: see http://www.simulation-argument.com/
Like or Dislike:
0
“You both seem to have missed the point. I was merely stating that the proposition -(-G) is defined as scientifically testable and if true, then the preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that natural process within the cosmos is insufficient to explain what we find.”
How are you arriving at this? In what way is it scientifically testable? And how is ‘-(-G)’ different from G?
“you seem a little naive about the scientific enterprise in its actual practice.”
How so?
Like or Dislike:
0
No one “explains” thing in the proper sense. They just describe them. Even the simplest phenomenon can’t be explained if understanding is in question. Used, manipulated and described but not explained.
Like or Dislike:
1
Nick:
The proposition G is God exists. The proposition -G is God does not exist. The proposition -(-G) is that the non-existence of God is insufficient to explain that which is scientifically determined. Science is a method and is not determined to decided for or against atheism. Ultimately it is a question of whether there is sufficient mass/energy and time to achieve what we see in the cosmos without intelligent input. It is because the current results are so discouraging to the atheistic hypothesis that we have three mulitverse(or megaverse) theories, one of which maybe in jeopardy and Dawkins’ favorite – an expanding and contracting universe – which fails according to recent analysis from Europe ( there is a transfer of entropy from each previous expansion so that after ~200 expansions and contractions the entropy is so high that protons, neutrons and electrons cannot exist).
Like or Dislike:
0
Nick,
I was speaking of what is possible and how discarding a possibility before it is tested would bias one to erroneous results. What is possible and what is probable are two entirely different concepts.
What is probable is a wholly different topic. Probability is what is ‘most likely to happen’–but that does not mean that it will–and it surely will not happen in all cases by definition.
Is it ‘possible’ that God exists versus the idea that no God exists? Yes, it is possible that God exists–because man at this point does not have infinite knowledge.
If you wish to discuss probability in terms of the main point of this post, I suppose you would have to then ask, is it more probable that God exists verus the idea that no God exists.
In that regard, is it ‘probable’ that ‘something’ came from ‘nothing’? With our current base of knowledge, the idea that ‘something’ comes from ‘nothing’ is highly improbable based on certain know physical laws.
Like or Dislike:
0
“The proposition G is God exists. The proposition -G is God does not exist. The proposition -(-G) is that the non-existence of God is insufficient to explain that which is scientifically determined.”
You’re smuggling a lot of assumptions into -(-G).
If G = God exists and -G = God does not exist, then -(-G) = God does not, not exist, which is a double negative and resolves to God exists.
“Ultimately it is a question of whether there is sufficient mass/energy and time to achieve what we see in the cosmos without intelligent input.”
What’s to say there needs to be intelligent input? History is littered with examples of humans presuming there must be some “higher power” just over the horizon, and repeatedly that’s turned out to not be the case. What’s different?
But for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s so; that there must be intelligent input. What makes us think it has to take the form of a God? Why couldn’t it be something akin to what Bostrom posits in…
Like or Dislike:
0
“If you wish to discuss probability in terms of the main point of this post, I suppose you would have to then ask, is it more probable that God exists verus the idea that no God exists.
In that regard, is it ‘probable’ that ‘something’ came from ‘nothing’? With our current base of knowledge, the idea that ‘something’ comes from ‘nothing’ is highly improbable based on certain know physical laws.”
Damon,
Your logic is faulty. Simply admitting that it’s not probable that a god exists does not imply that something comes from nothing. It may be that our level of understanding of time, matter and energy is akin to what we understood about disease when Christ was roaming the Earth (i.e. almost nothing).
Similarly it’s more likely that, as a matter of probability, our current explanations of our origins, including our religious explanations, are wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0
Nick:
Smuggling nothing: if the limitations of the cosmos are
4 insufficient (note: if), then there has to be an alternate solution. You ignore that I spoke to alternate explanations.
But we are left with either a theistic solution – or a pantheistic solution – or a megaverse solution.
Megaverse solutions assume an infinite number of universes and that anything is possible if you have an infinite number of universes makes anything possible.
This is not necessarily so. Do you know who Georg Cantor was? If not, I have to do a whole lot more explaining.
P.S. : I have been trying to set up an argument in the way a scientist would go about it. You seem hostile to what I am doing. I have not suggested that I have presented any evidence one way or the other. Have you ever had to set up an argument in a formal way? Anyone who is trying to set up a framework for reasonable discussion has to do what I have been trying to do, theist, atheist, agnostic, whatever.
istic
Like or Dislike:
0
Sorry, its late. I forgot to edit.
Errata: 4 in first sentence is a typo. “of universes makes anything possible” is redundant and confusing. In the postscript there should be a colon between “do” and “theist” for clarity.
Like or Dislike:
0
No hostility at all. What I’m taking issue with is your making bold assumptions and unnecessarily closing off alternative hypotheses by limiting the choices to (or perhaps *leading the argument to*) a narrow discussion of multiverses. You write as though there’s settled science w/r/t multiverses, however I’ve not seen it. Can you point us to some?
I know who Cantor is but I’m not a student of mathematics beyond what I learned in college on the way to a degree in music. Thus, the relevance of his work to this discussion, beyond having to do with ideas of infinity, is lost on me.
But we shouldn’t need to resort to arcane mathematical theories to discuss whether there are good reasons to believe one or more gods exist.
Like or Dislike:
0
Nick:
What other possibilities are there?
1. Either the universe is sufficient to explain itself or it is not.
2. If it is not, then its existence must be explained by other means.
3. Either that explanation requires an intelligent source or it does not.
4. If it does not, de rigeur, a probabilistic solution is required. There are no other choices, in view of the collapse of the expanding and collapsing universe hypothesis (generally rejected by astrophysicists long before the recent nail in its coffin).
Your objections are not to any “assumptions” I am making but to my attempt to make a testable framework. That is what we who have worked in the sciences do. Ultimately, we are doing is in my bailiwick. And in science the answers are often found by attention to “arcane mathematics.” To take mathematics off the table, is to reduce the issue to what one finds in so many of these fora: “I’m smarter than you and I say there is no god.” “No, you’re not.” “Yes, I am.”…
Like or Dislike:
0
Nick,
I may have skipped a step in fully connected the thougths in the previous post, but you still have the question of “did ‘something’ come from ‘nothing’? And by ‘nothing’, I mean ‘absolutely nothing, or non-being’.
If ‘something’ came from nothing, what proof do you offer?
I something does not come from nothing, then ‘something’ comes from ‘something’–i.e. a ‘causal agent’.
If the universe was ’caused’ to exist, then what was that cause.
I am saying it is improbable that the universe came from nothing.
When you then begin to determine ‘what’ or ‘who’ caused the universe, you cannot rule out the possibility (I do not say probability) that it is an infinitely powerful entity that exists outside of our time/space.
That infinitely powerful entity could be God.
Like or Dislike:
0
Don:
Let’s fast-forward a second: Do you believe there exists a supernatural presence who created everything in existence, who takes a personal interest in your affairs, answers your prayers and cares specifically and especially about you and every other person on this planet?
I ask this not to dodge your question but to perform a sanity check on our discussion.
Thanks,
n
Like or Dislike:
1
“..you cannot rule out the possibility (I do not say probability) that it is an infinitely powerful entity that exists outside of our time/space.That infinitely powerful entity could be God.”
Damon,
If you’re going to make a list of things it *could* be (i.e. the possible, not the probable) then you have to include the other options as well. e.g. it could be a supernatural entity who is especially cruel and enjoys watching how many ways people can invent to both harm and help each other. Perhaps our existence is simply a game he invented where he set two forces opposite each other and the game is to see how it all plays out.
Other possibilities include:
-we’re a computer simulation
-we’re a chemical experiment
-we’re a game being played by super-intelligent entities on a vastly larger timescale
-none of this is ‘real’; it’s a collective dream.
-we’re the content of the dreams of a house pet in an extra-universe.
I could go on for hours. None have more or less…
Like or Dislike:
0
Nick:
Sanity check? I have a friend whose brother was once considered a candidate for a Nobel Prize. In his personal life: paranoid schizophrenic, dissociative. Atheist, too, if memory serves, though I’m not sure that that pertains.
Impeccable science, however. In short, personal beliefs or states of sanity are not germane to scientific inquiry. Bacon, Occam, Newton and Pascal, upon which the most of the scientific enterprise has its foundations were all Christians. If Christian beliefs are sufficient to deem someone mad, and madmen cannot be allowed to be thought to think coherently, then the whole scientific enterprise is brought to question. Your question entails an ad hominem.
The framework I propose only pertains to these alternates – theism, deism, atheism, agnosis and no particular brand of any of them. Let’s stay on the subject.
Incidentally, what you call “arcane mathematics” is now taught to high school sophomores and juniors. If they can get it, you can.
Like or Dislike:
0
Nick:
1. If we are a part of a computer simulation, then the programmer is our creator. Hence, God.
2. If are are part of a chemical experiment, the experimental designer is our creator. Hence, God.
3. Were this true, your timescale would have to be in a dimension of time other than would be common to any universe or megaverse. You don’t seem to understand time theory very well. Oddly, the timescale you suggest is equivalent to eternity in Jewish theological thinking and requires opponents – a God and devil.
4. The collective dream would of necessity be our reality, the reality would have to be something else, heaven, so to speak.
5. What in the world is an extra-universe? Nothing that could exist in a strictly material megaverse. Nonetheless, in this example the Dog becomes the creator. Hence, God.
Damon’s posit is more consistent with Occam’s razor than any of yours. If you wish to dismiss his, yours have to be elegant, not fantastic. Science fiction is fiction, not…
Like or Dislike:
0
You misunderstand my use of the word “sanity”, although I could’ve been clearer – sorry.
I’m asking for your definition of “God”. I can’t divine from everything you’ve written whether you believe “he” embodies those characteristics I outlined in my last post or do you posit something altogether different? Perhaps something much more abstract? I ask because it’s possible we might be in violent agreement.
Bring on the arcane math!
I’ll do my best to keep up.
n
Like or Dislike:
0
Don, thank you for your post–I wish I could be as eloquent.
@Nick, again, I must reiterate the topic of this post is “Why the “I Just Believe in One Less God than You” Argument Does not Work”.
So, unless I missed something, we seem to agree that the idea of “…believing in one less God than you…” in regards to atheism is non sequitur.
You gave some excellent examples of possibilities of ‘God’, but none of your examples was ‘no God’.
Regards, -D
Like or Dislike:
0
Damon,
If your definition of “God” fits any of the examples I’ve suggested then it bears no resemblance to the “God” that the publishers of this site posit. i.e. “he” cares not one iota about the personal lives or interests of any of us.
If that’s the case then we agree. But you risk confusing the issue by referring to that entity as “God”, since “God” is already an overloaded term with definitions that already possess an inferred meaning (scripture and all).
To that end we should probably give a name to “him” that is distinctly different such that we distinguish between what most religious people refer to as “God” from the possibilities above. How about “Phil”? Or “Steve”?
Like or Dislike:
0
Nick: (God question later)
(Four naturalistic theories of the universe in the last 100 yrs: steady state, expanding and contracting, self-explaining, megaverse. The first three assume time is infinite, the last that mass/energy is. In science, theories are given up slowly and not made unless required (law of parsimony). Megaverse theory exists because of the perceived inadequacies of the former).
There is not only one infinity. There is the Aleph infinity which includes all numbers. No other aleph infinity is known. Cantor observed, however, that there are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2 (1.1, 1.01, 1.001, etc.). So, there are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 1.1 or 1.0001, etc. Note that 4 is not a member of any of these sets. You could have an infinite number of golf balls and not one would have the diameter of a baseball. For current theory to be right, our universe must be in the set that allows naturalistic explanation. More to come. Questions?
Like or Dislike:
0
Is the “megaverse” theory the same one covered in Steinhardt and Turok’s “Endless Universe”?
Like or Dislike:
0
They went out from us because they were not of us in the first place.
Once the Holy Spirit is in someone, I believe that God preserves that person and won’t let them go.
So I have to question whether the so-called former christian ever was a christian in the sense that the Holy Spirit had entered them.
They may have intellectually claimed to be christian, but I doubt very much that they were supernatural christians.
The fact is, they were not of us in the first place if they have left.
Like or Dislike:
0
Nick:
I am afraid I am not familiar with the book. There is more to read about out there than I or you have the time for. The terms megaverse and multiverse refer to theories to explain in naturalistic terms how we have come to where we are in view of the lack of material in the universe to account for all that is. The total mass of our universe is roughly 10^80 neutrons – that is mass available to make atoms. But much of this mass, 96%, is not available to make atoms. Were all the mass proximal and available, the number of interactions in 13.73 billion years is 10^120. In fact, because of the Big Bang, mass is flying away in all directions and the estimated number of actual interactions is only 10^40. But scientists are finding more and more things must happen to have a habitable planet. Probabilities for the likelihood of having a single habitable planet for intelligent life: low estimate:1in 10^200:high estimate:1 in 10^550+. Some probabilities are estimates, hence the…
Like or Dislike:
0
I love the Tooth-fairy dismissal. See who inspires more belief in a 3 year old, the tooth fairy or god? Answer: tooth fairy. Why? Even to the 3 year old, there is more evidence that the tooth fairy exists than god. Sooner or later the child reject the tooth fairy as real once they learn the evidence wasn’t authentic. Non-theist, and to some extent agnostics, reject god for the same reason, the evidence isn’t authentic or is suspect. Put theism/non-theism into perspective. Read Ken Wilbur’s “A Brief History of Everything”
Just my 2¢.
Like or Dislike:
1
You are so blind. You can offer only zero evidence of your god. If you accept your god, you must accept the gods of others because they are all based on fantasy. This is why you can call me
ex Christian
Like or Dislike:
0
Alvee,
“If you accept your god, you must accept the gods of others because they are all based on fantasy.”
Horses. Unicorns. Centaurs. Pegases. Assuming that I have never seen a horse, if I conclude that the latter three are fantasies, must I conclude that horses are too? I think not.
You’re statement is interesting propaganda, but it is hardly reasonable. The problem for me is that you think that it is. This requires a blindness of its own.
You’re response is one frequently seen and heard. It is a “cookie-cutter” response, one that takes for granted that the person who first stated it was right. At the very least you ought to have put it in quotes and given an attribution to professor Dawkins or whoever it was who originated the idea, shoddy thinking though it may be.
As to evidence, I recall my mother telling me this saying when I was but a child, “Convince a man against his will, he’s of the same opinion still.” (I have sought but cannot find an attribution). The point is, if I ask, “Can you prove what you say?,” I am saying I am open to hearing what you have to say, but when I say that you can provide no evidence for what you say, I am saying that no matter what you say, I won’t buy it. It is much like the child who sticks his fingers in his ears and yells, “I’m not listening” over and over again.
So, I have to wonder why you bothered to make the post at all. It is not persuasive enough to effect any reader of normal intellectual powers, so why do it? If you think that it is persuasive, then you have little cause to call others delusional.
But I don’t think that that is why you posted it. It seems to me that you have had some kind of experience or experiences that have turned you away from whatever you have called Christianity in the past and have felt some need to vent.
Why don’t you explain?
Like or Dislike:
1
Um, isn’t Father-Son-Holy Ghost 3 entities? Isn’t that polytheism?
Or did Yahweh make it with his his mother to produce himself? Ewwwwww!
Like or Dislike:
0
Monotheism (from Greek μόνος, monos, “single”, and θεός, theos, “god”) is the belief in the existence of a single (one) god.[1] Monotheism is characteristic of the Baha’i Faith, Christianity, Druzism, Judaism, Islam, Samaritanism, Sikhism[2] and Zoroastrianism.
Christianity is not the only monotheistic game in town. If you can dismiss Zoroaster or Waheguru you can dismiss the god of Abraham and the judeo-christian faiths as easily.
Like or Dislike:
0
It is not just monotheism…or henotheism for that matter. It is transcendance. Not all monotheists believe in transcendence. Some are pantheists, pantheists, and henotheists. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are religions of transcendance.
Like or Dislike:
0
Well then Baha’i and Sikhism still fit the bill. I’m not here to argue whether christianity is special to you. But it’s not unique. Nor was it the first of its kind. The fact remains that it is every bit as ridiculous as any other faith you are comfortable not adhering to. That’s why the quote cited in this blog is particularly pertinent to those of you who can dismiss the faith of others, yet be so certain yours is real. Question your own faith with the scrutiny that you question the faith of others, and you’ll get it.
Like or Dislike:
0
You are failing to see the humble nature of this post. It simply argues that you cannot argue against any God with this argument so long as “God” is properly defined. It need not be the Christian God.
It is not an issue of who does one worship. Otherwise, Thor, money, Diana, or Superman could qualify. The issue is Transcendence. This argument does not work against arguing for a Transcendent creator. In other words, it does not work when the argument is for God, but it does when it is for god.
Like or Dislike:
0
” All assume a parallel that is simply not present when the claims are understood and the evidence is considered.”
Wait. Did you just imply that there is *evidence* to support your god?
“People did not really believe in Shu, Nut, Hercules, Baal, Wearisomu, Enki, Utu, Diana, and the like in the same way that people believe in Yahweh.”
[Citation required.]
“Christianity exists not because of rural pragmatism, but because of historic events.”
Okay, I can concede this one. Christianity exists because people were converted by force, or killed.
“More importantly, the gods of these pantheons were/are not really gods in the proper sense.”
You don’t think they’re really gods, therefore they’re not *real* gods? Uh huh.
“Christianity believes in only one God (monotheism).”
Yes, you got that from the Zoroastrians in Babylon.
“We believe that existence necessitates a “first cause” or an “unmoved mover.” This first cause is by definition God.”
Yes, and we think you’re bonkers. What’s your point?
“In the end, the theistic type of God espoused by Christianity cannot be compared to the pantheon of gods of polytheistic religions. It is comparing apples to oranges.”
Just because you assert it doesn’t make it true. They believed in multiple fictional gods, and you believe in one fictional god. It’s like comparing Red Delicious apples to Granny Smith apples.
“I understand perfectly why Stephen F Roberts and Christopher Hitchens reject all the other gods. It is because they reject polytheism. But I don’t understand how this parallels to the rejection of the Christian God.”
So you don’t understand why they reject all the other gods at all. I’m glad we’ve established that.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks for this, I needed a good laugh
Like or Dislike:
0
Read many of the Roman historians and you will see that there was a committment to the pantheonic way of life, but a very loose and impersonal committment and belief in the individual gods. When the gods were threatened, it was the parties and way of life (culture) that was threatened, not their intellectual or even emotional committment to the deity. You find this quite a bit in a basic study of the persecutions of the early church. They started as grassroots persecutions due to the Christian’s focus on this one REAL deity which threatened their festivals and way of life. It soon won the day (by 400 ten percent of the population was Christian) due to this new type of committment, such that people were willing to die for this belief! Crazy stuff when someone REALLY believes in their God!
Eventually, the persecution went to a top down as the Roman rulers began to seek such a devotion to their gods (whichever one they chose) in order to lift the empire out of chaos.
Either way, the comparing or relating the “gods” in the pantheolic system is to the Christian view of God is comparing apples and oranges. One is by definition God due to his transcendant nature, the other is just a really really powerful superhero. Think about how easily people could be elevated to gods under the pantheolic system. How could ceasar claim to be a god if we are not dealing with apples and oranges? How could Simon the Magician have a statue devoted to him claiming he was a god if the Christian philosophical view of what makes god, god parallels with this other gods?
Again, once you compare the Christian God with hercules, I see that you have not done your philosophical homework, but are relying on quick sound bite atheistic apologetics. It may work among friends, but not in any serious debate.
Like or Dislike:
0
So basically, as I read this defense of Christianity, the reason that Stephen Roberts’ quote is fallacious is that Jesus is speshul. Do I have it right?
As an aside, the definition for Anglicanism, which is today’s theoloogical term for the day, is riddled with basic errors. Eg. The 39 Articles are no longer in force and were only ever in force in the Provinces of Canterbury and York. With respect to the statement on the authority of the Bible, Anglicans also accept the authority of the seven ecumenical councils. And with respect to the statement on salvation, you ignore the Oxford Movement (of which the former Lord Archbishop of York, Lord David Hope, and many other bishops are adherents.)
Like or Dislike:
0
Well, “God” is special. It is the difference in arguing for a transcendant necessary being called “God” and an immanent superhero that people worship and call “god”. Just because the same terms are used does not mean the same concepts are at issue. And this is the major fallacy with this comparison…it is hard to see how people who think deeply can continue to make this comparison.
Like or Dislike:
0
C. Michael Patton doesn’t understand the real meaning of the quote by Stephen F. Roberts. Christians have their god, Muslims have their own god (Allah), Jews have one god, too (Yahweh), Hindus, Buddhists and many other religions have only one god. They are all monotheistic religions. I would like to ask C. M. Patton the following question: is this the same god, just named differently, or each of those religions have their own god? If this is the same god, why it says different things to different religions. But, if it’s not, then which is the real one? Each religion swears that their god is the One, and the only One. It is impossible for me to figure it out. That’s why I am a Humanist Jew. I read the Bible, but I don’t worship it. I consider it as a great work of ancient literature, in spite of the hundreds of contradictions that exist in it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael T., where did you get your ideas? You need to stop speaking fancy and feeling smug about your semi-creative ideas. Whether or not someone goes to heaven or hell for the belief or disbelief in a religion is extremely important! As a Christian, our job is to help show other people what Christ did for us and help them to understand the joy we feel. As an apologist, I’m surprised at our reason, which is full of fallacies. Oh, by the way, Christianity does state that if you don’t believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to save you and you don’t accept him into your heart, you go to hell. There’s no “arguably” about it. My apologies for the bashing, but to a point I agree with you. It’s by understanding and undermining those warrants that we’ll make disciples of others.
Like or Dislike:
0
I mean “your reasoning” in the middle…….
Like or Dislike:
0
I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to add something about the idea that pagans didn’t “really believe” in their gods and it was a social thing.
Are you familiar with The Christians as the Romans Saw Them by Robert Wilken? Page 63:
“The Christians were seen as religious fanatics, self-righteous outsiders, arrogant innovators, who thought that only their beliefs were true. However, the Roman belief in divine providence, in the necessity of religious observance for the well-being of society, and in the efficacy of traditional rites and practices was no less sincere than the beliefs of the Christians. As a Roman proconsul put it at a trial of a Christian in North Africa, ‘If you make fun of the things we hold sacred I will not allow you to speak.’ How presumptuous, thought the Romans, that the Christians considered themselves alone religious. As a Roman official aptly remarked at the trial of the Scillitan martyrs, ‘We too are a religious people.’
“We must take these claims seriously. As tempting as it may be to those who have been nurtured on the personal religion of our culture, Roman religion cannot be reduced, as Augustine attempted , to politics or statecraft…”
I’m just sayin’
Like or Dislike:
0
Good stuff. I think it supports my conclusion. When you allow for a plurality of “on demand” type gods their ontological value is quite diminished. This is why the Christian view was so unique and cannot find parallel with these othere “gods” as they did not qualify for the term. They wee just really really powerdul beings. This is why the early church emphasized the “almighty” of their God. He actually was THE God. These are categories that polytheism cannot conceive.
Like or Dislike:
0
Of course it does work. Let’s change the wording just a bit. Instead of “all the other possible gods” let’s have “Yahweh and Allah”. Now we are in monotheistic territory. And I could add other monotheistic gods to the list.
Your reason to reject their gods may not be the same I reject yours, but their reasons to reject the christian god are very similar to your reasons to reject their gods.
Since Christianity evolved from Judaism is the christian god’s name Yahweh? Or if it’s not Yahweh, then what it is? Is it a different god?
I am really confused . . .
Christianity. Which “branch”? Orthodox, Catholic or the many branches of Reform? They presumably have the same god, but it tells different things to them. Catholicism: your life on earth is only temporary and a preparation for the afterlife in Heaven (or something like that), the others teach something different.
Confusion again . . .
Like or Dislike:
0
So you can make this argument work by changing it completely?
You are obviously familiar with the tactic of moving the goalposts.
Once we are discussing transcendent deities we are in an entirely different area. Then we can argue over who has the better historical evidence. For example the Koran (written about 600AD) makes claims about Jesus that contradict the Gospels (written no later than 100AD) and draws on pious fiction like the Infancy Gospels (third century or so). Since it is claimed that the Koran is the dictation of Allah, not merely inspired as some Christians claim of the Gospels, we have grounds to be skeptical of its claims to authority.
For the rest, your intellectual inadequacy is not a basis for argument.
Like or Dislike:
0
“…like in the same way that people believe in Yahweh. Their belief was more of a social convention which included all the pressures that such a system demanded. Their gods were more “faddish” than anything else.”
This is a grave failure of perspective. You take for granted our modern understanding of our world. The fact that the earth revolves around the Sun and that the Sun itself is a giant ball of burning hot plasma and gas was *not* understood 500,1000, or 5000 years ago. Such conceptions were sorcery! The convictions, beliefs, and social pressures of people in these times could only have stemmed from the knowledge, or lack thereof, available at the time.
This all comes back to S.F.Roberts contention; you cannot dismiss any belief without considering the perspectives of its believers.
…And as you go on to make such pronouncements as “They were more like superheroes from the Justice League than gods.” You just continue to illustrate S.F.Roberts point.
Like or Dislike:
0
I try not to get angry at ignorance. The truth is I understand it. It is safer to know nothing, than to think about anything in depth. This issue is beyond race, color or creed. My question to all people who agree with you is;Do you have anything to believe in? Do you wake up in the morning feeling general happiness in your life, or are you more miserable from the day before because you have nothing to believe in and absolutely nothing to look forward to? My father has a son that is not related to me. Sometimes I feel like we don’t share the same DNA, not because he is a bad person, but his knowledge only lies within the boundaries that my father and stepmother set for him. She knows nothing of God. My father stated to me that when he was a child, he went to Church so much he didn’t want to be bothered with it as an adult. I feel sorry for him, and no matter how much I love him, I know that he is going to have lifetime after lifetime of emptiness in a boundless existence filled with nothing. That is exactly how I feel about you. Good luck!!!
Like or Dislike:
0
I could say as much that I don’t believe in Ra. It’s just harder to get people to understand that Ra was a singular God in Egyptian times, when a monarch tried to change to a monotheistic system. See? The explanation itself takes away from the gravity of it all.
So we are left with gods that everyone knows. Zeus, Odin, Heracles, and so on.
You don’t hear me naming the numerous Celtic or Babylonian and Sumerian gods for that reason.
Like or Dislike:
0
All this “analysis” of Mr. Roberts’ eloquent retort misses the point of his largely rhetorical statement, which is pretty self-evident. The joke is on you taking it so literally. I am amused at the ingenious efforts of may to distinguish their god from the other gods. This much defensiveness thinly conceals the inherent doubt that all of us share but many will not admit, as if their god will vanish in a puff of smoke should they concede any uncertainty. Funny, believers often point out that an atheist may call out to god for help in times of trouble. They never point out that, throughout thier lives, believers face doubt and experience changes in their beliefs. So which one counts, the highest point of belief in your life, or the highest point of doubt? A little honesty and perspectcie is all we nonbelievers ask. As Bill Nye so aptly stated regarding those pushing creationist curricula in our schools, “What I find troubling, when you listen to these people … once in a while I get the impression that they’re not kidding.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Tracy, what you don’t get is that – whether or not the God being discussed exists or not – the IDEAS and VALUES that are wrapped up in that theological package absolutely do matter. Your concept of God can drive innovation and desire to excel. It can also drive arrogance and hatred. It can motivate war or peace. It can enslave people, and it can drive Martin Luther King to march for freedom. Most of the key revolutionary advancements in human society can be linked first to a change in the way people thought theologically.
That you can sit in relative comfort and sneer at all of this and dismiss it as mere “fairy tales” speaks more to your own arrogance and intellectual poverty than anything else.
Like or Dislike:
0
Quotes are typically concise and easily refuted. For example: “Man fears what he does not understand”. Obviously that’s not true. It may be true some of the time, but not all of the time.
The fact is that Christianity as a whole is not falsifiable. Once you add interpretation into the equation, you cannot prove The Holy Bible to be true or false. You can always interpret it in such a way that protects it from scrutiny.
At one point of time people believed that if you were to prove that our universe was not geocentric, that you would disprove Christianity. But Christianity, like so many other religions, just go back and re-interpret to fit current understanding.
When it comes to any comparison that is not about identity (a=a), there is ALWAYS a difference. There are differences between Christianity, Islam, Santa Claus, and Scientology.
The quote just points out a similarity. If 1/3 of the world believed in Zeus, then you would have people comparing Zeus to Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. And you would have people defending Zeus and saying it’s just not the same.
Be it Zeus, Allah, Yahweh, Elohim, or El that people are defending, the problem basically remains the same.
To sum it up, religion and their gods existence is based on faith, which is “belief WITHOUT evidence.” Yes… some Christians will agree with this definition of faith, while others will not, and quote things like Creationist “science”.
The quote mentioned, like all arguments, will apply to what SOME Christians believe, but not all of them. There are many many many types of Christians. The same goes with atheists. Some atheists believe “God” does not exist because (x) church that they went to as a kid was hypocritical…. A very poor argument.
I am an atheist, but I’ll admit that many atheists, like many Christians, hold beliefs based on very illogical arguments. In the end it’s not the conclusion that matters, but the argument(s) that support it.
Like or Dislike:
0
No, that won’t work as the point of the article is to show the false comparison, not subjectively, but ontologically. God, in this case, is not simply what one worships, but the uncaused cause, of which, by definition, there can only be one. Zeus and all the others from the pantheon were never proclaimed as the uncaused cause. It would be better to compare Zeus to money or power or that type of “god”. So we simply have a case of a false comparison. All it shows me is that the one who made this statement originally was speaking from the hip and had never studied much philosophy (or just not done very well.)
Like or Dislike:
0
“God, in this case, is not simply what one worships, but the uncaused cause”
The same can be said of Gaia. It’s an extremely simplistic concept that I would imagine many of thought of on their own.
“the uncaused cause, of which, by definition, there can only be one.”
Not necessarily. The possibility of a few uncaused creators is yet another unfalsifiable explanation.
“It would be better to compare Zeus to money or power or that type of “god”.
That’s not true at all. Zeus is a god (real or not). Look it up god in the dictionary. It’s just a word. Debating something as superficial as semantics won’t get you anywhere.
“So we simply have a case of a false comparison.”
I wouldn’t call it a false or true comparison. But I tend to try and break things down more. If given a premise or two and a conclusion, then I would start speaking of true/false and valid/invalid.
“All it shows me is that the one who made this statement originally was speaking from the hip and had never studied much philosophy”
Maybe. Maybe not. People often make concise statements that only superficially represent their beliefs, if given in full.
I can relate to this statement, but I would never use it to express my own beliefs.
Like or Dislike:
0
You missed the simple point of the argument… You believe in something that cannot be seen or proven because you choose too. It has nothing to do with comparing the inspiration of the toothfairy to God or the different aspects of the dogma or even how many gods are involved.
It’s a very simple, basic part of human nature.
Just try this: If you believe in a man that you’ve never seen just because you read about him, were told about him, want to believe he exists, find comfort in his existence, and or saw proof of his influence then you can believe in (choose one) Santa Clause, God, etc. Plug in any of the similar and you’ll see it works no matter which belief system you use. Hence the argument makes a lot of sense. “Listen more and talk less, you will learn more.” I like that one even better.
Like or Dislike:
0
I don’t know if this point has already been made or not. But the reason C Michael Patton’s argument does not hold water is that he is misunderstanding what is meant by “god” in the atheist argument.
It is not simply that we assume all gods to be the same, which is indeed a fallacy. But rather we understand that all gods are *supernatural* in nature. They are all part of the same class of ideas. That is true by definition. And since most atheists pretty much put their conditional trust in methodological naturalism any concept of a supernatural entity is by nature outside the realm of reasonable possibilities.
The Tooth Fairy, as was mentioned in another post, is another concept in that same category. Obviously The Tooth Fairy and Jehovah (or whatever name you prefer) are vastly different characters. Nobody would argue they are the same. But they *are* in the same category of characters…they are supernatural entities.
Science has never detected such an entity and it isn’t even clear how such detection would even be possible. So without sufficient evidence to sway a rational mind the default position is to have no belief in these entities.
It does not matter how different the Christian faith is from other faiths. It still posits a supernatural entity that cannot be verified or falsified in any meaningful way. So we simply do not believe it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Why is the default position not to believe?
You totally just made that rule up JV.
And of course the tooth fairy and deity aren’t in the same category. One was designed in its creation to be a make-believe story. The other was not. Not to mention the evidence for Jesus’ divinity is orders of magnitude greater than that for the tooth fairy. Finally – the existence of the tooth fairy doesn’t matter. The existence of Christ does.
Which makes the analogy stupid in just about every respect.
Like or Dislike:
0
Of course, I agree with Vinnie, Michael T. and others! Roberts is right. What he means is that we atheists have no belief in any god, whilst those of the Abrahamic religions are atheistic as far as other gods. Should one not believe in Zeus but instead on Thor, then she is atheistic towards Zeus. Not believing in some other god makes one have an atheistic attitude towards that god. One does not have to be an atheist to have atheistic attitude towards other gods. And don’t let your opprobrium of atheism lead your astray from noting that.
It is nothing that the gods of polytheism aren’t creators, as the lack of evidence counts against them in the other respects. Thus, one special pleads after all in dismissing Roberts’ idea!
He is just making John Loftus’ outsiders test, which is a powerful argument, despite the special pleading of the naysayers! Science finds no intent whether that of polytheism or monotheism, so both are superstitious in finding intent!
Aristotle’s teleology and his own science had kept us backwards, despite his own naturalism.
Like or Dislike:
0
Couldn’t disagree more. This is a strawman argument that avoids the point.
Like or Dislike:
0
R. Seth, I made it clear that I put gods and tooth fairies into a category called “supernatural”. I don’t see how you could disagree with that. Do you feel that Jesus, being able to do miracles, is not supernatural in nature? The tooth fairy, being a fairy, is also supernatural.
And I disagree about the evidence for the miracles of Jesus. I do not know of any such evidence. I know of a couple of stories, but I also know of a lot of other stories I don’t believe in. There’s a guy named Peter Parker who lives in New York City and has super powers. I really love that guy. He’s awesome.
He isn’t real.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] general discussion is here. Posted by Ian Thompson at 10:09 PM Labels: being itself, Edward Feser, god, [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
The christian god has been around for 2000 years and look at the state of the world? 88% of the world thinks a god exists and yet its a self destructing, greed filled world. I imagine a world without religion hindering our very existence in this universe. We will be destroyed by nature unless we wake up to our environment on earth and in space. Let’s deal in facts and continue our adventure on this beautiful planet as one species with the believe in exploration of the truth. The alternative is to continue to say “I’m right” no “I’m Right” until we nuke our selves or waste too much time and are destroyed by a rock or super volcano. Your faith leads to our demise. Nature is the only god we need concern ourselves with at this point in our existence ( A god being somethings greater than ourselves).
Like or Dislike:
0
Actually Zach, Christianity has been in decline for nearly a thousand years.
The horrors you describe are MASSIVELY the fault of the rise of secularism, not religion. The cult of the secular state has been a horrible development for the world.
Ever since the “Enlightenment” when we started to banish religion from public influence, the world has grown increasingly cruel, barbaric, and bloodthirsty.
The worst incidents of bloodshed in the last 500 years have been those committed by the secular order. Culminating with the most infamous of all – the Soviet Union and its anti-religious rain of blood and horror on this earth.
You atheists have a lot to be proud of Zach. A lot to be proud of….
Like or Dislike:
0
Seth R:
“Ever since the “Enlightenment” when we started to banish religion from public influence, the world has grown increasingly cruel, barbaric, and bloodthirsty.”
What’s your evidence for this claim? All the data points to the opposite.
Like or Dislike:
0
No it doesn’t.
Wars have been massively more bloody, more destructive, and more willingly engaged ever since the secularists took over.
War has always been nasty, but the cult of the secular state took it to all new heights of scope, brutality, and finality.
The 20th century alone ought to be proof-positive that secular regimes and secular ideologies have dwarfed religious ones in terms of cruelty, cynicism and barbarity.
You atheists had your shot at history.
And you failed – miserably.
Like or Dislike:
0
But really, you only have to look at the scope and development of wars before the Enlightenment and after to see that they became far worse under the new ideas than under the old. And it wasn’t just technology – it was also new paradigms for conquest.
Witch burning is another interesting example.
Under the rule of the Catholic Church, remarkably few witches were ever burned for the simple reason that the Vatican didn’t believe in witches. The typical Medieval scenario was the ignorant angry townspeople ready to burn the witch and the local Catholic priest intervening and stopping the execution while explaining to the people that this is just superstition. The Catholic Church actually pardoned more witches than it executed.
It was only after the Catholic Church began to be banished from the role of government influence in favor of secular monarchs and secular local governments that popular outbreaks of witch-persecution became common (like the Salem witch trials).
The Spanish Inquisition is another example of an atrocity that was largely carried out by the secular Spanish monarchy and their pawns – AFTER Rome had been told to stay out of it. When the Catholic authorities did get involved in the Inquisition, their role was usually to acquit people – since church courts operated on evidence of guilt. Secular courts, on the other hand, often operated without evidence on popular passion. Most of the abuses occurred there.
Think the contrast between Judge Caude Frollo’s “Palace of Justice” vs. the Cathedral of Notre Dame from Victor Hugo – a perfect example of the bloody and merciless secular order vs the old waning religious order.
Like or Dislike:
0
Seth R:
Please pardon my reluctance to simply take your word for it. You’ve offered no objective, third party, evidence that the world has become more violent.
Here’s just one piece of evidence to the contrary:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904106704576583203589408180.html
What’s yours?
Like or Dislike:
0
I think if you rephrase the analogy as something more simple, such as: If you are a Christian, why did you reject Islam? And why did you reject Hinduism? And Judaism? For whatever reason, such as, ‘I disagree with some of their beliefs’, which is reasonable, that is the reason why that particular person has chose to reject your religion as well. For whatever reason you have no faith in a Muslim god, is the reason the other does not have faith in a Christian god. Another way to put it: Religious and non-religious alike dismiss gods, therefore, are a form of atheist. The analogy shows a likeness between the polarities. Therefore, a person could technically be a “Christian-Atheist”, as in, a Christian, who is atheistic toward Islam. The “answer” to the analogy, for the religious-minded, should be that it’s a play-on-words, if anything, and all Christians are quasi-atheists. This analogy could also be discussed in faith-based groups, by looking at it in another way: Did you choose Christ, or have you just been coming to church since you were a child? There is no particular right or wrong answer, simply something to be reflected upon.
More Comments: