Apologetics Thread!!!

Sam Vimes · 05-11-2009 09:51AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Odder, eh? Oh well!

You have a mind, don't you? The whole point is that if you accept that there might be a God, it then follows that you test the waters of the truth claims about that Being(s). But if you are unwilling to do so because you believe that materialism, naturalism or whatever is the only way there is, then I suggest there is little point in complaining that it's impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I think you're jumping the gun a bit, no? Again, what's the point in stacking up obstacles when you haven't even gotten over the whole "there is no God" thing.

I don't think you've got my point here. The situation I am in currently is that I don't know if the supernatural exists but what I do know is that >99% of the supernatural claims ever made are false because they're mutually exclusive. I also know that the human mind is extremely fallible and is not enough on its own to determine the truth of such a claim, as evidenced by the fact that those 99% of false claims are all believed by someone and often by large numbers of people and this feeds into another thing I know, that humans have an amazing ability to convince themselves of things that they want to be true. All that means that without independently verifiable evidence there is no way to objectively determine which, if any, of the claims are true.

If I decide tomorrow that the supernatural definitely does exist I am in exactly the same situation as I am today. Whether the supernatural exists or not is pretty much irrelevant and all those logical arguments are also irrelevant because they don't bring me any closer to picking one. The fact that they are all fallacious is just a bonus. To pick three, the ontological argument is just playing with the meaning of words, the teleological argument is a Texas sharp shooter fallacy and the cosmological argument is an "I don't know so it must be god" argument. They're only convincing to people who don't spot the fallacies and I can only assume it's because they're approaching them with a desire to believe them, although our unconscious propensity to anthropomorphise does play a large part

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Humm... I'm not sure what the point of answering your question would be. You have made an assumption on my motives for being a Christian while also using these motives to rule out the possibility that Christianity (in the broadest sense) might be true despite them.

Yes, I've already pointed this out. (See my previous post). Was anyone suggesting otherwise

Yes PDN suggested otherwise when he said that how christians lived their lives versus muslims or atheists etc was a factor in his belief. To someone who has arrived at atheism logically such things are irrelevant. I got the same impression from yourself, I apologise if I misunderstood

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not entirely pessimistic about our species, I'm happy if you have "faith in humanity". Though I don't pretend to understand what that means, especially in the light of the last century.

What it means is that all the wonderful fantastic and amazing things in the world that you attribute to god, I attribute to man, I give us credit where it's due. Yes some humans are bad people and fear and pride can be powerful motivators but our overriding nature is to be good to each other

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

By implication it seems that you are implying that atheists are people who have necessarily ruled out emotion from their decision making process?

Not all atheists have ruled out emotion, for example you hear of people becoming atheists after traumatic events. Traumatic events happen all the time so the fact that one happened to me shouldn't make any difference to whether I believe or not. However it is it possible to rationally arrive at atheism and I don't think it is possible to rationally pick a religion. I can see why someone would be taken in by the various logical arguments for a deity but as I said, they don't really change anything. You still need to make a leap of faith using only your fallible human mind to pick one over all others and that's not rational

PDN · 05-11-2009 10:08AM

Malty_T wrote: »

And you're bang on religion does indeed facilitate this sort of thing.:mad:

I disagree - strongly. This is the kind of unsubstantiated slur that turns dialogue into a slanging match.

Irrational choices, such as rejecting a vaccine, are just as likely to occur in non-religious societies as in religious ones. Try visiting China. Talk to people who have been brainwashed into atheism from infancy. You will find as many, probably more, such irrational beliefs as in religious societies.

What you blame on religion is partly human nature, and partly the influence of postmodernism with its concept of truth being relative instead of absolute.

PDN · 05-11-2009 10:24AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That is very very odd to me. As I've been saying for a while now about believers, you've picked a faith because of what it offers you. Whether it's true or not almost seems irrelevant because you think your life is better if you believe it. I can kind of see why you think talking to atheists is pointless now

No, that is not what I'm saying. I think you are genuinely misunderstanding me, rather than deliberately misrepresenting me, so let's have another try.

I'm saying that many people initially choose to try Christianity because it offers them a solution to their pressing and urgent problems. This is entirely understandable, a drowning man is not interested in debating which type of rope has proved strongest in scientific tests, but he will grab the rope that looks to him to be most likely to pull him out of the water.

Then, more by an inductive than a deductive process, the new Christian discovers that Christianity does indeed deliver on its most central claim. It does help us with the morality problem in our lives.

Btw, this is not just saying that Christianity gives a nice moral code by which to live. That is why it is pointless asking, "Why can't I just pick the nice stuff I like from Jesus' teaching but reject all the deity claims and the miracles?" Christianity's solution is not giving us a nice moral code to live by. Gandhi could have given us that. Christianity involves a recognition that we are, by our own efforts, unable to live up to the moral teaching that we might admire so much. Then, by accepting Christ, we receive a divine enablement and empowerment whereby we discover that now those moral changes that we previously found impossible are indeed possible.

So, our initial step into Christianity was indeed a step of faith into something that promised to work for us. But if it had failed to deliver on those promises then it would have been a nine week wonder. The fact that it did deliver leads us to conclude that there must be something behind it. If Christianity delivers on its most central claim, then we are more predisposed to allow for the existence of the supernatural when examining its other claims.

So, to portray our faith as being purely because it helps us, or saying that its truth is irrelevant to us, is a misrepresentation.

Zombrex · 05-11-2009 10:41AM

PDN wrote: »

I disagree - strongly. This is the kind of unsubstantiated slur that turns dialogue into a slanging match.

Irrational choices, such as rejecting a vaccine, are just as likely to occur in non-religious societies as in religious ones. Try visiting China.

That isn't really the point.

No one is claiming (at least I'm not) that not being religious stops these types of things and I went to pains to point out that the anti-vaccine movement is secular in nature and contains prominent atheists such as Bill Maher.

There is nothing about being an atheist that means you are going to be rational or less prone to accepting "common sense" arguments over complex and often confusing models that offer counter intuitive explanations or simply say We don't know.

The problem here is not religion per say it is this notion of pseudo-science as a valid argument, the its true to me type arguments.

This is in no way limited to religion but religion certainly does facilitate this sort of thinking and makes it socially acceptable because it forms the basis of so much of the arguments for religion, arguments most of the population accept themselves if only in relation to religion.

If you think about it what is the difference between saying I feel the universe must be created, that is just common sense and I feel vaccines must be unsafe, that is just common sense. How can someone argue with a straight face that you should apply the principles of science (which will never tell you that you are absolutely wrong, only that you have no basis for such a claim) to the later but not the former and vice versa.

This discussion is though a genuine rabbit hole so to not be accused of dragging this discussion, which isn't about vaccines or even the nature of knowledge, off topic I would suggest such a discussion belongs in another thread.

Sam Vimes · 05-11-2009 10:45AM

PDN wrote: »

No, that is not what I'm saying. I think you are genuinely misunderstanding me, rather than deliberately misrepresenting me, so let's have another try.

I'm saying that many people initially choose to try Christianity because it offers them a solution to their pressing and urgent problems. This is entirely understandable, a drowning man is not interested in debating which type of rope has proved strongest in scientific tests, but he will grab the rope that looks to him to be most likely to pull him out of the water.

Then, more by an inductive than a deductive process, the new Christian discovers that Christianity does indeed deliver on its most central claim. It does help us with the morality problem in our lives.

Btw, this is not just saying that Christianity gives a nice moral code by which to live. That is why it is pointless asking, "Why can't I just pick the nice stuff I like from Jesus' teaching but reject all the deity claims and the miracles?" Christianity's solution is not giving us a nice moral code to live by. Gandhi could have given us that. Christianity involves a recognition that we are, by our own efforts, unable to live up to the moral teaching that we might admire so much. Then, by accepting Christ, we receive a divine enablement and empowerment whereby we discover that now those moral changes that we previously found impossible are indeed possible.

So, our initial step into Christianity was indeed a step of faith into something that promised to work for us. But if it had failed to deliver on those promises then it would have been a nine week wonder. The fact that it did deliver leads us to conclude that there must be something behind it. If Christianity delivers on its most central claim, then we are more predisposed to allow for the existence of the supernatural when examining its other claims.

So, to portray our faith as being purely because it helps us, or saying that its truth is irrelevant to us, is a misrepresentation.

No I understood your argument. The part I've bolded is the leap in logic. Christianity certainly offers something to its followers, it can make people behave better, it can make them live happier lives, it can make you totally contented with your existence and it can deliver on all that it promises (the natural things I mean)........but so can loads of other religions. Religion and superstition in general satisfies a need in human beings, that's why it originally started and that's why it's survived so long. That need could be for a moral compass or for the answers to the big questions or for comfort in a hostile world or any number of things, most religions and superstitions in the world will satisfy most people's needs.

Religions come and go and only the ones that are most satisfying to the most people stand the test of time, many of them are indeed nine week wonders. If Christianity was the only one that had stood the test of time you might have a point here but the fact that so many have lasted and the fact that so few people feel the need to change religion shows that Christianity is just one of many that can satisfy those needs and deliver what it promises.

The reason christianity and so many other religions deliver on what they promise is because that's what they were designed to do.

edit: and whoever came up with exegesis and hermeneutics is a genius. It allows christianity to evolve with the changing mindset of society and allows it to appeal to even more people

doctoremma · 05-11-2009 12:33PM

chozometroid wrote: »

Let's say God is immaterial, all-knowing, all-powerful, loving, rational, intelligent, and has free will, then

I don't think I've ever seen a single post filled with so many contradictions.

All-knowing, all-powerful and with free will? How does that work?

Fanny Cradock · 05-11-2009 01:12PM

If you are implying that foreknowledge precludes free will, then you best look back at previous marathon threads we have had on the debate. (Sorry, can't provide links at the mo.)

Aside from this, I'm struggling to see where the other apparent contradictions arise in the quote you provided from chozometroid. Do try to ease up on the hyperbolic statements

monosharp · 05-11-2009 01:56PM

PDN wrote: »

Irrational choices, such as rejecting a vaccine, are just as likely to occur in non-religious societies as in religious ones. Try visiting China. Talk to people who have been brainwashed into atheism from infancy. You will find as many, probably more, such irrational beliefs as in religious societies.

How exactly is China atheist ? I meet a lot of Chinese people and they believe in a huge number of supernatural things.

Just because its not an Abrahamic religion does not mean they are atheist or don't believe in the supernatural.

They have an enormous amount of supernatural beliefs. Maybe you don't classify it as a religion but it still doesn't make it any less a belief in the supernatural.

You know why Koreans eat dog ?
You know why Thai's don't cut down trees in certain forests ?
My friend, from Manchuria, doesn't wash (shower, hair) on Chinese new Year because she thinks she will be washing away her 'luck'.

And while we're talking about religion, does religion require divinity ? Because theres a huge branch of Buddhism (for one example) who consider themselves Buddhists but do not subscribe to any kind of divinity. In Korea there are many people who consider themselves very 'religious', very 'Buddhist' but don't believe in a deity or any supernatural aspects at all.

Is this not still a religion ?

wiki wrote:

Despite the surveys' varying results, most agree that China's traditional religions – Buddhism, Taoism, and Chinese folk religions – are the dominant faiths. According to a number of sources, Buddhism in China accounts for between 660 million (~50%) and over 1 billion (~80%)[178] while Taoists number 400 million (~30%).[179][180] However, the number of adherents to these religions can be overcounted because one person may subscribe to one or more of these traditional beliefs simultaneously, and the difficulty in clearly differentiating Buddhism, Taoism, and Chinese folk religions. In addition, subscribing to Buddhism and Taoism is not necessarily considered religious by those who follow the philosophies in principle but stop short of subscribing to any kind of divinity.

So when you say 'China is atheist'. what you mean PDN is that China doesn't allow Christianity (among others) in a completely free form, i.e > they don't allow non-state approved churches and its not for religious reasons at all, its completely political.

They don't want people starting up churches and preaching their own particular brand of religion and political issues which always happens.

I don't agree with it but I completely understand it from their perspective.

Just look at all the trouble Falun Gong caused and continues to cause the Chinese authorities.

Can you imagine someone setting up a Christian church and giving a preach about how abortion is wrong in the PRC ? :eek:

And there are Christian churches in China, take the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Patriotic_Catholic_Association for example.

its basically Catholicism minus the Pope, plus a little nationalism and a little 'don't preach issues against the state'.

Again, I'm not agreeing with it but I completely understand it from their perspective which is not anti-religious, its anti-political freedom.

PDN · 05-11-2009 02:17PM

monosharp wrote: »

How exactly is China atheist ? I meet a lot of Chinese people and they believe in a huge number of supernatural things.

Just because its not an Abrahamic religion does not mean they are atheist or don't believe in the supernatural.

They have an enormous amount of supernatural beliefs. Maybe you don't classify it as a religion but it still doesn't make it any less a belief in the supernatural.

You know why Koreans eat dog ?
You know why Thai's don't cut down trees in certain forests ?
My friend, from Manchuria, doesn't wash (shower, hair) on Chinese new Year because she thinks she will be washing away her 'luck'.

And while we're talking about religion, does religion require divinity ? Because theres a huge branch of Buddhism (for one example) who consider themselves Buddhists but do not subscribe to any kind of divinity. In Korea there are many people who consider themselves very 'religious', very 'Buddhist' but don't believe in a deity or any supernatural aspects at all.

Is this not still a religion ?

So when you say 'China is atheist'. what you mean PDN is that China doesn't allow Christianity (among others) in a completely free form, i.e > they don't allow non-state approved churches and its not for religious reasons at all, its completely political.

They don't want people starting up churches and preaching their own particular brand of religion and political issues which always happens.

I don't agree with it but I completely understand it from their perspective.

Just look at all the trouble Falun Gong caused and continues to cause the Chinese authorities.

Can you imagine someone setting up a Christian church and giving a preach about how abortion is wrong in the PRC ? :eek:

And there are Christian churches in China, take the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Patriotic_Catholic_Association for example.

its basically Catholicism minus the Pope, plus a little nationalism and a little 'don't preach issues against the state'.

Again, I'm not agreeing with it but I completely understand it from their perspective which is not anti-religious, its anti-political freedom.

When it comes to misquoting people and spouting irrelevant stuff, you really do take the biscuit.

I never said China was atheist. I said that Chinese young people were brainwashed into atheism at school. Of course many of them choose to reject that once they are allowed to think for themselves.

And don't tell untruths about what I mean when I don't mean any such thing. It is rude and ignorant to do so.

monosharp · 05-11-2009 03:58PM

PDN wrote: »

I never said China was atheist. I said that Chinese young people were brainwashed into atheism at school.

How are they 'brainwashed' into atheism at school ?

Of course many of them choose to reject that once they are allowed to think for themselves.

And believe the thousand old year old supernatural beliefs their parents had before them.

The olde brainwashing doesn't seem to work that well. Maybe they need to learn from Kim Jung-il

And don't tell untruths about what I mean when I don't mean any such thing. It is rude and ignorant to do so.

I thought you meant china was atheist, i apologize.

doctoremma · 05-11-2009 06:56PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you are implying that foreknowledge precludes free will, then you best look back at previous marathon threads we have had on the debate. (Sorry, can't provide links at the mo.)

I've only just got back to this one. I was sure I had posted something here earlier and it only took twenty minutes to find it

Omniscience and omnipotency are mutually exclusive.

PDN · 05-11-2009 07:09PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I've only just got back to this one. I was sure I had posted something here earlier and it only took twenty minutes to find it

Omniscience and omnipotency are mutually exclusive.

No, they aren't. But if you want to add anything new to the waffle and unsupported assertions in the thread already existing on that subject, then feel free to do so. But let's not clog this thread up, OK?

Soul Winner · 06-11-2009 02:11AM

On the point of using Apologetics as a means to convert the unconverted, I don't think there is a more powerful tool to woo the more skeptical amongst us. Bible thumping and Gospel preaching are not that attractive to those kinds of people. But once they can be convinced of the truths behind the preaching and (dare I say it) thumping by using apologetics as the means then their openness to that other stuff is just natural. I don't base my belief in God in feeling. It does make me feel good to believe but that is not why I believe.

The reason that I'm a Christian is because I became convinced of the truths of Christianity by listening to apologetic speeches and reading books that were apologetic in nature. I still read them now for the reasons PDN gave earlier but not so for when I started. At that time I wasn't convinced but through apologetics I became honestly convinced in my heart of hearts that not only did Jesus exist but that He said the things that He is reported as saying and actually rose from the dead as an actual historic event.

Now I could be wrong about all this but what you cannot take away is the power infusion of life that comes from actually believing in it. I don't believe that if it was in fact false that it would have such a powerful affect for the positive in my life. I just don't see how such a thing could be manufactured by falsities grounded in either an honest misunderstanding of Jesus on the part of His genuine followers or the deliberate telling of lies by either they or He. If any of these were the case then Christianity would never have gotten off the ground. To me the enigma that is Christianity is simply inexplicable unless it is in fact true.

Fanny Cradock · 06-11-2009 02:17AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't think you've got my point here. The situation I am in currently is that I don't know if the supernatural exists but what I do know is that >99% of the supernatural claims ever made are false because they're mutually exclusive. I also know that the human mind is extremely fallible and is not enough on its own to determine the truth of such a claim, as evidenced by the fact that those 99% of false claims are all believed by someone and often by large numbers of people and this feeds into another thing I know, that humans have an amazing ability to convince themselves of things that they want to be true. All that means that without independently verifiable evidence there is no way to objectively determine which, if any, of the claims are true.

You know a lot!

Where are you getting the "greater than 99% of religious claims ever made are mutually exclusive" figure from? And how many of these claims do you think are significant doctrinal or insurmountable stumbling blocks between various faiths, rather than largely insignificant bumps? I would have thought that most differences would be minor disputes.

If >99% of religious claims are mutually exclusive, but one is of a mind that God(s) may exist, presumably you can still investigate each religion individually (I would suggest the major faiths) to find the truth. Again, as you utterly reject the concept of a God(s), you don't even get to this point - this leaves you loitering outside the doors to faith telling us on the inside how impossible it is to make a decision. I would have thought that you, an atheist, were the least qualified to point out these difficulties if you aren't of the opinion that any of the claims might be true.

I also find it interesting that you wax lyrical about mankind and the wonderful things we do after your outright and unequivocal dismissal of our ability to make rational decisions with regards to the divine. (I'm surprised you didn't use the word "deluded" in there somewhere.) So Vimes gave and Vimes has taken away

Sam Vimes · 06-11-2009 09:37AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You know a lot!

Where are you getting the "greater than 99% of religious claims ever made are mutually exclusive" figure from? And how many of these claims do you think are significant doctrinal or insurmountable stumbling blocks between various faiths, rather than largely insignificant bumps? I would have thought that most differences would be minor disputes.

I get the 99% figure from the thousands upon thousands of religions and superstitions in the world that must be false if christianity is true. I don't really rank falsities in terms of perceived importance, either the claims of a religion are true or not

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If >99% of religious claims are mutually exclusive, but one is of a mind that God(s) may exist, presumably you can still investigate each religion individually (I would suggest the major faiths) to find the truth. Again, as you utterly reject the concept of a God(s), you don't even get to this point - this leaves you loitering outside the doors to faith telling us on the inside how impossible it is to make a decision. I would have thought that you, an atheist, were the least qualified to point out these difficulties if you aren't of the opinion that any of the claims might be true.

Again Fanny, whether I reject the concept of a god is completely irrelevant. I in fact don't reject the concept because the only logical position to take on a metaphysical being that exists outside the universe is agnostic. Even if I firmly believed in a god I would still have no idea which god to believe in and unlike PDN and Soul Winner, I don't see the fact that christianity has lasted and the fact that it delivers on its promises of contentment and community etc etc as a reason to believe there's some truth behind it because thousands of religions and superstitions have lasted and very few people feel the need to change from the religion of their parents, which wouldn't be the case if the religions weren't satisfying to them. Religion fills a gap in people's lives but that's because that's what it was designed to do, not because it's necessarily true. If christianity was the only one that filled that gap they might have a point but it's not by a long shot

Sorry Fanny, I know it's helpful for you to think that we're all blinded to christianity because we reject the whole concept of a god but that has little or nothing to do with it

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I also find it interesting that you wax lyrical about mankind and the wonderful things we do after your outright and unequivocal dismissal of our ability to make rational decisions with regards to the divine. (I'm surprised you didn't use the word "deluded" in there somewhere.) So Vimes gave and Vimes has taken away

People's propensity to good and their flawed perception are two completely separate issues. There are bad people in the world but we have evolved empathy and altruism, it is a function of our brain that we feel the pain and suffering of others and try to make others happy. It can be overridden and it's weaker in some than others but it's always there unless the person is mentally ill

Completely separate to that is our brain's amazing modelling ability. What we see is not the world, it's our brain's perception of the world filtered through our understanding. Our brain tries to tell us what it's seeing. I think it's amazing that our eyes can pick a face out of a crowd, the processing power needed for a mind like that is......mind blowing. Even beyond that we can look at a yellow circle with two dots and a curved line and see a smiling face

We can look at a pile of clothes and see a burglar plain as day, we can hear a breeze and hear the voice of our long dead grandmother, we can see things that simply are not there. Our brain is a pattern matching machine, it fills in the gaps to tell us what we're seeing based on what it expects to see. A simple example of this is how loads of people think my name is Vines, that's what their brain expects to see because they've never heard the word Vimes. And I'm sure you've seen those videos where you're told to concentrate on something and you don't notice the guy in the gorilla suit walking past

Most importantly our brain seeks agency, it tries to find purpose and intelligence behind everything, whether there is a purpose and intelligence or not. Our very poor grasp of probability helps a lot in this regard, such as with the teleological argument

tl;dr version, our brains have a natural propensity towards inventing gods and other supernatural beings to explain things and our perception of the world is very flawed so without independently verifiable evidence there is no way to objectively know if Yahweh is real or if he's one of the millions of supernatural beings that man has invented

PDN · 06-11-2009 10:08AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

unlike PDN and Soul Winner, I don't see the fact that christianity has lasted and the fact that it delivers on its promises of contentment and community etc etc as a reason to believe there's some truth behind it

Again, I highly object to my views being misrepresented in this way. My point was that Christianity delivers on the issue of morality. Not in just giving some nice moral guidelines, but providing power to those who were aware of their own moral inadequacy, and are now enabled to live differently.

This is very different indeed from saying something must be true because it gives contentment and community. :mad:

And, let it be noted, study of comparative religion reveals that Christianity is practically unique in this claim - so spare us the usual misinformed propaganda about all religions offering the same thing.

Most religions deal with morality in one of two ways:
a) Certain cultic acts (eg sacrifices or incantations) appease the gods, thereby meaning the worshippers don't get punished for their actions. However, there is no moral improvement required or expected, and they can continue to happily commit the same atrocities to each other until they offer the next appeasement.

b) Following certain moral codes keep the gods happy, thus earning the worshipper a reward for his good behaviour. However, the gods do not confer any extra ability on the worshipper to follow the moral codes. He pays his money and he takes his choice.

Almost all religions follow one, or the other, or a combination of the above two methods.

Christianity, however, states that the act of appeasement, or sacrifice, took place in the form of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. Furthermore, while living by a moral code is the result of committing oneself to Christ, following that code will not make the worshipper one jot more acceptable to God.

However, where Christianity really offers something that other religions don't, is that it does not merely demand that we live by a moral code. It enables those who were previously unable to follow that code to increasingly do so, by virtue of the fact that God Himself resides within them. And that, despite assertions in this forum by those who have never studied comparative religion and haven't a clue what they are talking about, is a claim that other religions do not make (unless they are new religions that have specifically borrowed that concept from Christianity).

Sam Vimes · 06-11-2009 10:29AM

PDN wrote: »

Again, I highly object to my views being misrepresented in this way. My point was that Christianity delivers on the issue of morality. Not in just giving some nice moral guidelines, but providing power to those who were aware of their own moral inadequacy, and are now enabled to live differently.

This is very different indeed from saying something must be true because it gives contentment and community. :mad:

Honestly, I don't think it is very different. The specific promises delivered on and the effectiveness of its moral philosophy on people's behaviour does not make a religion's supernatural claims any more likely to be true. It doesn't take a divine being to spot that such a philosophy could be effective. Yeah you can point out that christianity deals with morality in a different way to other religions but that's really not the point. Every religion has something that other religions don't offer and if I asked the followers I'd be told that's what sets them apart and makes them believe theirs to be the true one

PDN · 06-11-2009 10:53AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yeah you can point out that christianity deals with morality in a different way to other religions but that's really not the point.

It is the point if people ask why we choose Christianity rather than all the other religions. None of the other religions even pretend to address the issues that led many of us to explore the claims of Christianity.

and whoever came up with exegesis and hermeneutics is a genius. It allows christianity to evolve with the changing mindset of society and allows it to appeal to even more people

Whoever came up with communication in the first place came up with exegesis and hermeneutics.

Exegesis simply means determining, by the most objective means possible, what the original author or source of a piece of communication intended the recipients of that communication to understand by it. If you make a genuine effort to understand what I am saying in this post (rather than twisting it to mean whatever you want) then you are engaging in exegesis.

Hermeneutics means how to interpret a piece of communication in terms of what it means to me today in my historical and cultural context. For example, when our courts try to apply the Irish Constitution to stuff like privacy on the internet then they are engaging in hermeneutics.

I have noticed a concerted attempt on the part of atheist posters to rubbish the concepts of exegesis and hermeneutics - even though communication becomes impossible without them. This is because they would much rather attack strawmen rather than what reasonable scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) believe the Bible to be actually saying.

You may disagree with the conclusions that some people reach by their application of exegesis and hermeneutics - heck, most of the arguments on any forum of boards.ie are caused by that - but to rubbish exegesis and hermeneutics themselves is to attack communication itself, and thereby to attack knowledge and education.

Zombrex · 06-11-2009 11:04AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Now I could be wrong about all this but what you cannot take away is the power infusion of life that comes from actually believing in it. I don't believe that if it was in fact false that it would have such a powerful affect for the positive in my life.

I think this is a major difference between atheists and theists, and why theists may find it very frustrating trying to convince atheists they are correct.

I do think it could have a major effect on your life and still be false. This would explain why all other religions have major effects on people's lives and are still false. And I would think that this should demonstrate to you that your assertion is false, unless you are claiming that there are unique facets of Christianity that mean it can't be true and have this effect, that don't apply to all other religions

Soul Winner wrote: »

I just don't see how such a thing could be manufactured by falsities grounded in either an honest misunderstanding of Jesus on the part of His genuine followers or the deliberate telling of lies by either they or He. If any of these were the case then Christianity would never have gotten off the ground. To me the enigma that is Christianity is simply inexplicable unless it is in fact true.

How do explain the 1.5 billion Muslims? Or the 10 million Scientologists?

doctoremma · 06-11-2009 11:15AM

PDN wrote: »

Exegesis simply means determining, by the most objective means possible, what the original author or source of a piece of communication intended the recipients of that communication to understand by it.

Is this not the problem? That authors are biased? That what they write is shaped entirely by what they want people to believe/understand?

PDN · 06-11-2009 11:17AM

doctoremma wrote: »

Is this not the problem? That authors are biased? That what they write is shaped entirely by what they want people to believe/understand?

Hardly a problem. By that criteria every piece of communication (be it written, oral, or a rolling of the eyeballs) is biased in that it seeks to convey one message rather than another.

Sam Vimes · 06-11-2009 11:24AM

PDN wrote: »

It is the point if people ask why we choose Christianity rather than all the other religions. None of the other religions even pretend to address the issues that led many of us to explore the claims of Christianity.

I said that there is no way to objectively determine which religion is true and several people said that christianity's ability to deliver on its promises is what led them to believe there must be more behind it......but having an effective moral philosophy, even producing a utopian society would not mean that the supernatural claims of the book that gave the philosophy are true. As I said, it doesn't take a divine being to come up with an effective moral philosophy, even if the effectiveness of that moral philosophy requires asserting the existence of a divine being. It's still not an objective reason

PDN wrote: »

Whoever came up with communication in the first place came up with exegesis and hermeneutics.

Exegesis simply means determining, by the most objective means possible, what the original author or source of a piece of communication intended the recipients of that communication to understand by it. If you make a genuine effort to understand what I am saying in this post (rather than twisting it to mean whatever you want) then you are engaging in exegesis.

Hermeneutics means how to interpret a piece of communication in terms of what it means to me today in my historical and cultural context. For example, when our courts try to apply the Irish Constitution to stuff like privacy on the internet then they are engaging in hermeneutics.

I have noticed a concerted attempt on the part of atheist posters to rubbish the concepts of exegesis and hermeneutics - even though communication becomes impossible without them. This is because they would much rather attack strawmen rather than what reasonable scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) believe the Bible to be actually saying.

You may disagree with the conclusions that some people reach by their application of exegesis and hermeneutics - heck, most of the arguments on any forum of boards.ie are caused by that - but to rubbish exegesis and hermeneutics themselves is to attack communication itself, and thereby to attack knowledge and education.

Allow me to correct myself. Exegesis and hermeneutics are useful concepts when considered in general terms. What allows christianity to evolve is what I consider to be the misuse of these concepts. I'm sure it's not deliberate but everyone approaches the bible with certain preconceptions. Someone who believes in an all loving divine being will find what they're looking for in those pages, regardless of large sections of the old testament. I'm sure christians are readying their responses about cultural context and the covenant with the Jews etc etc but it's the same god and he does things that no god I want to follow would do and prescribes things that no god I want to follow would prescribe. I simply don't accept the validity of the methods used to interpret the bible

PDN · 06-11-2009 11:45AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I said that there is no way to objectively determine which religion is true and several people said that christianity's ability to deliver on its promises is what led them to believe there must be more behind it......but having an effective moral philosophy, even producing a utopian society would not mean that the supernatural claims of the book that gave the philosophy are true. As I said, it doesn't take a divine being to come up with an effective moral philosophy, even if the effectiveness of that moral philosophy requires asserting the existence of a divine being. It's still not an objective reason

You really do seem to be missing the point. Nobody said it was an objective reason.

What I said was that people often explore Christianity initially for reasons other than those covered by pure logic or apologetics. Then, having derived tangible benefits from Christianity, they are more likely to use logic to discover that Christianity is logically self-consistent and coherent, and fits well with their worldview.

You, in response to that, had started all this stuff about other religions - why didn't we check them out instead of Christianity. I therefore pointed out that those other religions don't deal with the issue that led many of us to Christianity in the first place.

Now you go back to objective reasons again, even though I'd made clear that the initial attraction to Christianity was not purely objective.

It's a bit of a waste time responding to my posts if you're going to keep going round in circles like this.

I simply don't accept the validity of the methods used to interpret the bible

That's fair enough - as long as you refrain from participating in discussions about the Bible then you should be able to hold that belief and avoid looking like a fool.

Sam Vimes · 06-11-2009 12:04PM

PDN wrote: »

You really do seem to be missing the point. Nobody said it was an objective reason.

What I said was that people often explore Christianity initially for reasons other than those covered by pure logic or apologetics. Then, having derived tangible benefits from Christianity, they are more likely to use logic to discover that Christianity is logically self-consistent and coherent, and fits well with their worldview.

You, in response to that, had started all this stuff about other religions - why didn't we check them out instead of Christianity. I therefore pointed out that those other religions don't deal with the issue that led many of us to Christianity in the first place.

Now you go back to objective reasons again, even though I'd made clear that the initial attraction to Christianity was not purely objective.

It's a bit of a waste time responding to my posts if you're going to keep going round in circles like this.

Sure people can use logic to discover that Christianity is logically self-consistent and coherent, and fits well with their worldview but that is a very different thing to its supernatural claims being true. For the most part I think the christian way of life is brilliant (with a few notable exceptions) but that is completely separate issue from whether Jesus was the son of God or not. What you're telling me is that one must first be biased towards christianity by the parts that are self-evidently consistent or beneficial before one can begin to accept the parts that aren't, such as the supernatural claims or the moral instructions that aren't independently justifiable. All I'm seeing is confirmation bias, there's enough self-evident truth in christianity that you accept the rest on faith. Someone gave a good definition on it here the other day, the embedded truth fallacy.

PDN wrote: »

That's fair enough - as long as you refrain from participating in discussions about the Bible then you should be able to hold that belief and avoid looking like a fool.

PDN, I've engaged in biblical discussions before and I'm sure the christians all thought I looked like a fool. That doesn't mean I am one though. Equally I think they look like hypocrites, picking the good bits and ignoring or explaining away the bad bits so they can cling to their idea of an all loving god. But that doesn't necessarily mean that's what they are.

Sam Vimes · 06-11-2009 12:19PM

This is also an example of affirming the consequent

Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:

1. If P, then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore, P.

Arguments of this form are invalid, in that the conclusion (3) does not have to follow even when statements 1 and 2 are true. The simple reason for this is that P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, so, in general, any number of other factors could account for Q (while P was false).

The name affirming the consequent derives from the premise Q, which affirms the "then" clause of the conditional premise.

One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with a counterexample with true premises but an obviously false conclusion. For example:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.
Owning Fort Knox is not the only way to be rich. There are any number of other ways to be rich.

If christianity was divinely inspired, it would be beneficial to my life morally, socially etc
Christianity is beneficial to my life morally, socially etc
Therefore, Christianity is divinely inspired

Being divinely inspired is not the only way for a philosophy to be beneficial to your life

doctoremma · 06-11-2009 12:30PM

PDN wrote: »

Hardly a problem. By that criteria every piece of communication (be it written, oral, or a rolling of the eyeballs) is biased in that it seeks to convey one message rather than another.

I agree that every author will have a (hopefully subconscious) agenda when they write, in all fields of study. However, I don't agree that this is "hardly a problem", especially when the writer's claims are extraordinary and even more so when there is no alternative means of verification.

PDN · 06-11-2009 01:47PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is also an example of affirming the consequent

If christianity was divinely inspired, it would be beneficial to my life morally, socially etc
Christianity is beneficial to my life morally, socially etc
Therefore, Christianity is divinely inspired

Being divinely inspired is not the only way for a philosophy to be beneficial to your life

doctoremma · 06-11-2009 02:32PM

PDN wrote: »

How does your above strawman claim fit with your earlier quote:

However, where Christianity really offers something that other religions don't, is that it does not merely demand that we live by a moral code. It enables those who were previously unable to follow that code to increasingly do so, by virtue of the fact that God Himself resides within them.

I think this fits Sam Vimes claim perfectly.

Zombrex · 06-11-2009 03:12PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is also an example of affirming the consequent

I knew that fallacy was called something but I couldn't for the life of me remember what it was.

Cheers Sam

Zombrex · 06-11-2009 03:20PM

PDN wrote: »

I think in fairness Sam may actually arguing a straw man but that is because you are being very unclear in what over all point you are trying to make (perhaps on purpose because you see where this is going).

To clarify, do you accept

that Christianity "delivering" as you put it has nothing to do with whether or not it is true,
that it could deliver without being true
that the fact that it does deliver cannot be taken as a rational argument that it is true?

If you say you do accept that then Sam is in fact arguing a straw man, but I imagine he would be much happier not arguing this if you would just clarify your position some what.

Apologetics Thread!!!

Comments