God's choice: quick question for Christians

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Science doesn't do God.

That's right. I've said as much many, many times.
 

Why do you think it is the central plank in your arguments about God and religion?

I don't. Why are you lying about that?

[Stranger]

If you perceive that something is indistinguishable from a mistake then have you concluded it is a mistake? same with guessing.

I don't need to conclude that it is a mistake - there is just no reason to take the possibility seriously.

If you are a dyed in the wool so called ''solely methodological materialist and not a philosophical materialist'' you are stuffed I'm afraid.

Materialism really has nothing to do with the question. If there is no method at all that I can use to distinguish a claim from mistakes or guessing or imagination, then why take it seriously?

The claims of Gods are open for comparison I would have thought. In fact you probably have your preference for which version of God you would think is more likely. Do you find that thought uncomfortable?

I guess I could compare god stories, in the same way I might compare novels - but why would I consider any of them at all likely, and why do you think it would make me uncomfortable?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I guess I could compare god stories, in the same way I might compare novels - but why would I consider any of them at all likely, and why do you think it would make me uncomfortable?

Comparison of religion with complete works of fiction noted. I suppose to describe that as a ''position'' would be greeted with shouts of ''strawman''around here ?

[Stranger]

Comparison of religion with complete works of fiction noted.

Without some sort of way to assess religious claims in order to distinguish them from mistakes, .... (do I really have to repeat this?)

I suppose to describe that as a ''position'' would be greeted with shouts of ''strawman''around here ?

That makes no sense - describe what as a position?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Without some sort of way to assess religious claims in order to distinguish them from mistakes, .... (do I really have to repeat this?)

Well you could start with whether a coherent anthropology and psychology are on offer.
Those who take a negative position vis a vis religion have a poor anthropology and psychology chiefly marked by unsubstantiated claims of universal psychological incompetence on the part of everybody except themselves. And of course their moral theory, er, isn't.............So, i'm afraid it has to be religion then.

[Stranger]

Well you could start with whether a coherent anthropology and psychology are on offer.
Those who take a negative position vis a vis religion have a poor anthropology and psychology chiefly marked by unsubstantiated claims of universal psychological incompetence on the part of everybody except themselves.

Given the amazing variety of not only religions (see godchecker) but other unsubstantiated beliefs that humans have believed in over their history, the conclusion that there is some level of "universal psychological incompetence" (as you put it) is pretty much unavoidable.

Humans have a tendency to make up, and believe, stories to "explain" stuff that they don't understand. It hasn't stopped, even outside of religions - people still have a tendency to believe stories over evidence: homeopathy, astrology...

And of course their moral theory, er, isn't.............So, i'm afraid it has to be religion then.

We've done this before.

Without even getting into morality and why we have it - even if you regard morality without a god is not "real" - that would be an appeal to consequences fallacy.

So, we are back again to how to distinguish your beliefs (and those of other religions and other "supernatural" claims) from guessing, mistake, etc.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well you could start with whether a coherent anthropology and psychology are on offer.

No you couldn’t. Where you start is with the argument the theist attempts for an objective god and, when that argument fails, the claim can be ignored. Anthropology and psychology have nothing to do with that – a bad argument is a bad argument is a bad argument.

Those who take a negative position vis a vis religion have a poor anthropology and psychology chiefly marked by unsubstantiated claims of universal psychological incompetence on the part of everybody except themselves.

What astonishingly convoluted and confused thought was that wreckage of a sentence even meant to convey?

And of course their moral theory, er, isn't.............So, i'm afraid it has to be religion then.

And again, what possible relationship do you think there to be between religions and morality other that is than that many of them have to varying degrees attempted to codify the behaviours we exhibit instinctively in any case?

[jeremyp]

But under the practice of historical analysis operated by many atheists, own writings must be viewed with suspicion and any histories written after the event must be discarded.

Of course we should be suspicious of his own writings in the sense of what they say. He was, after all, writing to tell the people in Rome how great he was, but they are still pretty strong evidence that he existed.

Also of course Cicero's writing supports the existence of Caeser ........they are both Romans...................

Of course the above fallacies wouldn't be my approach. But it does outline that atheists ought to examine what ancient writings they are prepared to accept and why.

The problem is that any objective analysis - by atheist or not - tells us there is zero contemporary writing about Jesus.

[torridon]

Well you could start with whether a coherent anthropology and psychology are on offer.
Those who take a negative position vis a vis religion have a poor anthropology and psychology chiefly marked by unsubstantiated claims of universal psychological incompetence on the part of everybody except themselves. And of course their moral theory, er, isn't.............So, i'm afraid it has to be religion then.

Argumentum ad consequentiam.

That religions offer pyschological appeal does not make them true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Argumentum ad consequentiam.

That religions offer pyschological appeal does not make them true.

They offer a truer psychology. I did not mention anything about appeal.
Let's take standard new atheist psychologies as a contrast which are reductionist, suffer often from the naturalistic fallacy, dubious in proposing psychological incompetence for some but not for others and even downright dangerous in reclassification of the human being into a bonobo with a bowler hat.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#257

If you make a claim that isn't subject to it, you need a methodology (I have a strange sense of deja ecrit). Until you provide one, it's just guessing.

Apropos déjà écrit, moi aussi!

From what I can see and have seen, no Christian here is disagreeing with the need for a methodology. The issue is with how any methodologies that are provided are challenged.

I could use this thread as an example. I would have thought that it was obvious that if someone asks a question and specifically refers to “The Christian God”, a source that has a copious amount of detail on the subject should be available for use. Apparently not! So what was the point in bluehillside asking a question about the Christian God, but DavidM not being allowed to respond by using what the Bible says about the Christian God?

Do you want to go back and read Gordon’s #259 to my #256? He starts off in a similar vein to you and ends up talking about ... erm ... philosophy!!

How about the end of Bluehillside’s #261?

Celestial teapots and the like are arguments in logic (itself a naturalistic phenomenon by the way) used to rebut bad attempts at logic made by theists (“you can’t disprove it, therefore it’s true” etc). For that purpose, they’re fine.

No matter how many times in the past I’ve pointed out that theists here aren’t doing this, bluehillside keeps on bringing it up. But then bluehillside makes the same mistake: to link something that is clearly made up to religious belief, thereby assuming the conclusion about the nature of that which is being investigated. Whether or not that is the intention, that is what happens.

Shall I refer to the appeal to vanity that is the substance of Susan Doris’ responses to my posts? If she had any kind of truth on her side, she would not need to go down this route. I’m also confused as to why she on the one hand wants ‘certainty’ (as opposed to just guessing), yet objects to it being allegedly demonstrated in someone’s posting style?

Clearly there is a fundamental problem with the worldview being employed by some here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course we should be suspicious of his own writings in the sense of what they say. He was, after all, writing to tell the people in Rome how great he was, but they are still pretty strong evidence that he existed.

The problem is that any objective analysis - by atheist or not - tells us there is zero contemporary writing about Jesus.

So by rights you should not believe in the existence of anyone lacking contemporary writing.

[torridon]

They offer a truer psychology. I did not mention anything about appeal.
Let's take standard new atheist psychologies as a contrast which are reductionist, suffer often from the naturalistic fallacy, dubious in proposing psychological incompetence for some but not for others and even downright dangerous in reclassification of the human being into a bonobo with a bowler hat.

Is it dangerous to recognise our origins and to understand our relationships with the rest of nature ? Many, including Freud, speculated that atheism would lead to the breakdown of civilisation, but it hasn't happened.  There is danger in not recognising our origins also. A heavily anthropocentric worldview gives us environmental degradation, habitat loss and mass extinctions for all those other poor species that aren't anthropos.

[Stranger]

They offer a truer psychology. I did not mention anything about appeal.
Let's take standard new atheist psychologies as a contrast which are reductionist, suffer often from the naturalistic fallacy, dubious in proposing psychological incompetence for some but not for others and even downright dangerous in reclassification of the human being into a bonobo with a bowler hat.

Is there some sort of argument struggling to get out of all that word salad? Seems like you've got all mixed up between the morality bit and the incompetence bit, of what you said before.

Humanity has, throughout its history, believed in countless gods and other spiritual, ghostly or unnatural/supernatural beings along with endless other unfounded beliefs (magic spells, astrology and so on). Humans undoubtedly suffers from a certain level of "incompetence".

The point being, how do we avoid it? We've learnt how to avoid it with respect to the 'natural' world, so we know that real medicine works and magic spells and homoeopathy, don't. How do we avoid it for claims about gods?

The morality bit is just irrelevant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it dangerous to recognise our origins and to understand our relationships with the rest of nature ? Many, including Freud, speculated that atheism would lead to the breakdown of civilisation, but it hasn't happened.  There is danger in not recognising our origins also. A heavily anthropocentric worldview gives us environmental degradation, habitat loss and mass extinctions for all those other poor species that aren't anthropos.

I don't think this is a case of not recognising origins but one of not recognising novelty or emergence.

[Stranger]

From what I can see and have seen, no Christian here is disagreeing with the need for a methodology. The issue is with how any methodologies that are provided are challenged.

What methodology has been provided by theists?

I could use this thread as an example. I would have thought that it was obvious that if someone asks a question and specifically refers to “The Christian God”, a source that has a copious amount of detail on the subject should be available for use. Apparently not! So what was the point in bluehillside asking a question about the Christian God, but DavidM not being allowed to respond by using what the Bible says about the Christian God?

But the bible is contradictory on the point - you can't have a just and loving god that then plays favourites to those that believe - especially as there is no rational reason to believe. Unless you can provide that methodology...

No matter how many times in the past I’ve pointed out that theists here aren’t doing this, bluehillside keeps on bringing it up. But then bluehillside makes the same mistake: to link something that is clearly made up to religious belief, thereby assuming the conclusion about the nature of that which is being investigated. Whether or not that is the intention, that is what happens.

Have you really not grasped the point? There is exactly the same amount of evidence and reasoning for the god claims of theists as there is for things that are obviously made up.

Unless you can provide that methodology...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

They offer a truer psychology. I did not mention anything about appeal.

Presumably you’ll be along soon to tell us what on earth you mean by “truer psychology” and why superstitions offer “truer” versions of it then?

Incidentally, will any old superstition do the trick or just your own?

Let's take standard new atheist psychologies…

There’s no such thing as “standard new atheist psychologies”. There are arguments and reason that lead to the conclusion that there’s no reason to think there are gods is all.

 

…as a contrast which are reductionist…

As has been explained to you many times, if you want to make the charge of reductionism you first need to demonstrate whatever it is you think has been reduced from.

…suffer often from the naturalistic fallacy…

Not so far as I’m aware they don’t. By all means to try to find an example of it though.

…dubious in proposing psychological incompetence for some but not for others…

Nothing about atheism does that. Either the logic that supports it can be rebutted or it cannot. "Psychology" has nothing to do with it.

…and even downright dangerous in reclassification of the human being into a bonobo with a bowler hat.

And he rounds off with an argumentum ad consequentiam. Tell it to those who have suffered religiously inspired pain and suffering over the centuries.

[torridon]

I don't think this is a case of not recognising origins but one of not recognising novelty or emergence.

That's funny I had you down as an emergence-denier, Emergence.  Maybe you've seen the light.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


There’s no such thing as “standard new atheist psychologies”.

 Crikey..........they don't even have one? ....................not even the one from Dawkins on the side of the Atheist Bus? Well if you say so......

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's funny I had you down as an emergence-denier, Emergence.

That's skim reading for you.

[Nearly Sane]

#257
Apropos déjà écrit, moi aussi!

From what I can see and have seen, no Christian here is disagreeing with the need for a methodology. The issue is with how any methodologies that are provided are challenged.

I could use this thread as an example. I would have thought that it was obvious that if someone asks a question and specifically refers to “The Christian God”, a source that has a copious amount of detail on the subject should be available for use. Apparently not! So what was the point in bluehillside asking a question about the Christian God, but DavidM not being allowed to respond by using what the Bible says about the Christian God?

Do you want to go back and read Gordon’s #259 to my #256? He starts off in a similar vein to you and ends up talking about ... erm ... philosophy!!

How about the end of Bluehillside’s #261?

No matter how many times in the past I’ve pointed out that theists here aren’t doing this, bluehillside keeps on bringing it up. But then bluehillside makes the same mistake: to link something that is clearly made up to religious belief, thereby assuming the conclusion about the nature of that which is being investigated. Whether or not that is the intention, that is what happens.

Shall I refer to the appeal to vanity that is the substance of Susan Doris’ responses to my posts? If she had any kind of truth on her side, she would not need to go down this route. I’m also confused as to why she on the one hand wants ‘certainty’ (as opposed to just guessing), yet objects to it being allegedly demonstrated in someone’s posting style?

Clearly there is a fundamental problem with the worldview being employed by some here.

Or you could just provide a methodology.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

From what I can see and have seen, no Christian here is disagreeing with the need for a methodology. The issue is with how any methodologies that are provided are challenged.

No, the issue is that none have been provided at all.

I could use this thread as an example. I would have thought that it was obvious that if someone asks a question and specifically refers to “The Christian God”, a source that has a copious amount of detail on the subject should be available for use.

Then again you think wrongly. If you were to ask me why I believe in leprechauns and in reply I quoted bits from the Big Book of Leprechaunology at what point would you say, “but I didn’t ask you what you believe – I asked you why you believe it”?

Apparently not!

Certainly not. You can’t just assume that because a book says things about “God” that’s case closed then. That’s the reification fallacy of which you’re so fond.

So what was the point in bluehillside asking a question about the Christian God, but DavidM not being allowed to respond by using what the Bible says about the Christian God?

See above. It’s pretty obvious I’d have thought. The question wasn’t “what does a book say about this?”; it was, “how do you reconcile what a book has to say about this?”.

Can you really not see the difference?

Do you want to go back and read Gordon’s #259 to my #256? He starts off in a similar vein to you and ends up talking about ... erm ... philosophy!!

How about the end of Bluehillside’s #261?

Quote

Celestial teapots and the like are arguments in logic (itself a naturalistic phenomenon by the way) used to rebut bad attempts at logic made by theists (“you can’t disprove it, therefore it’s true” etc). For that purpose, they’re fine.

No matter how many times in the past I’ve pointed out that theists here aren’t doing this, bluehillside keeps on bringing it up.

That you “point out something” doesn’t make it true. You, AB, Vlad, Hope when he was here and others all consistently attempt(ed) logical fallacies in support of your arguments. Your attempt at the reification fallacy just now is an example of it. Just pointing out the fallacies is a short hand way of undoing the attempt. It’s simple enough – if you stop doing it, there’d be nothing to identify as fallacious.

But then bluehillside makes the same mistake: to link something that is clearly made up to religious belief, thereby assuming the conclusion about the nature of that which is being investigated. Whether or not that is the intention, that is what happens.

No Bluehillside doesn’t. What Bluehillside actually does is to explain that, when an argument for “God” works equally for leprechauns, it’s probably a bad argument.

Why is this so difficult for you?

Seriously, try it. The next time you want to attempt an argument just substitute “leprechauns” for “God” and see whether it works equally well.

When it does, you have a bad argument.

Shall I refer to the appeal to vanity that is the substance of Susan Doris’ responses to my posts?

You can if you want, but all she’s saying is that being so triumphantly wrong is doing you no favours.

If she had any kind of truth on her side, she would not need to go down this route. I’m also confused as to why she on the one hand wants ‘certainty’ (as opposed to just guessing), yet objects to it being allegedly demonstrated in someone’s posting style?

That’s not what she says. She’s just saying that your arrogance and dismissiveness while hopelessly losing the arguments isn’t an edifying sight.

Clearly there is a fundamental problem with the worldview being employed by some here.

Clearly it isn’t for reasons that have been explained to you many times now but that you just ignore.

Wearily…first, a “world view” tells you nothing about the truth or otherwise of a proposition. One man’s world view that the Christian god is real is no more valid than another man’s world view that Ra or Poseidon are real.

Second, the only time you’ve attempted to demonstrate your position you dicked around with the starting conditions of a sum but relied on exactly the same world view all along – ie, logic.

My advice to you (again) is this: do not cling on to a failed argument just because you invested heavily in making it.

You’re welcome.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Crikey..........they don't even have one? ....................not even the one from Dawkins on the side of the Atheist Bus? Well if you say so......

There is no "they" - just arguments that some find persuasive. Perhaps if you tried to explain what you think you mean by "a psychology" you'll see where you've gone wrong.

So far as I can tell, what you've actually done is something like: "OK, it turns out that all my arguments for God are hopeless so instead I'll try to muddy the waters with more terms I don't understand like "psychological competence" in the hope that no-one notices".

It's not doing you any favours though.

[jeremyp]

Well you could start with whether a coherent anthropology and psychology are on offer.

Like any religion offers either of those.

Those who take a negative position vis a vis religion have a poor anthropology and psychology chiefly marked by unsubstantiated claims of universal psychological incompetence on the part of everybody except themselves.

Actually, I think most of the argument on here has been focussing on your own psychological incompetence, not anybody else's.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword,

No, the issue is that none have been provided at all.

Then again you think wrongly. If you were to ask me why I believe in leprechauns and in reply I quoted bits from the Big Book of Leprechaunology at what point would you say, “but I didn’t ask you what you believe – I asked you why you believe it”?

Certainly not. You can’t just assume that because a book says things about “God” that’s case closed then. That’s the reification fallacy of which you’re so fond.

See above. It’s pretty obvious I’d have thought. The question wasn’t “what does a book say about this?”; it was, “how do you reconcile what a book has to say about this?”.

Can you really not see the difference?

That you “point out something” doesn’t make it true. You, AB, Vlad, Hope when he was here and others all consistently attempt(ed) logical fallacies in support of your arguments. Your attempt at the reification fallacy just now is an example of it. Just pointing out the fallacies is a short hand way of undoing the attempt. It’s simple enough – if you stop doing it, there’d be nothing to identify as fallacious.

No Bluehillside doesn’t. What Bluehillside actually does is to explain that, when an argument for “God” works equally for leprechauns, it’s probably a bad argument.

Why is this so difficult for you?

Seriously, try it. The next time you want to attempt an argument just substitute “leprechauns” for “God” and see whether it works equally well.

When it does, you have a bad argument.

You can if you want, but all she’s saying is that being so triumphantly wrong is doing you no favours.

That’s not what she says. She’s just saying that your arrogance and dismissiveness while hopelessly losing the arguments isn’t an edifying sight.

Clearly it isn’t for reasons that have been explained to you many times now but that you just ignore.

Wearily…first, a “world view” tells you nothing about the truth or otherwise of a proposition. One man’s world view that the Christian god is real is no more valid than another man’s world view that Ra or Poseidon are real.

Second, the only time you’ve attempted to demonstrate your position you dicked around with the starting conditions of a sum but relied on exactly the same world view all along – ie, logic.

My advice to you (again) is this: do not cling on to a failed argument just because you invested heavily in making it.

You’re welcome.

Could you please repeat your reasons why Leprechauns are ridiculous again.