It is baffling to me that some, particularly the “New Atheists” seem to think that if we were to find some kind of biological “hard wiring” into our brains of religious belief, it would prove that God does not in fact resist and that we are simply machines driven by biological and sociological means to believe in some mystical being.
Why is this? What is the reason that evidence for scientific accounts of the origins of religion would somehow undermine religion itself? There aren’t reasons offered. It is always just assumed that if science can explain something, that precludes any other kind of explanation. This is a blatant genetic fallacy, also known as the fallacy of origin. Explaining how some belief came to be does not mean that belief is false.
The argument seems to be:
1) If science can explain some belief as being hard-wired into the brain, that belief is false
2) Religion (supposedly) is hard-wired into the brain.
3) Therefore, religion is false.
Premise 1 is obviously fallacious by the genetic fallacy. Just arguing that some belief is hard-wired into the brain does not make that false. If something springs to mind because of our cognitive predisposition to believe something, that does not mean that this “thing” that springs to mind is false. We believe, for example, in the existence of other minds innately, despite being unable to enter other minds and show that they are operating in a similar fashion as our own (God is Great, God is Good 102).
Though the argument is trying instead to show that belief in God is not really due to the fact that God is actually there, but rather due to some kind of naturally arising belief that we have evolutionarily forced into our brains. Thus, when we experience something that we may take to be supernatural in origin, we are only taking it in such a way because we are genetically predisposed to do so. But again this is a genetic fallacy and it doesn’t actually attack the religious beliefs themselves.
It could just as easily be the case that the Bible and most of human history are correct when they assert that the natural world gives evidences of God’s existence, and that man can have natural revelation of God by seeing His works revealed in the world. Not only that, but it is clear that the argument in the above paragraph is wrong. Let me take an example from Michael Murray in God is Great, God is Good.
“I believe there is a deer in the neighborhood because I can see its tracks in the mud in my yard. I can’t see it directly, but I see things that are causal consequences of the deer’s presence, and this triggers in me a belief that it is around. What this line of argument does not see or even acknowledge is the possibility that the mechanism s that lead us toward belief in God might be, like the deer tracks, causal consequences of God’s activity” (103). Thus, the conclusion that God does not exist simply because we may have triggers in our minds that lead us to believe something is God’s activity does not exclude the existence of God.
There simply is no good argument against the existence of God that can come from some kind of scientific explanation of religion. All such arguments fall to the genetic fallacy or would seem to argue against any kind of belief formation based on cognitive evidences.
Source: Murray, Michael. “Evolutionary Explanations of Religion.” God is Great, God is Good. Edited by William Lane Craig and Chad Meister.
——
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author.
J.W. Wartick - Reconstructing Faith 
nature gives evidence that nature exits. (how it comes to be there, how it functions, are different questions.)
if you want to show evidence that a god exists, then show that god. the god presented has to stand on its own merit. if you read a book, let say the “bible”… and it speaks about the story of a god coming down to earth in the days of old, then … the evidence… is about a story about a god. and that’s fine.
now does the god of the ancient earth stories exists today? does he inhabit the heavens? was he real then? is he real now?… to say that he exists now… again, it is up to you to show the divinity. (excuses for the inaccessibility don’t count.)
http://www.ANaturalPhilosophy.com
Posted by aforcier | February 17, 2010, 5:30 PMThank you for your post!
While this post wasn’t about showing evidence that God exists, a cursory look through the site would show that I have presented such evidences. One may argue against them, but it’s not like I am simply saying God exists without supporting the claim.
Also, I’m not sure what your last paragraph is saying here: “now does the god of the ancient earth stories exists today? does he inhabit the heavens? was he real then? is he real now?” Well first of all I would say yes to the first one. Second I would say that God is not material, but metaphorically one could say that he inhabits the heavens… and the earth… God is omnipresent, on classical theism. And obviously I would say that God was real then and now, as I believe God exists necessarily.
I back up my claims in many posts on this same site. Some are here:
https://jwwartick.com/category/apologetics/arguments-for-god/
https://jwwartick.com/2009/11/15/god-and-necessity/
https://jwwartick.com/category/philosophy/theism-philosophy/
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 17, 2010, 10:03 PMScience does not deal in absolutes, this is the domain of theology. Science also does not rule out alternatives, it provides falsifiable, testable explanations based upon observed evidence.
Religion and god(s) are not even the same thing so your claim that finding a hard-wiring in the brain for religious belief would prove to scientists that god(s) don’t exist is a fallacy. Such a find would, at best, merely be more evidence, to add to the already huge body of existing evidence that religions are wholly man-made inventions.
Man-made institutions to support the beliefs of people who have been taught, we are all born atheists and remain so without a significant period of indoctrination, that god(s) is/are THE explanation for the unexplained and that psychological artifacts of the human mind are proof of its/their existence.
Posted by GeoffB | February 17, 2010, 9:00 PMThank you for stopping by and dropping a comment!
It is interesting that you argue that science doesn’t deal in absolutes, while then moving on to make a bald assertion that there is an “already huge body of existing evidence that religions are wholly man-made inventions” and the other bald assertion that “we are all born atheists.” What evidence do you have for either of these?
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 17, 2010, 9:59 PMAlso I’m quite confused about this quote from your comment:
“Religion and god(s) are not even the same thing so your claim that finding a hard-wiring in the brain for religious belief would prove to scientists that god(s) don’t exist is a fallacy.”
I never claimed this. At all.
I am actually arguing almost exactly the same thing that you say in this quote, so I’m not sure what you’re asserting.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 17, 2010, 10:06 PMEvidence supporting a hypothesis is not an absolute. The histories of the major religions, their roots, their transition from polytheistic to monotheistic belief systems and the origin of the stories associated with them have been well documented by archeologists and historians alike. A large body of evidence does not however mean you have an absolute answer. As I said, in truth science can only ever decide the ‘truth’ or ‘untruth’ of something as a probability. It is always ready to adjust its truths based on new evidence. This is in contrast to the claims of absolute knowledge often made by theists.
It is easy to demonstrate that children believe in the god(s) that have been taught to them by their parents/society. They may invent ‘invisible’ friends or be amazed by things they see but any link between this and an inherent god(s) belief is tenuous at best. It is equally easy to show that, without outside influence, a child born of parents who tell them nothing of god(s) also does not believe in god(s). There are those who later in life will create god(s) to explain the unexplained but there are also many who don’t. The best that could be said in support of belief being inherent at birth is that it is inherent only in a certain percentage of people.
‘if we were to find some kind of biological “hard wiring” into our brains of religious belief, it would prove that God does not in fact resist [sic].
‘What is the reason that evidence for scientific accounts of the origins of religion would somehow undermine religion itself?’
I apologise if I misunderstood but these extracts, along with the subsequent discussion concerning existence of god(s), certainly seems to imply that you’re connecting science ‘disproving’ religious beliefs with also ‘disproving’ the existence of god(s).
The bottom line is that however the argument is dressed up it is theists who are making the assertion, god(s) exists, and the onus is on them to prove it. Without this initial assertion there would be no debate and there would most certainly be no atheists because the word/label would be as meaningless and as difficult to find in a dictionary as afairyist.
Posted by GeoffB | February 17, 2010, 10:56 PMIt seems as though you are missing that I am saying others use the arguments in this way, not that I am doing so. And of course I have offered arguments for the existence of God. Examples below:
https://jwwartick.com/category/apologetics/arguments-for-god/
https://jwwartick.com/2009/11/15/god-and-necessity/
https://jwwartick.com/category/philosophy/theism-philosophy/
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 17, 2010, 11:27 PMMoser: If god interacts in any way then it should be detectable. We should be able to measure the effectiveness of prayer, for example, but we can’t. To say that god(s) is/are ‘hiding’ the effect is just an admission that no effect is detectable. If there is no detectable effect then what is it’s relevance and where is the argument?
Subjective, religious experience is a very poor ‘proof’ of god(s). How is it different to someone arguing, ‘I’ve seen Elvis/Napoleon, he’s alive, I’ve accepted his gift and it has changed my life’? It is impossible to distinguish between this claim and claims of ‘seeing’/’feeling’ god(s) but very few would take the Elvis/Napoleon claim seriously. Nor would anyone claim that the ‘Heaven’s Gate’ mass suicide was a collective experience of the ‘effect’ of god(s) upon that group of individuals.
We can never be sure of our senses individually. We know that our perception can be altered very easily with drugs, electrical fields, psychological disorders, chemical imbalances in the brain or direct damage to the brain from accidents or surgery. We cannot even rely upon group ‘awareness’ given that mass hysteria and group awareness experiences, as cited above, have been observed many times. We actually can’t even ‘prove’ that we aren’t living in some kind of ‘Matrix’ existence where our collective perception is being altered by some outside force.
However, for us to continue living ‘normal’ lives we have to make assumptions about the validity of perception. The only ‘certainty’ we can have is if everybody perceives something in the same thing. It is for this reason that science relies upon data which is verifiable and can potentially be perceived and tested by everyone, disorders such as blindness, deafness, etc. aside, and is the reason why people ridicule people making extraordinary claims such as seeing Elvis.
It is not that those individuals are necessarily seen as being mad or deluded, merely that there are many, many more likely explanations for their experience than ‘revelation’. It doesn’t disprove the experience really was a ‘revelation’ but it does demonstrate that it is highly unlikely to be the case and there are much better explanations.
Parrish: As you point out the whole argument rests upon ‘if god(s) exists’. It in no way provides evidence FOR the existence of god(s) it merely debates questions that might follow FROM the existence of god(s).
Posted by GeoffB | February 18, 2010, 6:14 AMMoser’s argument is not what you’re painting it to be. His argument is that God’s evidence would be purposively available to those who cease rebellion (i.e. demands for static evidence).
Religious experience has authority for confirmation within one’s own beliefs, and saying things as you cite here are not actually defeaters of RE whatsoever. When one has a sense perception they take to be God, there needs to be a powerful defeater to overcome that belief.
Elvis is not an equivalent to Christ, if that is what you’re suggesting.
The ontological argument has been grossly underestimated by you. The argument does not rest on “if god exists”, but on if the concept of God is coherent. If it is, then God exists necessarily. That follows from the premises, but of course one may try to straw man the argument as you have done.
And you didn’t even attempt to address the teleological argument.
How about the moral argument:
If there are objective moral values, then God exists.
There are objective moral values.
Therefore God exists
Cosmological argument:
Everything that began to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause
etc.
Straw man-ing arguments does not actually refute them. Nor does arguing that we can “recreate” REs with drugs or brain stimulation refute REs produced without those means (yours is a genetic fallacy and a straw man, and a false analogy).
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 18, 2010, 10:42 AM“Moser’s argument is not what you’re painting it to be. His argument is that God’s evidence would be purposively available to those who cease rebellion (i.e. demands for static evidence)”
All this is saying is that if you choose to believe then you will. I could equally argue that those who claim to have seen Elvis have ceased their rebellion and he has chosen to show them the evidence.
“Religious experience has authority for confirmation within one’s own beliefs, and saying things as you cite here are not actually defeaters of RE whatsoever. When one has a sense perception they take to be God, there needs to be a powerful defeater to overcome that belief.”
As I said – It doesn’t disprove the experience really was a ‘revelation’ but it does demonstrate that it is highly unlikely to be the case and there are much better explanations.
“Elvis is not an equivalent to Christ, if that is what you’re suggesting.”
I didn’t say he was – It is impossible to distinguish between this claim (of seeing Elvis/Napoleon) and claims of ’seeing’/’feeling’ god(s) but very few would take the Elvis/Napoleon claim seriously.
“The ontological argument has been grossly underestimated by you. The argument does not rest on “if god exists”, but on if the concept of God is coherent. If it is, then God exists necessarily.”
There are any number of coherent concepts that it is possible to imagine. This doesn’t mean that they are necessarily existant. Imagining something doesn’t make it real, no matter how consistent arguments for it might be.
“And you didn’t even attempt to address the teleological argument.”
Firstly, we are pattern seeking creatures, the very reason we see faces on the moon for example. Secondly, we have very good explanations for the arrangements found in nature which do not rely upon supernatural intervention. Claims such as. ‘there must have been a designer to have created something as complex as the human eye.’ Have been refuted many times. The design is actually a very poor one which would, in any case, provide only evidence that the ‘designer’ is incompetent.
The moral argument. – Morals are reasoned and, usually, sensible conclusions agreed upon by a majority. This is easy to see from the way that moral standards have changed as societies have developed. How many Christians for example would still call for the death penalty for working on a Sunday? If a certain moral code is objectively moral because god(s) decree them to be so then it would make sense that god(s) would also follow that code. The fact that they don’t and often revel in the mass murders which they so frequently claim to be a sin demonstrates quite clearly that god(s) don’t believe in the value of their own moral code. If you wish to say that the code only applies to humans and not god(s) then quite obviously it is subjective and not in any sense a universal truth.
Cosmological argument – If everything must have a cause then so must god(s) and who ’caused’ the god(s). The argument defeats itself.
“Straw man-ing arguments does not actually refute them. Nor does arguing that we can “recreate” REs with drugs or brain stimulation refute REs produced without those means (yours is a genetic fallacy and a straw man, and a false analogy).”
I refer back to my answer to the first point. I didn’t say it ‘proves’ anything, merely that there is strong evidence that a perfectly reasonable, natural, explanation is much more likely than supernatural intervention. If you want to use ‘personal’ experiences as evidence for god(s) then you must also include, and consider equally valid, the ‘personal’ experiences that claim Elvis/Napoleon is alive.
Posted by GeoffB | February 18, 2010, 11:29 AM“I could equally argue that those who claim to have seen Elvis have ceased their rebellion and he has chosen to show them the evidence.”
False analogy entirely. Elvis is not an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. God. This is a completely false analogy and a fallacious argument.
“As I said – It doesn’t disprove the experience really was a ‘revelation’ but it does demonstrate that it is highly unlikely to be the case and there are much better explanations.”
Wrong, because these tests aren’t done during the experience itself. I can equally show that I could stimulate the brain to think “redness” or use drugs to induce visions of “redness” but this does not give me warrant to dismiss any time that I see “redness.”
“I didn’t say he was – It is impossible to distinguish between this claim (of seeing Elvis/Napoleon) and claims of ’seeing’/’feeling’ god(s) but very few would take the Elvis/Napoleon claim seriously.’
Your false analogy continues. God is not analogous to Elvis.
“There are any number of coherent concepts that it is possible to imagine. This doesn’t mean that they are necessarily existant. Imagining something doesn’t make it real, no matter how consistent arguments for it might be.”
As is the norm in any attempt to refute the ontological argument, you ignore its premises and attack a straw man. Part of the concept of God on classical theism is necessary existence.
“Firstly, we are pattern seeking creatures, the very reason we see faces on the moon for example.”
Genetic fallacy. This is dismissed.
“Secondly, we have very good explanations for the arrangements found in nature which do not rely upon supernatural intervention. Claims such as. ‘there must have been a designer to have created something as complex as the human eye.’ Have been refuted many times. The design is actually a very poor one which would, in any case, provide only evidence that the ‘designer’ is incompetent.”
Straw man. My teleological argument is based on the anthropic principle.
“Morals are reasoned and, usually, sensible conclusions agreed upon by a majority. ”
Utilitarianism is not objective morality.
“This is easy to see from the way that moral standards have changed as societies have developed. How many Christians for example would still call for the death penalty for working on a Sunday? If a certain moral code is objectively moral because god(s) decree them to be so then it would make sense that god(s) would also follow that code. The fact that they don’t and often revel in the mass murders which they so frequently claim to be a sin demonstrates quite clearly that god(s) don’t believe in the value of their own moral code. If you wish to say that the code only applies to humans and not god(s) then quite obviously it is subjective and not in any sense a universal truth.”
This entirely ignores any kind of exegesis of Scripture. Cherry-picking verses and claiming they are moral law (rather than civic law) is again a straw man argument.
“Cosmological argument – If everything must have a cause then so must god(s) and who ’caused’ the god(s). The argument defeats itself.”
Straw man. I never said “everything has a cause” I said “everything that began to exist has a cause”. God did not begin to exist, but is rather eternal (and logically necessary). The argument stands undefeated, largely because you actually made up a premise of your own and attacked it rather than the argument I presented.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 18, 2010, 1:09 PMOkay, let’s try one point at a time.
My remarks regarding Elvis are in no way comparing him to an omnipotent being. Nor are they in any way claiming Elvis is an omnipotent being. I have made this clear several times.
A claim was made that personal ‘revelations’, ‘experiences’, call them what you like, are somehow ‘proof’, or at least evidence, of an omnipotent being. It is the validity of those personal feelings that is being questioned.
A feeling that god(s) exists or a personal ‘experience’ that revealed him to someone, no matter how ‘real’ to the person who experienced it, is no more, or less, valid than a personal belief or experience that leads someone to believe Elvis is alive or that they have seen him. The issue is not ‘who’ they believe was revealed to them but the experience itself.
There are many reasons why someone might have had such an experience and it proves nothing until all other reasons can be ruled out and the only possible remaining reason is that what they claim happened actually did happen and was real.
Or are you are making a special pleading, that personal experiences relating to god(s) are somehow different and deserve more respect or are more valid than those relating to other experiences? If this is the case then please show how that special pleading is justified and how these particular personal experiences are any different to any other personal experience.
Posted by GeoffB | February 18, 2010, 2:30 PM“Or are you are making a special pleading, that personal experiences relating to god(s) are somehow different and deserve more respect or are more valid than those relating to other experiences? If this is the case then please show how that special pleading is justified and how these particular personal experiences are any different to any other personal experience.”
No, I’m saying that they are just as justified as any other sense experience and must have a strong defeater to overcome them. Your Elvis example could be defeated by digging his body out of the ground, or showing that these visions were indeed caused by something else, or producing documents such as his death certificate, having pictures of him in the coffin, etc.
Other sense experiences must have similar defeaters. For example, let’s say that I am walking through the forest when I hear a “bird.” I am obviously justified in holding the belief that I have heard a bird. We don’t simply argue that “there are plenty of things that could explain this away, so you are not justified in holding the belief that you heard a bird!” Rather, we take it for granted that someone must have a defeater for that belief, such as producing a hunter who was making bird calls in order to lure pheasants to him.
Similarly, a belief that one has had a sensory religious experience must be defeated in order to be overcome, rather than simply being dismissive and arguing such things have plenty of reasons to explain it away. Let us say that I am in a completely dark room, but I see a light that I take to be God revealing His presence to me. I don’t see any reason to think that I am not justified in holding this belief. Of course, if you produced the evidence that you were in the vent shining a flashlight on my face, I would obviously have quite a strong defeater for that belief, and would then be unjustified if I maintained that I had experienced a religious experience.
So no, I am not arguing special pleading, rather I am arguing that because many religious experiences are sense experiences, they can be taken as true beliefs unless a defeater is presented for such a belief in that case. Similarly, having evidence that these experiences can be “triggered” does not serve as a defeater in the same way that if we can trigger “redness” we don’t defeat “redness”.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 18, 2010, 2:40 PMI agree that a religious experience is no more, or less, valid than any other personal experience, I said so earlier. However, valid does not automatically also mean true.
The argument that a belief, interpretation or hypothesis must have a strong defeater before it can be discounted is also quite correct but this also holds true for all the other possible interpretations or explanations. None can be discounted until a strong defeater for them can be found. To do otherwise is to simply be selectively supporting only that hypothesis which supports an existing belief.
For example, for non-believers in the Elvis lives theory, the Elvis argument can, as you say, easily be defeated simply by digging him out of the ground, producing a death certificate or providing evidence that something else triggered the experience. However, someone who sincerely believes that Elvis is still alive could simply claim that Elvis exists on another level or in a different form. Anything will do as long as they can personally use it to justify their continued belief in the face of the scepticism of the non-believers.
This is the reason why atheists often remain sceptical of theistic claims of personal revelation, etc. Many other natural explanations exist, which in more than a few cases have not even been considered, yet the believer has leapt straight to a supernatural explanation in support of their preexisting belief system. It is this ‘leap of faith’ without investigating or looking for defeaters for other explanations which atheists see as irrational.
It is of course valid for any individual to sincerely believe whichever interpretation they choose for any given experience but until all other possibilities have been eliminated then it remains only the chosen personal interpretation of that individual and has no more validity as proof or evidence of its truth than any other, often far more likely, explanation.
Posted by GeoffB | February 18, 2010, 7:32 PMSo basically, you want to beg the question against any kind of actually theistic explanation for a RE. Why should a natural explanation be favored over a theistic one when the subject takes the theistic one to be experienced? I don’t see any reason to do so without begging the question against the theist.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 18, 2010, 10:51 PMI’m not sure how you came to that conclusion as I clearly state that all explanations, whether theistic or not, are equally valid until a defeater can be found for them. The only additional observation I made was that many atheists would think it irrational to immediately jump to the most fantastical explanation when other more mundane, observable and explainable ones exist.
Next point
I am quite happy to modify my earlier statement to make it more precise.
There are any number of coherent concepts that it is possible to imagine and to which could be assigned necessary existence . Assigning necessary existence to something does not automatically make it exist.
Posted by GeoffB | February 18, 2010, 11:28 PM“There are any number of coherent concepts that it is possible to imagine and to which could be assigned necessary existence . Assigning necessary existence to something does not automatically make it exist.”
Indeed. The concept of God, however, is not just “assigned” the necessary existence, but that is part of the “essence” of God. Randomly assigning necessary existence to things is indeed incorrect. God, however, if God exists, would exist necessarily because that is what God is.
“The only additional observation I made was that many atheists would think it irrational to immediately jump to the most fantastical explanation when other more mundane, observable and explainable ones exist.”
So if someone’s initial explanation is that it is an RE, then it is, on your view, “the most fantastical explanation” and, rather than being a given through the experience, it is “jump[ed] to” by the person having the RE? Sounds pretty question-begging to me.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 18, 2010, 11:59 PMI still contend that it is possible to imagine many things that could exist and have a property of necessarily existing because of what they are. So we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.
I said ‘many atheists’, not that it was my personal view. However, if you go outside, you see rain falling and you see a flash in the sky. Which would be the more logical explanation for the flash, lightning or an artifact of Zeus’s existence?
I’m sure you would have no difficulty with deciding it was lightening and that Zeus would be a fantastical explanation. Just because people don’t currently believe in Zeus now does not cancel the validity of the beliefs of those in the past who did.
If we’re going to apply a criteria of strong defeaters being required to invalidate a hypothesis then this must apply to ALL things. It would indeed be odd if one were to dismiss Zeus on the basis that it is defeated on the basis that it is merely ancient superstition yet have a blind spot to the same type of evidence when it comes to their own personal deity.
Posted by GeoffB | February 19, 2010, 5:33 AMThere may indeed be other things that exist necessarily in the de dicto sense, but not in the de re sense. In fact, I believe there are many examples of such things, but only God exists necessarily in the de re sense–not being ultimately contingent on anything.
It seems as though you are trying to not be inconsistent while pressing this issue. On the one hand, you state that “I agree that a religious experience is no more, or less, valid than any other personal experience, I said so earlier. However, valid does not automatically also mean true.” but on the other hand you maintain that “I’m sure you would have no difficulty with deciding it was lightening and that Zeus would be a fantastical explanation. Just because people don’t currently believe in Zeus now does not cancel the validity of the beliefs of those in the past who did.” Well which one is it? If I did take the lightning bolt to be Zeus’ interaction with the world, then, barring any defeaters, I would be justified in maintaining this belief, by your own words. But then why do you keep trying to press the issue?
I believe it is because you aren’t actually maintaining “I agree that a religious experience is no more, or less, valid than any other personal experience, I said so earlier. However, valid does not automatically also mean true”. Rather, you wish to remain highly skeptical and question-begging against religious experience actually being religious experience.
But why bring up Zeus? It seems there are defeaters for belief that a lightning bolt is due to Zeus, because, for example, it is not a unique event. An RE is generally a highly unique event. Taking a lightning bolt to be Zeus is not analogous to, for example, hearing what one takes to be God’s voice saying “You are mine.” It’s a blatant misrepresentation of an RE that you are trying to use here. But that’s not all, for in the case of the God of classical theism, this God is all-powerful, omniscient, etc. If this God does exist, it seems highly likely that this God (being also personal, loving, etc.) could and would communicate in such ways. Such ways are recorded throughout human history.
So I really think you’re trying to put on a face of being tolerant and allowing for theists to have REs, but you actually continue to try to beg the question. Your most recent response shows that pretty handily.
The question you need to answer is: Do you think that an RE is no more or less valid than any other sense experience for justifying belief or not? If you do, then you cannot beg the question by pointing to naturalistic explanations, for that undermines the unique nature of an RE (and indeed the same could be done for colors, etc.). But I think that you do not, and your line of argumentation so far has confirmed this. You have asserted such things as “all explanations, whether theistic or not, are equally valid until a defeater can be found for them.” while still saying “I’m sure you would have no difficulty with deciding it was lightening and that Zeus would be a fantastical explanation. ” or “It is this ‘leap of faith’ without investigating or looking for defeaters for other explanations which atheists see as irrational”.
And this last quote I think really shows your bias. Let’s look again: “It is this ‘leap of faith’ without investigating or looking for defeaters for other explanations which atheists see as irrational”. But compare this statement to “all explanations, whether theistic or not, are equally valid until a defeater can be found for them.”
If you believe both of these statements, then you would argue that it is a leap of faith not to take any sense experience and investigate for defeaters. But then even more revealing is this part of the former statement: ” looking for defeaters for other explanations which atheists see as irrational”. Why should we look for defeaters for the explanations atheism sees as irrational? I see no good reason to do so, unless one assumes atheism true until proven otherwise. This is blatant question begging in the highest form.
So either be consistent, or stop pretending to be. I have demonstrated with quotes from your own discussion that you are intending to beg the question in many cases, while you still claim that you are not.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 19, 2010, 10:21 AMVirtually all, or at least a very high percentage, of the many thousands of gods that people have believed in throughout history would qualify in the de re sense. Does this mean that they all necessarily exist? If so, worshipping any one of them in isolation would be a rather futile actiity, you’d just be annoying/inviting the wrath of all the other gods, unless of course we’re going to get into a ‘my god is better/more powerful than your god argument and we’re back to special pleading again. If de re existence from necessity is valid for any one god then it must also be valid for all other gods with characteristics similar to your own.
In ancient times many people believed that Zeus was real and had religious experiences that confirmed their beliefs. Lightning, no matter how many times it occurred, was to them just additional evidence to support their belief. I assume, please correct me if I’m wrong, that you would have no difficulty stating that Zeus does not exist, that his followers were mistaken in their religious experiences and that their explanation for lightning is much more fanciful than the currently accepted one.
The problem is that whichever god an individual worships they almost invariably deny all other gods. In Christianity this is a stated requirement in the 10 commandments. The evidence Christians, or any other religious group, use to deny other gods could equally apply to their own god yet they choose to ignore it. This is the ‘irrational’ part of the argument.
‘Here are lots of arguments that ‘prove’ my god, necessity of existence, etc. but they only apply to my god and not to any other god, he’s real. Here are the arguments that ‘disprove’ other gods but they don’t apply to my god, they’re false.’ This almost certainly is irrational yet it is the basis of many belief systems.
Posted by GeoffB | February 19, 2010, 11:33 AM“Virtually all, or at least a very high percentage, of the many thousands of gods that people have believed in throughout history would qualify in the de re sense.”
Not true, especially with the examples you’re citing of gods with human properties, including the possibility of being killed or having ‘godhood’ removed.
And if this were true, it doesn’t mean that they all necessarily exist, because de re necessity works either way: either the god would exist in all possible worlds (obviously including this one), necessarily, or would not exist in any possible world, necessarily. But again, I very much doubt that these other gods would have de re necessity, as they are not, as far as I can tell, from the beliefs about these gods. The God of classical theism is actually better/more powerful in some sense because, by definition, the God of classical theism is the Greatest Possible Being and would have properties like omniscience, omnipotence, necessity, and the like essentially. But the gods of the Greek pantheon are clearly nowhere near to having these properties claimed for them, especially if one starts to go on to other properties theists would consider essential attributes like sovereignty, omni-benevolence, etc.
You are persisting with a false analogy. The God of classical theism is (or would be) a very different being than the gods you are referring to.
And I see that you have retreated from even trying to assert, as you did before, that “all explanations, whether theistic or not, are equally valid until a defeater can be found for them.”
Now it is only what you deem as a valid explanation (naturalism) that is worth investigate before allowing for any other possibility. Why is that? Now it seems to be only what you consider rational to be a valid explanation. Question begging to the core.
Special pleading is not the case here, as I am using other evidence (which comprise the other arguments which you only presented fallacious counters to) in order to back up my case for the existence of the Christian God. I am not basic belief solely on RE, but rather I believe that RE helps confirm my Christian belief.
So to sum up our discussion thus far, you have retreated from attempting to tackle any other theistic argument, you initially claimed that religious experiences should have the same validity as other sense experiences, while contradicting yourself and begging the question against them, you have persisted in utilizing false analogies to back up your arguments, and you are now blatantly question begging for atheistic ‘rationality’ being the definitive test for any truth claims.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 19, 2010, 1:53 PMWell, here you’re attacking the analogy and not the premise. Allah, along with many other gods, would meet the same de re status as the Christian god for example, so do they both/all necessarily exist? Surely, they must or it’s just special pleading for one over the other.
I have said several times that a valid premise does not automatically mean a true premise. Validity and truth are not the same thing. I have not retreated from that position. All premises are valid without a defeater and ALL valid premises must be considered as POTENTIALLY true. That is not the same as ALL valid premises MUST BE true and this is not what I have said. This is particularly true in this situation when different, but equally valid, premises directly contradict one another and the truth of one would be a defeater for the other.
I am not attributing more importance to naturalistic explanations than theistic explanations any more than you are doing with the Zeus/lightning case. There are two conflicting premises, a naturalistic explanation and a theistic explanation. Both are valid yet you have no problem accepting that the naturalistic explanation is the more logical and is more likely to be true than the theistic one, even though a Zeus believer could easily argue that Zeus just makes it look like lightning is caused the way we think it is.
Why then in the case of Zeus do you conclude that the naturalistic explanation is the more logical yet in the case of your own god you conclude that the theistic explanation is the more logical? If I am showing a preference for naturalistic explanations over theistic ones then you are equally showing a preference for a theistic explanation over a naturalistic one but, interestingly, only in the case of your particular chosen deity.
As for tackling any other theistic arguments I am happy to do so. All of the arguments presented so far, teleological, cosmological, etc. could equally be cited as ‘proof’ of Allah or any of the other omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. gods so why should the Christian god be favoured over any other? Millions of people, believing in a number of different gods, have religious experiences so why should your particular religious experience be considered any different and a more valid ‘proof’ or your belief/god than theirs?
Posted by GeoffB | February 20, 2010, 10:31 AM“Well, here you’re attacking the analogy and not the premise. Allah, along with many other gods, would meet the same de re status as the Christian god for example, so do they both/all necessarily exist? Surely, they must or it’s just special pleading for one over the other.”
There can be other evidence that counters this claim, obviously. For example, an RE of Jesus Christ as Lord would obviously serve as a defeater for the belief that Allah is God. Not only that, but Allah would arguably not be omni-benevolent, and thus not the GPB (and then the ontological argument wouldn’t apply). And one may argue from the resurrection for confirmation of Christ as deity, among other aguments to confirm the Christian God. It’s not special pleading, this argument is just one of the many steps in an argument for Christianity.
Now, I’m very confused by your most recent argument here. You still haven’t even tried to address the premises of the argument. Are you granting that a God does indeed exist, and it’s just a matter of finding out who this God is? For, instead of attacking any premise of an argument, your line of argumentation has been to complain that it doesn’t confirm a particular god’s existence, only the existence of a god. But surely this is a strange line of argument! Granting me the existence of God is wonderful!
“As for tackling any other theistic arguments I am happy to do so. All of the arguments presented so far, teleological, cosmological, etc. could equally be cited as ‘proof’ of Allah or any of the other omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. gods so why should the Christian god be favoured over any other? Millions of people, believing in a number of different gods, have religious experiences so why should your particular religious experience be considered any different and a more valid ‘proof’ or your belief/god than theirs?”
Again, I find it wonderful that instead of actually trying to deny any premise, you prefer to complain that I am favoring the Christian God! Now that we have granted the existence of God, the question indeed would turn to “which god is it?”
“why should the Christian god be favoured over any other?”
Indeed, this is the question, once we have established that God exists. I have personal RE evidence for the existence of the Christian God. I also can argue from the resurrection of Christ that the Christian God exists. There are many reasons to favor the Christian God over the others.
“I am not attributing more importance to naturalistic explanations than theistic explanations any more than you are doing with the Zeus/lightning case. There are two conflicting premises, a naturalistic explanation and a theistic explanation. Both are valid yet you have no problem accepting that the naturalistic explanation is the more logical and is more likely to be true than the theistic one, even though a Zeus believer could easily argue that Zeus just makes it look like lightning is caused the way we think it is.”
So you are trying to argue that we should always favor the naturalistic explanation? That is question begging, whether you want to call it that or not.
I, as a Christian, have every reason to believe that the Christian God should be favored. As I said above, I have RE confirmation which is undefeated, I have justification for believing the Gospels are at least reliable, that Christ has risen from the dead, that God exists, etc. All of these from different means and methods. So why should I grant that the naturalistic explanation should be favored in every case? For let’s say that I do have good reason to believe that the Christian God exists. Well, by the exclusivity of belief in this God, as you pointed out earlier, I would then have a pretty powerful defeater for any other god’s existence. Not only that, but I would have reason to believe that these other gods could possibly or even probably exist in the sense that they were demons or the like!
So here I can present my argument:
1) I have been presented no undefeated defeater for belief in the Christian God
2) Further, I have significant cognitive evidence to believe that the Christian God exists
3) The Christian God’s existence would be exclusive as the sovereign, all-powerful, omniscient creator
4) Therefore, following 1 and 2 I have a defeater for belief in other gods
So again it seems you are trying to beg the question by assuming that I have no reason to believe that my God is the God. That’s simply not the case, and until you make an argument why it should be, I have no reason to accept any of your question begging for naturalism as being a valid argument.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 20, 2010, 4:39 PM‘For example, an RE of Jesus Christ as Lord would obviously serve as a defeater for the belief that Allah is God’
In exactly the same way that an RE of Allah as Lord would obviously serve as a defeater for the belief that the Christian god is god. The REs of any one religion serve as defeaters for the beliefs in any other god.
I am not arguing/complaining about WHICH god is the correct one. The arguments presented here would, if true, validate ALL omnipresent, omniscient, etc. gods equally while at the same time invalidating ALL OTHER omnipresent, omniscient gods equally.
A Christian RE defeats a belief in Allah. A Muslim RE defeats a belief in the Christian god. All the experiences ‘prove’ one god and ‘disprove’ the others.
The argument defeats itself unless you either make a special pleading for one god in particular, exactly what you have done by claiming that Allah isn’t omni-benevolent despite the fact that Muslim theistic beliefs clearly claim such a property, or recognise ALL omnipresent, omniscient, etc. gods with REs to support them as valid/true.
Posted by GeoffB | February 21, 2010, 8:15 AM“A Christian RE defeats a belief in Allah. A Muslim RE defeats a belief in the Christian god. All the experiences ‘prove’ one god and ‘disprove’ the others.”
Indeed, on some level this is true, but why should competing REs defeat my own? I don’t see any reason why someone else’s RE of Allah would apply to my own justification for belief in Jesus Christ as Lord. Not only that, but this attempt to press for a pluralistic argument against RE seems to do nothing to actually defeat the RE itself, of course. Again, you don’t try to deny that there is a god, only that based on REs, we don’t know which god. But if that’s true, then we need to work very hard to try to figure out which God it is, not deny REs.
You still haven’t presented any argument (other than question begging) against the ability of REs to prevent justification. All you’ve done here is complain that they don’t tell us which God (when taken in perspective of others). But then, if I have an RE of Jesus Christ as Lord, I am justified in my belief prima facie, and I may continue to be justified until I have an undefeated defeater for this belief. Simply stating that there are other REs out there with contradictory claims does not undermine an RE, that’s like saying that if two people come up with contradictory explanations for an event, neither one can possible be true! That’s obviously false, and the same reasoning does not work here either.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 21, 2010, 4:41 PMWhy give equal validity, I never said ALWAYS give preference, to a naturalistic explanation for something? Because it can add to our knowledge and allow us to progress is the simple reason. The ‘God(s) did it’ explanation tells us nothing new.
It’s not so long ago that people frequently died from bacterial infections. We looked for a naturalistic reason and discovered bacteria. We then discovered drugs that could kill bacteria.
If we had relied ONLY on the theistic explanation there would have been no investigation and we would still have large numbers of people dying from what we now know is a preventable condition.
Even if you choose to believe that, for some reason, god likes curing people who have received anti-bacterials the god part is irrelevant. It could potentially be true or potentially be untrue but by not merely accepting the theistic explanation as the ONLY explanation we now know we can give people anti-bacterials and save their lives.
Posted by GeoffB | February 21, 2010, 8:58 AMYou always seem to prefer argument by analogy, but you never use analogies that are analogous. Why should I think that this situation is in any way analogous to REs?
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 21, 2010, 4:36 PMI’m not quite sure why you keep questioning my refusal to state there isn’t a god. Why would I? I’ve consistently said the premise is valid even if I, personally, don’t believe it to also be true. It isn’t the premise that is in dispute but the conclusions drawn from that premise.
At least in the case of Christianity and Islam, as well as others, the claim is that there is only one ‘true’ god. If a Muslim RE ‘proves’ Allah IS the one true god then it also ‘proves’ the Christian god ISN’T the one true god and is a ‘false’ god. It doesn’t invalidate the RE as an experience but it does invalidate the conclusion that the RE ‘proves’ the ‘true’ god. Likewise with a Christian RE ‘proving’ the Christian god and ‘disproving’ the Muslim one.
Both REs are mutually exclusive, they can’t logically both be true. The RE is still valid in both cases but each is ‘disproving’ the conclusion of the other. To conclude that one RE is ‘more’ valid than another is just special pleading. This is not a question of WHICH god exists, but that the conflicting REs ultimately all defeat the conclusions of the others and the only thing that has been ‘proved’ is that ALL gods are simultaneously true gods and false gods.
The only way both REs can be BOTH valid AND true is if there is more than one true god, which in itself defeats a claim of ‘one true god’. Is that what you’re saying? If it is, then the logical conclusion is that if you only obey the rules of one god you would simultaneously receive the reward of one and incur the wrath of the other(s). For a Muslim for example, they would go to Muslim heaven and get their virgins whilst simultaneously spending an eternity of infinite suffering in the Christian hell. As far as I can see, the only way to avoid this is special pleading for one over the other, that you ONLY get the reward despite the wrath of the other god(s).
2. This is not an analogy for anything it is a statement of fact. If you answer all questions with ‘god did it’. What new information do you get? None, you always have the same information.
If you find a drug that consistently cure’s people you have new information that can be used. Drug X cures disease X. Whether this ultimately happens because god chooses to cure people who have received drug X is irrelevant, the cure still works.
Posted by GeoffB | February 22, 2010, 5:54 AMFirst I need to put an end to your use of “prove” in this whole discussion. I have not once said that an RE “proves” God exists. I just scanned through everything I’ve said so far and I never said that. Rather, I have argued that they can justify beliefs in God. I’m not arguing that an RE can prove God exists, only that they may provide justification for such a belief and confirmation for certain beliefs about God. Of course, this then completely avoids your objection.
“Both REs are mutually exclusive, they can’t logically both be true. The RE is still valid in both cases but each is ‘disproving’ the conclusion of the other. To conclude that one RE is ‘more’ valid than another is just special pleading. This is not a question of WHICH god exists, but that the conflicting REs ultimately all defeat the conclusions of the others and the only thing that has been ‘proved’ is that ALL gods are simultaneously true gods and false gods.”
Again, I’m not arguing proof, I’m arguing justification. It seems you’ve missed that. I’ve allowed you to use the word ‘prove’ for too long now. It’s quite an easy straw man to attack, but I myself have not been arguing they prove anything, only that they provide justification for certain beliefs about God.
This, of course, puts the argument quoted above in new perspective. It may be the case that X is justified in her Christian belief by an RE, and Y, the Muslim, may be justified in holding to Islam because of an RE. I’m not sure why this matters to X. Why should a plurality of other beliefs about religion necessarily mean that one is less justified in holding to a religion? I’m not sure what you’re argument is, and I think it’s quite weak if you’re really trying to press for plurality of religions somehow meaning all religions are less justified.
It seems you are trying to argue that I am somehow unjustified in holding theistic belief in light of the plurality of REs available. I don’t see why this should be the case at all.
I might suggest examining some wonderful points William P. Alston makes in his epistemological classic on religious experience, Perceiving God. “The assumption presumably is that if any person or group enjoys a certain kind of cognitive contact with a sphere of reality, then any other person or group that takes itself to cognize that reality in that way would come up with the same, or similar, results. Put more precisely, any genuine cognitive contact with reality will yield agreement, and we can measure its reliability by the extent of the agreement. But I see no reason to accept this principle… a better reading of the situation is that the agreement in those areas [sense perception and similar areas] is due to the fact that they are areas ideally suited to our cognitive powers, and that there is no reason to expect such an agreement in areas not so amenable to human cognition even if we do achieve veridical cognition there” (267).
He further addresses the very kind of argument you seem to be making, “…suggest that the diversity is best explained by supposing that none of the competing practices is a reliable way of determining what reality is like…” (268)… He then argues that indeed, MP (mystical practice, I’ve been using RE) needs independent verification for holding such a belief but, “…this line of argument assumes that there are no independent reasons for epistemically preferring one form of MP to the others. And this may well be challenged. The Christian may have recourse to natural theology to provide metaphysical reasons for the truth of a theism as a general world-view; and then, within the field of theistic religions, he may argue that historical evidence gives much stronger support to the claims of Christianity than to those of its theistic rivals–Judaism and Islam” (270, his emphasis).
I think Alston is obviously correct here. Your objection arguing from plurality can suggest we need other reasons to hold some belief, but it does nothing to undermine the RE on its own, and, in turn, the RE can provide some of the evidence for a worldview of theism (or even more broadly, belief in the spiritual realm), while using other arguments to point to theism in particular, and then Christianity specifically.
I don’t see any reason to accept the line of reasoning you have been using to attempt to use against me. Again, I think you are either begging the question or trying to argue that RE cannot be taken on its own (and I agree with this latter part of the argument).
Finally, “2. This is not an analogy for anything it is a statement of fact. If you answer all questions with ‘god did it’. What new information do you get? None, you always have the same information.”
I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 22, 2010, 9:45 AM1. If the question is ‘only’ about whether something justifies a belief without there being any logical proof involved then quite obviously you can use any justification you want for any belief you want. I believe the original question was about onus of proof, which is quite different to onus of justification.
You originally said, and I agreed, that any premise is valid until a defeater is found for it. From a logical viewpoint, if premise A cannot be valid if premise B is correct and premise B can’t be valid if premise A is correct then they can’t both be valid, they are mutual defeaters.
Either the Muslim is correct in using his RE to justify Allah as the one and only true god, the Christian is correct in using his RE to justify his god as the one and only one or they are both wrong in using their respective premises as justifications. Plurality of religions is not relevant here as there can only be one belief which has the one and only true god the two religions are again mutually exclusive.
2. I was responding to your earlier question – ‘Why should it be more reasonable to accept a naturalistic explanation over a supernatural one’. The answer I gave is one reason. A supernatural explanation tells us nothing except ‘god, a ghost, etc. did it’ whereas a naturalistic one gives us knowledge we can use, irrespective of any supposed supernatural entity which might be causing the effect.
Posted by GeoffB | February 22, 2010, 11:35 AM1. “Either the Muslim is correct in using his RE to justify Allah as the one and only true god, the Christian is correct in using his RE to justify his god as the one and only one or they are both wrong in using their respective premises as justifications. Plurality of religions is not relevant here as there can only be one belief which has the one and only true god the two religions are again mutually exclusive.”
Indeed, I agree wholeheartedly. I’m not sure how this is an objection, however. The same could be the case for any number of beliefs, but mutually exclusive experiences don’t warrant simply dismissing both off-hand. If X has an experience of some animal, B, as being kind and furry, but Y has an experience of B as being cruel and smooth (in texture), these exclusive perceptions of B don’t warrant us simply denying B or that we can have experience of B. Such a conclusion is ridiculous. Rather, one would have to look at these perceptions of B in context with a totality of evidence (as I mentioned many times before).
So your objection, I believe, is unfounded. It doesn’t really serve any purpose other than to complain that there are different views about what is being experienced in an RE. Okay, granted. How does this somehow mean I am unwarranted in holding my belief?
You keep trying to press this point home while ignoring that I am granting it. I simply qualify the statement and say that you haven’t provided any defeater for my belief (other than other experiences, which I have not had and so cannot judge). I, however, have a defeater for other beliefs, not just from the RE, but from the cumulative whole of natural philosophy and historical argument for the resurrection of Christ.
So, again, your objection really doesn’t do anything, as I’ve been trying to point out for some time now.
2. “The answer I gave is one reason. A supernatural explanation tells us nothing except ‘god, a ghost, etc. did it’ whereas a naturalistic one gives us knowledge we can use, irrespective of any supposed supernatural entity which might be causing the effect.”
Wrong. Let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that there is such a thing as a genuine RE. Well then obviously there could (and would) be a great deal of knowledge to be gained from this supernatural explanation, such as “God is contacting me, God is appearing to me in some way [powerfully, lovingly, graciously, benevolently, etc.], God is confirming some belief, etc.” There are any number of things that could be gained as knowledge by such a supernatural explanation, and to claim otherwise is simply naturalistic chauvinism. So again, we have question begging.
Both objections still fail, no matter how many ways they’ve been rephrased.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 22, 2010, 1:43 PMI haven’t dismissed either experience as being valid, either could be valid or both could be wrong. I agree both experiences could be different facets of the same thing, but if this were true then doesn’t it rather invalidate the idea of Christian/Muslim/etc? Why use an RE to justify a ‘Christian’ god if it’s the same god as the Muslim god?
I think this is an important question, not as relevant to the justification itself but rather in terms of the requirements of the different religions. Surely, the ultimate aim is to receive whatever prize is being offered, or to avoid the penalty. How then can anyone decide which set of ‘rules’ to follow if a Christian and Muslim RE are both equally valid? Indeed, how would anyone even know which of the many different Christian groups is the true one?
Perhaps, upon reflection, my argument is against organised religions rather than personal belief itself. I certainly don’t have a problem with any individual holding whatever beliefs they want but I do object to organised groups claiming that their doctrine and rules are the only true ones and actively trying to pressure others into following them. Whether that be the current regime in Iran or statutes in the USA banning atheists from government office, unconstitutional and unenforceable as they are.
I also accept your idea that REs could potentially supply new information. If they are indeed real and not just an artifact of the psychology of the human brain then I eagerly await god telling someone how we can cure cancer and relieve a great deal of human suffering. Surely an omni-benevolent god would wish this?
Posted by GeoffB | February 23, 2010, 5:37 AMI’m trying to figure out what your objection actually is.
I am stating that an RE can justify some belief. I don’t think you’re arguing against that any more, but I can’t discern an argument from the first part of your response.
“Why use an RE to justify a ‘Christian’ god if it’s the same god as the Muslim god?”
Well, if I had an RE of a “Christian” God, then I am going to be justified in that belief. How is it related to my beliefs about the Muslim god (other than as a defeater). I’m trying to figure out what you are trying to argue. For clarity’s sake, could you possibly present an argument? I don’t want to be unfair and straw man whatever your argument is.
“Indeed, how would anyone even know which of the many different Christian groups is the true one?”
Christian groups are not mutually exclusive.
“Perhaps, upon reflection, my argument is against organised religions rather than personal belief itself.”
Well, that’s a horse of a different color! Your argument has gone from:
“The bottom line is that however the argument is dressed up it is theists who are making the assertion, god(s) exists, and the onus is on them to prove it.”
to the above statement that the problem isn’t with theism, but with organized religion. This has taken us far afield indeed. What exactly is your objection against organized religion, though? So far it doesn’t seem as though the problem is with the justification for such beliefs, but in the actions taken on behalf of those beliefs (again, forgive me if I have misrepresented what you are arguing). So, how is this an objection to [organized] religious belief?
“I also accept your idea that REs could potentially supply new information. If they are indeed real and not just an artifact of the psychology of the human brain then I eagerly await god telling someone how we can cure cancer and relieve a great deal of human suffering. Surely an omni-benevolent god would wish this?”
Is this an attempt to try to present the problem of evil… or just sarcasm? Either way I’m sort of surprised by this sudden shift in discussion. I’m glad you conceded my argument that REs can indeed provide new information (if genuine).
It seems that your objections have changed completely from what they originally were. I’m interested to continue this discussion.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 23, 2010, 6:12 PMWhat I was getting at was the ‘partisan’ nature of religions. I didn’t put it very clearly, different time zones and lack of sleep. There are any number of religions all putting forward justifications and arguments for god, which could potentially be the same god, but most have very different requirements attached to what is required to receive your divine reward.
A Muslim would consider a Christian an infidel and doomed to hell, as some Christian groups would consider a Muslim a non-believer and doomed to the same fate. Even within Christianity there are widely differing beliefs about how to ‘appease’ the Christian god. It is this which makes them, in some cases, mutually exclusive.
If you fail to get your ‘reward’ because you did X and god requires you to do Y then the point of following any one religion is lost. Of course, I accept that a chosen way of life can have very positive effects on the life itself but if you don’t get into heaven then what ultimately was the point?
You could make your decision based upon personal experiences, as you seem to have done, but this then makes the belief a purely personal experience. This personal context would seem to make organised religions if not irrelevant then surplus to requirements. I think this was the very point Jesus seems to make with his words – Don’t be like the hypocrites who pray in public …
I think the problem I have with organised religion is not with people with a common belief coming together, this is only to be expected, but with the way that such organisations, I’m talking about the control structure rather than the ordinary members, use their wealth and political power to enforce their doctrines on other people.
Take for example the Muslim regimes in countries like Iran. Is this really doing god’s work or is it simply the power seeking of individuals for it’s own sake? I believe it is the latter but even so, they would not be in their powerful positions without the support and money of their followers. Is it really just ‘like-minded’ people coming together or is it manipulation of people with shared beliefs?
I must admit there was a touch of sarcasm in the second half of my reply. Bad mood and I apologise. Even so, I still think there is a certain amount of validity in the point too. Why did Jesus content himself with healing a handful of people when he could have simply given a few clues that would have helped people to heal thousands? The free will argument hardly applies at a time when Jesus was apparently performing miracles to ‘prove’ his divinity to his followers.
I too have found the discussion very interesting and it has given me several things to ponder. Yes, the discussion has wandered somewhat from the initial arguments but I guess that is only to be expected with such an interesting subject.
Posted by GeoffB | February 23, 2010, 7:17 PM“I didn’t put it very clearly, different time zones and lack of sleep.”
I hear you on that one. Thanks for continuing the discussion!
“You could make your decision based upon personal experiences, as you seem to have done, but this then makes the belief a purely personal experience.”
Actually, I would argue that I didn’t make a decision. The Holy Spirit, on (some) Christian views, creates faith within people. Faith is not a decision we make, rather, it is something that God does, calling us to Him. This is theology and not philosophy, and I realize this, but it is important to clarify. Further, as I have pointed out a few times, an RE is not the only reason I am choosing Christianity. I have offered many arguments, some not written out (such as the argument for the resurrection of Christ) that point out there are other ways (philosophical, historical, etc.) to point to the verifiability of Christianity. I’m not saying it’s only personal. As far as an RE goes, however, I do think that largely it can only justify a belief on a personal level (though I am reading/have read arguments that say they can serve as justification for other people who did not have said experience as well). Please don’t misrepresent me by acting as though I am only basing my decision on one experience.
“I think the problem I have with organised religion is not with people with a common belief coming together, this is only to be expected, but with the way that such organisations, I’m talking about the control structure rather than the ordinary members, use their wealth and political power to enforce their doctrines on other people.”
Agreed, in most cases. I do think there is a certain level of morality that should be enforced, and this is certainly influenced by my faith, but civil laws should largely be simply to maintain civilization (i.e. murder is illegal and should be no matter what people believe, rape is illegal and should be no matter what people believe, etc.).
“Is this really doing god’s work or is it simply the power seeking of individuals for it’s own sake? I believe it is the latter but even so, they would not be in their powerful positions without the support and money of their followers. Is it really just ‘like-minded’ people coming together or is it manipulation of people with shared beliefs?”
I’ll answer with my own question: “Can we know the answer to these questions?”
Now, before delving into the next part of the post, I’d like to point out that having a problem with organized religion does not serve as a defeater for the beliefs of a religion. Not liking something a religion does doesn’t somehow mean that religion is unjustified or irrational. So I’m not sure, here, what kind of argument you are composing. If you are arguing, for example, that Christianity needs to be reformed, I agree, I think largely Christians don’t often act like Christians or even adhere to the central teachings of Christianity. But I don’t know what your argument is.
“Bad mood and I apologise.”
Consider yourself forgiven.
“Why did Jesus content himself with healing a handful of people when he could have simply given a few clues that would have helped people to heal thousands?”
Jesus didn’t come to cure all the diseases and sickness in the world. He came to save the world from sin, from spiritual (read: eternal) death. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and it is by grace that we are saved, through faith (Ephesians 2:8 and following).
“…when Jesus was apparently performing miracles to ‘prove’ his divinity to his followers.”
I’m not sure this claim is true. Jesus performed mircales to demonstrate his divinity in some way, yes, but don’t forget that this isn’t the central part of Christ’s mission, Biblically. Jesus himself says to his opponents, those to whom he would really have to “prove” his divinity, that he would give no sign but the sign of Jonah (resurrection [Matthew 12:39]). I just don’t personally like the wording of this on a theological level, Christ didn’t come to be some miracle worker. He came to save us from sin. I could demonstrate with Scripture, but it’s a side note (see Acts 2:22-39, among other places).
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 24, 2010, 12:18 AMIf the holy spirit, or other interpretation of the same phenomenon, ‘creates’ faith rather than it being a ‘decision’ a person makes then why does it ‘create’ faith in some and not others or ‘create’ Christianity in some and Islam in others or even Catholicism in some and Protestantism in others?
This would seem to imply that all religions and their widely differing practices are not only valid but divinely inspired. How can a claim therefore be made of a ‘universal’ morality. If god requires you to stone to death a (for some reason only female) adulterer in Iran but merely to ‘tut, tut’ in Christian America.
This takes us back to the which religion, or rather which set of practices, should you follow in order to get into heaven, argument. Are they all valid? Should we follow the rules of all religions, impossible in many cases because of their contradictory nature, or doesn’t it matter; just choose the one that requires the least ‘effort’.
As for the resurrection it simply makes no sense. Why does god have to crucify his only son, or himself depending on your belief, so that he can forgive us when he could simply forgive us? Why would such a primitive act as human sacrifice appease an omnipotent, omniscient being?
In what sense did Jesus ‘die on the cross’ for us? The best that can be said is that he suffered a bit and then had a 3 day sleep before waking up and going back to heaven. If he already knew he would be resurrected then what fear or ‘sacrifice’ was there? How can anyone even determine that he actually suffered, he’s god or the son of god and it is impossible to compare human experiences with what a god might feel? In any case, the few hours he spent on the cross would be at best a minor inconvenience to someone who has existed for all time.
Posted by GeoffB | February 25, 2010, 5:04 AMI just wanted to let you know that I’ll be responding when I have time. I’m going to be on the road for the next week or so, so if time allows I’ll get back to you during that time, if not, I shall respond afterward. Thanks for continuing this discussion!
Posted by J.W. Wartick | February 25, 2010, 1:26 PM“This would seem to imply that all religions and their widely differing practices are not only valid but divinely inspired.”
Why? I’m claiming this for the Christian tradition. I’m not claiming it in a universalistic sense. Many religions are mutually exclusive in their practice and truth claims.
“If the holy spirit, or other interpretation of the same phenomenon, ‘creates’ faith rather than it being a ‘decision’ a person makes then why does it ‘create’ faith in some and not others or ‘create’ Christianity in some and Islam in others or even Catholicism in some and Protestantism in others?”
This gets into higher doctrine, but in my tradition it is a difference between objective and subjective justification. Objective justification means that God freely offers the gift of salvation through Christ Jesus to all, as a hand holding out a gift. We need only to accept it. Subjective justification is salvation pertaining to individuals. People reject the gift. People reject the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t offer the gift of salvation to all.
“As for the resurrection it simply makes no sense. Why does god have to crucify his only son, or himself depending on your belief, so that he can forgive us when he could simply forgive us? Why would such a primitive act as human sacrifice appease an omnipotent, omniscient being?”
Paul actually agrees with you in some sense. 1 Corinthians 1:18: “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ”
I’m not sure what inconsistency is here. If God chooses to bring about the salvation act in this manner, what is wrong with it?
“In what sense did Jesus ‘die on the cross’ for us? ”
As the perfect fulfillment of the Levitical ceremonial law (Day of Atonement, sacrificial system, etc.). He became the lamb that was slain for all mankind.
Jesus took on the “cup of wrath” discussed Isaiah 51 and Jeremiah 25, as well as being cursed for death on a cross (Deuteronomy 21:23). Christ bore the cup of wrath that was to be poured out on all mankind for their inability to fulfill the Law. In doing so, He fulfilled the law for all mankind.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | March 8, 2010, 10:52 AMI’m claiming this for the Christian tradition. I’m not claiming it in a universalistic sense.
Which of the ‘proofs’ that have so far been offered apply solely to Christianity? Holy texts, personal revelation, ontological, teleological, they all apply equally to the gods of all religions claiming an omnipotent, etc. creator.
There is no objective reason to choose Christianity over Islam, for instance, when they all have the same, equally valid, arguments to support them. The choice of one over the other must surely be subjective.
Even assuming all religions are worshiping the same god then, as you said, the mutually exclusive truth claims and practices leave believers in the very real situation of being condemned to an eternity of suffering for, with no evidence upon which to make an objective determination, subjectively choosing to follow the wrong practices or to believe the wrong truths.
Objective justification means that God freely offers the gift of salvation through Christ Jesus to all.
How can this be objective? It’s only the viewpoint of Christianity and is no more or less valid than any other equal belief system. A Muslim could equally claim that ‘objectively’ Allah offers the way to salvation and ‘subjectively’ people choose to refuse it, by following Christianity for example!
As for the crucifixion, the question still remains as to why death would be chosen by god, something which by definition would be meaningless to an immortal god, as a way of appeasing itself?
Why would a god have to fulfil any ceremonial law? If he wrote the book, so to speak, then he could have put whatever he liked in it and made whatever laws, prophesies, etc. he wanted. Is god really so primitive that he wished ceremonial sacrifice, a tradition that even us, apparently, puny humans no longer practice having long ago figured out it is immoral and unjust?
Posted by GeoffB | March 8, 2010, 7:57 PM“Which of the ‘proofs’ that have so far been offered apply solely to Christianity? Holy texts, personal revelation, ontological, teleological, they all apply equally to the gods of all religions claiming an omnipotent, etc. creator.”
Not true. The Quran’s claims are often mutually exclusive of the Bible’s. If Jesus is God as the Bible claims, then the Quran is false (and vice versa). Personal revelation could indeed apply to Christianity, as I’ve argued already. If A has an experience of God as Jesus, they have warrant to believe Christianity. Other experiences with other people contrary to A do not serve as defeaters for A’s belief unless A has some reason to think they do.
Finally, I believe a historical case for the resurrection of Jesus can be made, further showing Christianity to be quite valid.
So if one is to grant any kind of argument for theism at large, then I think Christianity has the best arguments, largely because of the arguments for Christ’s resurrection.
“How can this be objective? It’s only the viewpoint of Christianity and is no more or less valid than any other equal belief system. A Muslim could equally claim that ‘objectively’ Allah offers the way to salvation and ’subjectively’ people choose to refuse it, by following Christianity for example!”
Sorry, this was probably because of my hasty response. Objective is being used here in the sense of Christian doctrine. Objective is being used here in the sense that it is available to all. I think I jumped ahead of myself a bit, and I apologize.
“Why would a god have to fulfil any ceremonial law? If he wrote the book, so to speak, then he could have put whatever he liked in it and made whatever laws, prophesies, etc. he wanted. Is god really so primitive that he wished ceremonial sacrifice, a tradition that even us, apparently, puny humans no longer practice having long ago figured out it is immoral and unjust?”
Well, on Classical Theism, God is unchanging, so if there is some ceremonial Law He established, then in order for the covenant to be true, it would have to be fulfilled. And the end of your question is an objection that really doesn’t apply to God. If God does exist, then, really, God is sovereign. It doesn’t matter if we truly puny humans think something is immoral and unjust, that’s just the way it is.
Now please note that your judgment saying that we “figured out it is immoral and unjust” tries to somehow judge God’s moral character. I still have never seen any argument given as to why humans should be able to declare something that God does (if God exists) is immoral. If God exists, then, necessarily, God is the moral standard. There is no other standard but God’s by which God could be judged. This is true by definition of the God of classical theism. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, omni-etc., and the “Greatest Possible Being”, then God would, necessarily, be sovereign, and therefore would be the standard by which all actions were judged. No being that is not the GPB could judge the GPB as being anything but the GPB. If you have an argument for how beings created by the GPB can somehow be morally superior to the GPB, I’d like to see it.
I apologize again for my hasty response earlier. I wanted to get back to you because I had been gone for so long but didn’t have sufficient time.
Posted by J.W. Wartick | March 12, 2010, 12:19 PM