Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[anonymous person]

No offense, but how would you know that?

Reading or hearing the prophecy.

 

[anonymous person]

To be more precise, he said that you should approach religious claims with a generous dose of skepticism, or at least that is the meaning I took from it. If you were "objective, honest, and open" in your approach to the scriptures of various world religions, then presumably you approached their claims skeptically, rather than credulously.

What is the track record of success for religious claims?

Whereas the religious reserve skepticism only for the claims of other religions.

You and I have a different understanding of what it means to approach something objectively.

You think it means to approach it skeptically. I think it means to approach something without any bias or presuppositions.

The fact that some scientists over the years have bribed, allowed themselves to be bribed, distorted their research findings, and have outright lied in an attempt to secure funding for certain research programs or have manipulated certain data to bolster certain views they had which had they not, would have been shown to be false, does not lead me to approach skeptically the claims made by scientists.

I approach their claims neither skeptically nor credulously. I ask merely, "what are the reasons for thinking the claims to be true?"

The phrase "religious claims" is very broad and encompasses many claims that are in fact demonstrably true.

Your argument would be akin to the argument that secular claims have a bad track record therefore you should approach them skeptically.

The phrase "secular or non-religious claims" encompasses many claims. Many of which are true.

Some religious people may indeed approach the religious claims of other religions skeptically. I don't.

And even if I did, it does not necessarily follow that I am in the wrong.

Jesus either is who the NT authors claimed He is or He is not.

If He is, then any worldview which contradicts what the NT authors claim He is is false.

If two and two is four, then any other view is false.

Truth by definition, excludes the denial of what it asserts.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You and I have a different understanding of what it means to approach something objectively.

You think it means to approach it skeptically. I think it means to approach something without any bias or presuppositions.

You seem to be relying on a very different meaning of "skepticism."

The fact that some scientists over the years have bribed, allowed themselves to be bribed, distorted their research findings, and have outright lied in an attempt to secure funding for certain research programs or have manipulated certain data to bolster certain views they had which had they not, would have been shown to be false, does not lead me to approach skeptically the claims made by scientists.

No, our fallibility leads scientists to be skeptical, both of their own findings and those of others. That's why we have peer review and replication projects.

I approach their claims neither skeptically nor credulously. I ask merely, "what are the reasons for thinking the claims to be true?"

Which is to say that you approach their claims skeptically, asking for reasons to think that their claims are true.

The phrase "religious claims" is very broad and encompasses many claims that are in fact demonstrably true.

Your argument would be akin to the argument that secular claims have a bad track record therefore you should approach them skeptically.

Perhaps the term "religious claims" is too broad. I am referring mostly to supernatural claims here.

 

[anonymous person]

You seem to be relying on a very different meaning of "skepticism."

No, our fallibility leads scientists to be skeptical, both of their own findings and those of others. That's why we have peer review and replication projects.

Which is to say that you approach their claims skeptically, asking for reasons to think that their claims are true.

Perhaps the term "religious claims" is too broad. I am referring mostly to supernatural claims here.

You, like Davian, understand the term "skeptic" to mean "objective" it seems.

If that is the case, then I am a skeptic.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You, like Davian, understand the term "skeptic" to mean "objective" it seems.

If that is the case, then I am a skeptic.

No, I don't consider "skeptic" to be synonymous with "objective." I consider it an attempt to approach such questions objectively, or trying to be honest. When I use the word "skeptical," I don't mean to imply a lack of openness or a deep conviction against a particular claim. To approach a problem or question skeptically means to try to make sense of it honestly.

 

[anonymous person]

No, I don't consider "skeptic" to be synonymous with "objective." I consider it an attempt to approach such questions objectively, or trying to be honest. When I use the word "skeptical," I don't mean to imply a lack of openness or a deep conviction against a particular claim. To approach a problem or question skeptically means to try to make sense of it honestly.

Oh ok. I agree with such a method and it was one I used when comparing and studying the various worldviews on offer

 

[anonymous person]

And I changed my mind about the logical possibility of me being wrong about my beliefs after reading the question I was asked and meditating on it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Oh ok. I agree with such a method and it was one I used when comparing and studying the various worldviews on offer

When did you begin comparing and studying the various worldviews on offer?

 

[anonymous person]

When did you begin comparing and studying the various worldviews on offer?

Approximately 15 years ago.

 

[bhsmte]

And I changed my mind about the logical possibility of me being wrong about my beliefs after reading the question I was asked and meditating on it.

Nothing wrong with that.

When we are not able to change our mind, when new information becomes available, we have stopped learning.

 

[HitchSlap]

You, like Davian, understand the term "skeptic" to mean "objective" it seems.

If that is the case, then I am a skeptic.

I can't tell if you're being facetious or not, but skeptics, generally speaking, don't accept supernatural claims. Are you sure you want to classify yourself with a group that doesn't believe in your god/s? A better question, and more to the point, why would you want to mislead anyone as to your true beliefs?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Reading or hearing the prophecy.

Right...well, even though I'm clearly moving the goalposts here, do you think we could limit "good evidence" to the non-supernatural?

In case the reasons aren't immediately obvious to you, my big problem with it is that you'll sort of need to buy into the whole story you're trying to give evidence for. If we already believe that Banjo's predecessors have the ability of predictive prophecy, then we're already showing bias in favor of Banjo's story before we actually have any good evidence for it.

So...non-supernatural "evidence" only, pretty please.

 

[anonymous person]

Right...well, even though I'm clearly moving the goalposts here, do you think we could limit "good evidence" to the non-supernatural?

In case the reasons aren't immediately obvious to you, my big problem with it is that you'll sort of need to buy into the whole story you're trying to give evidence for. If we already believe that Banjo's predecessors have the ability of predictive prophecy, then we're already showing bias in favor of Banjo's story before we actually have any good evidence for it.

So...non-supernatural "evidence" only, pretty please.

If Banjo was seen doing what you claim he was doing by multiple eyewitnesses, this eyewitness testimony would be something that would lead me to think that it was not just a lie, but something that may very well have in fact happened.

 

[anonymous person]

I can't tell if you're being facetious or not, but skeptics, generally speaking, don't accept supernatural claims. Are you sure you want to classify yourself with a group that doesn't believe in your god/s? A better question, and more to the point, why would you want to mislead anyone as to your true beliefs?

I did not know atheists had a monopoly or a copyright on the term "skeptic". You yourself said that the term generally speaking was used of non-supernaturalists. If we take the understanding one here has posited regarding the term, a skeptic is simply someone who objectively and rationally examines the evidence proferred in support of certain truth claims.

In light of the above, I do not have to deny the existence of the supernatural to be a skeptic.

 

[HitchSlap]

In light of the above, I do not have to deny the existence of the supernatural to be a skeptic.

Of course you would, words have meanings. Accepting the supernatural, necessarily means you lack doubt of it's existence.

 

[Davian]

I did not know atheists had a monopoly or a copyright on the term "skeptic". You yourself said that the term generally speaking was used of non-supernaturalists. If we take the understanding one here has posited regarding the term, a skeptic is simply someone who objectively and rationally examines the evidence proferred in support of certain truth claims.

In light of the above, I do not have to deny the existence of the supernatural to be a skeptic.

That does beg the question, what is (rather than, what is not) "supernatural".

 

[Davian]

If Banjo was seen doing what you claim he was doing by multiple eyewitnesses, this eyewitness testimony would be something that would lead me to think that it was not just a lie, but something that may very well have in fact happened.

What if all there was were anonymous stories of nameless witness accounts? Good enough?

 

[HitchSlap]

What if all there was were anonymous stories of nameless witness accounts? Good enough?

Good enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

 

[Davian]

Good enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Sounds legit.


<puts sunglasses on>

 

[Ana the Ist]

If Banjo was seen doing what you claim he was doing by multiple eyewitnesses, this eyewitness testimony would be something that would lead me to think that it was not just a lie, but something that may very well have in fact happened.

I think you're right.....especially if this Banjo story started a couple thousand years ago. Sure...we now know that eyewitness accounts are deeply flawed. Back before nearly every other form of testimony, eyewitnesses were absolutely essential for deciding who to believe.

Are there any other forms of "good evidence" you'd accept? Anything, perhaps, less reliable than eyewitnesses?