Are Psychological Abnormalities a part of Christian Apologetics?

[Silmarien]

Bare in mind though, that Darwinian evolution is still only a naturalistic thesis.
And naturalism is just as much a belief as supernaturalism (creation, ID).
It's a matter of assessing what is more plausible / probable / possible.

I wouldn't classify evolution as a naturalistic theory and the forms of creationism as supernaturalistic theories. There are some polemical theists out there that insist upon abiogenesis and evolution on philosophical and theological grounds, and you can find the occasional naturalist who is convinced that life on this planet has been engineered by aliens.

I go with Darwinian evolution, abiogenesis and all. I don't see the problem.

 

[gaara4158]

It's a bit more complicated than that.
When you approach the question of origins with natural sciences, there simply is no place for the hand of God.
So IF God was involved, science will never come to that conclusion, because it's not applicable to such things.
So if you decide to rely on the natural sciences to reconstruct the events that caused living nature to emerge, you have decided that there was no hand of God involved.
But that's a philosophical belief: naturalism.
It's not an evidence based conclusion.
Rather it is an uncalled for predetermined answer.

Science may never come to the conclusion that God was involved, but that in itself doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist. It just means that it’s going to run without the assumption that God is directly doing anything. There is plenty of room for a god to exist but not to have micromanaged the mechanics of biodiversity.

Who decides what is acceptable?
Yes, there is evolution.
Mutations and natural selection certainly have influence on the gene pools.
But can it account for purposeful and genius information that brings forth organs and organisms?
And is it plausible?
What are the chances?
We do know organisms can lose traits.
But how would they gain traits?

I try to avoid debating evolution with fundamentalists, but if you’re truly interested in what science has to say about those questions, there are plenty of answers available with a Google search.

 

[Hieronymus]

I wouldn't classify evolution as a naturalistic theory and the forms of creationism as supernaturalistic theories. There are some polemical theists out there that insist upon abiogenesis and evolution on philosophical and theological grounds, and you can find the occasional naturalist who is convinced that life on this planet has been engineered by aliens.

I go with Darwinian evolution, abiogenesis and all. I don't see the problem.

I do.

 

[Silmarien]

I do.

Care to share? If you're arguing that evolution requires naturalism, you're not just fighting with atheists anymore.

 

[Hieronymus]

Science may never come to the conclusion that God was involved, but that in itself doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist.

Science CAN NOT come to that conclusion.
You can not approach supernatural events with natural science.

It just means that it’s going to run without the assumption that God is directly doing anything.

It excludes God or anything supernatural from the analyses.
That means that in practice it assumes that there is no hand of God involved.

There is plenty of room for a god to exist but not to have micromanaged the mechanics of biodiversity.

And therefore it can not assess if the hand of God was involved.

I try to avoid debating evolution with fundamentalists, but if you’re truly interested in what science has to say about those questions, there are plenty of answers available with a Google search.

I'm just trying to make people understand that the scientific approach is in and of itself fundamentally naturalistic.

 

[Hieronymus]

Care to share? If you're arguing that evolution requires naturalism, you're not just fighting with atheists anymore.

I think i explained my position well enough earlier, in reply to gaara.

 

[gaara4158]

Science CAN NOT come to that conclusion.
You can not approach supernatural events with natural science.It excludes God or anything supernatural from the analyses.
That means that in practice it assumes that there is no hand of God involved.And therefore it can not assess if the hand of God was involved.
I'm just trying to make people understand that the scientific approach is in and of itself fundamentally naturalistic.

It’s methodologically naturalistic. Of course there’s no difference in practice between methodological and philosophical naturalism; methodology is strictly about practice! The difference is in principle. In science, we never say that “because there is no God, we conclude that our observations indicate x, y, and z,” whereas that is a premise of philosophical naturalism. Science cannot be used to confirm nor deny the existence of God and it does not rest philosophically on premises either way.

 

[Silmarien]

I think i explained my position well enough earlier, in reply to gaara.

I'm not very clear on it. Do you think modeling the laws of physics requires the belief that God is not involved in ordering and/or maintaining them?

I don't think evolution can ever truly rule out intelligent design--is it serendipity when game changing, unexpected events happen, such as in the theorized origin of mitochondria, or was that an instance of divine intervention? We can obviously never answer something like that, but I don't see why seeking biological and chemical explications for the origin of biological and chemical entities should be off limits.

Obviously people tend to confuse methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism, including plenty of scientists, but you certainly don't need to.

 

[Hieronymus]

I'm not very clear on it. Do you think modeling the laws of physics requires the belief that God is not involved in ordering and/or maintaining them?

He created the lot, including the laws of physics, since He is the Creator (who is not created).
But obviously, no.
Science is supposed to be the endeavour of gaining knowledge of our common reality, regardless of how and why it exists or came to be.
The question of the origins of things however, is a historical question.
It is not observable or repeatable as such.

I don't think evolution can ever truly rule out intelligent design--is it serendipity when game changing, unexpected events happen, such as in the theorized origin of mitochondria, or was that an instance of divine intervention? We can obviously never answer something like that, but I don't see why seeking biological and chemical explications for the origin of biological and chemical entities should be off limits.

Neither do i.
But what we see is that there is a conclusion that people try to support with natural science, rather than an assessment based on knowledge and reason, whether the origins of things, like the universe and living nature, is natural or supernatural.
And they try as hard as the funding allows them to, and meanwhile the conclusion is being force fed to the public.

Besides that, despite the in itself admirable zeal and effort, the proposed mechanisms take a big leap of faith to be able to believe they can account for what we see in reality.
But the funding and the platforms have made sure that there's a large community of adepts that can apply big peer pressure with authority upon the people in general.

See, it's not just about science doing its thing.
We're dealing with people and power over people and influencing the world view.

As i said, genetic information changes unintentionally, and natural selection is obviously real too, and that has influence on the gene pools.
So it evolves.
But can these processes account for what we see in living nature?
What are the chances?
It's quite unlkely that "things that look designed", according to R. Dawkins, and are of a much higher level than anything designed by humanity, came about unintentionally by means of dead unconscious processes, restricted to the laws of nature.
Besides that, humans have always been on about gods and supernatural things, and have apparently interacted with the unseen realm forever.
Gods have layed claims on the origins of things too.
So therecis evidence and recorded history in support of the reality of the supernatural too.
Waving this away as delusional nonsense is nonsensical.
It has been a thing in the human experience for ever.
Yet we see the same group of people who revere science ridicule these things away, but usually without knowing anything about it.

So as you can see i also emphasize on human integrity regarding their attitudes towards things.
But science and the pursuit of gaing knowledge and understanding is supposed to be immune to these factors.
But can it be immune to human corruption when it is conducted by humans?
Probably not.

And so we have a huma community, funded by humans on human platforms convincing people that Darwin was right, with the 'esotheric wisdom' to back it up.

 

[gaara4158]

As i said, genetic information changes unintentionally, and natural selection is obviously real too, and that has influence on the gene pools.
So it evolves.
But can these processes account for what we see in living nature?
What are the chances?
It's quite unlkely that "things that look designed", according to R. Dawkins, and are of a much higher level than anything designed by humanity, came about unintentionally by means of dead unconscious processes, restricted to the laws of nature.

It’s not helpful to calculate the odds of past events, because ultimately the odds of it having happened is now 1:1, because it indeed happened. To illustrate the absurdity of this approach, we can tally up all the things that had to have happened just right for me to be writing this sentence right now. The odds come out astronomically against, and yet it’s happening. Does that mean there’s some cosmic force out there that organized everything such that I would write this? Not necessarily.

Such is the case for evolution. The question shouldn’t be “can evolution account for x, y, and z?” The question should be “is there anything in biology evolution can’t account for?” If the latter is answered yes, the whole theory topples.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I fear I have to disagree with almost everything here. Sorry.

Perhaps I am wrong or unjustified, but I would make the distinction between "natural" and "artificial" on quite the opposite side of what you seem to suggest. If I got you right... I'm not quite sure about that.

"Natural", in my view, is just the way things work. In that case, it is the way the human brain works.
I'd say you are aware of that: our brain, the subconscious as well as the conscious parts, but especially the subconscious, work sometimes (often? always?) quite differently from what we "want, need, desire". It takes direct and persistent conscious effort to shift these ways... but even then, the ability of the brain to retrain itself, at least partially, is "natural"... the way it works.

The wants, needs and desires... these are what drive the "artificial" part. This is how we take "what is" (natural) and try to turn it into "what ought to be" (artificial).

I get what you're saying, but I would tend to say with the hermeneuticists that what we deem to be natural on the one hand and artificial on the other bleed into one another conceptually so that a little 'yin-yang' kind of thing going on between the two.

As I see it, both the search for patterns, the search for agenda, the search for a narrative and the search for answers... these are all part of this "natural" way our brain works. It is what makes us humans. And it is what drives both religiosity and irreligiosity. It is just a question of how far the quest goes and what path it takes.

I'm not sure I'd dichotomize religious and irreligious in terms that specifically and only relate to the relationship between theism and atheism or belief and unbelief. No, these terms are contextualized within the various competing human frameworks that jostle and jockey for position in our shared world. So, in this way, we very well can speak of Saul as being 'naturally irreligious. ...and furthermore, I think the upshot of this is that if you don't accept what I'm saying, they atheists can no longer use the ol' Outsider Test for Faith mantra that "they simply believe in one less god."

But the pattern that we "identify" (or, make up), the agenda, the story, the specific answers... these are based on the "artificial" parts.

If by 'artificial' you're referring to various humanly devised conceptual frameworks, then I'd agree.

So the "disposition" is always natural. There is no fundamental difference between the "religious" and the "irreligious" side... they both employ the same mechanisms. But the "acting out" is always "artificial"... and both the involved mechanisms as well as the results can differ widely.

Dispositions may or may not be 'natural,' hence again why I refer to Judas and Saul/Paul as two contrasting examples.

Hm again.
I don't know what I would make of the Judas character. In some (non canonical) stories, he's the hero, doing what needs to be done, even if it means his downfall. His role in the canonical gospels is... vague.

Could be, but that would be a whole other thread and I don't know to what extent it ties into my OP here.

The problem that I have with most of these characters is that I cannot see them as real people... the whole set of the disciples seems, for the most part, more of a staffage than characters. Something for Jesus to act upon. Props. So it's quite difficult to do a character analysis on them.

Of course we could do a 'character analysis' upon them, but the overall truth of the matter wouldn't to my mind imply that you're being "more" rational than a Christian is if you so choose to do that.

Personally, I would place Judas in the "irreligious" side: the one who believed, and was disapointed to the point of disbelief. He became the betrayer because he felt betrayed. His chosen deity had turned out to disappoint him.

I place both Judas and Saul/Paul on the "irreligious side," but I'd say that one of the comes by it naturally and the other could be seen as being more unnatural in his final disposition.

In a similar way, I would put Paul/Saul on the "religious" side. If the narrative is to be trusted, he was personally interested in the persecution of this new Christian group... and there is simply no "irreligious" motive for that. On that other hand, the defense of an existing religious belief against a potentially dangerous enemy is a strong religious motive, even a natural one. Even using my definition.

Again, I wouldn't put Saul/Paul on the 'religious' side of things IF we're specifically zeroing in on Christianity, otherwise you'll have to give up any special status that you think atheism has in relation to Christianity. I mean, one doesn't have to be an atheist to flout or verbally express contempt for Christianity, although the atheist could come by it naturally or unnaturally.

Note: None of what I've said above in this post is anything I hold in a dogmatic fashion, so feel free to disagree.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't know. Are they? Let's see what this atheist has to say ... and consider the extent to which his recommendations (for other atheists and by proxy, for Christians) are wrong or right!

But if it is normal to have culturally sanctioned hallucinations, then the origin of Christianity being a group of people who had religious hallucinations becomes far more likely than being a group of people who genuinely saw a man (who happened to be the creator of the universe) rise from the dead.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But if it is normal to have culturally sanctioned hallucinations, then the origin of Christianity being a group of people who had religious hallucinations becomes far more likely than being a group of people who genuinely saw a man (who happened to be the creator of the universe) rise from the dead.

Richard? Richard Carrier, is that you speaking through the quantum mysterium of Nihilist Virus' cerebrum to communicate with us today from beyond?

[Nah!!! It couldn't be!]

 

[bhsmte]

Oh, so atheists really don't care if we believe or not...

Not this one.

Having a good understanding of the human psyche, i fully expect some people to have strong faith beliefs. I also expect, those beliefs to be many different types of belief, which we also see.

If, at the end of the day, having a particular faith belief, allows one to better cope with life and makes them a better person, more power to you.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Richard? Richard Carrier, is that you speaking through the quantum mysterium of Nihilist Virus' cerebrum to communicate with us today from beyond?

[Nah!!! It couldn't be!]

No need to make inferences on my position regarding the historicity of Jesus Christ. Supposing he did exist, my comments still make sense. Re-read.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No need to make inferences on my position regarding the historicity of Jesus Christ. Supposing he did exist, my comments still make sense. Re-read.

I'll Re-read if you'll Re-think.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'll Re-read if you'll Re-think.

Re-think what?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Re-think what?

I.E. ... Re-think the extent to which this issue you're bringing into the discussion, under and around what Genetically Modified Skeptic states in the OP video [at 2:00 to 2:30], has any full bearing upon whether the earliest Christians were in fact co-participating in some kind of "culturally sanctioned hallucinations."

If you're going to pitch this here, then you need to explain to the members of the opposing team why you actually have the right kind of balls to pitch in this game. Why? Because I don't want to waste my time "batting" with phantom assertions only to then be told, "See, you can't hit a home-run if your life depended on it because your such a poor batter (or poor Apologist)."

I.O.W. What's you're scholarly angle and support? And in asking this, I hope to goodness it doesn't amount to us simply having to sift through yet more Richard Carrier stuff.......but if it is, I guess go ahead anyway.

 

[cvanwey]

Why do atheists even care if we believe? It seems like they are organized and making a joint effort to spread the good news of atheism. I don't get why unless they really do believe that something is wrong with theists.

Quite frankly, if an 'atheist' and a Muslim both ran for the presidency in the U.S., it would be more likely, at least in this current era, that if all other 'qualifications' being equal between the two candidates, the 'Muslim' would win; due to the 'religion card' alone.

It seems that a vast majority are still mere God believers... And wish not to throw such trust/faith in a candidate that does not share the same 'core values', albeit differing in it's conclusion to this asserted God(s).

In a nutshell, @gaara4158 already hit the nail on the head very early in this thread...

As another 'interneter' pointed out a few years back, I don't recall whom exactly... If the majority of the country went around giving continuous allegiance, praise, and admiration to Voltron, then you might start to eventually see 'aVoltronists' emerge But it is not necessary.

 

[Tone]

Quite frankly, if an 'atheist' and a Muslim both ran for the presidency in the U.S., it would be more likely, at least in this current era, that if all other 'qualifications' being equal between the two candidates, the 'Muslim' would win; due to the 'religion card' alone.

It seems that a vast majority are still mere God believers... And wish not to throw such trust/faith in a candidate that does not share the same 'core values', albeit differing in it's conclusion to this asserted God(s).

In a nutshell, @gaara4158 already hit the nail on the head very early in this thread...

As another 'interneter' pointed out a few years back, I don't recall whom exactly... If the majority of the country went around giving continuous allegiance, praise, and admiration to Voltron, then you might start to eventually see 'aVoltronists' emerge But it is not necessary.

I don't think the gospel of Voltron would keep the world from destroying eachother. Also, there is really no comparison to a cartoon and the historicity of Christianity. If anything, the creationists would be the "aVoltronists" and the darwinists would be the lovers of make believe cartoons.