Layers Of Apologetics

[muichimotsu]

Internal consistency and falsification have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I'm quite happy to use falsification in its proper context--as the boundary between scientific and non-scientific reasoning, but beyond that it's not of much interest to me.

They have importance in the notion that something being internally consistent is not an indication of the truth of it in any reasonable fashion (not even strictly scientific, but a rational philosophical epistemology would require a differing degree of falsification rather than just axiomatic claims), falsifiability is one of the most reliable qualities in regards to a belief being true

I am a former nontheist, so I have the advantage of being pretty intimately familiar with both positions. I know what I used to think, I know why I used to think it, and since I've come to the conclusion that I was wrong, there's really not much there that is of much interest to me anymore.

My positions have bent plenty, though obviously not in the direction you'd like. Writing things off as irreconcilable differences strikes me as the most constructive option at this point.

The funny thing is, not all nontheists are remotely alike, so where you come from is far more nebulous in comparison to other nontheists than the remote distinctions that might exist between Christian denominations.

If all you're going to do is conclude you were wrong and not that you could be wrong now, not sure you're being genuine in your critical thought

Non overlapping magisterium then? It has its place, but it also makes religion effectively able to shirk any responsibility of taking its claims as anything more than sentimentality

 

[muichimotsu]

But any belief can lead to people "fudging with it and defining it in other ways." Approach (1) is related to essence; approach (2) is related to existence. In any epistemological endeavor there is going to be balance and mutual interdependence between essence and existence. Separation is necessary, but they also go together.

Then you're rendering any philosophical discussion essentially moot with regards to anything because of how we can't even come to remote agreements on something, when I'm only saying this applies to something of a supernatural quality like a god. Merely because we disagree on the essence or existence in regards to something is not a reason to just shut it down and "agree to disagree", especially if one side is unwilling to consider that they're working with entrenched preconceptions regarding God that they are unwilling to bend for and don't seem to realize it

Then by all means enumerate a rational explanation of the distinction of the essence and existence of the concept of "God", because I think that'd be a good start at an attempt at dialogue that isn't assuming one concept of "God" must be the best one

The bigger chasm in apologetics is represented by the foundational theistic and atheistic premises: "Something like God exists," and, "Nothing like God exists." Overturning either of those premises is quite difficult, and a strong focus on definitions or methodology isn't going to change that.

You're arguably oversimplifying to say that an atheist is saying "nothing like God exists", even if I grant the equally simplistic characterization that atheism is somehow affirming the absolute contrary of theism rather than being its contrast. When God is defined in constrained fashions, an atheist can be more confident in saying those things cannot exist, for logical inconsistencies and lack of compelling evidence. But when "God" is so vague, then an atheist making that claim will look silly only because the theist is being equally silly in placing no constraints on "God" at all, making it irrational and incoherent

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't consider my own act of listening to another person and considering whatever truths may reside within their own statements and in their shared perceptions, and evaluating those statements in their usefulness to me as any kind of a "semantic game." It isn't a game, and it isn't a retort, but it does seem that I'm being interpreted in this way, as if I'm trying to secretly humiliate the skeptics who pop of here.

You skeptics here on CF need to stop working overtime in trying to anticipate (or guess) what you think I'm go to try to say or to get at. I'm not being devious here with you guys. I'm not trying to implement subversion of a skeptic's integrity. No, I'm answering honestly, even here with you, and even if where religion and metaphysics are concerned, I'm doing so existentially.

It's called online tone, we all can be mistaken in interpretations and especially when we post things that would seem innocent from our perspective, but are not necessarily seen as such by others because the nuance in the voice we intend isn't there.

And perhaps that's part of the issue is dealing with it existentially, as if we just need to go so individualistic it borders on solipsism.

Which book on epistemology says what you're attempting to say here, because I don't think mine say any of this?

Pretty sure I wasn't referencing your books, I was speaking in generalities, I didn't claim expertise, if you looked at the whole post. By what standard are you defining coherency and cogency beyond what appears to be what seems credible to an individual, like phenomenological and existential qualities?

I'm sorry, but I don't find this assertion of yours about good and bad to be coherent. In fact, sometimes you don't seem to be saying anything you've actually learned through your education but rather just firing from the hip ...

Not all of us rely purely on texts to substantiate our claims but utilize what we retain in regards to reading them to enrich our own pool of knowledge and points of argumentation. By all means, argue why your deity is coherent in any way that could be remotely universal. If not, then you may have to admit the whole endeavor in theology is like searching for a black cat in a dark room and claiming to find it. And if you can't even get to a coherent "God" definition, not sure you can claim, as I'm almost certain you have, that it's the best source of morality (correct me otherwise)

... again, I think you guys really need to start buttressing your arguments with some academically substantial references and documentation. If you don't, I won't be able to take you seriously and I'll just assume you're here to "mess with Christian minds."

Excuse us for not all being constantly engaged with academic texts and seeking to be intellectual in a pretentious fashion, there's a moderate way to present a rational argument that doesn't require treating every engagement like a college debate

As for you, muichimotsu, you also need to stop treating interaction with various Christians as a chess game and please stop trying to outwit everyone by using loaded language that's structured to anticipate what you think your supposed "opponents" will soon say ... because in doing so, you end up saying things that, to me, aren't very substantive and not really hitting the target of what actually will be said by your Christian interlocutor, such as myself.

You'll forgive me for being a bit cynical in terms of there being much in the way of remotely original presentations of arguments when I've engaged with this kind of apologetics tripe for nigh on a decade and seen plenty (though certainly not all) of the arguments thought to be "effective"

As I've implied above, I'm not saying this to mess with your mind. I'm not, but I am saying this just in case you're simply here to be a gadfly and to bite folks. If that is all you're wanting to do, then the jig is up, so stop doing it because it makes you look sociopathic rather than just a person who struggles with autism, and I'd rather extend empathy to you since I know you have some hefty challenges and struggles in your life; most importantly, I'd rather by sympathetic with you than have to gear myself up (and probably waste our time) in order to tear apart what you are trying to say to me.

If I was being a gadfly, I likely would've gotten banned far more times, but I've eased up in some aspects of posts you can find from 7+ years ago.

If you're going to be empathetic, then there are articles I can find (still trying to find a good system for organizing my bookmarks relative to my quirky categories) that point out autistic people can have tendencies that make being religious not as easy as with neurotypicals. Particularly one that notes we're not as likely to see things in a teleological sense, at least in regards to larger scale, rather than seeing the basic causal chain and nature of events, like the universe, nature, etc.

And from what I observe, I'm a major exception from most ASD individuals in terms of religiosity, because many seem to be able to find a way to reconcile them, but I cannot say I have remotely, and that's after engaging with theological texts and such as a religious studies major (was called religion department until several years ago) at a Christian university (Episcopalian) that had many people that I could have discussions with in regards to faith and we'd still end respecting each other (though much of that was due to it being face to face, I'd argue)

Have you ever seen the movie, Dunkirk? If so, being the existentialist that I am, I'm going to be "that" pilot ... if I have to.

I recall my parents watched it, though I believe I watched The Emoji Movie (not a great decision in hindsight, but you have to see terrible fiction to appreciate the good stuff)

On the one hand, I can admit that like a lot guys here, I'm always up for a good skirmish in play, just like I am when I'm playing Marvel Strike Force [like a kid] on my phone. But wouldn't it be even cooler if you and I could just talk to each other as peers, be friendly with each other, and maybe even research and discuss some things together rather than trying to beat each other over the head in defiance of what resides cognitively in the other person's brain?

I do discuss DC Legends (a competitor to Marvel Strike Force in the design, which I don't think I played: I think I played a more action RPG Marvel game for a bit, twas interesting, though Marvel has lost my interest with its stories in contrast to DC, a whole other topic I could start potentially) with fans and it doesn't devolve into competition, but an enjoyment of the strategy aspects and how we can enjoy it without playing the same things for teams?

I enjoy other games and certainly wouldn't call someone childish or such merely because they enjoy things that could be interpreted as such

I'll fully admit I can have that problem and it's as much tone on my side as others and how I interpret that.

I certainly make an attempt to add qualifiers in that it "seems" you advocate something or other, though I can forget that at times.

 

[Sanoy]

It has a cause, but I never claimed it was an absolute beginning, only so far as we can observe

You're assuming the extraordinary odds after the fact, which is post hoc rationalization of something seeming amazing to your perspective

If you're just reducing things to personal credulity at statistics that we cannot be remotely certain on beyond particular constraints of measurements, not sure you're really presenting a compelling argument.

The truth of reality is not what seems to be, but what is in spite of what we might think to the contrary, like some agency behind the universe that we can't remotely demonstrate apart from goalpost shifting of how to "verify" it

I think given your concern for coherency, you should present any causal origination that would be coherent and cogent.

If all you are going to do is parrot the anthropic principle, because that is all you are prepared to respond with imagining it as some panacea for any response that can be given, I really don't see the point of this thread or appeals to cogency and coherency. Unless this universe is necessary, the odds are factually in disfavor of it by inconceivable degrees. That has nothing to do with being alive or not. If it's necessary, I expect to see that cogently and coherently explained.

I also saw no explanation for why we should prefer inconceivably unlikely events over mind explanations. I assume such a lack is, as I thought, because there is no good reason to do so.

 

[Silmarien]

They have importance in the notion that something being internally consistent is not an indication of the truth of it in any reasonable fashion (not even strictly scientific, but a rational philosophical epistemology would require a differing degree of falsification rather than just axiomatic claims), falsifiability is one of the most reliable qualities in regards to a belief being true

Not if you don't believe that the human mind is actually capable of grasping reality in any meaningful manner, it isn't. Anyone interested in that problem is going to put empiricism in a secondary position.

The funny thing is, not all nontheists are remotely alike, so where you come from is far more nebulous in comparison to other nontheists than the remote distinctions that might exist between Christian denominations.

So what?

If all you're going to do is conclude you were wrong and not that you could be wrong now, not sure you're being genuine in your critical thought

This is the sort of thing that @2PhiloVoid is talking about. Nobody has a problem with the fact that you're a skeptic, but you clearly have a problem with religion that goes much deeper than merely not believing in it, and it leads you to constantly treat people in a spiteful, unpleasant manner. This sort of abuse is really not constructive, and leads to people not wanting to engage with you seriously.

 

[muichimotsu]

I think given your concern for coherency, you should present any causal origination that would be coherent and cogent.

If all you are going to do is parrot the anthropic principle, because that is all you are prepared to respond with imagining it as some panacea for any response that can be given, I really don't see the point of this thread or appeals to cogency and coherency. Unless this universe is necessary, the odds are factually in disfavor of it by inconceivable degrees. That has nothing to do with being alive or not. If it's necessary, I expect to see that cogently and coherently explained.

I also saw no explanation for why we should prefer inconceivably unlikely events over mind explanations. I assume such a lack is, as I thought, because there is no good reason to do so.

Causal origination is not something we can have an absolute beginning point for in our knowledge, we can only trace it as far back as we can reasonably observe, not just conclude something because it seems credible, that's superstition.

The universe doesn't require necessity to exist, you're insinuating a property that's irrelevant to whether it exists at present, since we don't have other universes to compare it to in the first place, so we don't have any contrast to what we observe, which is a universe that exists

I didn't argue for the universe's necessity, you're strawmanning and putting words into my mouth as if that's the only position I can hold

You being able to not conceive that something could happen is insufficient to conclude that it's unlikely without a mind, you're still making circular references back to your credulity as some absolute standard for rationality.

You thinking one must have a reason to explain things we cannot observe in regards to their completeness (the causal chain of the universe) is showing a stark fear of uncertainty, which isn't a sign of appreciating critical thought except as you give yourself the pretense of certainty that's "unassailable"

 

[muichimotsu]

Not if you don't believe that the human mind is actually capable of grasping reality in any meaningful manner, it isn't. Anyone interested in that problem is going to put empiricism in a secondary position.

A meaningful manner is not the same as an absolute manner: me acknowledging limits of human epistemology is not the same as saying that we cannot approach reality at all, but merely in a provisional sense. What you seem to want is an impossibly high standard of certainty in knowledge when that would necessarily be a problem given that our senses are never 100% reliable in our approximation of the world, especially coupled with our own apophenia and pattern seeking tendencies with data we observe

So what?

So you insinuating that I can even come close to being in the position you were in seems disingenuous, rather than admitting that you cannot put people in a box based on what you see in parallel to your own experiences relative to theirs in some label like nontheist we might both have.

This is the sort of thing that @2PhiloVoid is talking about. Nobody has a problem with the fact that you're a skeptic, but you clearly have a problem with religion that goes much deeper than merely not believing in it, and it leads you to constantly treat people in a spiteful, unpleasant manner. This sort of abuse is really not constructive, and leads to people not wanting to engage with you seriously.

I have a problem with people trying to act like they have it all figured out when that's realistically just self delusion, particularly common in religion and spirituality, but hardly something exclusive to it.

If I'm seemingly unpleasant, it's because I think people can do better in how they think about such topics rather than just being satisfied with answers they seem to regard as final in some sense.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A meaningful manner is not the same as an absolute manner: me acknowledging limits of human epistemology is not the same as saying that we cannot approach reality at all, but merely in a provisional sense. What you seem to want is an impossibly high standard of certainty in knowledge when that would necessarily be a problem given that our senses are never 100% reliable in our approximation of the world, especially coupled with our own apophenia and pattern seeking tendencies with data we observe




So you insinuating that I can even come close to being in the position you were in seems disingenuous, rather than admitting that you cannot put people in a box based on what you see in parallel to your own experiences relative to theirs in some label like nontheist we might both have.



I have a problem with people trying to act like they have it all figured out when that's realistically just self delusion, particularly common in religion and spirituality, but hardly something exclusive to it.

If I'm seemingly unpleasant, it's because I think people can do better in how they think about such topics rather than just being satisfied with answers they seem to regard as final in some sense.

It sounds like you and I are very, very similar-----except we're standing on extreme opposite sides of the Chess Board of Belief.

 

[Silmarien]

I have a problem with people trying to act like they have it all figured out when that's realistically just self delusion, particularly common in religion and spirituality, but hardly something exclusive to it.

If I'm seemingly unpleasant, it's because I think people can do better in how they think about such topics rather than just being satisfied with answers they seem to regard as final in some sense.

This is bigotry, pure and simple. People have not been "trying to act like they have it all figured out." You are attributing this belief to everyone around you because you are too prejudiced against religion to treat anyone in a remotely charitable fashion. You are the one who has decided that you "have it all figured out" in terms of what is going on in other people's heads, which is hypocritical in the extreme.

Since I can't expect anything from you except a string of abuse, there's really nothing further to say.

 

[LoG]

But what would one do in regards to someone who isn't convinced that God is a cogent or otherwise coherent concept in the first place?

For the sort of skeptics i deal with regularly, I suggest they "act as if there is a power greater than themselves" or "fake it till you make it" then help them through a process which will often result in an experience with God rather than just going through an intellectual exercise full of "yeah buts". Down and out alcoholics, crack heads and junkies do tend to be a little more humble and open to trying the god thing when they see their life has become a living hell and any day could be their last in spite of their best efforts to stop it.
The proof for a God comes from the doing what He suggests, not the hearing and endless debating over it.

 

[muichimotsu]

It sounds like you and I are very, very similar-----except we're standing on extreme opposite sides of the Chess Board of Belief.

Existentialism cuts both ways, if we're remotely in those camps (I'm almost more absurdist, though I'll admit I'm still incomplete in my reading of Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus in my library), but us being on "opposite" ends is no need to polarize us as being antithetical, when I would think Hegel's dialectical method, which predates him historically to a degree, is something we could probably agree would be helpful in discussions

 

[muichimotsu]

For the sort of skeptics i deal with regularly, I suggest they "act as if there is a power greater than themselves" or "fake it till you make it" then help them through a process which will often result in an experience with God rather than just going through an intellectual exercise full of "yeah buts". Down and out alcoholics, crack heads and junkies do tend to be a little more humble and open to trying the god thing when they see their life has become a living hell and any day could be their last in spite of their best efforts to stop it.
The proof for a God comes from the doing what He suggests, not the hearing and endless debating over it.

If you're just using Pascal's Wager, you've already failed in making your deity anything more than an exercise in self deception under the expectation that eventually, you won't know the difference. Also, you assume a deity is either uncaring about the sincerity of beliefs in themselves or is incompetent enough that it cannot tell when someone's faith is based on primitive game theory rather than some supposed desire for relationship with a transcendent reality.

Your examples are also people that are emotionally and mentally vulnerable to exploitation by ideologies that foist themselves on the weak as a pretense that they're compassionate when they moreso pity the person and want them to be "functional" in the way they expect rather than considering that mental illness, addiction, etc, are not things that go away, they are properly managed.

ASsuming you know what God suggests is the problem here, you're begging the question as to your conclusion being inserted into the premise of the argument.

 

[muichimotsu]

This is bigotry, pure and simple. People have not been "trying to act like they have it all figured out." You are attributing this belief to everyone around you because you are too prejudiced against religion to treat anyone in a remotely charitable fashion. You are the one who has decided that you "have it all figured out" in terms of what is going on in other people's heads, which is hypocritical in the extreme.

Since I can't expect anything from you except a string of abuse, there's really nothing further to say.

If you're seeing the absolute confidence, that's not my intended tone in the slightest, while I honestly see the kind of blind conviction in regards to a belief in a deity that, if not absolute in its certainty, it's generally such that people don't always apply critical thinking impartially to that belief versus anything else in life (science, morality, etc)

If someone acts like the only standard they need to really obey is God's, then how can that be anything but someone who's convinced they have it all figured out?

 

[MrsFoundit]

If you're seeing the absolute confidence, that's not my intended tone in the slightest,

This is bigotry, pure and simple. It is about pre-conceived ideas, and maintaining
pre-conceived ideas, instead of discussing ideas as they are presented. .

 

[LoG]

If you're just using Pascal's Wager, you've already failed in making your deity anything more than an exercise in self deception under the expectation that eventually, you won't know the difference.

In our world it is a success if that "self deception" leads a real addict or alcoholic to being able to find the "power" to not pick up that next drink or drug.

Also, you assume a deity is either uncaring about the sincerity of beliefs in themselves or is incompetent enough that it cannot tell when someone's faith is based on primitive game theory rather than some supposed desire for relationship with a transcendent reality.

I assume a deity who is not expecting some sort of perfection in my approach to him and recognizes the sincerity of my desire to be helped with my dysfunctions that have made a mess of my life. I assume a deity who recognizes that the faith I have in him will be in direct proportion to the miracle of change I am hoping he will affect in my life in an ongoing progressive basis, as well as his revealing of himself to me. It would be unreasonable to expect some degree of faith from one who is either an atheist or agnostic when at best they just have a tiny sliver of hope that this god thing may help them with their problem. And that mostly based on the say so and witness of others who have been there and done that.
Excuse me if I am wrong here but you appear to be projecting your own relational needs onto what you think this God requires.

Your examples are also people that are emotionally and mentally vulnerable to exploitation by ideologies that foist themselves on the weak as a pretense that they're compassionate when they moreso pity the person and want them to be "functional" in the way they expect rather than considering that mental illness, addiction, etc, are not things that go away, they are properly managed.

I cannot speak for these nameless and faceless ideologies you mention here or its adherents, only share what worked and continues to work for me as well as many others I know of on a similar path.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Your examples are also people that are emotionally and mentally vulnerable to exploitation by ideologies that foist themselves on the weak

All human beings can be exploited, not only some specific people.

as a pretense that they're compassionate when they moreso pity the person and want them to be "functional"

Can you provide evidence acquired by scientific method to support your accusation of "pretence" of compassion and true motive as exploitation, or is this just your subjective opinion?

in the way they expect rather than considering that mental illness, addiction, etc, are not things that go away, they are properly managed.

Considering the known lack of clear scientific identification of many "mental illnesses", the excessively broad term "mental illnesses", and the wide variety of experiences and causes of addiction, it is impossible to see any tangible point here.

 

[muichimotsu]

This is bigotry, pure and simple. It is about pre-conceived ideas, and maintaining
pre-conceived ideas, instead of discussing ideas as they are presented. .

What pre conceived ideas do you think I have? I wasn't raised as a skeptic, quite the opposite, but in my exploration, Christianity and theistic religions in general have been found utterly wanting.

What ideas do you think you're presenting that I haven't heard before? Just bullet points, makes it easier for both of us

 

[muichimotsu]

In our world it is a success if that "self deception" leads a real addict or alcoholic to being able to find the "power" to not pick up that next drink or drug.

This assumes that someone has to engage in self deception to overcome addiction in the first place, when I pointed out addiction is not eliminated, it's managed.

I assume a deity who is not expecting some sort of perfection in my approach to him and recognizes the sincerity of my desire to be helped with my dysfunctions that have made a mess of my life. I assume a deity who recognizes that the faith I have in him will be in direct proportion to the miracle of change I am hoping he will affect in my life in an ongoing progressive basis, as well as his revealing of himself to me. It would be unreasonable to expect some degree of faith from one who is either an atheist or agnostic when at best they just have a tiny sliver of hope that this god thing may help them with their problem. And that mostly based on the say so and witness of others who have been there and done that.
Excuse me if I am wrong here but you appear to be projecting your own relational needs onto what you think this God requires.

If you're literally faking it to make it, that is by definition deceptive and not something that a deity that appreciates truth would approve of , since you're not sincere in pursuing God, just your own self satisfaction of overcoming some problem you have (which doesn't require God, I'd argue)

So your God literally knows we're screw ups and won't care if we lie as long as the end is met? That's consequentialist garbage that doesn't care at all about the process itself, which suggests your deity only cares about obedience, not critical thought

I'm expecting basic consistency of critical thought and reason for a deity that's supposedly far beyond human capacity, but not to the point of being a chaotic fey that acts on some bizarre mentality humans can't comprehend in the same way Batman can't fully comprehend Joker's psyche

I cannot speak for these nameless and faceless ideologies you mention here or its adherents, only share what worked and continues to work for me as well as many others I know of on a similar path.

That's appeal to ignorance, just because it works for you does not make it true, it's merely the consequences that you fallaciously infer are from a god being involved rather than human psychology that doesn't require that external factor

 

[muichimotsu]

All human beings can be exploited, not only some specific people.

I clearly was speaking about a particular kind of exploitation, because obviously not all people are able to be exploited in a state of weakness like I bring up: someone just being greedy can be exploited by someone with money and means

Can you provide evidence acquired by scientific method to support your accusation of "pretence" of compassion and true motive as exploitation, or is this just your subjective opinion?

I didn't claim it was scientific evidence, it was rational evidence that can be falsified in terms of people's motivations, self reported as they may be, but analyzed by others in regards. But there's also just the textual evidence in the Bible that, given some time, I can point to, suggesting that we're regarded as broken people that have to be fixed by an external source. Or is that reaching too much in your Christian perspective that you couldn't see it at all? I'm not even close?

Considering the known lack of clear scientific identification of many "mental illnesses", the excessively broad term "mental illnesses", and the wide variety of experiences and causes of addiction, it is impossible to see any tangible point here.

Now you're literally throwing a non sequitor, because science isn't claiming absolute knowledge or solution, it's the best solutions we have given evidence and study. The tangible point is that any claims of religion having any demonstrable benefit in regards to mental illness are incidental and correlative rather than causative in nature and not acknowledging that seems to be engaging in major cognitive bias towards what you conclude as true rather than thinking it might not be because of limited information or perspective

 

[MrsFoundit]

I can point to, suggesting that we're regarded as broken people that have to be fixed by an external source. Or is that reaching too much in your Christian perspective that you couldn't see it at all? I'm not even close?

We are all regarded as fallible.
We do not have to do anything.
There is no way anyone can become perfect.

The fallibility is universal to all human beings, it is not possible to fix it.

The external source we can choose to turn to on account of our fallibility does not remain only external, "it" can impact on us inside, in ways Christian people find to be positive.

All of these principles can be abused, and when they are the results are harmful.

As far as I am aware, abuse occurs in all religious belief systems, in atheist social groups, and also in mental health care. For that reason I regard the problem as a risk wherever people are, not something we can blame on theism or Christianity exclusively.