Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 3)

[Gene Parmesan]

Are we pretending like there aren't a bunch of Christians out there that answer "why do you believe in God" with "I just have faith!" Not reasons for faith, but rather faith AS the reason. As if there aren't any Christians that would say something like, "of course you can't PROVE God, otherwise you wouldn't need FAITH!" Maybe that kind of thing is only said at the churches I go to...

It would seem to me that this is the type of thing Peter is attempting to shine a light on. I haven't read his book, but that is how I understand the talks he has given about his book.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are we pretending like there aren't a bunch of Christians out there that answer "why do you believe in God" with "I just have faith!" Not reasons for faith, but rather faith AS the reason. As if there aren't any Christians that would say something like, "of course you can't PROVE God, otherwise you wouldn't need FAITH!" Maybe that kind of thing is only said at the churches I go to...

It would seem to me that this is the type of thing Peter is attempting to shine a light on. I haven't read his book, but that is how I understand the talks he has given about his book.

Kind of, but not exactly. Peter asserts that faith is an epistemology, and that it is a failed epistemology. That is his premise in the book. And he states that atheists should define it specifically as that.

So, while I may agree that the truth of Christianity is something that can't be FULLY demonstrated and that it does, in a sense, have its own parameters by which one can believe, I don't think this is to also say that 'faith' itself is an epistemology of any kind. Faith is a personal response to God, one that is drawn out by God in the individual. Along the way, various Christians will likely have made use of a variety of epistemologies by which they decided that Christianity seemed to make sense, even if those epistemologies don't fully offer a justification or structure of justification for belief.

So, Peter essentially produces a straw-man representation of 'faith,' and then touts that this IS the definition that everyone should use and should have been recognizing all along.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Moral Orel]

The problem with debating about "faith" between Christians and atheists is that to atheists, you have to have faith God exists before you can trust that He'll do what the Bible says He'll do. To Christians, everyone has knowledge that God exists and skips the whole first step. Romans 1:20 gets rolled out pretty much anytime an atheist asks, "Why should I believe in God in the first place?".

 

[KCfromNC]

So instead of recognizing the equivocation your claim is defending Beghossian's thesis.

No.

Secondly, why do fellow atheist philosophers pan Beghossians book as equivocating faith?

I don't know. If you need help finding their contact info let me know.

 

[KCfromNC]

Are we pretending like there aren't a bunch of Christians out there that answer "why do you believe in God" with "I just have faith!"

Yep. This looks to be a case of an author being accused of not addressing 'sophisticated' theology which no one actually follows. Yet another example of philosophy getting in the way of understanding things as they actually are in the real world.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yep. This looks to be a case of an author being accused of not addressing 'sophisticated' theology which no one actually follows. Yet another example of philosophy getting in the way of understanding things as they actually are in the real world.

That's a nice bit of philosophy itself, KC. I think I'll hang that up on my wall as a reminder that even those who think they do no philosophy ... still do philosophy. Or, am I incorrect to say that your last statement is an evaluation about some aspect of reality?

"Philosophy, technically defined, is the critical evaluation of all the facts of experience."

Sahakian & Sahakian (1966) - Ideas of the Great Philosophers: Barnes & Nobles Books.​

Maybe in Boghossian's case it's not philosophy per say that gets in the way, but rather the specific philosopher and his respective evaluations that do.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes, I can see your point. And it is for this reason that I advocate more for a Christian Philosophy type section (which they've never had here) that is open for the full evaluation of the interaction between belief and non-belief. Christian Apologetics, as it is too often tightly defined, ends up being a straight-jacket on full exploration of ideas and evaluations and, thus, a half-baked philosophical tour centering on whether the Bible is cogent or not.

No straight jacket. As you can see, he can post whatever he wants, and he does so. I just think it's extremely dishonest to read the SoP, agree to follow it, and then do the opposite... repeatedly.

Yes, some Christians here are a bit touchy; I on the other hand never ignore anyone.

My ignore list is empty too. If I make an argument, and I can't see someone attempt to refute it, so I can't refute their refutation, then it sure looks like an admission of defeat to me. That's why finding out I'm on someone else's ignore list only emboldens me more!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No straight jacket. As you can see, he can post whatever he wants, and he does so. I just think it's extremely dishonest to read the SoP, agree to follow it, and then do the opposite... repeatedly.

My ignore list is empty too. If I make an argument, and I can't see someone attempt to refute it, so I can't refute their refutation, then it sure looks like an admission of defeat to me. That's why finding out I'm on someone else's ignore list only emboldens me more!

Yes, I understand what you're saying, ND. There are certain personalities on these Forums who consistently push the limits and beyond, and I've seen examples of this behavior among both those who label themselves as Christians and those who label themselves as atheists. They are typically personalities who are on a 'mission.'

If you feel that an egregious level of rule breakage has transpired....you can always 'report' them. And the result will often be that the thread in question will just disappear. (I personally never use that option since I don't believe in rules that are so strict that they bind people's constructive verbal expressions, but hey...it's there if you want it.)

As for how this may apply to myself, if you or anyone else thinks I'm 'breaking' the rules, feel free to point out specifically where I've done so and I'll take it into serious consideration. (I will admit that if I see rules that are 'too' restrictive, I tend to ...*ahem*...[evaluate] moderate how I "interpret" those rules.)

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[KCfromNC]

That's a nice bit of philosophy itself, KC.

OK, thanks. Your point? I didn't dismiss the whole of critical thinking, just showed an example where a philosophical approach failed.

Maybe in Boghossian's case it's not philosophy per say that gets in the way, but rather the specific philosopher and his respective evaluations that do.

I'm not sure of your point here. Are you objecting because you don't think people actually claim the things mentioned in post 21?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

OK, thanks. Your point? I didn't dismiss the whole of critical thinking, just showed an example where a philosophical approach failed.



I'm not sure of your point here. Are you objecting because you don't think people actually claim the things mentioned in post 21?

And did you not read my response in post 22? Of course, I understand you might not have since it wasn't directed to you originally. But, now it is.

 

[KCfromNC]

And did you not read my response in post 22? Of course, I understand you might not have since it wasn't directed to you originally. But, now it is.

That just seems to be your interpretation of what people should be believing. I was trying to get to the fact that people do actually believe what the author quoted in the OP was addressing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That just seems to be your interpretation of what people should be believing. I was trying to get to the fact that people do actually believe what the author quoted in the OP was addressing.

I'm sure that if we look broadly enough, we'll find all kinds of Christians giving various 'explanations' as to what and why "faith" is what it is. I'm not sure where Boghossian got his definition, it seems to be one he's made up, and it isn't one that anyone in my denomination would typically use. But, Christians can be confused about Biblical concepts...........as can non-Christians like Boghossian.

 

[Moral Orel]

Are we pretending like there aren't a bunch of Christians out there that answer "why do you believe in God" with "I just have faith!"

Along the way, various Christians will likely have made use of a variety of epistemologies by which they decided that Christianity seemed to make sense, even if those epistemologies don't fully offer a justification or structure of justification for belief.

Yep. This looks to be a case of an author being accused of not addressing 'sophisticated' theology which no one actually follows. Yet another example of philosophy getting in the way of understanding things as they actually are in the real world.

LoL. I just saw this in the "Exploring Christianity" sub-forum and it made me think of this thread and giggle:

Likelihood of Christian Teachings Being True

And what is the first response?

Now the first responder saying that doesn't indicate a majority of Christians holding such a viewpoint. But when people wonder how this atheist came up with his argument, this is why. And although he takes things way too far by applying it to all Christians in general, it isn't as though a watered down argument of, "some people treat faith like this, and you shouldn't" isn't pretty valid.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

LoL. I just saw this in the "Exploring Christianity" sub-forum and it made me think of this thread and giggle:

Likelihood of Christian Teachings Being True

And what is the first response?

Now the first responder saying that doesn't indicate a majority of Christians holding such a viewpoint. But when people wonder how this atheist came up with his argument, this is why. And although he takes things way too far by applying it to all Christians in general, it isn't as though a watered down argument of, "some people treat faith like this, and you shouldn't" isn't pretty valid.

...yeah, and just look at who slammed down post #15 in that same thread.

 

[arensb]

So firstly, we must ask, "Has the good professor accurately represented how theists represent the definition of the term, "Faith?"

Well, a quick search in the forums here yielded this:

faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

And this:

Faith is believing something that science says is otherwise.

And a link to the definition of faith and in particular definition 2,

belief that is not based on proof​

So it seems as though yes, Boghossian uses the word "faith" the way a lot of theists do. It's not the only definition, certainly, but it's a common one, so it's reasonable for him to use it.

 

[arensb]

Yep. This looks to be a case of an author being accused of not addressing 'sophisticated' theology which no one actually follows.

For what it's worth, I've found that sophisticated theology isn't all that impressive, either.

 

[KCfromNC]

For what it's worth, I've found that sophisticated theology isn't all that impressive, either.

I put it in quotes for a reason.

 

[Uber Genius]

quick search in the forums here yielded this:

These are called anachronisms!

What Baghossian knows and every person who holds a PhD, you define a term based on it usage by exerts in the field.

So as Inhave pointed out in my thread, "Tricks Theists Paly (Part 1)" when theists say "evolution is just a theory," they are misrepresenting the concept of theory in a scientific sense of the word.

Now even if I found all atheist forums posts defining it anachronistically it wouldn't change the scientific definition one iota!

Similarly, Beghossians uses the least charitable definition.

As I mentioned, only fidiests hold this view.

It is a deliberate misrepresentation of trust.

Pistis has zero to do with how one knows a thing. It confuses an entailment, effect, from its cause!

Your bank trusts you to give you an unsecured loan after years of you paying on time and references, credit reports, audited accounting books all of which are evidence!

The gospels produce evidence and say we hope it leads to trust.

1. Claim -> Evidence > knowledge >

2. Claim -> Evidence > knowledge >

...

10. Claim -> Evidence > knowledge >

THEN FINALLY TRUST!

Just like we don't trust our spouse the first time we meet them, so too Christian trust is in a person we grow to trust over time with much a priori and aposteriori evidence.

So your defense of Beghossian's strawman is noted but fallacious.

In fact, Begoghossian, you, some ignorant Christians, the whole modern world could vote in favor of Beghossian's historically false definition but it wouldn't make it less anachronistic.

So it seems as though yes, Boghossian uses the word "faith" the way a lot of theists do. It's not the only definition, certainly, but it's a com

Rinse and repeat.

 

[arensb]

What Baghossian knows and every person who holds a PhD, you define a term based on it usage by exerts in the field.

Not necessarily. If he's arguing against what he considers to be an error made by ordinary people, not theologians, then it makes sense to use it in the sense used by ordinary people. Just as, if you're going to argue that "evolution is just a theory" is a bad argument then it makes sense to consider the word "theory" as it's used in common parlance, rather than by scientists.

As I mentioned, only fidiests hold this view.

So then do you agree that faith, as used by Boghossian, and by those you call fideists, is not a reliable way of figuring out what's true?

 

[Uber Genius]

Well, a quick search in the forums here yielded this:

And this:

And a link to the definition of faith and in particular definition 2,

belief that is not based on proof​

So it seems as though yes, Boghossian uses the word "faith" the way a lot of theists do. It's not the only definition, certainly, but it's a common one, so it's reasonable for him to use it.

Apparently you are cherry-picking the data that suits you. You'll love Boghossian then. He is a master at propaganda according to some of his atheist fellow philosophers.

You dodge the historic usage of the term altogether. Did you think we would miss that point?
You dodged the James 2 reference which if your point is correct then we would say that the demons had faith in God, but that is absurd as is your point.

Please look up the informal fallacy "Cherry-Picking," before commenting further. Also there are a whole list of logical dodges your might want to inform yourself on if you plan to read Boghossian's book. I could teach a logical fallacy class with just that one book.

There are some good objections to theism, unfortunately Boghossian has chosen fallacious objections easily dismissed. Sad that you have fallen for them.