Home

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Unfortunately, your objection to my point is off the mark. I obviously
expressed myself rather poorly.

I would not and do not exclude the possibility
of a supernatural explanation for any hypothetical ‘miracle’. I meant to infer
that fact when I wrote it would be ‘interesting process to find out what the
cause was.’ So no, there is no double-standard here.

What I would do, however, is remain highly
skeptical of any claims that the explanation IS supernatural (without excluding
the possibility altogether). My default position is the expectation that unusual
events have natural explanations, and that in the cases where no obvious
explanation exists, that the cause is natural but not yet understood by the
human mind. This is a function of my own experiences, as I am yet to encounter
anything resembling a miracle, nor have I been presented any substantial
evidence of a miracle occurring (putting aside the extremely long bow of drawing
the supposed cause (God) and effect (the miracle)). None of that excludes the
possibility of a supernatural explanation. It is, in fact, most likely the
exact same as your own position, given the complete and necessary sparseness of
miracles (if they were common, we ought to give them another name), and furthermore
the generally consistent presence of natural explanations for usual and unusual
events.

You say ‘even
in cases where all the evidence is against
naturalistic explanations’. Name me one. And once you’ve named it, tell me what
you are implying – if you mean that there are cases (miracles) with
supernatural explanations, are you also implying that the Christian God is
responsible for them? Surely you are, or the conversation is redundant. If you
are – then YES, the burden of proof is yours. That was my original point. I
might be startled by some unexplained event and profess no understanding of the
cause. But that is a claim about the ABSENCE of knowledge.  If you, or certainly other Christians, want to
fill that gap with ‘praise the Lord,’ then surely you have some vaguely
rational basis for doing so – and not just your desire to validate your system
of beliefs. (i.e., can you offer any specific evidence relating the two
concepts??).

There is a
detailed chronology of science’s ability to fill the gaps in areas of knowledge
that we previously plugged with ‘God’ (or at the very least, the ‘supernatural’).
I live in Tanzania at the moment – while 35% of Tanzanians are Christians, some
I have met still vaguely attribute thunderstorms to God, as lightening itself
is completely outside the bounds the of local understanding of science. This is
simply a demonstration that they have an absence of knowledge regarding the
climate.

And what I would certainly not do is what some
Christians do – which is to ASSUME that the cause of a miracle is God (assuming
the miracle was a positive one) and then use it to validate a belief in God.
Even if it only adds 1% to that whole belief (as you seem to be saying) it is
still a part of your belief’s foundation that has the potential to come
crashing down (as you acknowledge). It seems to me that this is the true double
standard, because if I was exposed to an ACTUAL miracle with ACTUAL evidence
that your God was responsible, then I would be quite compelled to change my
beliefs, yet you explicitly reject the reverse of this standard when applied to
yourself. Strange. And if you are not prepared to attribute miracles to God, or
you are not prepared to offer the slightest spec of evidence beyond ‘I have a
hunch,’ then we’re both wasting our time talking about it.  

But you also say ‘it would be quite unreasonable to think that
discrediting a random miracle would have any effect whatsoever on their faith.’
If this is true, then surely the argument is moot, because ‘random miracles’
have no sway over your faith (which begs the question why you attribute them to
God in the first place), and are therefore irrelevant to any apologetics
process. If I could demonstrate that all the Saints in history performed not
miracles but random science experiments, it would be meaningless if my
intention was to persuade you from your misguided beliefs. With respect to ‘miracles’
within the Christian community, there is probably some overlap between ‘statistically
improbable’ and ‘an act of God.’ An additional problem you have is the road
that other Christians have paved for you, including the pastor in Australia who
wholeheartedly professed that being cured of cancer without treatment was a
miracle (ostensibly, quite compelling) but was then found to be lying about the
whole thing.

I have a feeling that in this case you
are arguing for the sake of arguing. Fine, but to other Christians who think
that miracles exist and that God is responsible for them, I’d invite you to
first think long and hard about the basis for that claim, and if you stand by
it, to reflect on exactly how obscene your God is that he elects to perform
miracles, in hiding, for a chosen few, and allows so much suffering to go on without
lifting a finger.

In fact… the more I think about it, the more ridiculous your title seems. Your position is the definition of having your cake, and eating it too. Atheists need to free their minds and accept the possibility of the supernatural, but you aren’t prepared to put any weight on the meaning of the supernatural whatsoever! It won’t sway your beliefs, but it should sway mine?? Why!?

Appove

Tom, generally, you do not infer anything when writing or speaking, you imply. The reader or listener may infer something other than what you intended to imply, though.

Hey Tom…

I would not and do not exclude the possibility
of a supernatural explanation for any hypothetical ‘miracle’.

I’m glad to hear it. Are you familiar with Craig Keener’s new book on miracles? He documents a large number of verified cases. I think if you’re going to take a position of skepticism about miracles, you should do your due diligence and read Keener’s book first.

If you, or certainly other Christians, want to
fill that gap with ‘praise the Lord,’ then surely you have some vaguely rational basis for doing so – and not just your desire to validate your system of beliefs. (i.e., can you offer any specific evidence relating the two concepts??).

If I have a worldview which accounts for miracles very comfortably, why should I need to give additional evidence that miracles support my worldview when that is already obvious?

Sure, miracles could support some other supernaturalistic worldview as well. But I have arguments for why I believe my worldview is correct and those ones are not.

Moreover, it just seems churlish to concede, say, that when someone prays to Jesus and is healed, a miracle has indeed occurred—but then demand evidence that it supports Christianity as opposed to some other religion.

Btw, I can’t speak for other Christians, but for my own part I don’t use miracles to support my belief in Christianity. I use my belief in Christianity to explain miracles.

But you also say ‘it would be quite unreasonable to think that discrediting a random miracle would have any effect whatsoever on their faith.’
If this is true, then surely the argument is moot, because ‘random miracles’ have no sway over your faith (which begs the question why you attribute them to God in the first place), and are therefore irrelevant to any apologetics
process.

I don’t get what you’re saying here.

If I explain a miracle by recourse to my belief in God, because that seems the most reasonable explanation at the time, I don’t lose anything when my explanation is shown to be false due to unforeseen circumstances (fabrication, previously-unknown DNA sequences, etc).

Even though miracles obviously suit as evidence for Christianity if they are true, they don’t serve as evidence against Christianity if they turn out to be false.

reflect on exactly how obscene your God is that he elects to perform miracles, in hiding, for a chosen few, and allows so much suffering to go on without lifting a finger.

I’m curious why you think this makes God obscene. What’s your rationale for that? Do you think God has an obligation to reveal himself to everyone through miracles? And what is the relationship you seem to draw between God’s supposed hiddeness and human suffering?

Atheists need to free their minds and accept the possibility of the supernatural, but you aren’t prepared to put any weight on the meaning of the supernatural whatsoever! It won’t sway your beliefs, but it should sway mine?? Why!?

I’m afraid I don’t know what you’re getting at here. In what sense am I unwilling to put any weight on the “meaning” of the supernatural? Why do you think supernatural events won’t sway my beliefs—or, more pertinently, why do you think supernatural events would do anything except confirm my beliefs?

Hello again Bnonn!

I think you are correct that these issues are similar. As you point out, if the theory of Evolution as we understand it had a setback, then it would have to be re-evaluated. And it would depend on the severity of the setback as to how severe the implications were upon Evolution as a whole. Today evolution is so well evidenced, and by so much evidence that it is unlikely that any data could significantly bring the theory into doubt. It is still possible, though, however unlikely.

You start out your post by bringing up cases where all the evidence is against natural explanations, and then point out that a person – no matter their bias – should follow the evidence. However, what if I told you that the score or so people in my biology department had observed the abiogenesis of a simple living cell in the laboratory and so the matter is settled, abiogenesis is proven? The evidence in this isolated case is all FOR abiogenesis, and so you should accept it.

p

Thanks Guest
– good catch.

Bnonn – I’ll
look into the book – agree that it lends more credibility to my argument if I
go through that process. Although it’s worth keeping in mind what I think Peanut
is hinting at – I would be far more compelled to believe in miracles if I was
actually exposed to one. Further – I think this discussion draws a blank if I
find myself, after reading that book, simply to be less credulous than you. Lastly,
I tentatively suspect that while the strength of the documented evidence might
be persuasive with regards to ‘lots of unexplained things have happened,’ the
leap to ‘this is God’s work’ takes much more documentation, which is my
original point, and one you continue to sidestep.

‘If
I have a worldview which accounts for miracles very comfortably, why should I
need to give additional evidence that miracles support my worldview when that
is already obvious?’

Obvious to
you, but that seems like circular logic to me. And you needn’t give evidence,
certainly not for your own benefit – but if you want to make a persuasive argument
to connect God and His miracles, you need to give evidence to do that. You are essentially saying ‘sure, I believe in God, and the bible says there will be
miracles, so I believe (at least accept) that too – the evidence connecting
these beliefs is irrelevant (?)’ Again, I’ll repeat it – Christians, including
the previous blogger, think that miracles support their argument for the
existence and nature of God. If you want to make that argument in reverse, that’s
fine, but it does nothing to address the point I am making. Many Christians do
this:

See or hear
of something unusual;

Claim it to
be a miracle;

Praise the
Lord and thank him for performing the miracle.

As far as I
can tell, we agree that this sequence has some gaping holes in it. Perhaps what
you concede is that, without the overarching cosmological arguments (etc etc), this
pattern of attributing miracles to God is illogical and irrational. So, in and
of itself, the argument for miracles is unhelpful?

‘Moreover,
it just seems churlish to concede, say, that when someone prays to Jesus and is
healed, a miracle has indeed occurred—but then demand evidence that it supports
Christianity as opposed to some other religion.’

Sure – well I
don’t concede that. But for the sake of the hypothetical, if I did make that
argument, I wouldn’t be concerned with other religions, I would simply be
asking for the evidence that it supports the Christian faith. I can’t really
see why you object to non-Christians asking for the basis for claiming a
miracle to be the work of God. For any rational person seeking faith, that
avoidance of evidence in support of the argument amongst the Christian
community is a nail in the coffin.

‘Btw,
I can’t speak for other Christians, but for my own part I don’t use miracles to
support my belief in Christianity. I use my belief in Christianity to explain
miracles.’

Sure, it
sounds nice, and it’s more sophisticated, but also obtuse – you are conceding
that miracles neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. In that case,
you are at odds with many Christians, and the point of miracles, for you, is
void. Perhaps my comments are wasted on you.

I’m curious why you think this makes God obscene.
What’s your rationale for that? Do you think God has an obligation to reveal
himself to everyone through miracles? And what is the relationship you seem to
draw between God’s supposed hiddeness and human suffering?

Well, obviously
in a real sense I don’t think God has any obligations, you’ll appreciate that
to me that is equivalent to asking what obligations the tooth fairy has. In a hypothetical
sense, I think you’re probably being facetious. The comment before your quote
was with regards to Christians that attribute things like faith healing and
similar miracles, to God. If this were true, the reason it would make God
obscene is that I’m sitting in a lab right now with pious Christian HIV,
malaria and yellow fever patients outside, who have never been exposed to one
of God’s miracles, some of whom will likely die in pain quite soon. God’s
apparent preferential treatment of HIllsong members and WASPS is what makes him
obscene. He has no obligation to reveal himself, but the fact that we are
having this conversation is that he obviously chooses NOT to reveal himself to
some people, to most people, and that when he does (via miracles, as you
concede) it is mostly to people who are already expecting him. God could reveal
himself and heal all the sick people outside my window, probably saving my soul
in the process, yet he elects not to. You can make theological arguments to
explain away my complaint but I’m afraid they’re as ineffective to me as the
argument for miracles is.

However, what if I told you that the score or so people in my biology
department had observed the abiogenesis of a simple living cell in the
laboratory and so the matter is settled, abiogenesis is proven?

I’d be skeptical, but you should know that I’m not averse in principle to the concept of abiogenesis.

I think it’s prima facie improbable to the point of impossibility. But if it could be shown that a living organism of some kind can form from non-living organic chemicals (and this was, per standard scientific rigor, a repeatable phenomenon), it wouldn’t “break” anything for me.

It’s still a long leap from abiogenesis in the lab to abiogenesis on primordial earth. And a long leap from there to “goo-to-you” evolution.

To be honest, although I’m not studied in this area, I know enough people who are to think that your notion that evolution is so well-evidenced that it’s unlikely any data could bring it into doubt is remarkably naive. Then again, that confirms my suspicion that your general attitude toward contrary evidence is to ignore or dismiss it.

But evolution is another discussion entirely.

Hey Tom…

the leap to ‘this is God’s work’ takes much more documentation, which is my original point, and one you continue to sidestep.

I haven’t side-stepped it. I’ve simply denied that burden of proof. If there is a scientifically documented miracle immediately following Christian prayer in a Christian setting, then what reason is there not to assume causation? If you applied that level of skepticism to science in general, nothing would ever be “proven”, and we’d still be arguing about whether fire really ignites gunpowder.

you are conceding that miracles neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

I’m not sure what you mean by “prove”, since that tends to be a person-variable concept.

Miracles may well prove God’s existence to the person for whom God used miracles to produce faith.

On the other hand, miracles might only be interesting trivia to someone who’s already convinced of God’s existence.

And they might be unexplained phenomena to someone with strong reasons for disbelieving in God’s existence.

God’s apparent preferential treatment of HIllsong members and WASPS is what makes him obscene.

I don’t get it. That isn’t an explanation. You’re just repeating your original assertion that God only bestowing miracles on Westerners makes him obscene. But although I deny this happens anyway, why would it make God obscene if it did?

Hey Bnonn,

‘If there is a scientifically documented miracle immediately following
Christian prayer in a Christian setting, then what reason is there not
to assume causation? If you applied that level of skepticism to science
in general, nothing would ever be “proven”, and we’d still be arguing
about whether fire really ignites gunpowder.’

The first point I’m sure you recognise to be a classical fallacy ‘post hoc ergo proctor hoc.’ I suppose a Christian has no incentive ‘not to assume causation’ but that’s doesn’t remove your burden of proof. If I said, I thought about rain, and then it rained, therefore I can make it rain, I might have no reason ‘not to assume causation.’ But my assertion that I can make it rain doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny. Furthermore, if I wished to assert outright that my ability to make it rain had metaphysical connotations that affect literally every human on earth, then I should be prepared to and expect to provide some proof.

“I’m not sure what you mean by “prove”, since that tends to be a person-variable concept.

Miracles may well prove God’s existence to the person for whom God used miracles to produce faith.

On the other hand, miracles might only be interesting trivia to someone who’s already convinced of God’s existence.

And they might be unexplained phenomena to someone with strong reasons for disbelieving in God’s existence.”

Yes, that’s well put. The problem is that God either exists or he does not. That truth isn’t person-specific.  So to say ‘miracles prove god’s existence’ to the witness is a pretty useless statement in the overall discussion. It opens the floodgates to non-universal truths. All you’re really conceding is that performance of miracles is unhelpful in discussion of God’s existence. You picked my comment from a previous post in which I was specifically arguing this point. I’m quite happy for you to categorise the perception of miracles as you have here, and not use miracles to verify the existence of God. Ad nauseum, my point is that to use miracles as verification of the existence of God to anyone less credulous than a Christian, you have to provide some proof or evidence of causation. It’s inescapable. If you want to test the fact, try it out on any other rational atheist and see how far you can swing them toward Christianity without evidence.

The first point I’m sure you recognise to be a classical fallacy ‘post
hoc ergo proctor hoc.’ I suppose a Christian has no incentive ‘not to
assume causation’ but that’s doesn’t remove your burden of proof.

Since all of science works on the fallacy of post hoc ergo proctor hoc, this either proves too much or too little for you. It just looks like special pleading when you won’t let the Christian assume causation in one instance, but you let science in general assume it in other similar instances.

All you’re really conceding is that performance of miracles is unhelpful in discussion of God’s existence.

I don’t think I’ve conceded this at all. Rather, I’ve acknowledged that miracles are unhelpful in discussion of God’s existence with people who are unreasonably skeptical of miracles. That’s a fairly uninteresting statement.

I’m not sure what to make of your inability to address my argument  in any meaningful way. Given that

(a) – I’m not a complete idiot, and
(b) – I’m a fairly reasonable person

The fact that discussing this with you has made me even less credulous at both the concept of God-created miracles, and the ability of Christians to prove such miracles in any way at all, makes me think that you probably either can’t explain or don’t understand this particular component of Christianity. At least a Christian with some conviction might offer ‘it’s my spiritual understanding’ or something similar.

‘Since all of science works on the fallacy of post hoc ergo proctor hoc,
this either proves too much or too little for you. It just looks like
special pleading when you won’t let the Christian assume causation in
one instance, but you let science in general assume it in other similar
instances.’

Well, much of science is focused on understanding the relationship between cause and affect. Your aversion to science is a little bizarre. It’s a hilarious idea that I am the one undertaking special pleading. Why on earth would any sane person let a Christian get away with claiming that an unexplained phenomenon is the work of God, without even a sniff of an attempt to explain or even link the two things beyond your hunch?? There’s lightening, it must be a miracle from God. In your world, there is nothing wrong with that statement – woe betide anyone who either attempts to link lightening to God, or searches for alternative solutions.

Hi Bnonn,

I’m disappointed to hear that you think that my understanding of the theory of evolution is ‘remarkably naive’. Unfortunately it is your remarks here which are remarkably naive! You speak of contrary evidence to evolution and my dismissal of these, but the academic field of biology is the best indicator of the theory, just as the physics field is the best indicator of Einstein’s gravity, and it is incredibly strong. But no doubt you don’t think the academic field is the best indicator, which is crazy frankly.

“I’d be skeptical”

Good, since you hadn’t verified it for yourself.

“and this was, per standard scientific rigor, a repeatable phenomenon”

But what if these people claimed that it wasn’t repeatable? Why would that not be okay? And why is it okay for christians to claim that their miracles aren’t repeatable?

It occurs to me that the game of the person who wants to believe things for which there is little or no evidence is to continually keep things unfalsifiable and unverifiable. That way no matter how anything turns out they can always justify their beliefs. Can you make any falsifiable statements Bnonn? Do you have knowledge of anything at all which, if it wasn’t for your ‘correct’ worldview, you wouldn’t otherwise know? If there isn’t anything, then what is the value of your worldview apart from warm fuzzies via delusion? If there is, please make some predictions. If you can’t then I should probably do the only rational thing – walk away and ignore you.
 

why is it okay for christians to claim that their miracles aren’t repeatable?

Since miracles are, by definition, a suspension of natural laws, it doesn’t make sense to expect them to be repeatable. That doesn’t mean they can’t be well-documented when they occur, though.

But your example of abiogenesis operates within natural laws; indeed, is governed by them. So if it could not be replicated, then the original experiment would be cast in doubt.

It occurs to me that the game of the person who wants to believe things
for which there is little or no evidence is to continually keep things
unfalsifiable and unverifiable.

Go ahead and investigate the evidence for miracles yourself. You can’t just keep throwing out “little or no evidence” as if that’s an accepted fact. It simply isn’t. You’re begging the question, and that’s all.

Can you make any falsifiable statements Bnonn?

Since much of the Bible is historical narrative of one kind or another, there are plenty of falsifiable statements in it. Unfortunately, no one so far has falsified any.

Do you have knowledge of anything at all which, if it wasn’t for your ‘correct’ worldview, you wouldn’t otherwise know?

The gospel…? I don’t get what you’re driving at. Obviously Christianity contains myriad unique truth-claims that, if indeed true, cannot be known in any other way than via God’s revelation in Scripture.

If there isn’t anything, then what is the value of your worldview apart from warm fuzzies via delusion?

Even if there wasn’t anything (which I deny), why do you imply that the only value of a worldview is to furnish knowledge we wouldn’t otherwise have?

The primary value of Christianity is in the salvation it offers. Surely eternal life is more valuable than eternal damnation + trivia.

And what about explanatory power as well? Doesn’t the explanatory power of a worldview count for anything?

Tom, this comment got caught in the queue for some reason. Sorry about that.

Anyway, I deny that the generally accepted variable in morality is the wellbeing of conscious creatures. That just seems to beg the question in favor of utilitarianism, which is an unsustainable moral framework.

Jesus prompts us to feed the poor, be charitable, comfort the sick.

Which is why Christians believe we are obliged to do these things—because God commands it. That is what the “variable” is for Christians.

However, it goes without saying that while God commands these things, he himself has the ability to fullfil them instantly. He could have created  world without suffering in the first place. So your comment that “God therefore implicitly permits suffering and chooses NOT to reduce it in certain places” seems, at best, naive. Why not just make the much stronger objection that God should not permit suffering at all?

You’re basically just rehashing the problem of evil, with a specific focus on miracles in the West thrown in as red herring. Perhaps not intentionally, but that’s what it amounts to—clearly your larger concern is with God allowing suffering in the first place. But that’s a dead-end argument, as I’ve discussed in the past.

“Since miracles are, by definition, a suspension of natural laws, it doesn’t
make sense to expect them to be repeatable.

Yes it does! If christianity is true then I would expect that praying to
Jesus would yeild results. If praying to Jesus actually works then this is a
miracle in that it wouldn’t have happened if the person hadn’t prayed to Jesus.
So, would you be prepared to put your money where your mouth is? Could you
outline an investigation/study that you would expect would display christianity
as outshining the rest in the area of prayer? But I’m not talking about past events or after-the-fact-reasoning like the bible or that miracle book you mention – there is a book for everything – I’m
talking about a study, an experiment.

“why do you imply that the only value of a worldview is to furnish knowledge
we wouldn’t otherwise have?”

Actually try to come up with a worldview which doesn’t give a person
knowledge that they wouldn’t otherwise have. You won’t be able to.

“The primary value of Christianity is in the salvation it offers.”
That is knowledge, but it’s conveniently invisible, so unless you are prepared to make a measureable prediction about it, it’s as valid as reincarnation.

“And what about explanatory power as well? Doesn’t the explanatory power
of a worldview count for anything?”
Not so much. I’m sure I could come up with a religion which explains much more than christianity. I wouldn’t stop at the rainbow I’d go on to explain why leaves are flat, why rocks are hard and many, many other just so after-the-fact stories. Then my religion would explain the most!
What matters is falsifiability. The future. So, please, outline a study.

Hey Peanut…

Yes it does! If christianity is true then I would expect that praying to
Jesus would yeild results.

I take it you mean that prayer should always be efficacious within a certain timeframe. That seems to be what you’re implying when you say “if praying to Jesus actually works”. What I’m curious about is why you think Christianity predicts such an outcome.

Since we’re applying the scientific method here, the hypothesis is presumably something along the following lines:

If Christianity is true, praying to Jesus for healing will produce such healing within a certain timeframe, while not praying will not.

But since Christianity’s theology of prayer does not predict such an outcome, this seems like a bad hypothesis. God is not an adult substitute for Santa—you don’t write him a letter when you want something and then wait for it to be delivered. Prayer is primarily a means of developing a relationship with and reliance upon God. Not all prayers are answered, not all prayers are answered immediately (indeed, the Bible places some value on perseverance in prayer), and not all prayers are answered in the way we expect.

Even given these basic facts, let alone all the other variables involved, I don’t see any way that prayer could be reliably tested using the scientific method. We need to look to other kinds of evidence. And of that, there is far more than can be dismissed without prejudice.

Actually try to come up with a worldview which doesn’t give a person
knowledge that they wouldn’t otherwise have. You won’t be able to… [salvation] is knowledge, but it’s conveniently invisible

I think I see what you’re getting at here. You’re saying that the primary purpose of any given worldview is to furnish some uniquely valuable knowledge? Like salvation, for example? I’m curious what the primary purpose of an atheistic worldview is in that case.

I’m not sure what you mean by “invisible” knowledge here. Do you just mean knowledge which cannot be empirically tested? It’s hard to see why that should be a problem, since much of our most fundamental knowledge cannot be empirically tested.

I’m sure I could come up with a religion which explains much more than christianity.

Really? You think you can do better than thousands of years of attempts by some of the greatest thinkers and philosophers the world has seen? Go on then.

Bear in mind that you’re going to have to plausibly explain issues like subjective experience, the unity/plurality problem, the vast plethora of miracle reports, the reliability of the senses, the ontology of moral norms, the correlation of the senses to reality, the explicability of the empirical universe, why empirical laws can be modeled using mental rules, the origin and nature of logic, and so on.

I think you really haven’t considered the implications of that little off-hand remark :)

“Yes
it does! If christianity is true then I would expect that praying to
Jesus would yeild results.”

I agree.
A number of studies have been done on intercediary prayer (especially relating
to the health of participants, given the tendency for quack pastors to claim
healing powers) and revealed the complete absence of a correlation. In fact the
last study I read of found that those who received prayer and KNEW they were
receiving it had MORE complications following equivalent surgery, than did
other control groups.

Bnonn,
you are a frustrating sounding board for these ideas. First, it’s worth
pointing out something you are already well aware of – that you are absolutely
at odds with a large number (dare I say, majority) of others who call
themselves Christians – who have completely different expectations when it
comes to prayer, and a completely different interpretation of miracles.
Conceding this (as I’m sure you do) your only option is to claim a higher or at
least more nuanced understanding of Christianity than that of your peers. Implied, it
must be nice that God has revealed himself more entirely to you than to others
(oh yes, I enjoyed writing that line).

‘But
since Christianity’s theology of prayer does not
predict such an outcome’

According
to you. I’ve been to at least 8 churches in Auckland and Brisbane that predict
exactly such an outcome.

More to
the point, however, you are simply hedging your bets – so that, as Peanut indicates,
nothing you claim is falsifiable. Eternal salvation might be the entire point
but it also one of the least demonstrable components of Christianity in a
natural law (i.e. real world) sense. Because you cannot demonstrate what
happens when we die beyond a theologically inspired hunch, agnostics and
atheists take a great deal of interest in the aspects of faith that ARE
falsifiable (specifically, how God intervenes in our lives on earth, and how he
does not). This component of Christianity is, in fact, the only aspect myself
and other atheists are interested in, given we discount spending eternity on a
cloud with our grandparents as a likely outcome of death. When it comes to this
component, I find myself unable to nail you or any other Christian down on
specifics – because as soon as you say ‘oh yes, God does x, y and z,’ it
becomes disputable, and also verifiable. In my view, you and other Christians adapt God to suit your own situation. Good or bad, fair or unfair, happy or not, God is doing exactly what he should be. Frankly, were I a good person and a Christian, I would expect more from God than you seem to.

Prayer
is primarily a means of developing a relationship with and reliance upon God.
Not all prayers are answered, not all prayers are answered immediately (indeed,
the Bible places some value on perseverance in prayer), and not all prayers are
answered in the way we expect.

You say ‘answered
in the way we expect.’ Why on earth do you have any expectations at all, given
the outcome of prayer is both random and often completely out odds with what
you are praying for? In your framework, I might just as well pray that I get
sicker than I already am. But I agree – we would develop a dependency on God if
we used him to fill up all the uncertainties that surround us. If the bible
places value on perseverance, then surely that is because in the long run
prayers may be answered? This too would be falsifiable, but for your remaining
caveat – ‘not answered in the way we expect.’ That is a complete non-statement.
If we permit ‘God works in mysterious ways’ into the argument, then all bets
are off. Essentially, the value of prayer to you is that it provides emotional
stability via your id.

I’m
curious what the primary purpose of an atheistic worldview is in that case.

Lastly,
you should surely by now know that there is no such thing as ‘an atheistic
world view.’ Non-belief in something cannot be the basis of a world view. You
have an ‘atheistic world view’ if that is the case, given your consistent rejection
of Thor and Mohammed.

Hey Tom…

A number of studies have been done on intercediary prayer

I’ve already given my view on the soundness of scientifically investigating prayer, so there’s not much to say here.

Implied, it must be nice that God has revealed himself more entirely to you than to others

Or implied, I’m simply better schooled than most Christians. So what?

I’ve been to at least 8 churches in Auckland and Brisbane that predict exactly such an outcome.

The way you say this makes it sound like an objection. But we both agree that these churches are wrong—and we even agree on at least one of the proofs for why (the empirical evidence). So I’m puzzled about what your objection is.

Many atheists disagree with you on certain issues as well. Does that mean I should doubt that you are right if I’ve studied the same issues and come to the same conclusions you have?

More to the point, however, you are simply hedging your bets – so that, as Peanut indicates, nothing you claim is falsifiable.

I’ve already given ample examples of claims that Christianity makes which are absolutely falsifiable. I just don’t think the fulfillment of prayer is one of them.

we discount spending eternity on a cloud with our grandparents as a likely outcome of death.

So do Christians, so that’s another point of agreement we have.

Frankly, were I a good person and a Christian, I would expect more from God than you seem to.

How do you mean?

In your framework, I might just as well pray that I get sicker than I already am

It’s hard to believe you’re not deliberately misunderstanding. Just because God doesn’t always give us the answer we were hoping for doesn’t mean we should ask for things we don’t want. How does that follow?

If we permit ‘God works in mysterious ways’ into the argument, then all bets are off.

So much the worse for your desire to test prayer empirically I guess. But since it is simply a truism that we don’t always understand how and why God works, for the obvious reason that we are not God and he has not told us, I’m afraid you’re just going to have to deal with it.

Essentially, the value of prayer to you is that it provides emotional stability via your id.

Sure, if you’re going to beg the question by assuming God’s non-existence, then reinterpret prayer according to your knowledge of pop psychology, then that’s exactly the value of prayer.

you should surely by now know that there is no such thing as ‘an atheistic world view.’ Non-belief in something cannot be the basis of a world view.

Firstly, casting the issue in terms of non-belief is a standard rhetorical tactic, but a transparently tendentious one. In fact, you do not merely lack belief in God, but you disbelieve in him.

Secondly, the evidence clearly contradicts you, in that there are numerous atheists who define their worldviews in terms of disbelief in God. So I’m not sure what to say except point out this obvious fact.

Thirdly, even if disbelief (or non-belief) in something could not be the basis of a worldview, it doesn’t follow that there is no such thing as an atheistic worldview. Obviously there is: any worldview which does not incorporate theistic assumptions is an a-theistic worldview. Again, this is obvious so it’s pretty strange that you make this claim.

You have an ‘atheistic world view’ if that is the case, given your consistent rejection of Thor and Mohammed.

I think you need to go and revisit your definition of atheism. Disbelieving in one kind of theism because I favor another kind does not make me an atheist O.o

We could play this
game all day…

“I’ve already given my
view on the soundness of scientifically investigating prayer, so there’s not
much to say here.”

By that I assume you
mean there is no validity in testing the outcome of prayer… because it’s
entirely random, or non-quantifiable, or in fact will disprove the Christian
position that prayer has any tangible impact in terms of direct outcomes (i.e,
what it is that you’re praying for). I mean ‘praying for strength’ is one
thing, but it’s entirely indiscernible from non-religious practices such as
meditation, and therefore has no use as a tool for validating God’s existence.
While you may not use it for such purposes, most other Christians I know do,
and seeing as I wouldn’t be going to church with you, but rather them, your
unique position is unhelpful. Further, if you will put absolutely no weight on
the outcome of prayer (I want to get better, I pray, nothing happens), then
perhaps the purpose of prayer is ENTIRELY the building of the relationship with
God, as you hinted? I would be happy with that as a position to argue against,
but it begs the question of why bother requesting any specific when you pray in
the first place.

“Or implied, I’m
simply better schooled than most Christians. So what?”

It may be too opaque
for you to see it, but the fundamental and almost complete fracturing of ‘Christianity’
into contradictory beliefs is a very strong reason for non-Christians to
dismiss it as a viable world view. You can’t even agree amongst yourselves! Not
even close to it. In fact, as an apologist, YOU can’t even persuade people who
ALREADY THINK THEY AGREE WITH YOU to concede fundamental and absolutely basic
doctrinal points. Given your emphasis seems to be on emotions rather than
outcomes when it comes to prayer and miracles, I will admit to you that I find
other Christians, who disagree with you on these points, far more persuasive in
a relative sense about the merits and truths of Christianity. People I know
working for refugees in Uganda, for example. This is at least food for your
thoughts, assuming that the salvation of lost souls (and not just your own) is
a relevant goal for you, ‘being a Christian.’

“The way you say this makes it sound like an
objection. But we both agree that these churches are wrong—and we even agree on
at least one of the proofs for why (the empirical evidence). So I’m puzzled about what your
objection is.”

As above. Given that
this is such a common ‘misconception’ for so very many Christians, I’m a little
concerned you will be somewhat lonely in Heaven.

“Many atheists disagree with you on certain issues as well. Does that mean I
should doubt that you are right if I’ve studied the same issues and come to the
same conclusions you have?”

No, and I think you continue
to misunderstand this basic point on atheism. I don’t anticipate identifying
with other atheists in any way, beyond an obvious non-belief. I would direct
you to Dawkins or preferably Harris on this matter. See here:

“The entirety of atheism is
contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view
of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we
live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle.
The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a
thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It
is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.”  - Harris

“we discount spending eternity on a cloud with
our grandparents as a likely outcome of death.

So do Christians, so
that’s another point of agreement we have.”

For one, you are
missing my point – simply that ‘going to heaven’ is a useless claim to a
rational person seeking truth and wanting evidence. But, for the record, this
adds to MY original, which is that what happens when you die, apparently the
entire point, is another universal point of contention AMONGST CHRISTIANS! Ask
two Christians what heaven looks like, see if you get the same answer. 

“Frankly, were I a good person and a
Christian, I would expect more from God than you seem to.

How do you mean?

In your framework, I might just as well pray
that I get sicker than I already am

It’s hard to believe you’re not deliberately misunderstanding. Just because God
doesn’t always give us the answer we were hoping for doesn’t mean we should ask
for things we don’t want. How does that
follow?

“So much the worse for
your desire to test prayer empirically I guess. But since it is simply a truism
that we don’t always understand how and why God works, for the obvious reason
that we are not God and he has not told us, I’m afraid you’re just going to
have to deal with it.”

Unfortunately, the Bible
disagrees with you here. John 15:7. God expects you to pray to him, expects you
to ask for things, and expects to give them to you. Or else, here you go: http://www.allaboutprayer.org/prayer-in-the-bible-faq.htm

“Sure, if you’re going
to beg the question by assuming God’s non-existence, then reinterpret prayer
according to your knowledge of pop psychology, then that’s exactly the value of
prayer.”

I’m not assuming God’s
non-existence – that’s the point, I’m looking for evidence. Despite what other
Christians, not to mention the bible, say about prayer, you are saying it’s not
a relevant part of the search.

“Firstly, casting the issue in terms of non-belief is a standard rhetorical
tactic, but a transparently tendentious one. In fact, you do not merely lack belief in God, but you disbelieve in him.”

I do not believe in
the Christian god. Also, I don’t believe in Santa Claus. My non-belief in Santa
Claus is not a worldview. The fact that the Christian God is obviously more
complex, complete and apparently misunderstood does not make non-belief in him
a world view, it just makes belief in him, in and of itself, a more entire
world view for the believer. So what? Re-read the Harris quote.

“Secondly, the evidence clearly contradicts you, in that there are numerous
atheists who define their worldviews in terms of disbelief in God. So I’m not
sure what to say except point out this obvious fact.”

Name me one.
Non-belief in God is inconsequential in forming your worldview, if you don’t
believe in him! Rejecting the biblical framework is a pretty useless starting
point in deciding what you DO believe. I’m not going to hell for thinking
impure thoughts… I’m also not going to meet 72 virgins if I fly myself into a
building full of Christians. Were it true, maybe I would consider it, but the
obvious fact that it isn’t true isn’t useful in FORMING my world view. Re-read
the Harris quote.

“Thirdly, even if disbelief (or non-belief) in something could not be the basis
of a worldview, it doesn’t follow that there is no such thing as an atheistic
worldview. Obviously there is: any worldview which does not incorporate
theistic assumptions is an a-theistic worldview. Again, this is obvious so it’s
pretty strange that you make this claim.”

You’re tying yourself
in knots. Atheism is only necessary because of theism. It is not what defines
my world view any more than disbelief in alchemy does. You’re giving
Christianity, and archaic theism in general, too much credit here, I fear. Essentially
– my world view is not defined by my atheism, so I would not accept having my
worldview defined primarily by non-belief in something. Surely you can see why
an atheist objects to being defined first and foremost by what they DON’T
believe.

“I think you need to go and revisit your definition of atheism.”

Ditto.

Hey Tom…

seeing as I wouldn’t be going to church with you, but rather them, your unique position is unhelpful.

I don’t mean to be unhelpful. I just don’t know what you’re looking for here. Okay, so some Christians mistakenly think prayer is an apologetic tool as well as a sanctification tool. What do you want to say to those Christians? Are you looking for a theological refutation? I recommend Vincent Cheung’s Prayer and Revelation: www.vincentcheung.com/books/prayrevel.pdf.

if you will put absolutely no weight on the outcome of prayer (I want to get better, I pray, nothing happens), then perhaps the purpose of prayer is ENTIRELY the building of the relationship with God, as you hinted?

That would follow if it was always the case that prayer was causally inert, as it were. But since that’s not the case, it doesn’t follow.

It may be too opaque for you to see it, but the fundamental and almost complete fracturing of ‘Christianity’ into contradictory beliefs is a very strong reason for non-Christians to dismiss it as a viable world view.

Am I to take it that you think the mere existence of disagreement mitigates against the possibility of discovering truth? Shall I go ahead and disagree with you then, so that you can’t think this is true any more? Might save you a lot of headaches in future.

You can’t even agree amongst yourselves! Not even close to it.

Since I don’t know why you think we should agree among ourselves, I can’t really comment. To me, the obvious reply is simply, “So what?”

This is at least food for your thoughts, assuming that the salvation of lost souls (and not just your own) is a relevant goal for you, ‘being a Christian.’

The only way this is food for thought is if you presuppose I’m wrong about the purpose of prayer. But since I maintain that prayer doesn’t have apologetic or evangelical value, except perhaps as related to miracles in specific situations, the fact that I’m discussing it with you is obviously unrelated to my wishing to convince you of the truth of Christianity.

Sometimes it’s worthwhile to correct people’s understanding of theology, regardless of whether they believe that theology.

Given that this is such a common ‘misconception’ for so very many Christians, I’m a little concerned you will be somewhat lonely in Heaven.

Why do you think that believing the wrong thing about prayer has any bearing on one’s salvation? I’d need to see the argument for this implication to even be able to comment. As it is, your statement (yet again) just doesn’t follow.

I don’t anticipate identifying with other atheists in any way, beyond an obvious non-belief.

Really? You don’t anticipate identifying with their belief in evolution, their position on the nature of morality, their respect for science, and so on? You wouldn’t feel like someone was “letting down the team” if he believed in the supernatural (just not God) or used Christian arguments against the age of the earth?

Okay. But the fact remains that Harris’s comments about atheism not being a view of the world are kinda obviously self-refuting.

‘going to heaven’ is a useless claim to a rational person seeking truth and wanting evidence.

It’s only useless if you presuppose that there’s no such thing as sin or God or heaven or hell. It’s pretty useful if, in fact, those things do exist. And since there is plenty of evidence for Christianity—as indicated, for a start, by the fact that many of the world’s greatest thinkers both today and throughout history are Christians—there’s no problem with providing it.

Ask two Christians what heaven looks like, see if you get the same answer.

Since the Bible furnishes us with absolutely no concrete descriptions of heaven, the only correct answer is silence. All we know about heaven is that we will be in the presence of God, and it will be better than we can imagine.

Unfortunately, the Bible disagrees with you here. John 15:7. God expects you to pray to him, expects you to ask for things, and expects to give them to you.

Since you haven’t exegeted the passage, there’s nothing for me to respond to. I don’t recall ever denying that God expects us to pray to him, that he expects us to ask for things, or that he expects to give them to us. I’ve simply not taken a naively unqualified position.

I’m not assuming God’s non-existence – that’s the point, I’m looking for evidence.

You’re looking in the wrong place.

My non-belief in Santa Claus is not a worldview.

If millions of people seriously believed in Santa, then asantaism would be a worldview. Your analogy is transparently disanalagous.

Name me one.

Just about any new atheist patently takes the following approach to defining his reality:

1. Assume there is no God
2. Hate him.

The fact that new atheists like Harris and Dawkins claim not to define their worldviews in terms of disbelief in God doesn’t make the slightest difference to what they actually do. Frankly, I think you need to be very credulous to take their word for it in the teeth of the obvious evidence of their actions. Anyone with eyes can see that they’re consumed by defining their worldviews in negative terms against God. “The End of Faith”, “The God Delusion”, “God is Not Great”, “Letter to a Christian Nation”, “Godless”, “The End of Christianity”. Come on, you’re a smart guy. Why are you denying the obvious?

It is not what defines my world view any more than disbelief in alchemy does.

If you spent as much time debating alchemists on alchemy blogs, I’d be more inclined to believe you. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests you’re just kidding yourself. As William Lane Craig observes,

“I think they hang onto this [definition] because it excuses them from engaging in the intellectual hard work of trying to justify their position. They don’t have to offer then any justification for what they believe. They just say, ‘well I lack this belief.’ And it’s really intellectual laziness.”

And you might want to read what philosopher Bill Vallicella has to say about this “terminological mischief”: http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2011/05/against-terminological-mischief-negative-atheism-and-negative-nominalism.html

That’s all I’ll say on the topic, though, since it’s really neither here nor there.

Bnonn.

“Prayer is primarily a means of developing a relationship with and reliance upon God.”

Okay, so we can work with this. What would you expect would be the measurable effects of developing a relationship and reliance upon god? We can then do a study and compare these effects with people who pray within other religions, and with people who meditate etc. So, what would you say are the measurable effects of praying to the christian god?

“We need to look to other kinds of evidence.”

Like the evidence for reincarnation, yes?
http://www.amazon.com/Exploring-Reincarnation-Evidence-Past-Life-Experiences/dp/0712660208/ref=sr_1_sc_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330128392&sr=1-2-spell

“I think I see what you’re getting at here. You’re saying that the
primary purpose of any given worldview is to furnish some uniquely valuable knowledge? Like salvation, for example? I’m curious what the primary purpose of an atheistic worldview is in that case.”

Well, True knowledge. Knowledge which accurately reflects the Real World. And if one has True knowledge about the Real World then one should be able to predict things. Like salvation as you point out. If your worldview is True then you should be correct that there is an afterlife. Unfortunately though, the purported afterlife is shielded from objective observation. It’s conveniently unfalsifiable And it had to be, for if wasn’t it would be proven false and religion would have to drop it.
The atheistic view furnishes me with plenty of falsifiable claims, like the claim that prayer will be as effective in any religion, since there is no god.

“Really? You think you can do better than thousands of years of attempts
by some of the greatest thinkers and philosophers the world has seen? Go
on then.”
Er…I don’t think that philosophers were trying to invent a religion. L. Ron Hubbard did it though!

“Bear in mind that you’re going to have to plausibly explain…”

Hehehe, it’s funny that you unabashedly use the word ‘plausibly’. Adherents of other religions hold their explanations as being as plausible as you do yours, and think their reasons are objective just as you do. But I don’t count my worldview along with religions because my worldview is falsifiable.

P.S. I almost forgot to adress this:

“It’s hard to see why that should be a problem, since much of our most fundamental knowledge cannot be empirically tested.”

I would like to know what knowledge you mean here. I can’t think of any knowledge that can’t be tested empirically.

But I don’t count my worldview along with religions because my worldview is falsifiable.

Please explain how atheism – the belief that there is no God(s)/ lack of belief in God(s) – is falsifiable?

Hi Bsquibs,

The theory that there is no god predicts many things which are testable and falsifiable. For instance, my knowledge that there is no god would be falsified if: God revealed himself to me, miracles reliably occurred when praying to god, prayer studies revealed that prayer actually works, evolution had poor evidence and species looked like they were just created independently, evidence that the world/universe was only six thousand years old, people got what they deserved – innocent people weren’t tortured to death, and on and on.

Oh come now Peanut. God revealing himself to you would not falsify atheism. It would falsify your belief in atheism. When atheists are converted to Christianity through an experience of God, other atheists dismiss it as a delusion.

If miracles occurred reliably when praying to God, that would not falsify atheism. Rather, atheists would take this as evidence of some natural ability we have to cause seemingly supernatural events, which is triggered in certain conditions.

Evolution does have poor evidence, and species do look like they were just created independently. So obviously that doesn’t falsify atheism—at least not for atheists.

How would evidence for a young earth falsify atheism?

And as for people getting what they deserve, firstly that isn’t falsifiable in principle, since what people deserve is not the purview of science. And secondly, since Christianity holds that people get what they deserve at the final judgment, you can’t say this has been falsified anyway without begging the question.

You’re just taking some ad hoc objections to Christianity and pretending they’re evidence for atheism. But they’re not. I wonder if you even understand the scientific method if you think falsifying these kinds of evidence would falsify atheism.

I would like to know what knowledge you mean here. I can’t think of any knowledge that can’t be tested empirically.

How about your knowledge that a world exists independently of you? How about your knowledge that your senses are accurate? How about your knowledge about the regularity of nature? C’mon.

More later.

Bnonn,

Oooh, that was quick!

Um, yeap, certainly if god revealed himself to me it would only change my mind, though it might open up people who know me who are atheists a little, depending on the experience I could relate I guess.

But I think that atheists are right to dismiss people’s experiences of god, because for everyone who claims to have had an experience there is another claiming contrary things in another religion.

“If miracles occurred reliably when praying to God, that would not
falsify atheism. Rather, atheists would take this as evidence of some
natural ability we have to cause seemingly supernatural events, which is
triggered in certain conditions.”

This is completely incorrect. We would easily be able to tell the difference. One only needs to pray to ‘the universe’ or grass or plato and receive no supernatural happening to tell the difference.

“Evolution does have poor evidence, and species do look like they were
just created independently. So obviously that doesn’t falsify atheism—at
least not for atheists.”

I…….all I can do is marvel at the ignorance of your statement about poor evidence, Bnonn. I have a great book I can send you, written by a catholic biologist, if you wish. Most religious people just seem ignorant about just how much evidence there is. I have opened up a few eyes with it.

But species look like others, and have vestigial organs, and their genetics are telling. (I’m ignoring archeological evidence here.)
For example, one of our chromosomes (#3 I  think) is the fusing of two chromosomes of chimps – heck there are even the remnants of the ‘start’ and ‘stop’ sequences where they fused! If species’ did not evolve from common ancestors and were created in situ I would expect that their genetics would be very different, and I CERTAINLY wouldn’t expect to see fused chromosomes.
Like most/all(?) land mammals, whales and dolphins have one bone, then two bones, then five bones on their fins. And they’re mammals! If they were created in situ I would expect that they would have fins like fish, who do fine without those bones, and I certainly wouldn’t expect to find the suspicious fact that the sea animals which have this bone pattern are mammals.
Why do the most intelligent non-human species look like us? That’s suspicious.

“How would evidence for a young earth falsify atheism?”

You’re right I’m conflating ideas a bit. But for one thing, if the earth was only, say, six thousand years old then that wouldn’t leave nearly enough time for species’ to have evolved from common ancestors, and so the likelihood that species were zapped into place by a god becomes much more probable.

“And as for people getting what they deserve, firstly that isn’t falsifiable in principle…”

You’re right here in that I haven’t made a statement about atheism being falsifiable, I have made a statement about what I would expect if there was a god. Sorry.

“I wonder if you even understand the scientific method if you think falsifying these kinds of evidence would falsify atheism.”

They would, I’m afraid. If praying to god yeilded results, if species looked like they were created, if the universe looked very young, and if god revealed himself to me – all of these things would go quite a way towards falsifying atheism (for me).

Bnonn,

“I would like to know what knowledge you mean here. I can’t think of any knowledge that can’t be tested empirically.”

“How about your knowledge that a world exists independently of you?
How about your knowledge that your senses are accurate? How about your
knowledge about the regularity of nature? C’mon.”

I’m afraid your thinking here is a little off. I have a very good answers to these. I’m sure you’ll agree with me once I explain.
For your first question, presumably you believe that you know that the world exists independent of you. But how do you know? What did you use to determine this? Whatever you used – it doesn’t matter what – how do you know that it is not just a phantasm of your own self? Answer: you can’t. You can’t know the answer to this question any more than anyone else can!
Unless you claim to have some sense that I do not. And even if you do claim this, how do you know you can trust it?

Now why don’t I, as a non-theist, just start shooting people at random since they might just be imaginary anyway? The answer is NOT because I believe that they are Real despite my not knowing whether they are or not. The answer is that I have had a realistic definition of “Real” all along. A definition that is rooted in this world, not some imaginary one.

Notice how your first question belongs to a little class of statements/questions called the Unfalsifiable. There is no way to falsify it. None at all! Because anything that you might think you know could just be something that is not independent of you. And because it is completely indeterminable, no knowledge can come from it. KNOWLEDGE CAN ONLY COME FROM THE FALSIFIABLE. Which is to say, things that are empirical.

Your second question is essentially the same as the first.

Your third question seems to assume that you have some knowledge about the regularity of nature that I do not. Even if you were told by god “nature will be regular” (and you could somehow determine that this was independent of yourself (question one)), you still would not be able to predict anything better than I can, and so this is not knowledge either!

I trust that you will agree with my points here. But I am worried that you will avoid the very important conversation we were having earlier, so I will paste it here:

Bnonn.

“Prayer is primarily a means of developing a relationship with and reliance upon God.”

Okay,
so we can work with this. What would you expect would be the measurable
effects of developing a relationship and reliance upon god? We can then
do a study and compare these effects with people who pray within other
religions, and with people who meditate etc. So, what would you say are
the measurable effects of praying to the christian god?

“We need to look to other kinds of evidence.”

Like the evidence for reincarnation, yes?
http://www.amazon.com/Explorin…

“I think I see what you’re getting at here. You’re saying that the
primary
purpose of any given worldview is to furnish some uniquely valuable
knowledge? Like salvation, for example? I’m curious what the primary
purpose of an atheistic worldview is in that case.”

Well, True
knowledge. Knowledge which accurately reflects the Real World. And if
one has True knowledge about the Real World then one should be able to
predict things. Like salvation as you point out. If your worldview is
True then you should be correct that there is an afterlife.
Unfortunately though, the purported afterlife is shielded from objective
observation. It’s conveniently unfalsifiable And it had to be, for if
wasn’t it would be proven false and religion would have to drop it.
The
atheistic view furnishes me with plenty of falsifiable claims, like the
claim that prayer will be as effective in any religion, since there is
no god.

“Really? You think you can do better than thousands of years of attempts
by some of the greatest thinkers and philosophers the world has seen? Go
on then.”
Er…I don’t think that philosophers were trying to invent a religion. L. Ron Hubbard did it though!

“Bear in mind that you’re going to have to plausibly explain…”

Hehehe,
it’s funny that you unabashedly use the word ‘plausibly’. Adherents of
other religions hold their explanations as being as plausible as you do
yours, and think their reasons are objective just as you do. But I don’t
count my worldview along with religions because my worldview is
falsifiable.

“They
would, I’m afraid. If praying to god yeilded results, if species looked like
they were created, if the universe looked very young, and if god revealed
himself to me – all of these things would go quite a way towards falsifying
atheism (for me).”

Peanut, I agree.
I understand why you do it, but there is no need to qualify that statement with
‘for me.’ The qualification opens up the argument that your conversion may
simply be a delusion, and consequently that the conversion itself has no empirical value (an ironic
argument coming from a theist, but regardless one I have heard before).

Underpinning atheism is the obvious point that there is no logic or reason in believing
something on (woefully) insufficient evidence. I have been pushing this point
with Bnonn – the methods of God’s interaction with humans (including the more
obtuse process of ‘creation’) are the most obvious and rational opportunity for
theists to ‘provide’ evidence. Any rational human being would be converted to
theism on sufficient evidence, and this might be one or more of the aspects you
outline.

Unfortunately,
as this thread demonstrates, apologists refuse to be pegged down on specifics
when it comes to God’s interventions in human life, for very good reason; there is no strong,
falsifiable, tangible evidence for their specific belief system (unless you
include the ‘historical record’ – self-evidently insufficient given the growth
of atheism in societies where free-thought is encouraged. If it were sufficient, it would be sufficiently persuasive – unless I and other atheists are all idiots (not completely impossible)). Thus, things like prayer
and miracles become worthless as pieces of the puzzle in the ‘search for God.’
Prayer sometimes works, but ‘not in the way we expect,’ miracles exist but when
they are disproven it has no consequence for the existence of God… these
statements are so broad, they are useless in the discussion.

It’s worth
adding an obvious point, made at the start of Bertrand Russell’s ‘celestial
teapot’ argument:

‘Many
orthodox people speak as though it were the business of skeptics to disprove
received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a
mistake.’

‘Oh come now Peanut. God revealing himself to you would not falsify atheism. It would falsify your belief in atheism. When atheists are converted to Christianity through an experience of God, other atheists dismiss it as a delusion.’

Hah! There is a big difference between ‘an experience of God’ and evidence for the existence of God. And, yet again, I’m going to insist that there is no such thing as ‘a belief in atheism.’ You may well see it as semantics, but that is only because you don’t understand the concept. Atheism is the non-belief in God, it is does not imply a belief in something specific, additional to that obvious.

I think there is such thing as a belief in atheism. The core of atheism is a null point in that it is waiting for theists to prove that there is a god, but one still goes on and lives one’s life as though theists never will come up with proof – one has to!

So atheists sit there passively waiting for theists to “prove” that there is a God or Gods? That is a truly unique belief.

David,

Attention to context invalidates the accusation of contradiction and intellectually dishonesty made in the video you referenced. The radio interview was with respect to how he conducts academic debates. The TV conversation was with respect to the content of New Atheist books.
You may be interested to know that this video has decisively been refuted with respect to the Tumetrics ranking.
Also, I wonder what academic works of Craig’s you have interacted with? Don’t tell me all you’ve done is watch a few YouTube vids. Else your criticism above is totally empty and shows an deplorable lack intellectual honesty. How (and why) do you call his books awful?
Sincerely,

Bsquibs,

Certainly atheists wait for a god to be shown to them. Otherwise they would have to believe any crazy claim.

I didn’t realize that Craig was such an academic non-event!

Here is the video I referred to refuting thunderf00t’s accusation that William Lane Craig is an academic midget. I think all should be able to see how worthless a case he made. 

or 

“So atheists sit there passively waiting for theists to “prove” that there is a God or Gods? That is a truly unique belief.”

….. I don’t think I understand your tone!?? I don’t know about ‘passive,’ but apart  from that – what is the alternative? What alternative, rational way forward is there? Why do you have ‘prove’ in inverted commas? You seem like you’re admitting the fact that there is no proof?

My experience was so: I was presented with a claim of ultimate truth (that the Christian God is real, Jesus loves us, etc etc), I spent an unusually long time investigating the claim (mostly out of fascination oscillating between amusement and horror), and concluded that the evidence was so weak and uncompelling, and that Christians are so dramatically unable to offer any sort of proof, that it was obvious the truth of the universe was elsewhere.

I really need to insist, though, that as apologists you stop calling atheism a ‘belief.’ It is certainly not a ‘unique’ belief. It is the default position of any human being not born into indoctrination and with access to modern education and science. Maybe you end with a pantheist or an agnostic, but generally, an atheist.

Atheism is the non-belief in your God. It doesn’t tell you anything about what I do believe, it just tells you what I don’t believe.

Craig is not a philosopher of science. He is a Christian apologist. Personally I quite respect his arguments, he takes them as far as they can go, which is not very far considering the complete dearth of evidence for most of what he believes.

Peanutaxis,

You state, “Craig is not a philosopher of science. He is a Christian apologist.”
You say this like the two are mutually exclusive. The above is like someone saying “Richard Dawkins is not a zoologist. He’s an atheist.”
You state, (1) “I quite respect his arguments…” and (2) “[there is] a complete dearth of evidence for most of what he believes.”
You say this like the two are compatible. Again, this is like some like me saying, “Dawkins’ arguments are great. But his logic is shocking!”
I was wondering if you actually believe what you say? Because by all appearances your remarks here are insulting to your intelligence.

Adding to that, he is a bigot.

He explains that homosexuality is morally wrong, lists it alongside sex with animals as ‘prohibited by God,’ shows his hand a little too much by claim gay sex is ‘unfulfilling,’ and then says that it’s obvious being gay is bad because homosexuals have a high rate of depression! Well thanks, Sherlock – I can’t image why!

I’m sorry, but given his God-like status on this website, I’m a little concerned for your judgement. I hope no-one here has ever enjoyed ‘sexual activity outside of marriage’ lest you be on par with being gay in the eyes of your hero.

Tom,

Your problem isn’t with Craig. Its with God.

Let me ask you this… If God existed and made sex sacred, would such things as homosexuality be wrong?
This is where the debate on homosexuality belongs. It’s certainly not advanced by showing your bigotry towards Craig.

??? Did you watch the video? Against clear scientific understanding, Craig continues to argue the idea that being gay is a lifestyle choice, something you choose, something to be resisted. This is a stone-age and extremely harmful idea to push, and it is particularly harmful for gay Christians, including friends of mine too terrified to be honest with their families. Craig is a conscious bigot on this subject, whether you can see it or not. This is obviously a huge segue, but the point is quite important.

And: False – that is where YOUR attitude toward homosexuality begins. You will appreciate that for people like me, and more importantly, most gay people, adopting the atheist point of view ONLY when relevant (i.e. when talking to people like Craig), God is not part of the equation. You want to frame your world view with a patently immoral God with respect to things like homosexuality, that’s your business, but don’t deceive yourself to thinking that this framework can be imposed on other people – especially not the people whom are actually relevant.

And please don’t patronise me. My problem is with Craig, the real, influential person with poor ideas about ethics and morality. My ‘problem’ with God is limited to the influence ‘He’ has on people like Craig, and subsequently on people like you.

Lastly, to answer your question – if God exists, and sex is sacred, and further – homosexuality exists, and is a ‘genetic defect’ in some people created ‘in his image’ (Craig is willing to ‘concede’ this point) - then what you have is a God who has deliberately created people who are unable to be sacred. What you have found, Stuart, is that in this scenario, God – not homosexuality – is wrong.

Well you’re being a bit selective Stuart, given the qualification Peanut used: ‘which is not very far considering the complete dearth of evidence for most of what he believes.’ Putting aside the issue of homosexuality, Craig has complex and superficially compelling arguments, but he is still wrong.  

 ’I hope no-one here has ever enjoyed ‘sexual activity outside of marriage’  – it might sound rhetorical, but let’s pretend it’s not. Let’s assume I know more about you than you would like. How do you differentiate yourself from your homosexual contemporaries, given Craig’s parallels between being gay, and being single and active in any way, or (dare I say it) beastiality? Is it by virtue of you seeking (or having already found) one day, to be in a committed married relationship? Maybe a gay person could be gay up until he or she gets married – it’s equivalent to being a normal young male, is it not?

Hey Tom…

I really need to insist, though, that as apologists you stop calling
atheism a ‘belief.’ It is certainly not a ‘unique’ belief. It is the
default position of any human being not born into indoctrination and
with access to modern education and science.

Since yours is an evidence-based worldview, could you provide some evidence for this claim?

It seems pretty far-fetched to me. I’d like to see the evidence behind it so I can understand why you think it’s worth believing.

Thanks.

Tom…

Craig continues to argue the idea that being gay is a lifestyle choice,
something you choose, something to be resisted. This is a stone-age and
extremely harmful idea to push, and it is particularly harmful for gay
Christians, including friends of mine too terrified to be honest with
their families. Craig is a conscious bigot on this subject

I’m not seeing the relation between believing that being gay is a lifestyle choice, believing that being gay is wrong, and being a bigot.

Assuming that Craig believes mistakenly that all gays simply choose their sexual orientation, how does this make him a bigot?

Assuming that Craig believes (let’s say mistakenly for the sake of argument) that homosexuality is a sin, how does this make him a bigot?

I’m not seeing the connection. Perhaps you could enlighten me. It sounds like you’re saying he’s a bigot just because he disagrees with you. But I’m sure that can’t be what you’re implying.

You want to frame your world view with a patently immoral God with
respect to things like homosexuality, that’s your business, but don’t
deceive yourself to thinking that this framework can be imposed on other
people

Just a couple of questions:

1. Is it objectively true that God is patently immoral, or is it just your opinion? If the latter, why are you trying to impose your opinion on us? If the former, what makes God immoral?

2. If, for the sake of argument, God exists and homosexuality is wrong, then in what sense are we deceiving ourselves when we think that this framework can be imposed on other people? Would it not be you who was deceived, while we had a fairly good understanding of things? How are you not just begging the question here?

 Perhaps you could show us where he’s wrong, Tom? The bad premise in one of his arguments, say? Or the bad inference between his premises?

 Tom, like many Christians, I was converted after having been involved in extra-marital relationships. You don’t need to know more about me than I’d like to know that I had a girlfriend before I became a Christian, and that our relationship was openly sexual.

I guess I don’t understand your question. Do I think that what I did was sinful? Obviously. Was it as sinful as homosexuality? Well, I think the Bible shows us that homosexuality is a particularly gross kind of sexual sin—a kind of depravity God gives people over to only in more extreme cases. So perhaps “ordinary” extra-marital sex is not as severe in God’s eyes, in a general sense—but it would depend on the situation.

I don’t really get your question though.

I know Craig’s position so don’t need to watch the video. And he’s right. Insofar as homosexuality is construed as the _act_ of same-gender sexual intercourse, homosexuality is a choice. Insofar as homosexuality is construed as a desire for same-gender-nookie, even if this desire is genetic, it would still be wrong (that is, if God made sex sacred).
You say, “don’t deceive yourself to thinking that this framework can be imposed on other people . . .” Thats just relativism. Which is false if God exists and made sex sacred. Thus, this _is_ where the debate should lie.
In Christian theology God created everyone, and ALL are unable to be sacred apart from him and his grace. In Christian theology the ‘image of God’ has nothing to do with physicality, which includes a personal genes (‘defective’ or not). Thus, your theological argument for the immorality of God is poor; you have not sufficiently engaged with Christian theology to lodge a valid critque: your premises being false.

Forget about the degree of how sinful some sex is. I have no qualm believing all extra-maritlal sex is wrong (and that some is nonetheless enjoyable), but this is irrelevant. What matters in this discussion is whether homosexuality is wrong. And it clearly is – if God made sex sacred.

‘You say, “don’t deceive yourself to thinking that this framework can be imposed on other people . . .” Thats just relativism. Which is false if God exists and made sex sacred. Thus, this _is_ where the debate should lie.’

No it’s not relativism, I’m just dismissing your starting point of ‘God created….’ especially given how uncompelling the argument is. So I can say the same thing – your premise is false. In fact, you can have a debate about the morality of homosexuality regardless of your premise. That is, whether you believe in God or not. Given that we know homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle choice, and given that my gay friends do not seem to threaten the stability of society by engaging in same-sex relationships (yawn), I, alongside most non-religious people, do not consider homosexuality to be ‘wrong’ any more than I consider masturbation or making love to be ‘wrong.’ You have to accept the blind idea that ‘God says x, so x must be so’ in order to find an argument for why homosexuality is wrong. It’s a weak starting point and it gives you a weak argument.

Religious suspicions of sex are far more disturbing than sex itself. I saw old Santorum claiming that ‘sensuality’ was what the Devil was using to bring down the USA. Sensuality???

I’ll just play your game Bnonn, a la miracles. Since it fits my world view, what basis do I have NOT to believe it?

Your inability to understand why atheism is not a belief, or the beginning of a world view, is beyond my comprehension.

Tom,

Asserting the premise is weak is a weak argument.

I agree with you that you don’t need to believe in God or not in order to have a discussion on morality.
Thats why I think there are other arguments for considering homosexuality wrong that don’t refer to God. (i.e. like pure self-interest for one. Like the public health and safety for another. I’ll leave it for someone else to argue these, and wait to see if they are good arguments.) Nevertheless, the argument ‘if God exists and made sex sacred then homosexuality is wrong’ is sound. And the argument put forward by Craig that even if homosexuality is a compulsion in the genes it would still be wrong, is good and remains un-refuted.

The first thing you learn when you study worldview is that everyone has one.
I think its fair to say that if your worldview doesn’t include some idea of God actually existing, then it is atheistic.
But to have no belief in God, especially when confronted with the idea of God, is dismally dim-witted. It would require drawing a cognitive blank every time the deity was mentioned. For those who engage in these type of discussions, its patently dishonest to insist that atheism is no belief in God and they are atheists.
Much better this person say they aren’t sure but holds to atheism (the belief that there is no God) lightly as a working hypothesis.
Then I think he or she has got to open to miracles, especially in the absence of any over-powering argument for God not existing or the impossibility of miracles.

Yes, I have a world view, and it does not include God, because I do not believe in Him. I have already argued this point with Bnonn. It is atheistic, yes, but that is not what defines it. You find this hard to grasp because God defines your world view (ironic, given He is not of this world).

‘But to have no belief in God, especially when confronted with the idea of God, is dismally dim-witted. It would require drawing a cognitive blank every time the deity was mentioned’

Really? I don’t agree at all. If I tell you about Thor, and you have no belief in him, are you therefore dimwitted? I don’t think so. And why would it requre drawing a cognitive blank? Not believing in the existence of something, and not understanding something, are two different things entirely. I understand the concept of Santa Claus, and my understanding informs my non-belief.

Oh, I’m sure you can see exactly why it makes him a bigot, what you mean is that you don’t accept my premise.

1 – Being gay is a characteristic over which an individual has no control
2 – Homosexuality is not positively correlated with being evil

Try replacing ‘gay’ with ‘black’ or ‘woman.’ These are, equally, randomly assigned characteristics. ‘Blackness should be resisted and avoided, we as a church can help a person become more white.’

I’ll google for you mate. big·ot (b g t). n. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Craig is INTOLERANT of homosexuality. Do you agree? Yes, I’m sure you do agree. The premise of that intolerance is your religion, which is rejected by a large majority of the world.

’1. Is it objectively true that God is patently immoral, or is it just your opinion? If the latter, why are you trying to impose your opinion on us? If the former, what makes God immoral?’

Again you misquote me. With respect to homosexuality, was my point, which God evidently imposes on some of the people he ‘creates’ and then consigns them to a a life of misery with respect to relationships, sex, and social acceptance. Maybe we just agree on exactly how an omniscient being should behave, but its obvious to me at least that creating and then punishing homosexuality would be immoral.

You can verify this view of mine by walking into a shopping mall in new zealand with a sign saying ‘being gay is wrong.’ I invite you to give it a try. Or are you waiting for a more receptive audience who should reach your enlightened stance first?

2. If, for the sake of argument, God exists and homosexuality is wrong, then in what sense are we deceiving ourselves when we think that this framework can be imposed on other people? Would it not be you who was deceived, while we had a fairly good understanding of things?

Haha… that is a useless statement.

The problem for each of you on this website is that you must have a tiny little voice in the back of your minds saying ‘is it REALLY evil to be gay? is God REALLY there? does any of this make ANY sense at all?’ How do you get that little voice to be quiet? I’m not being antagonistic, I’m genuinely interested in how you deal with these mixed messages – love people, but criticise them for things they cannot change…. etc etc.

 Stu, I don’t want to derail the discussion, but just something to think about:

Insofar as homosexuality is construed as a desire for
same-gender-nookie, even if this desire is genetic, it would still be
wrong

I’m not sure this is true. Wouldn’t this kind of desire be equivalent to temptation? One can desire something sinful without actually sinning—after all, Jesus was tempted in every way that we are, yet was without sin.

Sure, I mean to say acting on that desire would still be wrong.

Tom, 

You say, “[My worldview] is atheistic, yes, but that is not what defines it.”

If its atheistic, this is part of your worldview. You mean to say its not the main thing for you? Thats ok. But it is the main thing that this argument in this debate comes down to. 

You say, “If I tell you about Thor, and you have no belief in him, are you therefore dimwitted? I don’t think so.” Of course I would be dim-witted if I had no belief in Thor were you just finished telling me about Thor, as so many non-believers (like C. Hitchens for instance) claim atheism should be rendered – as “no belief”. To have no opinion, no thoughts whatsoever, not even that they are unsure what to believe regarding Thor (or regarding God, or anything else), is the height of cognitive disfunction. 

You say, “The premise of that intolerance is your religion, which is rejected by a large majority of the world.”

If this is meant to be point against something, its clearly fallacious reasoning (i.e. argumentum ad populum). If its not meant to be a point against something, then its just an irrelevant slur.

(1) Premise. Being gay is a characteristic over which an individual has no control. 

(I don’t full-heartedly accept this. But I’ll grant it for arguments sake.)

(2) Premise. Homosexuality is not positively correlated with being evil. 

This premise is ambiguous. If you take “homosexuality” to be a genetically predisposed _desire_ then I can agree with the premise. Because God judges the acts, or what we do with that desire, to be good or evil. If you take “homosexuality” here to be the orientation of someone who has same-gender sexual encounters, then I disagree with the premise. Because this _is_ correlated with being evil. God says.

If this makes me a bigot, then so be it. But then you’re a bigot against Craig for holding this view. 

You say, “God evidently imposes on some of the people he ‘creates’ and then consigns them to a a [sic] life of misery with respect to relationships, sex, and social acceptance. Maybe we just agree [disagree?] on exactly how an omniscient [you mean to say ombibenevolent?] being should behave…”

God doesn’t consign anyone to a life of misery with respects to [fill in the black]. He consigns everyone to a life where, without his grace, misery is inevitable. Those with homosexual desire need grace just as much as those with heterosexual desire who are called not to get married. Chastity is a discipline that God can help with, and whether homosexuality is nurture or nature it is something that God can change. 

You say, “Haha… that is a useless statement.”

No, it’s a perfectly rational argument. If God exists and has made sex sacred, those who disagree are wrong, and those who agree are right. The point is you can’t defeat the argument without disagreeing with one of the premises; either (1) God exists), or (2) acting on homosexual desire is despoiling something sacred.

Tom, I don’t mean to call you names, but this is just obtuse:

Try replacing ‘gay’ with ‘black’ or ‘woman.’ These are, equally, randomly assigned characteristics. ‘Blackness should be resisted and avoided, we as a church can help a person become more white.’

I’m not taking a position on whether homosexual orientation is sinful. I’m provisionally of the opinion that it is not.

I am taking the position that homosexual activity is sinful. Ie, homosexual lust, homosexual intercourse, etc.

Now, if churches try to help people be “less gay”, I would take that to mean they help them to avoid homosexual activities. Perhaps some churches believe you can “pray the gay away”—that, in my opinion, is very sad. I think it does a lot of harm to homosexual Christians, who are as dismayed at the prospect and the ignorance behind it as a black might be if a church suggested praying his skin color away.

That said, please don’t impute the ignorance and (let’s be frank) obnoxious idiocy of some Christians to Christians generally. Just because some Christians have a bee in their bonnets about homosexuality doesn’t mean we all do.

But the lack of stinging insects in my headwear doesn’t mean I don’t believe homosexual acts are wrong. If God exists, then they are.

I’ll google for you mate. big·ot (b g t). n. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

All right. Can I ask you a question?

Have you, or have you not, displayed in this very thread a strong intolerance for Christian attitudes toward homosexuality, and a strong partiality for your own “group” (ie, people who accept homosexuality)?

If not, then what is your argument with us?

If so, then what is your problem with bigotry?

Maybe we just agree [sic] on exactly how an omniscient being should behave, but its obvious to me at least that creating and then punishing homosexuality would be immoral.

If it is obvious, it ought to be easy to explain. Why would God be immoral to create someone with homosexual tendencies, and then punish him if he committed homosexual acts? What moral principle is God violating by doing this?

You’re making an internal critique of Christianity here. You’re saying, in effect, that if Christianity is true, then God is immoral. So you are claiming that there’s an internal contradiction in Christianity, because obviously Christianity claims not only that God is moral, but that he is morality.

You need to actually argue for this alleged contradiction. Simply saying “It’s obvious to me” fails completely to make any traction. It’s equally obvious to me that he is not. But at least I can argue for that position if prompted (the burden of proof isn’t on me though).

You can verify this view of mine by walking into a shopping mall in new zealand with a sign saying ‘being gay is wrong.’

Are you saying that what is moral is simply what most people in a given society accept at a given time? Well in that case, pedophilia was moral in ancient Greece. Sacrificing your children was moral in ancient Persia. Stoning a woman who commits adultery is moral in modern Pakistan.

The problem for each of you on this website is that you must have a tiny little voice in the back of your minds saying ‘is it REALLY evil to be gay? is God REALLY there? does any of this make ANY sense at all?’ How do you get that little voice to be quiet? I’m not being antagonistic, I’m genuinely interested in how you deal with these mixed messages – love people, but criticise them for things they cannot change…. etc etc.

Well, it’s funny actually, because I can turn that question around on you. And I can do it with the full weight of my own experience as an atheist behind me. Because when I was an atheist, I had a little voice in the back of my mind saying,

“Does God REALLY not exist? Is it REALLY okay to do these things you’re doing? Does the world REALLY make sense without a designer to who made it sensible?”

So I’m equally curious about how you get this little voice to be quiet. I found the way to do it was to lose myself in reasonably debauched activities. But that only worked for so long before I became depressed and disillusioned. Like drugs, sin never satisfies.

Bnonn,

I am going to read that you have conceded the points that we were discussing earlier.

Peanut…actually I just forgot :P

Okay, so we can work with this. What would you expect would be the measurable effects of developing a relationship and reliance upon god? We can then do a study and compare these effects with people who pray within other religions, and with people who meditate etc. So, what would you say are the measurable effects of praying to the christian god?

Can you give me a reason to think we should predict distinctly different but uniform results for Christians?

And could you then suggest a way to test this hypothesis with some degree of statistical confidence that would yield a conclusion about Christian prayer that isn’t completely open to interpretation?

Like the evidence for reincarnation, yes?

Let’s assume the evidence for reincarnation is very strong. That would be a huge problem for your worldview, but no problem at all for mine. After all, Christianity has a great deal of explanatory power with regard to supernatural phenomena. The appearance of reincarnation does not imply the reality of reincarnation—only the reality of something supernatural.

(On the other hand, religions which incorporate reincarnation don’t have sufficient explanatory power to accommodate the evidence for Christianity, nor to capably deal with Christian arguments like the moral argument, the cosmological argument etc.)

If you think the evidence for reincarnation is good, you should give up your naturalistic view of the world. If you think it’s not, why bring it up at all?

Well, True knowledge. Knowledge which accurately reflects the Real World. And if one has True knowledge about the Real World then one should be able to predict things. Like salvation as you point out. If your worldview is True then you should be correct that there is an afterlife. Unfortunately though, the purported afterlife is shielded from objective observation. It’s conveniently unfalsifiable And it had to be, for if wasn’t it would be proven false and religion would have to drop it.

So much the worse for your own worldview then, since evolution does not select for True knowledge, but merely survival.

Btw, why the snark about undetectability? What reason do you have to think that every facet of reality is detectable? If we didn’t develop the senses to detect it, how could we even speculate about it unless it interacts with something we can sense?

This is completely incorrect. We would easily be able to tell the difference. One only needs to pray to ‘the universe’ or grass or plato and receive no supernatural happening to tell the difference.

Why think there is no natural explanation for that too?

I…….all I can do is marvel at the ignorance of your statement about poor evidence, Bnonn.

And all I can do is marvel at your ignorance. But I’m not here for an argument about evolution. I really don’t mind if you think I’m ignorant or not. There are deeper issues to explore.

For your first question, presumably you believe that you know that the world exists independent of you. But how do you know? What did you use to determine this? Whatever you used – it doesn’t matter what – how do you know that it is not just a phantasm of your own self? Answer: you can’t. You can’t know the answer to this question any more than anyone else can!

Lol, dude, that’s all irrelevant. You asked for knowledge that can’t be tested empirically. Well here it is—and it’s not some trivial proposition that has no bearing on your worldview. Quite the opposite.

Your entire “falsifiable” worldview rests on unfalsifiable assumptions. How embarrassing.

“Can you give me a reason to think we should predict distinctly different but uniform results for Christians?”
Lol. So now you’re suggesting that praying to god in order to develop a relationship and reliance upon him yields no measurable results at all – not even self-reporting results (which could be compared to other religions). And you wonder why people don’t take christianity seriously?

“Let’s assume the evidence for reincarnation is very strong. That would be a huge problem for your worldview, but no problem at all for mine.”

If it were very strong, then yes. But it is not. I was pointing out that the evidence for reincarnation is as good as the evidence for your miracles. It is not a problem for my worldview that reincarnation is ‘evidenced’ any more than it is a problem that christian miracles are ‘evidenced’. In fact, that there is similar evidence for both goes a long way to proving that my worldview is correct in that religious people have ridiculous and contradictory standards of evidence.

“(On the other hand, religions which incorporate reincarnation don’t
have sufficient explanatory power to accommodate the evidence for
Christianity, nor to capably deal with Christian arguments like the
moral argument, the cosmological argument etc.)”

This comment is just so self-centred. It reminds me how religion is so reliant upon a lack of perspective. Do you honestly not think that if you were born somewhere like Iran that you would hold very different but equally bigoted views? And if you respond to this question, do you think that a Muslim from Iran would not respond with something any less convincing to him?

“Btw, why the snark about undetectability? What reason do you have to
think that every facet of reality is detectable? If we didn’t develop
the senses to detect it, how could we even speculate about it unless it interacts with something we can sense?”

Your position is contradictory. You ask why every facet of reality should be detectable. Well, if an aspect of reality was not detectable, how the hell do you know to ask about it?! And so, since you clearly believe that we DO have the senses to arrive at christianity, you should be able to point, falsifiably, at that evidence. But you can’t because that evidence is not evidence – it is not a part of reality, it is a part of bias.

”
“If miracles occurred reliably when praying to God, that would not falsify atheism. Rather, atheists would take this as evidence of some natural ability we have to cause seemingly supernatural events, which is triggered in certain conditions.”

“This is completely incorrect. We would easily be able to tell the
difference. One only needs to pray to ‘the universe’ or grass or plato
and receive no supernatural happening to tell the difference.”

“Why think there is no natural explanation for that too?”

I think you’re confused here. If the christian god was real then praying to him would be measurably different to praying to any god which was not real.

——————

How about your knowledge that a world exists independently of you?
“For your first question, presumably you believe that you know that the
world exists independent of you. But how do you know? What did you use
to determine this? Whatever you used – it doesn’t matter what – how do
you know that it is not just a phantasm of your own self? Answer: you
can’t. You can’t know the answer to this question any more than anyone
else can!”

“Lol, dude, that’s all irrelevant. You asked for knowledge that can’t be
tested empirically. Well here it is—and it’s not some trivial
proposition that has no bearing on your worldview. Quite the opposite.”

No it’s very relevant. Your statement is not knowledge, and should have no bearing on anyone’s worldview because the question itself is self-contradictory*.
You are claiming knowledge that there is a world independent of you, and when I ask how you know you avoid the question because you know that will lead you to contradict yourself. The question to begin with is casting doubt on the information that comes to our senses that we have, and yet you obviously use some sense(s) to determine that the world exists independent of you. Well, what is special about the sense that tells you that the world is real such that it is not subject to the question?
QED!

* The question is self-contradictory because the question itself should be doubted as being real. If I can’t trust my five senses why on earth can I trust that question?!

Peanut…

Lol. So now you’re suggesting that praying to god in order to develop a relationship and reliance upon him yields no measurable results at all – not even self-reporting results (which could be compared to other religions).

You’re just putting words in my mouth. I never said this—what I asked was for you to identify what these results should be, and suggest an experiment to falsify them. I’m not doing all your work for you buddy.

And you wonder why people don’t take christianity seriously?

Interesting side-note: most of the people who don’t take Christianity seriously are people who are either poorly educated about Christianity, or poor thinkers in general. But when you look at fields like philosophy, where you have to be a good thinker to compete, Christianity is taken very seriously indeed.

I was pointing out that the evidence for reincarnation is as good as the evidence for your miracles.

Since you haven’t fairly evaluated the evidence for Christian miracles, that’s just an unfounded assumption on your part. Replacing facts with prejudiced just-so stories isn’t the way to advance the debate.

Do you honestly not think that if you were born somewhere like Iran that you would hold very different but equally bigoted views? And if you respond to this question, do you think that a Muslim from Iran would not respond with something any less convincing to him?

Do you honestly not think that you would would hold very different but equally bigoted views as well? Even ignoring the massive disanalogies between living in Iran and living in New Zealand, what exactly is this hypothetical scenario supposed to prove?

Your position is contradictory. You ask why every facet of reality should be detectable. Well, if an aspect of reality was not detectable, how the hell do you know to ask about it?!

I don’t think you’ve understood my comment. I am making the point that under your own worldview you have no reason to think that reality extends only as far as our senses can detect. We’re no more justified in thinking that matter-energy in spacetime is all there is to the universe than we would have been a couple of hundred years ago to think that the electromagnetic spectrum began at red and ended at violet.

So your insistence that reality extends only to the testable is simply misguided. Why think that? What possible reason is there?

I think you’re confused here. If the christian god was real then praying to him would be measurably different to praying to any god which was not real.

Sure. But that doesn’t mean people wouldn’t look for naturalistic answers instead.

No it’s very relevant. Your statement is not knowledge

Hang on, are you saying that I don’t know an external world exists? That our belief in an external world doesn’t constitute knowledge?

Bnonn,

You are the one who claims that the christian god is real, and you are the one who claims that praying to him ‘works’. (I can’t say what the results of praying should be since I don’t know, I’m not a christian.) Now you simply need to show that it works.

I think you’ll find that the more intelligent a person is within modern Western society the less likely they are to be religious. Religion is taken more seriously in philosophy than many other fields because philosophy is so removed from evidences.

You think that I haven’t fairly evaluated the evidence for christian miracles. Well, firstly I have, but how are you different from any other religious position? You will keep telling me to go back to re-evaluate until I come up with the answer you want.

“Do you honestly not think that you would would hold very
different but equally bigoted views as well?”

I don’t think that my views are bigoted because my views are based upon evidence – something which I am asking for but which you seem unable, and unwilling to demonstrate.

”
I think you’re confused here. If the christian god was real
then praying to him would be measurably different to praying to any god
which was not real.”

“Sure. But that doesn’t mean people wouldn’t look for naturalistic answers instead.”

Maybe, but if you could show that praying to the christian god yielded actual results, that would go a long way to vindicating your worldview. The fact that you are so evasive about even trying suggests to me that you can see the writing on the wall.

“Hang on, are you saying that I don’t know an external world exists? That our belief in an external world doesn’t constitute knowledge?”

Yes. Whatever method you claim you use to determine that there really IS an external world could just as easily be internal delusions. The only sensible conclusion is to realize that the term ‘real’ refers to that which we sense.

Peanut, sorry for the slow reply.

You are the one who claims that the christian god is real, and you are the one who claims that praying to him ‘works’. (I can’t say what the results of praying should be since I don’t know, I’m not a christian.) Now you simply need to show that it works.

Could you quote me? Where I have said “prayer works”? To the best of my knowledge I have explicitly distanced myself from viewing prayer as a “causal tool” for achieving pragmatic outcomes. Rather, prayer is a means of monologuing with God, just as the Bible is a means of God monologuing with us. So prayer builds our relationship with God—but I have no idea how you might go about measuring such a thing; nor whether there is any way to distinguish scientifically between the relationship a Christian builds with God, and the relationship a Hindu, say, builds with Krishna.

You’re the one claiming that Christian prayer must have some kind of unique and empirically verifiable effect. Not me. So the burden of testing for and proving or falsifying that effect is hardly mine to take up, is it?

I think you’ll find that the more intelligent a person is within modern Western society the less likely they are to be religious.

I think that would depend very greatly on how you measured intelligence. If you simply mean the more educated someone is, well that’s hardly very telling given the secular bias of our education system. On the other hand, if you’re measuring how good people are at thinking through issues, it seems that most of the best thinkers are at least sympathetic to theism, if not theists themselves. This is simply because as you get better at working through the various reasons to believe in Christianity and to doubt the tenability of a thoroughgoing naturalism, the more obvious it is that there are good reasons to believe in Christianity, and good reasons to doubt the tenability of naturalism.

Religion is taken more seriously in philosophy than many other fields because philosophy is so removed from evidences.

Unfortunately, it’s actually the other way around. Philosophy is the most intimately connected with evidences. Sadly, since scientists are not taught the foundations of science (ie, the philosophy of science), they don’t realize that evidence ultimately comes down not to empirical data, but to philosophical axioms and reasoning.

I don’t think that my views are bigoted because my views are based upon evidence – something which I am asking for but which you seem unable, and unwilling to demonstrate.

Even if you understood what evidence was, which I’m afraid you don’t, the definition of bigotry does not include reference to the reasons one has for holding one’s views. By your own definition, you are a bigot. You’d have to come up with a new definition of bigotry to avoid that commonsense conclusion.

Maybe, but if you could show that praying to the christian god yielded actual results, that would go a long way to vindicating your worldview. The fact that you are so evasive about even trying suggests to me that you can see the writing on the wall.

Lol, how many times do I have to say that I don’t think prayer is an apologetic tool?

With all the other very powerful evidences for Christianity, why would I need to resort to something as open to interpretation and dispute as prayer?

Whatever method you claim you use to determine that there really IS an external world could just as easily be internal delusions. The only sensible conclusion is to realize that the term ‘real’ refers to that which we sense.

Well, that’s a fairly damning position to take. If you seriously think there is no warrant for believing in an external world, then you have no warrant for believing you’re not just having a “conversation” with a figment of your imagination right now. Maybe you’re just a crazy person in a rubber room. If you doubt that your senses convey veridical information about an external world, why trust that they convey veridical information at all? Where’s your warrant for that?

I can’t see how you could possibly sustain any kind of empiricism when your foundational beliefs about your senses completely undermine empiricism.

Just had a look in here again, and can’t help adding my 2 cents worth.  I might have said something like this before, but anyway, here goes:  it seems to me that if we can think of an example of a miracle that has never occurred and could easily thus be considered impossible, then there’s no need to think any marvellous event is more likely to be a miracle than have a natural explanation.  Here are examples of miracles that I think it is reasonable to consider impossible - simply because if they had ever occurred we would have heard about them, documented in the bible or otherwise: A person who fell into a large industrial tree chipper and came out the other end as nothing but a large puddle of mince meat, then was restored to his original state after Christians prayed over the remains.  It doesn’t have to be so dramatic, e.g. someone whose head was chopped cleanly off by a guillotine, then was restored.  Or even just someone whose arm was burnt to the bone, and had the arm restored to its original state. 
The simple fact is that none of these things ever happen.  The only miracles we see are things where the original state could be disputed anyway, e.g. Benny Hinn’s favorite, people who couldn’t walk can suddenly jump around the stage.  Or e.g. people who had cancer, are miraculously cured (but only before they die, not after, and we’ll never know what was really wrong internally anyway)  Why not fix an external cancer, e.g. a melanoma which had already eaten away the entire nose, lips, and tongue?
So, I don’t find miracles which purport to be a cure of something internal, without the outward proof of visible damage, to be at all persuasive.  And if the sort of big miracles (at a human level) such as I’ve described never occur, we can take it that they are impossible, and we have no reason to think the small miracles are really miracles at all.

Er, Keener documents corroborated cases of people being resurrected. In fact, miracles in which people come back from the dead seem to be relatively common. Keener himself, if I recall correctly, personally knows someone whose daughter was resuscitated after being dead (ie, not breathing) for three hours.

So your claim that these things just don’t happen is simply bogus.

So your opinion is a miracle is actually impossible, if you’ve never seen or heard anything like that happening?
I’d like to see an argument for that.

In contradistinction to you I think the little miracles we see and hear about are justifiably attributed to God because of the credible evidence there is for the bigger miracles that occur. An example of one such miracle would be the historical credentials for the resurrection of Jesus from the dead after Roman torture and crucifixion.

Bnonn,

“…but I have no idea how you might go about measuring such a thing; nor
whether there is any way to distinguish scientifically between the
relationship a Christian builds with God, and the relationship a Hindu,
say, builds with Krishna.”

Thanks for agreeing with my point. That praying to the christian god is no more or less meaningful that praying to any other. This is very good evidence for the view that all gods are unreal.

“Sadly, since scientists are not taught the foundations of science (ie,
the philosophy of science), they don’t realize that evidence ultimately
comes down not to empirical data, but to philosophical axioms and
reasoning.”

I don’t understand. How would changing one’s axioms make an impact on the mass of the oxygen atom, or the process of photosynthesis, or the laws of gravity? You have it completely backwards – observations lead to worldviews, and as you have showed above, you have no reputable observations which would lead to your worldview. It is one of wishful thinking!

“Well, that’s a fairly damning position to take. If you seriously think
there is no warrant for believing in an external world, then you have no
warrant for believing you’re not just having a “conversation” with a
figment of your imagination right now.”

Nice try – to turn this on it’s head, but no cigar. YOU asked how I could trust what I sense when you asked: “How about your knowledge that a world exists independently of you?” But your question is doomed to be self-undermining since it itself can only be informed by what you sense. My response is merely to say that what I perceive is the only ‘real’ that I can ever know.

Now, presumably you have some earth-shattering way of knowing that there is a world external to yourself, and you are going to have to share unless, as I suspect, you are one of those people that merely tries to bring others’ worldviews down to the level of their own by asking attention-diverting and meaningless questions.

Sorry Stuart, but your reply is as inadequate as Bnonn’s.  I’ve read, and can easily believe, that hanging by one’s hands can be a very prolonged means of reaching a state of death, and I’ve no doubt that a lot of people have been eventually removed from a cross without yet being dead.  Why should some holes in hands and feet, and maybe a couple of broken legs, be considered adequate proof of death?   My point is still that there are no clearly incontrovertible miracles, so yes, my opinion is that they are impossible, and why shouldn’t it (my opinion) be such, if a natural explanation is always possible?

Its probably not going to be fruitful arguing with some one who genuinely believes that just because he or she hasn’t seen or heard anything like it, then that thing doesn’t exist. Neither, in other words (your words), if that person believes that if there are no clearly incontrovertible miracles that they are actually impossible. This is a mere assertion which remains un-argued for – and no wonder, because it’s absurd. The respectable position would be to say that they are possible, but no instance has yet been able to convince you. But I guess the internet affords the blessing of anonymity so people can be free to advocate the absurd and feel they get away it.
You say you have no doubt that a lot of people have been eventually removed from a cross without being dead. Why do you not doubt this? For one thing, in all of history, we know of one person who survived crucifixion. Josephus tells us of one person who was taken off a cross and given Rome’s best medical treatment. Not long after, even with “Rome’s best” he died anyway from the effects.
For another thing, the fact is crucifixion doesn’t just put some holes in your hands and feet. It puts your body in a position that forces you push up on your feet to exhale, while your blood oxygen levels falls and the blood carbon dioxide levels rise. While the heart beats faster and faster to get oxygen to atrophied muscles, it places more an more demand on the lungs which are unable to provide that oxygen. Consequently they fill with fluid, further decreasing oxygen to the muscles, with the blood loss cause hyperventilation, and the heart to fail. Within a period of hours you either suffocate or in some cases your heart can burst (Cardiac Rupture). What can prolong this inevitable conclusion (in some recorded instances up to nine days) is a seat on the vertical beam which could allow the victim to partially sit and bear weight on the buttocks so he could breath. Breaking the legs would deprive the victim of a means to stand and therefore breathe, and thus kill the victim in a few minutes.
And yet another consideration. Even if Jesus did bodily survive crucifixion, he certainly wouldn’t be able to unroll himself from the grave clothes, roll away a stone from the tomb, stumble through Jerusalem to his disciples’ house, and inspire them to believe he was the Lord and God of them (a fact they were willing to lay their lives down for). They would tell Jesus he was dying and in desperate need of doctor (which, Josephus tells us, the very best of Rome’s doctors could not help). This historical hypothesis is probably just, if not more, miraculous as a genuine resurrection from the dead.
The resurrection of Jesus, upon a little genuine study, is an example of a clear and incontrovertible miracle. Given God has worked miracles in the past, theres no good reason to not believe he can also work miracles in the present.

Peanut…

Thanks for agreeing with my point. That praying to the christian god is no more or less meaningful that praying to any other.

Are you deliberately trying to bait and switch? I never used the term “meaningful”. If, in fact, the Christian God exists, then obviously praying to him is more meaningful than praying to a false god, even if there is no empirically verifiable difference in this life.

This is very good evidence for the view that all gods are unreal.

That’s just an assertion in search of an argument. In fact, since I’ve denied that prayer has much apologetic value, by simple symmetry it also doesn’t have much value as evidence against Christianity. So at best this statement of yours is just a non-sequitur.

I don’t understand.

Indeed. But this is not the place to educate you on basic philosophy.

you have no reputable observations which would lead to your worldview. It is one of wishful thinking!

You are very much coming across as not arguing in good faith. How does my conceding that prayer cannot be subjected to the scientific method equate
to having no reputable observations? Keener documents many reputable
observations. As does history (the resurrection being at heart a historical
claim).

Mind you, it’s not as if having “reputable observations” is a requirement
for knowing something. So that’s just yet another tendentious assumption
you’ve smuggled in.

But your question is doomed to be self-undermining since it
itself can only be informed by what you sense.

You’re speaking as if I really exist, which is weird considering your
worldview doesn’t warrant you to believe that.

Now, presumably you have some earth-shattering way of knowing
that there is a world external to yourself, and you are going to have to
share

Weren’t you the one who said you’d studied epistemology? Why should I
educate you on basic issues that have been discussed by philosophers for
centuries—and particularly well in the past decades? Go read
Plantinga.

Just a couple more points about why I am not interested in crucifixion when discussing miracles.  I looked up your Josephus reference and apparently it was of 3 people, two of whom died, and one of whom survived.  Also there are apparently instances of people surviving up to nine days on the cross.  I note Jesus’ legs weren’t broken either.  And of course, your second consideration requires belief that there was no outside help to get him out of the tomb.  Too many ifs and buts, unless you’re prepared to take everything at face value. 

What I am interested in, however, are your thoughts on why there are no modern-day healings of significant injuries in cases of genuine need.  Again, I come back to major burn injuries, or amputation injuries.  What about children who are badly burned in a fire?  There are just no examples of this sort of real healing.  It’s just not possible.  But a miracle is just a miracle.  A major healing should be just as straightforward and commonplace as a Benny Hinn leg lengthening.  This whole thing of allowing some miracles but not others just doesn’t “pass the smell test”. 

(Also, to address your first point, where you are simply arguing on the basis of semantics seems to me to be gratuitous and unhelpful.  I don’t believe anything can travel faster than the speed of light either, or that people could ever travel backwards in time.  But that’s a belief based on the accumulated knowledge of much wiser men than me, and one that could be changed by future evidence:  You would be bound to call such beliefs absurd also, if you believe in miracles. 

And finally, the supposed anonymity of the internet has nothing to do with the way I phrase my comments.  I try to be polite, which is more than I’ve seen sometimes even in this forum.  I’m sure you know my email address, and I’d be perfectly happy to say hello face-to-face over a coffee if you wanted to meet this idiot with such absurd attitudes.  I’m in Auckland.  (Unfortunately, I have a rather abrupt and abrasive style of writing, I’m told, so I won’t blame you if you don’t want to take up the offer.))

I’m not convinced there are no modern day major healings, nor indeed that they are incredibly rare. In my acquaintance I know of some astounding miracle stories that would pass any reasonable standard of evidence. These type of things are about if you care to start looking. Neither do I accept that notion that healings have to be outwardly apparent. Catastrophic internal physiological illness or injury being healed is just as miraculous and any outward sign.
There could be a whole host of reasons why God would keep certain injuries from being miraculously healed. Here are a couple of possibilities. For instance, doing so consistently would create a haunted world, where we wouldn’t have the good of medical science nor the motivation to seek after it. For instance, doing so would deprive people of the chance to develop perseverance and godly character, while they trust him through their suffering, or even come to know him because of their suffering. For instance, perhaps God does not heal many amputees so we are pushed to develop all kinds of medical technology which would lead to all kinds of breakthroughs for the good of everyone. As you can see, there could be manifold reasons. Its important to understand that God’s purpose for this life is not the complete elimination of suffering, and neither is it to make himself and his working so apparent it is coercive to those whose heart is fixed on being rebellious. Rather, it is to bring as many people as he can into a trusting relationship with him, and to that ends he provides enough evidence to reasonably go on, but not enough to compel anyone who would rather go his own way. In this I agree with Pascal.
“Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.”
I heard Sean McDowell say something really wise. “The heart of the problem is a problem of the heart.” By this he explained that even if God were to confirm his existence to us in a miraculous way, we would in all likelihood continue to obstinately disbelieve or be skeptical. Israel, newly freed from Egyptian slavery and witnesses to some of the most miraculous signs in all of history, were soon afterwards worshiping a golden calf fashioned by their own hands, and rebelling again and again while wandering in the desert. Witnessing miracles would be a fine thing, but such a thing does not inspire the kind of faith that leads human hearts to genuine conversion.
It seems to me that this same hardness of heart is apparent in your responses. For instance, instead of being open to being proved wrong (possibly in the course of your own investigations, or possibly by being confronted with some occurrence you couldn’t explain naturally that took place in a context charged with religious significance, or in the situation above where you dismiss the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus with these extremely poor, half-hearted objections when this represents a very good case study to defeat your position that the miraculous is impossible and does not occur), you instead make this sweeping and yet-to-be-argued-for philosophical proclamation that miracles are impossible, and moreover discount all the accounts of internal maladies being healed which are just as miraculous. That is not the procedure of someone who is being altogether open, honest and genuine. Now perhaps I misunderstand you. But when you say things like “Its just not possible” simply on the basis that you haven’t heard or seen anything like it, you are begging the question (or reasoning in a circle: i.e. fallaciously) and that is not complementary to your faculty of testing (as you say) by “smell”, nor provide sufficient evidence of you trying your best to be objective on the matter.
Regarding Jesus, now you want to conjoin the apparent death hypothesis with the stolen-body hypothesis? We don’t have to take the evidence for the resurrection hypothesis at face value. We have to subject it to the same criteria that we use to evaluate your preferred explanation (if indeed that is your preferred explanation). In evaluation this explanation chiefly lacks explanatory scope and explanatory power.

Er, Keener documents corroborated cases of people being resurrected. In fact, miracles in which people come back from the dead seem to be relatively common. Keener himself, if I recall correctly, personally knows someone whose daughter was resuscitated after being dead (ie, not breathing) for three hours.
So your claim that these things just don’t happen is simply bogus.’

Hahaaaaaaaaa, oh man… This is Al’s point I think. It’s ‘relatively common’ that people come back from the dead… really? What did they have to say about heaven and hell (or maybe purgatory??) then? If you honestly believe they died and were resurrected, Bnonn, then surely we can now know what heaven and/or hell is like? I have a friend who can hold is breathe for 4 minutes underwater, essentially by slowing his hearth rate. I’ve observed this. It never occurred to me that this is probably a miracle! Maybe he dies under water…

Putting aside this completely ridiculous comment from you Bnonn, you have already conceded that there is simply no way to tie ‘someones daughter being resuscitated’ to proof of God’s existence. Hell you can’t even relate the two things, unless you are already anticipating the causation you’re hoping for. This sounds an awful lot like wishful thinking to me.

Tom, if your friend could hold his breath for three hours, that would be fairly miraculous. If he could hold his breath while stopping his heart too, that would be quite something.

As regards causation, well if you knew your Hume you’d know you’re in the same boat, so it seems like you’re proving just a bit too much there.

Hi
Stuart,

Thanks
for this discussion.   I think this may
be my last reply on this subject (because in some senses you’re right that it’s
fruitless, although for me I’d have to say it’s not, since it helps to clarify
my own thoughts), so I’ll leave it to you after this to “wrap up for the
defence” if you wish. 

You
imply that if I looked around I’d find the sort of major healings of
externally-visible injuries I haven’t yet seen. How would I do that? Would you
care to suggest a church in Auckland which I might try?

I see a
certain rough parallel here between global warming and internal/external types
of miracle healings. In a world which was not showing signs of global warming,
one would expect a roughly even number, say per decade, of cold records and hot
records being broken globally. Indeed this was roughly the case for many
decades prior to the 1960s. Since that time, there has been an increasingly
higher number of warming records decade-upon-decade broken than cold records.
This is reasonably considered as strong evidence of global warming (and this
trend is accelerating, by the way, so that now we’re getting to the point of
approximately twice as many hot records being broken as cold records).

Analogously,
in a world in which miracles existed, I think (and I think you should agree) that one
could expect to see a roughly equal proportion of spectacular, indisputable vs.
disputable miracles occurring. This seems a natural expectation to me because
to an omnipotent God, no miracle is more difficult than any other, and miracles
would exist on a continuum from mundane to spectacular as the need arose. What
we actually see, as far as I can tell, is a world in which all miracles are
only of the disputable kind. Surely a strong bias one way or the other must
raise warning flags.  I think the obvious
answer is the following: not just a strong bias towards disputable miracles, but in fact all
miracles being of the disputable sort, is compelling evidence against miracles. 

Your
reasons in para 2 for our not seeing compelling healing miracles today, which could be an
answer to the above, don’t ring true to me. The Bible contains examples of the
big miracles, I gather, such as stopping the rotation of the Sun around the
Earth (sic) for a few hours for Joshua or someone [Did I get that right?  I haven't looked it up].  Now the big miracles have totally stopped.  A prescient God would hardly have performed
these prior to 2000 years ago and then decided to discontinue them because he found
that people’s response to them was not the desired one.  He would have known exactly what the response
would be, and have either no reason to start performing them, or no reason to
stop them.    And as for “depriv[ing] people of the chance to develop perseverance and godly character”, tell that to the girls whose lives are ruined by acid attacks by psychopaths, or the slaves who had one foot cut off so that they couldn’t run away from their place of slavery.

 Bnonn,

“Are you deliberately trying to bait and switch? I never used the term
“meaningful”. If, in fact, the Christian God exists, then obviously
praying to him is more meaningful than praying to a false god, even if
there is no empirically verifiable difference in this life.”

Okay, how is it more meaningful? What does this look like?

“Sadly, since scientists are not taught the foundations of science (ie,
the philosophy of science), they don’t realize that evidence ultimately
comes down not to empirical data, but to philosophical axioms and
reasoning.”

“I don’t understand. How would changing one’s axioms make an impact on
the mass of the oxygen atom, or the process of photosynthesis, or the
laws of gravity? You have it completely backwards – observations lead to
worldviews..”

So you agree with me, you have it backwards. If not, please show me how philosophical axioms change the mass of the oxygen atom. I can see, though, how a person who wants to believe nonsense like homeopathy or water divining or the power of prayer would claim that evidence doesn’t come down to empirical data, because there IS no reasonable evidence!

“But your question is doomed to be self-undermining since it
itself can only be informed by what you sense.”

“You’re speaking as if I really exist, which is weird considering your
worldview doesn’t warrant you to believe that.”

You clearly still do not understand my answer. I trust my senses because not trusting them is self-undermining. What sense could I trust that tells me not to trust my senses!?
You ask a question as though it somehow shatters my worldview, but your question doesn’t even make sense, which again leads us to….

“Now, presumably you have some earth-shattering way of knowing
that there is a world external to yourself, and you are going to have to
share ”

Which you don’t answer because you know that your question is nonsense. Any sense you might have of knowing that there is an external world is subject to your question.

Therefore, ‘knowing’ that there is a world external to one’s self is not knowledge. Exactly because it is unfalsifiable.

‘Tom, if your friend could hold his breath for three hours, that would be fairly miraculous. If he could hold his breath while stopping his heart too, that would be quite something.’
 
Agreed, but I would still not be credulous enough to think that God had anything to do with it. It seems to me that if I wrote about Fabian holding his breath for 3 hours, stopping his heart, and then popping up out of the water (and walking on it – why not?) you and people like you would assign it as a miracle from God, which is – there’s no other word for it - infantile.
 
Firstly, it would take hugely compelling evidence to persuade anyone that this could be done. Secondly, if it was actually documented and proven, i dare say there would be a bit more interest in it from the scientific community and the media. You say that it’s ‘relatively common’ that people are brought back from the dead. It’s simply not true that it’s relatively common. And thirdly, putting aside your pseudo-intellectual answers, and putting aside the first two massive leaps required, there is simply no possible way to demonstrate that these completely random and amoral ‘miracles’ are a function of God’s invervention.

You can dance around it all you like, but it’s just a complete non-starter for an apologetic, given how little weight you are willing to put on being disproven, and how weak the argument for miracles is in the first place.
 
 

Tom Joad,

If something really amazing happens, and it can’t be explained naturally, and it takes place in a context charged with religious significance, its not silly or infantile to say God did it. Its wholly sensible. i.e. God raised Jesus from the dead. Firstly, – on the contrary to your first point – it has pursueded millions upon millions. Secondly, – on the contrary to your second point – it has attracted significant media attention. Thirdly, – in partial agreement and partial disagreement with your third point – though there is no way to prove God’s intervention in said marvelous happening, there is a way to show that God’s intervention is the best explanation.
And while something like the resurrection of Jesus gives us a good reason for thinking God exists, i.e. the argument _from_ miracles, the argument _for_ miracles goes something likes this;
1) (Premise) If God exist, then miracles are possible.
2) (Premise) God exists.
3) Therefore, miracles are possible.

This is the argument for miracles. I think thats a pretty strong argument. Which premise do think is false?

I don’t understand why an “externally visible” miracle should be preferred over an internal malady that has been healed. Both are as miraculous. And both would rely on the testimonials of the people involved.
I could introduce you to a man who had most of his stomach removed – due to cancer I think, who was expected to die accordingly, but had it replaced miraculously during a two hour prayer meeting that spontaneously erupted especially for him. Email me and I will email you his name, and you can can google his story – I’ve seen it on the net before. If you’re truly interested I can contact him and confirm where he will be, since he travels some. He would usually attend my church, Encounter Christian Centre in Avondale, and was in town last week so he probably will be there again this week, so I may be able to meet you and introduce you to him.
With respect to your global warming analogy, (given its truth of global warming and God’s existence) comparing the expectation of record highs with the expectation of indisputable (by which I take it you mean outwardly visible) miracles occurring, I consider poor comparison. Were God something like an impersonal and mindless being, then perhaps the correspondence of the two would be fair. But God, as I pointed out in my last response, has more to consider when it comes to the performance of said indisputable (outwardly visible and internally apparent) miracles than just the difficulty and the need. If it was just these factors he had to consider, then maybe your predictions would be right. But he also has to consider a whole host of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (in other words, future contingent propositions in the subjunctive mood – this knowledge you affirm a prescient God is capable of) for every individual possible miracle. In other words, the long-ranging effects of a possible miracle we just are not privy to (due to the limited epistemological position in time and geographical location we inhabit).
With respect to the possible reason that God would refrain from healing someone I offered, namely “that healing them would deprive them of the opportunity to develop perseverance and godly character”, you say that doesn’t work because that reason doesn’t apply to all people. But my point is that that reason could apply to some people. Theres no reason to think that one needs one reason for all circumstances. God may have a variety of reasons, where each reason applies to a different set of situations.
You mention the long day of Joshua as an example of a big miracle. Funny you should count it as one, for the miracle here is not that the earth stopped rotating as we modern people understand the text to say, nor that what we call a solar eclipse occurred, as the contemporaneous audience of that type of ancient text understood it to mean, but that God providentially arranged for the battle to take place at that precise time. But with respect to your point about the big and obvious miracles of the bible ceasing, its important to understand the reason for miracles. Its not something God does just for the hang of it, but usually to confirm new revelation to a people. i.e. big miracles characterized Moses’ ministry because God was confirming what we call the Law to nation of Israel. i.e. big miracles characterized Jesus’ ministry because God was confirming the revelation that he was bringing, namely that in him the kingdom of God had come and he was establishing that kingdom, and through him grace from the Law was available. And that is why the more obvious big miracles usually happen in far off countries – because those places are the front-lines of evangelism where the revelation of Jesus and the kingdom of God is new.

Peanut, this will be my last reply as there seems little point in continuing this discussion I’m afraid.

Okay, how is it more meaningful? What does this look like?

Obviously because the prayers are directed to a God who can actually answer them, and are forming a relationship with a God who actually exists and will be worshiped “face to face” in the next life.

So you agree with me, you have it backwards. If not, please show me how philosophical axioms change the mass of the oxygen atom.

I don’t need to play along with your silly examples dude. If you know about the philosophy of science, then you know that science is founded on unprovable assumptions such as those I’ve mentioned before (regularity etc). If you don’t, then you’re not in a position to be making such condescending remarks.

I can see, though, how a person who wants to believe nonsense like homeopathy or water divining or the power of prayer would claim that evidence doesn’t come down to empirical data, because there IS no reasonable evidence!

Sorry, the evidence for Christianity doesn’t disappear just because you’ve redefined the word to suit your purposes. Verificationalism died a long time ago. The fact that you’re clinging to it indicates either that you’re ignorant or that you’re stupid. Either way, that’s not much a position to start a fight from.

You clearly still do not understand my answer. I trust my senses because not trusting them is self-undermining. What sense could I trust that tells me not to trust my senses!?

You don’t need to base your doubt on sensory input. Simply on modal logic.

In any case, the question is whether you have warrant for believing in an external world. You have claimed that you don’t. But that’s solipsism. Why should I bother arguing with a solipsist? It’s like arguing with a mental patient.

Therefore, ‘knowing’ that there is a world external to one’s self is not knowledge. Exactly because it is unfalsifiable.

You need to read up on the history of verificationalism. Watching you repeat self-refuting nonsense is just embarrassing for both of us.

Bnonn,

“Obviously because the prayers are directed to a God who can actually answer them”

This should be easily verifiable. If it is not random noise, of course, which it is.

“If you know about the philosophy of science, then you know that science is founded on unprovable assumptions”

No it is not. Those ‘assumptions’ are proven time and time again by observation.
It is religious beliefs, such as the ones you continually advocate here which are unprovable! Unverifiable in fact! I would like to see you show that falsification is dead. Since you have failed at the whole external-world question, perhaps you could try come up with an unfalsifiable claim which you can show is true, or false.

“In any case, the question is whether you have warrant for believing in
an external world. You have claimed that you don’t. But that’s
solipsism. Why should I bother arguing with a solipsist? It’s like
arguing with a mental patient.”

I have not claimed that at all. I have stated that the question of whether I can trust my senses or not is not is an unfalsifiable question. As such it is self-contradictory to believe it to be true or false.

You should try arguing with someone who has to deny most of observable reality to believe what they want to!

Peanut, sorry, I just don’t want these sorts of comments to stand without pointing out their fallaciousness for our readers.

This should be easily verifiable.

It is, but not in this life. This isn’t rocket surgery, so why you’re still having trouble with it baffles me.

No it is not. Those ‘assumptions’ are proven time and time again by observation.

How do you prove the regularity of nature by repeated observation? To say that the future will be like the past because we have previously observed it being like the past is a classic exercise in question-begging. You simply have to assume that your induction is valid. There is no empirical basis for it whatsoever. How could you not know this?

It is religious beliefs, such as the ones you continually advocate here which are unprovable!

Unless you’re referring to epistemic certainty (which science does not enjoy either!) this is simply false, and either you know that, or you’re so ignorant that you’re not in a position to be making such claims. Either way it reflects pretty poorly on you.

I have not claimed that at all. I have stated that the question of
whether I can trust my senses or not is not is an unfalsifiable
question. As such it is self-contradictory to believe it to be true or
false.

Lol, okay then. And you call Christians irrational…

 Bnonn,

“How do you prove the regularity of nature by repeated observation? To say that the future will be like the past because we have previously
observed it being like the past is a classic exercise in
question-begging. You simply have to assume that your induction is valid. There is no empirical basis for it whatsoever.”

I don’t understand these comments. Firstly, calling basically all of science question-begging makes you look a little crazy don’t you think? Induction is horrendously true, we all use it all of the time, it works insanely well, and there is so much empirical evidence for induction that it’s just not funnny!
I think that the regularity of nature is proven by observation because we have nothing else but observation.

How do you prove logic without examples?

“Unless you’re referring to epistemic certainty (which science does not enjoy either!) this is simply false”

Hehe, I’m certain that there are arguments for religious beliefs, but claiming that they are provable seems a little much even for you!

“Lol, okay then. And you call Christians irrational…”

It is the most natural (and rational) thing in the world to ignore unfalsifiable statements, because they have no evidence either way….by definition!

“Obviously because the prayers are directed to a God who can actually answer them” – Bnonn

‘This should be easily verifiable. If it is not random noise, of course, which it is.’ – Peanut

‘It is, but not in this life.’ – Bnonn

Wait…. what??? The fact that god answers Prayers is ONLY verifiable after you’re dead? What an arrogant statement, and what a ridiculous form of argument. How can you possibly claim to know with any certainty what happens when we die, never mind thinking your casual claims have any weight in this argument? You have already conceded you know absolutely no details regarding heaven - whatsoever.

What is the purpose of prayer if god doesn’t respond in this life? At the absolute minimum, you are conceding here that god’s response to prayer is so vague and uncertain as to be useless in any rational argument from the point of view of an apologetic tryin to sway a non-believer. If I don’t believe in god, and you suggest I pray and consider it, and the outcome of that prayer can only be ‘verified’ after I die, then you will, I am sure, see that it is completely useless as a mechanism of pursuasion re: god’s (non) existence.

Interestingly, since this discussion quietened down, Fabrice Muamba ‘died’ for 78 minutes on a football field in the UK. He was resuscitated (thank you, medical staff and quick thinking off-duty doctor), but despite the fact he was clinically dead, he was unable to tell us anything about the afterlife or god. THIS POINT IS QUITE IMPORTANT!!

And I haven’t heard you claiming that this was a miracle…. surely this counts as a miracle? Next time, let us experiment – when a football has a cardiac arrest, let’s just pray for him and monitor his progress, see how useful god is then.

 Hi Stuart,
Yes, I’d be interested in hearing a little more about the “stomach replacement” case.   However, I don’t know your email address – where do we go from here?
Al
.

You can find my email here.

Stuart
:-)