So. How does a nice Christian boy, who loves God, the Bible and Christianity come to be an atheist in a matter of a few months? You would think something terrible must have occurred, or some hitherto unknown flaw in character appeared. Yet looking back, I see none of those things. It may be, in my sharing this with you, we can discover together where it is I went horribly awry.
This is my tale.
The trouble is always—Where to begin? I cannot think of a better place than a sunny day at an amusement park. If you live within four hours or so of Northern Ohio, you know exactly the one of which I speak: Cedar Point. It seems every church within that distance would take at least one day out of the summer, collect the pre-teen and teenage kids and troop off for a day of roller coasters, spinning rides, and, if one timed their lunch and certain rides correctly, projectile vomiting. (I know this for a fact.)
Our day was Memorial Day. It was a rite of passage when one reached the age whereby you were “old enough” to go to Cedar Point. Being a small, country church, there was no budget for buses or vans. We would coerce some adult chaperons, and car pool in three or four automobiles. Meeting at the church at some ungodly early hour, we traveled together in a line with our lights on to let the world know we were convoying.
Since this was long before cell phones or walkie-talkies, we developed a complicated system to communicate from car to car. It basically consisted of honking the horns, flashing the lights and waiving one’s arms out the window which meant, (alternatively) “We better pull over at the next rest stop or else there will be some people arriving not smelling very fresh” or “Aren’t we having a blast, and we can’t wait to get there, and why are you stopping at this rest stop coming up?” We would arrive at the amusement park, meet together for a sack lunch at the pavilion, and then converge together again at 7 p.m. to once again car pool back.
James, Steven and I had finally reached the age that qualified to go on the Cedar Point trip. We were 12, and (respectively) a p.k., a d.k. and a d.k. For those familiar with American Baptist fundamentalists, those initials say a whole lot. A “P.K.” meant you were a pastor’s kid, and a “D.K.” meant you were a deacon’s kid. Being a p.k. (or d.k.) insured that you would be in the choir that was appropriate for your age, you were available for a speaking part in the Easter and Christmas pageant, you helped out the Seniors in the Spring and Fall, and you attended every Sunday School, Church service, Prayer meeting, Business meeting, and Meetings to set up meetings.
Your parents were friends. You helped them with their pastor/deacon duties, or mowing the church lawn or racking the church leaves. And, if there was trouble or shenanigans or (gasp!) sin—you were certain to be in the middle of it.
Three was the perfect number. If someone was reluctant to carry out a particularly evil plot, the other two would be sure to encourage (i.e. bully) the third to join in. My personal opinion has always been that the p.k.’s were a little worse sinners than the d.k.’s. I have been informed that I may be a teensy bit bias in that regard.
And so the three of us spent a happy day at the amusement park, ogling girls that were way out of our league, riding rides that were only partially out of our league and, as previously mentioned, testing the theory as to how much centrifugal force was required before we could have an opportunity to see our lunch again.
This was way too much fun to stop at 7:00 p.m. so we came up with a plan. It was as foolproof as a 12-year-old boys’ plan can be. We would set our sole watch back one hour, claim we did not know it had been set incorrectly and voila!—an extra hour of cotton candy, hot dogs and rides. It worked perfectly. Well… as perfectly as a 12-year-old’s plan can. We stayed toward the back of the park, riding the rides as far away from the entrance as possible (to avoid stumbling on the rest of the crew) and, at about 7:50 p.m. began walking toward the front.
The group had already left at 7:30 p.m. (mad for having to wait for us) and left a single driver back, in case we happened to show up. There he was, tapping his foot, not very happy. We put on our innocent faces, provided the required “bad watch” story and waited to see if he would buy it. I doubt he did. But he didn’t say anything, just gave us the “I’m disappointed in you” look and bundled us in the car.
Because we didn’t have to travel in that car pool, he put the pedal to the metal, sneakily passed them and arrived back at the church before the rest of them did. They were still mad. They didn’t buy the “bad watch” story at all. We were yelled at, informed we were inconsiderate, and there was serious consideration of banning us from the Cedar Point trip.
That was next year. This year we had gotten an extra hour of rides. And a shorter trip back. And every other kid was looking at us with a hint of jealousy.
That was God to me as I grew up.
He was a creature that had clearly set the rules. Leave by 7:00 p.m. He was somebody that knew we would not always like the rules. By virtue of being human, it was ingrained in us to attempt to rebel against those rules. If left to our natural devices, we would always do so. And, it was almost part of our duty, to come up with an excuse for why it was acceptable to rebel. A bad watch.
He was also someone that loved us. Despite our breaking the rules He clearly set, he would not abandon us in an Amusement Park. He wouldn’t leave us. Even as we broke his rules, we knew we were in no danger of permanent harm.
We would tell God our excuse first. We knew, in the pit our stomach, that he wouldn’t buy it. He was too smart. But it seemed to be part of the ritual we must follow. He would give us the “I am disappointed in you” look (in heaven, of course). We would then legitimately apologize.
Then he would take us back, ruffle our hair, and laugh with a “You rascal you.” See, we secretly figured God always kinda liked the rebel. He must have been bored with all those goody-two-shoes adults, with their prim and proper ways.
Look at who He favored in those Bible stories. Moses, David, Daniel, John the Baptist. They sure seemed pretty rebellious, and they were God’s favorites. And don’t forget Jesus himself rebelling against the authorities. Besides, if he didn’t like the troublemakers, why make so many p.k.’s and d.k.’s?
It was a simple system for a child. We were informed to not run in the sanctuary. So we didn’t. Unless no one else was around—and then it was relay races using a hymnal for a baton. When my friend slammed his head into a pew, taking a corner too fast, that was God saying, “Time to stop, boys.” We said we were sorry, God winked, and until next Sunday we didn’t run in the sanctuary. When, if no one got hurt, maybe God was saying it was O.K….
Chapter 2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is this a series? Thus far it seems you had God's character nailed down.
ReplyDelete"Wisdom is knowing what to overlook" - William James
I'm assuming this is part I.
ReplyDeleteCertainly this couldn't be the level of sophistication and complexity that you had of what Christian theology teaches about God as you got older . . .
ReplyDeleteGod as a ticked-off babysitter of errant adolescents trying to get one more ride on the Demon Drop?
No; I refuse to believe that this will be the sort of thing that ultimately made you become an atheist. I look forward to your future installments, whereby you show me that you have / had a decent adult understanding of Christian theology and the Christian worldview.
cmon, don't tell me you fellas did not have a childish view of God when you were children.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was 5 or 6, I used to drag my red wagon behind me imagining that I was taking Jesus for a ride. I used to talk to him as you would talk to an imaginary friend. Except I did know he was more then a friend. He was God's son. He also protected me from the Devil. My friends and I used to join hands in a circle and sing songs about 'Stomping the Devil into the ground', as we danced and jumped up and down. We would laugh as giddily as children could laugh because Jesus made us feel safe.
As I matured from a boy into a man, my view of Jesus and God also matured. He became less and less a friend and gaurdian angel, and more of my Savior and redeemer. But I could not think in those heavy theological terms when I was a kid. So Jesus was my magic heavenly playmate going for a ride with me in my wagon.
That is what kids do. Or have you forgotten?
Yes, it is a series.
ReplyDeleteDave Armstrong, I had hoped that one could see a bit more depth than a childhood tale of Cedar Point. (Liked the reference to the Demon Drop.) heissailing, not surprisingly, got it.
Do you see what I did as a child? I created a God in my own image. I (generally) liked the rules with an occasional infraction. My God liked the rules with an occasional infraction. I tended to be rebellious, and lo and behold, what does my God like? A child with a bit of rebellion in him.
Is that not what most humans do? If they believe by faith—by golly their God likes faith. If they are an intellect—by golly their God is proven by logic and reason. Hate gays; so does their God. Love gays; so does their god. If their God makes them lose their job; it is a punishment, or a testing or an opportunity. Because that is what they would do as a God.
While this may be a very simplistic childish depiction of God, coming out of a simple childish human, it is only the greater sophistication of adulthood, and greater ability to rationalize that creates a greater god. The god may change, but the method stays the same.
I fear my presentation of subtlety is not going to get any better. Hey—YOU are the one that started me on this jag; are you complaining already? *grin*
I'm going to need more popcorn. :-)
ReplyDeleteOf course this is one of the standard, garden variety atheist arguments: religion is simply infantile projection and thinking. Adults grow out of that and get smart and become atheists, but alas, Christians and other theists stay infantile.
ReplyDeleteIf that is where you are going with this, then I am not impressed. I never am with the "psychological" argument against Christianity as a crutch or mere projection, etc.
I want to see if you had (as an ADULT), an intelligent, self-consistent apologetic and theological understanding. And why you rejected that; not simply psychological analysis.
The god may change, but the method stays the same.
Of course I dispute this. Many people may well indeed think like this (I don't deny it; lotsa folks think all kinds of goofy things) but that is irrelevant to the truth claims of Christianity. It only reveals truths about these peoples' method or interior disposition, not about Christianity itself. And hence it is irrelevant.
Unless you deny that Christianity makes truth claims that can be objectively weighed and then accepted or rejected, we can't talk about it at all. What do I care about the psychological states of other people in relation to God (i.e., as a totality of why they believe or disbelieve in God, wholly apart from theological considerations and propositions)? How does that resolve whether there is a God or not, to the slightest degree?
Besides, if you want to play the game like that, the tables can be turned, and we can argue that many atheists become that because they had no father or a lousy relationship with their fathers, and projected this onto God, and hence rejected Him. Psychiatrist Paul Vitz has made this very argument:
The Defective Father Psychological Theory of Atheism / Christian Emotionalism and Fideism
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/defective-father-psychological-theory.html
I wrote in the above paper, near the end:
ReplyDelete----------------
Paul Vitz's argument is a completely justifiable rhetorical, turning-the-tables tactic along the lines of "you wish to argue that Christians are psychologically warped and in need of infantile crutches?; very well then, I submit the same sort of speculations a, b, and c with regard to atheism." Such an argument, it should be noted, does not necessarily mean that the one making it agrees with all (or even any) of the content.
. . . It is always easier, it seems, to dish out a particular criticism (the psychological arguments as to why Christians hold their beliefs) than it is to see its possible relevance to one's own view. I readily admit that some Christians do indeed need psychological crutches (but so what, I say; who cares about the poorest representatives of any view?). But I have seen precious little of atheists admitting similar types of shortcomings to any extent amongst atheists. I maintain that the percentage of psychological abnormality is likely to be the same in both groups.
Of course this is one of the standard, garden variety atheist arguments: religion is simply infantile projection and thinking.
ReplyDeleteMethinks you've taken a bit too much liberty in your interpretation of his statements. He has neither said nor implied any such thing. The only thing he has implied (and has now explicitly called out) is that people tend to make God in their own image.
However, I am a little perplexed how this really forms a part of a deconversion story. It looks to me a bit like DagoodS set himself out to write a deconversion story, and wrote a psychological analysis instead (as you've said). :)
I want to see if you had (as an ADULT), an intelligent, self-consistent apologetic and theological understanding. And why you rejected that; not simply psychological analysis.
This is a puzzling expectation. If DagoodS had concluded that his theological understanding had been intelligent and self-consistent, he would not have rejected it; that's kind of the whole point. Christians, especially those who had primarily "happy and rewarding" experiences with Christianity, generally become Ex-Christians only through the conviction that all Christian theological and apologetic understanding is fundamentally inconsistent.
So the answer to your question, by definition, is "no", he did not have an intelligent and self-consistent apologetic and theological understanding, which follows from the necessary (to becoming an ex-Christian) conclusion that no such thing exists, or more accurately, that we have encountered no such thing despite the vast array of attempts at demonstrating one.
From reading your past several comments, two things are becoming apparent to me: one is that you do not seem to be remotely open to the possibility that he could actually have a sound and reasonable conclusion that has lead to his deconversion; your very request for a deconversion story made it clear that your aim was to discredit, and not to evaluate for reason, rationality or truth. In otherwords, you already have the truth, so anyone who holds an opposing view could not possibly be right. For this reason, I was mildly surprised that DagoodS actually responded with a deconversion story (though he has not yet completed doing so ;) ). There is little to be gained in presenting arguments to someone who has already indicated an unwillingness to listen.
If I know anything from what I've seen of DagoodS' refreshingly modest style of writing, then I can confidently state that he, on the other hand, is willing to be proved wrong. He is willing to honestly evaluate arguments and points being made to him, but has found them so far to be wanting. But by now he is also battle-wizened, and I doubt he will spend much effort towards attempting to convince the obviously inconvincible.
The other thing that is apparent to me is that you are expecting people to come up with convincing arguments against God, where in fact Ex-Christians never have those (it is logically impossible to disprove God). Instead, they are people who have become convinced that there are no substantial arguments for God, and realize that a rational person must not presume that something exists until a reasonable case can be made that it does. This is what DagoodS was talking about in Prove It!: a fundamental difference in standards of proof.
It is going to be a long series at this rate.
ReplyDeleteThank you, micah cowan for your outstanding and encouraging post.
Just so y’all know, there are people that read my blog who do not comment. Much. And they have heard many of my tales, either in other writings or comments elsewhere.
Dave Armstrong wanted my story, as it were. Yes, I could write, “My Christian Doctrine Held X and here are all the arguments for and the arguments against. I was persuaded by the arguments against. Next, my Christian Doctrine Held…” Instead I decided to dive headlong into self-absorbed narcissism and write my story in such a way that it would be of interest to people who already knew me AND would not quite be the same boring historical account.
Simply put—I am unabashedly writing my own story in my own idiom. Because it is my story, there will be bits that are not persuasive, bits that seem silly, and bits that may not conform to internet debate. I would dearly love to write how I read Eusebuis’ entire works by age 8, read both Koine Greek and Hebrew by age 9, and was translating Coptic Manuscripts by age 11.
I wasn’t. Sorry to disappoint.
No, Dave Armstrong, I was not saying that all Christianity is infantile projection or thinking. (Some Christians do. But, as you correctly point out, this is a mark of humanity, not Christianity. Some atheists, agnostics, skeptics, deists, Jews and any other theistic demarcation do as well.)
Dave Armstrong; Unless you deny that Christianity makes truth claims that can be objectively weighed and then accepted or rejected, we can't talk about it at all.
Ah…and there we return to the perpetual question between you and I, eh? Weighed by whom? Accepted or Rejected by whom? I agree that Christianity makes truth claims. I agree that those claims can be weighed objectively by neutral parties. And those claims can be accepted or rejected by neutral parties.
But you claim (if I recall. And I do) that there ARE no such thing as neutral parties. If we have no neutral parties, how can Christianity’s claims be “objectively weighed”?
Which one of us denies Christianity makes truth claims that can be objectively weighed?
If DagoodS had concluded that his theological understanding had been intelligent and self-consistent, he would not have rejected it; that's kind of the whole point.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't follow. Consistency is only one test of truth. The truth or falsity of premises is equally important (and how one arrives aty them, etc., and what axioms one accepts and why). If the premises are rejected, then the consistent system built upon them is also rejected.
What I was driving at was whether DagoodS even had a decently consistent, cogent worldview as a Christian. I want to know how much he thought through things then, while he still had his Christian presuppositions.
Did he only really start seriously thinking in a skeptical direction? If so, then to compare his later view to his incomplete and insufficient earlier view would be unfair. In would have to compare it with a theistic view that had been appropriately and sufficiently thought through: the best of one school against the best of the other.
It tells us nothing of the truth or falsity of Christianity or of theism for DagoodS to simply tell us that he gave up one inadequate, fallacious, inconsistent worldview for another. I will be examining what he used to believe very closely. So far we have gotten psychology, which proves nothing whatever by means of ontology and metaphysics.
Christians, especially those who had primarily "happy and rewarding" experiences with Christianity, generally become Ex-Christians only through the conviction that all Christian theological and apologetic understanding is fundamentally inconsistent.
But presuming that they didn't believe their own Christian views (when they held them) were absurd and incoherent, this is where they changed their mind: from believing that they had a consistent system, then reversing that opinion. But why did they do it? Something objective has to be present to cause them to reject one system for another (if we can talk at all about it).
So the answer to your question, by definition, is "no", he did not have an intelligent and self-consistent apologetic and theological understanding,
That doesn't follow, because it makes no sense. Obviously, if he was a thinker at all, he must have thought that his old belief-system had coherence and was plausible while he held it. Then he rejected it for whatever reasons he shall reveal to us in due course. He either held that sort of belief and rejected it, or did niot have anywhere near a self-consistent, respectable Christian belief-system.
My job is to show that the reasons he gives for rejecting Christianity fail. I've done that with his first observation: the psychological stuff. It not only fails; it is no argument at all to become a Christian or atheist or cross-eyed vegetarian homosexual Rastafarian.
From reading your past several comments, two things are becoming apparent to me: one is that you do not seem to be remotely open to the possibility that he could actually have a sound and reasonable conclusion that has lead to his deconversion;
It would be quite difficult for a Christian to hold such a view. But I'm looking to see what his reasons are precisely because I respect his thinking abilities. Likewise, any atheist worth his or her salt cannot admit, by definition, that a Christian has sufficient reason to adopt that view. That's just the nature of competing propositions. It has nothing necessarily to do with arrogance or intolerance or anything of the sort (though it could in certain hands).
your very request for a deconversion story made it clear that your aim was to discredit, and not to evaluate for reason, rationality or truth.
If DagoodS succeeds in showing us why we all ought to reject Christianity and proves his case, then I will be more than happy to join him in the atheist fold.
In otherwords, you already have the truth, so anyone who holds an opposing view could not possibly be right.
I believe what I hold to be true, just as an atheist does. No difference. One always holds open the possibility that another view could be more correct. I've yet to see an atheist argument that persuaded me; atheists haven't seen a persuasive Christian argument. No difference again. So why stress such a moot point that applies to everyone? Everyone believes something.
For this reason, I was mildly surprised that DagoodS actually responded with a deconversion story (though he has not yet completed doing so ;) ). There is little to be gained in presenting arguments to someone who has already indicated an unwillingness to listen.
For this reason, I was mildly surprised that DagoodS actually responded with a deconversion story (though he has not yet completed doing so ;) ). There is little to be gained in presenting arguments to someone who has already indicated an unwillingness to listen.
If DagoodS thinks that of me, I shall leave his blog and never comment here again, nor interact with him. But that is up to him to decide, not you or anyone else. He hasn't been persuaded by Christain arguments, either. I fail to see the essential difference. Because he hasn't yet, therefore he MUST be closed-minded and has already made up his mind, etc.? It doesn't follow. One can be open-minded, but simply hasn't been persuaded of something.
I've changed my mind about many major things. I used to believe in the occult and pro-choice and was virtually a secularist, then an evangelical, then a Catholic. I was far more politically and sexually liberal in the past. So I don't need the smarmy lectures about being closed-minded until you learn more about my own past history of being persuaded of different viewpoints.
If I know anything from what I've seen of DagoodS' refreshingly modest style of writing, then I can confidently state that he, on the other hand, is willing to be proved wrong.
So am I, as I just proved form my own past history. You can't demonstrate that he is any more open than I am to changing his mind. You really think it is likely he will become a Christian again? It's not very likely. Nor is it that I will become an atheist. Doesn't mean people can't talk.
He is willing to honestly evaluate arguments and points being made to him, but has found them so far to be wanting.
Exactly the same in my case, and you can't prove any differently. You act as if Christian arguments and apologetics, as if they MUST be closed-minded and couldn't be otherwise. But that is sheer emotional bias.
But by now he is also battle-wizened, and I doubt he will spend much effort towards attempting to convince the obviously inconvincible.
Again, that is up to him, not you. I enjoy my dialogues with him. If he finds me wearisome and invincibly ignorant and intellectually obstinate, then he can say so, instead of a third party speculating about such things.
The other thing that is apparent to me is that you are expecting people to come up with convincing arguments against God, where in fact Ex-Christians never have those (it is logically impossible to disprove God).
I never stated such a thing. I'm interested in why DagoodS rejected Christianity: on what basis? Many things appear to be "apparent" to you about me that simply aren't true, or don't follow.
Instead, they are people who have become convinced that there are no substantial arguments for God, and realize that a rational person must not presume that something exists until a reasonable case can be made that it does.
I will read on with great interest. Thanks for the lecture. How, alas, could I have lasted another day (or live with myself) without it?
Hi Dag,
ReplyDeleteThank you, micah cowan for your outstanding and encouraging post.
Well, I suppose it would be if someone says you are the greatest open-minded thinker since Socrates and runs your opponent down as intolerably dogmatic. I shall wait and see if you accept his jaded speculations in his "outstanding post" about my interior states of mind as well. If so, then our days of discussion are numbered
Dave Armstrong wanted my story, as it were. Yes, I could write, “My Christian Doctrine Held X and here are all the arguments for and the arguments against. I was persuaded by the arguments against. Next, my Christian Doctrine Held…” Instead I decided to dive headlong into self-absorbed narcissism and write my story in such a way that it would be of interest to people who already knew me AND would not quite be the same boring historical account.
Then it may not be for me, since I was interested in what you claimed to be centered upon: "I am far more interested in the arguments themselves."
Simply put—I am unabashedly writing my own story in my own idiom. Because it is my story, there will be bits that are not persuasive, bits that seem silly, and bits that may not conform to internet debate. I would dearly love to write how I read Eusebuis’ entire works by age 8, read both Koine Greek and Hebrew by age 9, and was translating Coptic Manuscripts by age 11.
Good for you. A thirst for knowledge . . .
No, Dave Armstrong, I was not saying that all Christianity is infantile projection or thinking. (Some Christians do. But, as you correctly point out, this is a mark of humanity, not Christianity. Some atheists, agnostics, skeptics, deists, Jews and any other theistic demarcation do as well.)
Good. One remark near the end sounded to me like this was going to be the central thesis of the deconversion. I'm happy to see that is not the case.
ME: Unless you deny that Christianity makes truth claims that can be objectively weighed and then accepted or rejected, we can't talk about it at all.
Ah…and there we return to the perpetual question between you and I, eh? Weighed by whom? Accepted or Rejected by whom?
You and I. Unless we agree upon some objective standards at the presuppositional and axiomatic levels, then we can't talk in terms of competing and disputing opposing ideas.
I agree that Christianity makes truth claims. I agree that those claims can be weighed objectively by neutral parties. And those claims can be accepted or rejected by neutral parties.
There are no neutral parties. But admitting that does not mean that therefore no objective discussion is possible. If that is your position, then all discussion is futile. You're just preaching to the choir, in which case, it would be perfectly ridiculous for me to offer my respectful dissent as a Christian outsider to your worldview.
But you used to hold something akin to my worldview, and that is what interests me. If you're out there saying that Christianity fails because of a, b, c, and d, and no one in your former circles could ever answer your hard questions, etc., then I should think you would be happy that I am here to fill that role that you longed for someone to fill and never found. And my interest is in showing Christians that your arguments against Christianity fail, just as you think compelling arguments in favor of Christianity fail.
But you claim (if I recall. And I do) that there ARE no such thing as neutral parties.
Yes! I did it again right now! Good memory.
If we have no neutral parties, how can Christianity’s claims be “objectively weighed”?
To the best of our abilities, fairly, and with as much rational objectivity as non-neutral parties can muster up. That's how it is in any field of study. It's just how it is. There ain't no clean slates.
Which one of us denies Christianity makes truth claims that can be objectively weighed?
You, if you believe that because no one is perfectly objective, therefore objective propositions cannot be discussed with a modicum of attempted objectivity. I am not nearly that epistemologically skeptical. I simply admit the truism that we all have biases and axioms, and all have unproven and unprovable assumptions. That actually is a commonality between atheists and theists, but oftentimes the atheist will pretend that he has no such axioms, which is absurd.
Micah: If DagoodS had concluded that his theological understanding had been intelligent and self-consistent, he would not have rejected it; that's kind of the whole point.
ReplyDeleteDave: That doesn't follow. Consistency is only one test of truth. The truth or falsity of premises is equally important (and how one arrives aty them, etc., and what axioms one accepts and why). If the premises are rejected, then the consistent system built upon them is also rejected.
True enough, though I'll note that if one can "arrive at" a premise, it can't really be considered to be something "outside" of the "system" we're testing for consistency, etc. However, unless you can think of some likely differences in premise, I will assume we haven't discovered any yet, in which case my original assertion stands.
I do know, at least, from my own direct experience, and from reading of DagoodS', that it was the inconsistency in reason that led directly to my deconversion, and if I have read his writings correctly, his as well.
Further, I have never met an Ex-Christian who deconverted because some fundamental premise was altered, wholly outside of their "system for belief", upon which every other thing had been built; and I do not expect to. Have you?
Dave: But presuming that they didn't believe their own Christian views (when they held them) were absurd and incoherent, this is where they changed their mind: from believing that they had a consistent system, then reversing that opinion.
Of course. But that still does not change the fact that we now, by the very nature of our beliefs, hold them to be inconsistent, and are therefore incapable of demonstrating to you that they were otherwise.
None of which addresses the fact that any lack of consistency of the previous belief is entirely and utterly irrelevant. Poking holes in an argument that he would no longer make does not a refutation make; if you wish to convince him of his error, it seems to me that you would be better served by poking holes in arguments he would now make.
Micah: He is willing to honestly evaluate arguments and points being made to him, but has found them so far to be wanting.
Dave: Exactly the same in my case, and you can't prove any differently.
I can only comment that someone willing to be proved wrong would not have stated so bluntly at the start that per goal was to "critique" his story, nor would phe assume that, since he is not a Christian, there must be an error in his reasoning. An honest evaluator would devote perself to do just that: evaluate.
DagoodS: Thank you, micah cowan for your outstanding and encouraging post.
Dave: Well, I suppose it would be if someone says you are the greatest open-minded thinker since Socrates and runs your opponent down as intolerably dogmatic.
Your powers of exaggeration continue to astonish.
Dave Armstrong,
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that the truth claims of Christianity must be objectively weighed and accepted or rejected by non-objective individuals? How do non-objective persons objectively weigh truth claims? How do non-objective persons objectively accept or reject truth claims?
There seems to be a problem here…
Dave Armstrong: Unless we agree upon some objective standards at the presuppositional and axiomatic levels, …
Such as…?
Goody. This may be the book I've been bugging Dagoods to write.
ReplyDeleteZoe, could you grab me some popcorn too while you're at it? And a coke? :)
I do know, at least, from my own direct experience, and from reading of DagoodS', that it was the inconsistency in reason that led directly to my deconversion, and if I have read his writings correctly, his as well.
ReplyDeleteThen my task (i.e., assuming I remain a Christian in the near future and am not convinced by the sheer unanswerability of all these atheist arguments) is to show onje of two things:
1) The purported "inconsistency" was DagoodS own, due to mistaken notions, or a fault of one particular Christian tradition or apologetic but not all; therefore it doesn't disprove Christianity as a whole, and hence, forms no good or sufficient reason for Dag or anyone else to reject Christianity. As Alvin Plantinga would say, "the defeater would be defeated."
or:
2) What he claims is inconsistent is in fact, not inconsistent, as shown by sustained examination and argumentation.
As soon as he provides us with some reasons other than psychological projection, I'll be more than happy to examine them from a Christian perspective, to see if they hold up under scrutiny.
Further, I have never met an Ex-Christian who deconverted because some fundamental premise was altered, wholly outside of their "system for belief", upon which every other thing had been built; and I do not expect to. Have you?
I haven't encountered enough deconversion stories to say one way or another. But I know that the ones I have seen thus far, and examined, fell entirely flat in their purpose, from where I sit; often with very basic assertions about some aspect of Christianity being in error.
I can only comment that someone willing to be proved wrong would not have stated so bluntly at the start that per goal was to "critique" his story, nor would pre sume that, since he is not a Christian, there must be an error in his reasoning. An honest evaluator would devote perself to do just that: evaluate.
That's a load of rubbish. We all have intellectual commitments that we hold at the present time. DagoodS knows full well that as a Christian apologist I would seek to show that his reasons for rejecting Christianity were inadequate.
You don't care all that much about relative truth claims, or whether there is God or not (I read a bit about how you approach these things). But I do. I believe passionately in Christianity and believe that it makes an eternal difference where a person could end up. And so I defend it passionately. You may not understand that, but that doesn't make it automatically suspicious simply because YOU feel differently.
I examined this mentality of yours on my blog. One of my commenters wrote about the silliness and double standard of your argument from yesterday:
"On his view, you should put off the appropriation of any convictions so that you can putatively remain a neutral and open-minded dialogue partner with a sense of objectivity. But since you have convictions already (as if he didn't), you're not even worth one's time as an interlocutor."
I elaborated:
His [Micah's] position essentially amounts to saying that it is open-minded to reject Christianity and not be re-convinced of it, but it is closed-minded to be a Christian and to claim that atheist arguments have been unconvincing.
That, in turn, simply boils down to:
Atheism is true and theism or Christianity isn't, hence it is open-minded and smart to adopt the former but not the latter. It reduces to circular reasoning, short of something outside the mere bald claim that they are supposedly so open-minded whereas I allegedly am not simply because I have convictions.
And, as you say, who says they don't have convictions, too? It's a denial of reality to pretend that they do not. Micah was pretty convinced about all sorts of interior dispositions of mine that he thinks he "knows" about, wasn't he?
DagoodS writes:
Are you saying that the truth claims of Christianity must be objectively weighed and accepted or rejected by non-objective individuals?
Yes; how can it be otherwise? But they are only relatively non-objective; not to the extent that they are utterly unable to relatively weigh objective claims (as I have explained). Otherwise, this entire discussion is entirely futile. Why waste our time?
How do non-objective persons objectively weigh truth claims?
By bring reason and fact to bear, just as in every sort of intellectual inquiry.
How do non-objective persons objectively accept or reject truth claims?
The above, and by virtue of the accumulation of plausible evidences.
There seems to be a problem here…
On your end, certainly. :-) If you insist on making intelligent and intelligible conversation possible by some extreme skepticism about knowledge, go ahead, but I think it would be a shame, as I do enjoy sparring with you.
Dave Armstrong: Unless we agree upon some objective standards at the presuppositional and axiomatic levels, …
ReplyDeleteSuch as…?
You tell me, since apparently you are burdened by a great deal of epistemological skepticism. If you inform me as to what your axioms are, regarding what one can know (and hence talk about), then we can go from there. I adjust my argument (as a good socratic) according to where my opponent is coming from.
Typo:
ReplyDeleteIf you insist on making intelligent and intelligible conversation possible by some extreme skepticism about knowledge, go ahead, . . .
should be:
"If you insist on making intelligent and intelligible conversation IMpossible . . ."
Your powers of exaggeration continue to astonish.
ReplyDeleteCertainly you are not unfamiliar with the place of exaggeration within the sphere of classical rhetoric, in the exercise of intellectual examination of opposing positions?
You're a sharp guy. I would find it hard to believe that you don't understand this fairly elementary aspect of rhetoric (and of course, humor usually enters in as well, in the use of exaggeration).
I found it quite humorous that DagoodS describes your post as "outstanding and encouraging" seeing that it contained all this profuse praise, such as:
"If I know anything from what I've seen of DagoodS' refreshingly modest style of writing, then I can confidently state that he, on the other hand, is willing to be proved wrong. He is willing to honestly evaluate arguments and points being made to him, but has found them so far to be wanting."
A little )shall we say?) "self-interest" there, on Dag's part? :-) :-)
Now it may just be me, but I found that very funny. Hence the exaggeration to highlight the humor of it. You clearly do not yet understand either my argumentation or my humor. Give it some time. I've been through this routine with many atheists: several of whom came to have a great deal more respect for myself and my arguments after they got to know me beyond the first encounter.
DagoodS and I seemed to bypass that inconvenience, which is one reason I have enjoyed dialoguing with him.
Uh…Dave Armstrong?
ReplyDeleteI’m not the one that said, “Unless we agree upon some objective standards at the presuppositional and axiomatic levels, then we can't talk in terms of competing and disputing opposing ideas.”
You seem to be the one that requires an agreement on “objective standards at the presuppositional and axiomatic levels” in order to discuss “competing and disputing opposing ideas.”
Last standard I proposed did not go over so well with you. If we can’t even agree on a simple standard for determining a contradiction, I would be very surprised that we can agree on something as deep as “presuppositional and axiomatic” “objective standards.”
Seems odd you require it in order to discuss (and I do not) but somehow it became my responsibility to come up with these standards.
Dave Armstrong, I would ask that you self-monitor your tone toward other people that comment. You are free (of course) to use whatever tone you desire with me. But I value what everyone has to say on my blog. Sometimes how you present yourself can be a bit…offputting. And I would hate to have someone not post a comment, or self-censor themselves because of the manner of your presentation.
Thanks.
See, e.g.,:
ReplyDeleteA Glossary of Rhetorical Terms with Examples
http://www.uky.edu/AS/Classics/rhetoric.html
"Hyperbole":
-- exaggeration for emphasis or for rhetorical effect.
http://www.uky.edu/AS/Classics/rhetoric.html#23
Or again:
Rhetorica: Tropes and Schemes:
"In classical rhetoric, the tropes and schemes fall under the canon of style. These stylistic features certainly do add spice to writing and speaking. And they are commonly thought to be persuasive because they dress up otherwise mundane language; the idea being that we are persuaded by the imagery and artistry because we find it entertaining. There is much more to tropes and schemes than surface considerations. Indeed, politicians and pundits use these language forms to create specific social and political effects by playing on our emotions.
"Note: Some examples from "Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student" by Edward P. J. Corbett.
"Definitions:
"Trope: The use of a word, phrase, or image in a way not intended by its normal signification.
Scheme: A change in standard word order or pattern.
"Tropes and schemes are collectively known as figures of speech. The following is a short list of some of the most common figures of speech. I have selected figures that politicians and pundits use often--especially schemes of repetition and word order, which convey authority.
[ . . . ]
"Hyperbole: A trope composed of exaggerated words or ideals used for emphasis and not to be taken literally. Example: "I've told you a million times not to call me a liar!" "
http://www.rhetorica.net/tropes.htm
I'll be glad to "self-monitor" my tone as long as the same standard is applied to the atheists. Are not the following descriptions from Micah of myself equally objectionable if not more so? He started down this road and I responded. If I am guilty (and perhaps I am), then at least consider what it is that caused me to respond in kind:
ReplyDeleteyou already have the truth, so anyone who holds an opposing view could not possibly be right.
[intolerant dogmatism, according to the standard atheist stereotype of how Christians supposedly almost always are; poisoning the well]
There is little to be gained in presenting arguments to someone who has already indicated an unwillingness to listen.
[if I don't even listen, then why are we here at all? Obviously, DagoodS must have presumed that something of worth could be gained from this, else he wouldn't fulfill my request for a deconversion story]
I doubt he will spend much effort towards attempting to convince the obviously inconvincible.
[reading hearts and minds. I have argued in several different ways that this is a double standard: it applies no more to me than to the atheist, DagoodS or Micah]
I can only comment that someone willing to be proved wrong would not have stated so bluntly at the start that per goal was to "critique" his story, nor would phe assume that, since he is not a Christian, there must be an error in his reasoning. An honest evaluator would devote perself to do just that: evaluate.
[I've gone over this, too. But note the charge of dishonesty at the end]
Yet none of this is remotely "offputting?" I'm the guest here, in the sense of being the dissenting outsider. We have had cordial relations in the past. If I were in your shoes and you in mine, I would have been advising Micah either publicly or privately that his judgmentalism is what is not helpful, and arguably quite rude to a guest on the blog.
I am perfectly willing to admit that I am not perfect in language, but I also make it known that my reactions do not come from nowhere, and are perfectly reasonable, given the unreasonable charges made against me.
People apparently can't handle an opposing view, so all of a sudden now you have to moderate your comments lest other atheists fly off the handle and become truly ridiculous.
That's not my fault, my friend. Any of you are more than welcome to come to my blog, and I'll see to it that you are treated fairly and with respect. I never have to moderate comments on my blog.
Glad and heartened to see you have stopped the moderator approval. Good for you.
ReplyDelete(FYI, in case Dave Armstrong’s last two paragraphs did not make sense, I briefly turned on comment moderation.
ReplyDeleteHey, my friend,
ReplyDeleteI posted my evidence for the Resurrection on my blog. Let me know what you think of it.
http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2014/02/is-bible-churchs-foundation.html?showComment=1393363362373#c6561381380348488312
Gary
My evidence is in the comment section, below my unfortunate spat with Bruce Gerenscer.
ReplyDeleteI did a search of the Roman Catholic statements on the historicity of the Resurrection and found a REALLY good one. Let me know what you think.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2014/02/excellent-evidence-for-literal.html