Friday, November 30, 2007

Ripley was on to Something

During a Jury trial, we only have one opportunity to talk directly to the jurors. When picking a jury, we are allowed to ask them questions, to determine whether they can sit as fair and impartial jurors on this particular matter. Due to circumstances in each person’s life, while they may be quite impartial to in one situation; they would be unable to fairly balance the evidence in another matter.

A woman who had been raped may not be able to fairly listen to evidence in a criminal rape trial and thus should be excused. Yet that same woman could easily sit in a contract case or a drunk driving case without her pervious experience having any impact whatsoever.

However, this is partly a ruse. See, as lawyer representing my client, what I really desire is an unfair and partial jury—just one that is unfair and partially predisposed to my position. *grin* (Unfortunately, so does my opponent. The system figures between the two of us wrangling, we will end up with a jury somewhere in the middle.)

We also attempt to explain what our position will be in a trial. One of my law school professors said, “A jury should hear a case four times: once in jury selection, once in opening statements, once in the case itself and once in closing arguments.” So we subtlety ask questions in order to grease the wheels toward our position.

I had a case in which my client offered a better price than the opposing side. I thought this significant and felt jurors who were price-conscious would be more pre-disposed to my position. One of the questions I asked was, “Who has purchased items on the internet?” After most of the panel raised their hands, I followed up with one particular juror, with this question, “What was the primary reason for purchasing on-line?” Now, because of my own predisposition of price-comparison shopping, and where my mind was focused—I was expecting the answer, “Better price.” I was surprised:

Juror one: For the convenience.
Me: Juror two, you raised your hand—why did you purchase on-line?
Juror two: Convenience.
Me: Juror three—why did you purchase on-line?
Juror three: Convenience.

(If you ever want to study the relationship of leaders with followers, and the effect a strong leader can have on a group of people—study juries. Very informative.) Right down the line, every person said, “Convenience.”

I immediately shifted my focus from the price my client offered, as compared to the convenience it offered. Why? Because the group I was trying to convince was not persuaded by the same things which persuade me. They were not like me. Yet this was the group I was trying to convince to go my way. I would have been completely ineffectual to insist to this jury “price” was more important than “convenience” simply because I said so.

It often amazes lawyers to talk to jurors after a trial. What we thought was extremely significant, focusing hours and hours in preparation and presentation can have been dismissed with a shrug and “we didn’t think that important.” Or, conversely, we are asked why we didn’t bring this witness, or address this issue and the other attorney and I roll our eyes at each other since neither of us even remotely thought of that possibility; we never suspected it was important to this jury.

I had a case where my client claimed he swerved his automobile to miss a dog which ran in to the road (but was never found.) The other side claimed my client was simply not paying attention. After the trial, the jurors immediately pounced on us: “Why didn’t you ask what color the dog was?”

The other lawyer and I just stared at each other. He—because his position there was no dog—black, white, red or blue. Me—because if the jury thought there was a dog, its color was irrelevant. Neither of us even remotely thought to ask the question!

I guess this is a long way of saying—we are all convinced and persuaded for different reasons. As humans we vary in what is extremely important and significant to one, and irrelevant and insignificant to another. Try automobile shopping with your spouse. That’ll prove the point nicely.

Very often even we do not know what is important to us. Because of our superhuman ability to delude ourselves, we can convince ourselves we are persuaded because of one reason—yet it is not at the very core of our person.

Four years ago I believed there was a God. If questioned, I would have informed you this was at the very center of my person. It was grounded in everything I believed, everything I did, everything I said. It would have been as difficult to remove the mitochondria from each of my cells, or the letter “e” from my alphabet as to remove God from my being. It was not something “in addition to me” or extraneous, but interwoven and inseparable as copper and tin within bronze.

I began to discuss with skeptics and non-believers; interacting with their arguments presented by the actual skeptic—not some strawperson statement made by a fellow theistic believer. And I immersed myself in studying: Is there a god?

In retrospect, I now realize my God-belief was NOT at the core of my being. It was NOT the very center. What was more important to me was the answer to the question: What actually is? If it was the Christian God; good. If it was some other God: not-so-good, but doable. If it was no God; bad, but if that is what actually is then there is no use crying about it. As key as God-belief was, there was something even deeper—something that could trump that God-belief to the point of no longer believing in a God—the desire for what is actual reality.

(By the way, it is for that reason, arguments such as “Isn’t absolute morality a ‘better’ system?” or Pascal’s Wager are unpersuasive to me. I am looking for what “is;” not what people wish things to be, or prefer them to be.)

Eventually I have come to face the prospect as much as I want to say God-belief was the center, it must not have been. Since I was willing to forego that belief for something even closer to the center—what is.

This is why “evangelistic atheism” fails. People believe in a God for different reasons. To lose that belief, we would need to address the core underneath, which is difficult to do. My wife has the maternal instincts of two and ½ mothers. It is the nucleus of her being. To her, the greatest fear is harm to our children. A loss of god-belief necessarily entails damnation to hell for our kids. Therefore god-belief will forever be maintained. Just as I could not hold on to god-belief, because of the inner search for actual, she could not let go of God, because of the inner fear of harm.

I could provide irrefutable proof there is no god, and it would not make a bit of difference to her. “Proof” is not what convinces her.

Of course, it is also possible there is something even deeper than “actuality” which drives me. Maybe it is some intense desire to sin. I can only (in keeping with the holiday season) rely upon the saying, “the proof is in the pudding.” It is with hindsight I look back and see “what is” was deeper than “god-belief.” That something was more important to me than even believing in god. With equal hindsight—I see no sin. I see no desire to jaywalk erratically, or rob banks. Perhaps some day I will blog how there is something deeper than “actual” which I now recognize. But not today…

What does this mean? It means, when discussing theism, I suggest we start talking like lawyers to jurors. Start talking to the other person as to what convinces them; not what you demand they must be persuaded by. Ask what they believe is important; don’t mandate what is important or not.

I tire of the lame excuse (there is no other word) often made of “You are predisposed to not believe in miracles; so that is why you don’t believe the New Testament account.” Or, “you come from a naturalistic predisposition, so you only view the world as natural.” Please.

Is this really a surprise? Guess what—being an atheist and having studied a little, I am firmly convinced the Bible is a human creation. Solely human. To tell me I think that it is…not very informative. I am persuaded there is no God. To tell me I think in terms of naturalism…is that stunning? Stop begging off because it is hard work. Stop proclaiming the other person is believing wrongly, or is persuaded by the wrong evidence.

Start interacting with the person on their level; with their beliefs. Ask “why” do they believe it? What is convincing to them? What types of things are they looking to be persuaded? Start asking; start listening; start responding to them--not your perception of what they should say.

42 comments:

  1. "what is" vs. "God-belief"

    A few points

    The real God would be at the heart of "what is". The biblical name for God comes from the same verb, "I Am that I Am". That's what the Old Testament tells us.

    Wittgenstein said in response to Descartes' "I think therefore I am", the only "I Am" that is infallible is that of God. Jesus is described as the Word of God itself. The Bible is considered not truly the Word of God [although I am guilty of calling it that myself], but the inspired word - an important step away as man is involved. "What is" - the I Am - is the Word of God.

    I found that "what is" points to God, not away. Christians fall into the trap of trying to defend the Bible as if it is the end-all, but it isn't that. The Word of God is Himself. God is the denouement of what is and will always be, not the Bible. In defense of the Bible, it does say that.

    This is one of your best posts on your de-conversion. I can understand much more clearly how you came to your conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But Jim, if the Bible is a complete fabrication, what does it matter what the God character calls himself? If it's a fictional work, even one closely based on reality, what difference does it make? Can you make your argument WITHOUT referencing Scripture that the atheist is predisposed to not trust?

    ReplyDelete
  3. (I'm curious as to what sort of case would hinge on either price or convenience.)

    Dagood, I would venture to contradict you: You're less interested in what is and more interested in what we know as opposed to what we take on faith.

    Jim Jordan: "What is" points to God only in the sense that "God" is so broadly defined that every logically possible construction of what is would point to God, rendering the term empirically meaningless. Even a world of murderers, rapists and idolaters would point to a God that approved of murder, rape and idolatry. The "God" that "what is" points to is just yourself, your own consciousness, and especially your own moral prejudices.

    The Bible is just a work of fiction, and, compared against the great works of literature, at best a mediocre fiction.

    ReplyDelete
  4. DagoodS,

    I like your plea to talk to people on their "level." Otherwise, we are just self centered and trying to convince vs. communicate. So the challenge will become figuring out the "why" behind the belief. Tricky since there always seems to be that "something deeper." I still like the "I don't know" approach, "let's look." But honestly, I get into trouble with that one because I usually encounter: "well I do know, so why should I question?" To which I reply...sigh, go visit DagoodS blog site.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Barefoot Bum,

    The details of the case you would find boring. In essence, my client went around the middle-man distributor and provided the product to the manufacturer directly. The middle-man distributor sued my client, claiming basically we stole his business. My client could offer a better price to the manufacturer (and hence to the consumers like…oh…I don’t know…the jurors? *grin*) by the proverbial “cutting out the middle man.”

    I switched this to the convenience, rather than the price, of there being no middle man.

    See how it is boring when written out? And you are correct, when I say “what is” I mean “the reality as best we know it with the information we have today, and which may need to be modified by information we gain tomorrow.”

    Jim Jordan,

    Both flycandler and The Barefoot Bum point out the problem—we first would have to determine the Bible as divine. The deconversion process for the vast majority of Christians does NOT leapfrog from Christianity to non-belief. We first realize Christian theism is incorrect, not theism as a whole. That comes later.

    I know you hold to a god-belief as “what is.” You have stated you initially investigated the Bible from the point of a skeptic. Have you ever written what it was that you believed prior to studying the Bible, what methodology you used in studying the Bible, and what it was that eventually convinced you of the divinity of the Bible? I would be curious to read it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. **And I immersed myself in studying: Is there a god? **

    I'm wondering if this question itself is almost circular in nature. By asking that, isn't a working definition of god required? I mean, if I define god as cereal, it's going to be a very easy question to answer. Especially since I had cereal for dinner.

    But let's say we define God as love. We can see physical representations of love, and so we could then conclude there was a god.

    Narrowing that definition is where it gets trickier, such as a god must also be a creator, or omnipotent. Those would be much harder to find.

    But clearly some sort of definition must be in place, because those who search do reject possible gods. They might reject Zeus, or a Hindu deity, because they would "know" that's not god. How, though? How could you possibly know that unless you had a prior working definition? And who would supply that definition? If it's defined by other people, then it can too easily become people created a god that suits them. If we say the definition comes from the actual god Him/Her/Itself, then how do we possibily avoid "Well, we know it's God because it said it's God?"

    I suppose this is why so much of knowing God exists is subjective. I just don't see how this search can objectively occur without people first setting up what it is they're going to find.

    ReplyDelete
  7. (I'm a computer programmer, and my wife is a paralegal. I always find the details of legal cases interesting, just as I find the details of prosaic algorithms interesting. I'm reminded of my mother's attempt to start a referral system for non-profits: She was left with the lesson that just because something is a good idea, doesn't make it legal.)

    As Jim Jordan's comment shows, I think much confusion is side-stepped when we cast these sorts of philosophical questions in epistemic terms (what we know) rather than in ontological terms (what is). As you yourself note, you're interested in what we know about what is; but the "what is" is superfluous, being identical to what we know.

    Many many years ago at IIDB, I wrote a post on the subject: "How many Apaches are hiding in this room?" (The answer is, "As many as want to.") The point of the exercise is that there are ordinary, prosaic statements about reality (there is nothing fundamentally supernatural either about Apaches or the ability to hide) which are fundamentally epistemically unavailable. It is the epistemic unavailability, the inability to know — and not specifically the ontological weirdness we see in conceptions about God — which renders these sorts of questions meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If you re-read my 12:45 pm comments you'll see I refer to the Bible but that is not where I base my argument. The biblical points are a complement not a foundation.

    I'm a little hurried but here are a few points.
    1) God, if He exists, created the universe we see.
    2) This action ties Him inextricably to every atom since He is the source.
    Barefoot says that this God is empirically meaningless..in comparison to what? What is the frame of reference to rule an omnipresent God meaningless?

    BB said Even a world of murderers, rapists and idolaters would point to a God that approved of murder, rape and idolatry.

    To me the words "that approved of" stick out like a sore thumb. What does that mean? It's contradictory - God approves of idolatry - the worship of other gods?

    Murder, rape, and idolatry being evil actually does point to God, but not to any divine approval. Evil points to the existence of good unless you think there is only evil in the world. Then the conscious entity (us) must determine if God is good or evil. If He was evil, He wouldn't have created us, or He would have created us only to torture us for His pleasure. He might be good.

    Perhaps there was more to your argument that I missed. I have enjoyed reading a lot of your writing on your site - you seem to have an enormously educated mind...and your blog rates as "Genius". My site was rated "High School" but I do teach kids (that's my excuse).

    Dagoods we first would have to determine the Bible as divine.

    Jim had said The Bible is considered not truly the Word of God [although I am guilty of calling it that myself], but the inspired word - an important step away as man is involved.

    and

    Christians fall into the trap of trying to defend the Bible as if it is the end-all, but it isn't that. The Word of God is Himself. God is the denouement of what is and will always be, not the Bible. In defense of the Bible, it does say that.


    The Bible is considered by Christians to be divinely inspired, not divine. It is a book. You can take it or leave it, like any book. Whether that is to your benefit or loss is another story. [Some Christians have mangled the Bible so much they would have been better off not having read it.]

    The Bible is a book and God is...God. So the question "Is the Bible divine?" is different from the question, "Is there a divine?"

    what methodology you used in studying the Bible, and what it was that eventually convinced you of the divinity of the Bible? I would be curious to read it.


    That is a great idea. I had a post called "Re-Inventing God No More" that had some scant background on that (My book's title was going to be 'Re-Inventing God'), but I need to flesh out a lot of my old doubts and how each fell away. If you recall however from my "conversion experience", the dye was cast not from anything in the Bible but something in my room. But that of course is inadmissible as evidence in your court so don't expect a theistic silver bullet from my reflections.
    Thanks and take care.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jim: I'm glad you've enjoyed reading my site.

    What I mean by "empirically meaningless" is that the supposedly "sophisticated" notions of god are unfalsifiable: there is no logically possible alternative observations which would render the notion false. No matter what sort of universe we could observe (even to the extent of observing a lifeless universe from the "outside", or even observing no universe at all (from where? but that's not the point)) would allow us to say logically, "this conception of god is false".

    We want an explanation to explain not only why things are as they are, but why they are not otherwise. The way "sophisticated" notions of god are constructed, we can't draw any specific conclusions at all, neither about physics nor ethics.

    If you want to see a classic example of explaining nothing by being unable to differentiate between what is and what isn't, read Swinburne's The Justification of Theism with a critical eye.

    Since the mere existence of a god entails nothing about ethics, we have to not only assume its existence but also have to assume particular properties about what it considers good and what it considers evil. But how are these assumptions justified? Usually by, "I approve of X and disapprove of Y; I'm a godly person; therefore my god approves of X and disapproves of Y." The fallacy is obvious and ridiculous when stated so baldly; theistic ethical "philosophy" consists of obfuscating this fundamental fallacy.

    The idea that "good" and "evil" are existential properties, in the same way that mass, charge, extension in space, etc. are existential properties — properties of objects themselves — cannot be justified by any form of sound reasoning, neither deductive nor scientific/evidentiary. Thus the idea that "god" is a necessary hypothesis to explain that good and evil are existential properties is a non-starter.

    ReplyDelete
  10. BTW: I'm neither well-educated (high school dropout) nor particularly intelligent (my IQ is barely above normal); the "Genius" evaluation of my blog I see as a negative: Were I a better writer, my work would be more accessible.

    However, I am (or try to be) honest (in Feynman's sense) and I have a lot of time on my hands (because I'm a very efficient executive).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hello BB
    I see I had overlooked the "empirically" part of "empirically meanlingness". There is indeed nothing to compare God to empirically. Like ethics, Wittgenstein put this outside of the world.

    there is no logically possible alternative observations which would render the notion [of God] false.

    Exactly. It's a veritable draw. Although there is much flawed logic on both sides to make us want to be vigilant.

    The one scientific conundrum for atheists in my opinion is the beginning of the universe - the Big Bang. Would that not point to nature being finite while pointing to a source that is supernatural?
    Is there much hope in alternative theories that avoid a beginning?

    The Big Bang implies the existence of an uncaused cause, which of course would come from outside. Do you see this as a possible fingerprint of God?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Given that you admit notions of God are empirically meaningless, in what sense — and I'm open-minded here — would they be meaningful?

    Aquinas' arguments were decisively refuted by Hume in Dialogs Concerning Natural Religion in 1779; the refutations have been independently discovered by countless people with more than a cursory interest in philosophy, myself included.

    God of the Gaps arguments have, since Newton and Laplace, have turned out time and again to be gigantic failures.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Empirical provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

    By this definition my experience has verified God exists and he knows me. But you can not accept it because your experience doesn't back it up. So what do we have?

    You believe there is nothing not bound by nature nor beyond it. I believe there definitely is. Sounds like the cosmic draw you keep referring to.

    The God of the gaps argument: We are looking at a Toyota and I say, "That had to be designed by someone." And you say, "Oh, do you have to infer a designer whenever you see a design?"

    Is that a "God of the gaps" or the "God of the Toyota"? I see the "God of the gaps" as a straw man argument.

    I would humbly suggest that there will be things you can't get in your petry dish.

    I am still interested in knowing what implications you think the apparently supernatural beginning of the universe has to a naturalistic worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  14. OneSmallStep,

    You raise a key question. (As seems to be Standard Operating Procedure in your comments. *smile*)

    By some account we DO have to define what “God” is prior to searching for it. In the same way we define “cereal” or “love” or “justice” prior to discussing or looking for it. Some definitions (such as “cereal”) are easier than others, (such as “love.”) God may be the trickiest definition of them all.

    For giggles, I googled “God” and was informed I had 461 Million occurrences I needed to investigate. (On your blog alone I had at least 48). That is 461 Million times in which people are attempting to communicate a concept they suppose the other understands to some degree.

    All I can do it listen (just like any other word) and see how others define it. How others describe it. And see whether that conforms with what I perceive. Part of that involves my interacting with such people, questioning them as to the differences between what we perceive, and what they claim.

    And, as you may accurately point out, the farther the theist places God out of our perception, the more difficult it is to make such a comparison. I have long ago come to the conclusion that if God wants me to see him/her/it, it is up to him/her/it to make himself/herself/itself known. ‘Cause humanity can’t do it on their own.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Barefoot Bum,

    Like you, I hope to communicate in the simplest terms. Last I checked, my blog rated as “Elementary Education” which I was quite happy about. It meant that everyone could understand what I am saying. However, a recent check indicates my blog has moved up to “Junior High.” I can only account for that by the recent influx of a certain “Genius” level blogger who has been commenting on my blog.

    You are blowing the curve, my friend! *grin*

    Thank you for the link to Swinburne’s article. Interesting.

    Oh, and if you like legal stories, here is a another:

    Recently there was a murder in our area that was highly profiled in our media. So highly profiled, it is taking more than a week just to pick an “impartial” jury (and I personally think it will be difficult to actual do so, due to the coverage of the story.) Part of jury selection includes informing the jury they cannot discuss the case with family members and friends until after the verdict so they only receive information in the trial itself.

    Attorney: Ma’am, if you are at a Christmas party this season, can you refrain from discussing this case with your friends and family?
    Potential Juror: That would depend on how many drinks I have.

    She was excused!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jim Jordan,

    The word “divine” can also be an adjective. I am quite aware (believe it or not) Christians do not consider the Bible to be God itself (i.e. a noun). However, they do hold it is the only writing God-infused in some way. In other words, it is the only writing that deserves the adjective “divine.”

    Jim Jordan: The one scientific conundrum for atheists in my opinion is the beginning of the universe - the Big Bang.

    I would agree with you here. The problem with the Big Bang is that it impossible to view “past” it (and even using the term “past” is incorrect as it implies time which initiated at the Big Bang.)

    The question, though, is whether “We don’t know” is better than proposing an outside force. I wrote on this at I don’t know. Further the theist is left with the difficult proposition of describing how the elements occurred in such a specific fashion immediately after the Big Bang—was God involved in this succession or not? If it was, why do the Big Bang in the first place as it was unnecessary. If not, we start to have a God that did not intend the universe (which makes a VERY interesting God indeed!)

    The Big Bang causes problems for the naturalist to answer the question “why?” as in “why is there anything at all.” The Big Bang causes greater problems for the theist, in the God that follows from it.

    Frankly, the Big Bang does not work in favor of the theists unless they pick and choose parts to embrace, and parts to ignore.

    Oh, and calling the “God of the Gaps” a strawperson argument does not make it so. Are you saying theists do NOT regularly propose “we don’t know so therefore god must have done it”?

    ReplyDelete
  17. By this definition my experience has verified God exists and he knows me.

    If the truth or falsity of your the conception of God could be verified by your experience, then it would be empirically meaningful. But you admitted before that your conception is empirically meaningless. It's useful, I think, to pick just one side of one's mouth to speak out of.

    But saying your experience verifies God and actually verifying the existence of God by your experience are two entirely different things. For instance, asserting "If A then B; B; therefore A" is not a "verification" of A.

    We are looking at a Toyota and I say, "That had to be designed by someone."

    Oh good grief. Do you think the knowledge that Toyotas are designed just magically pops into one's mind? Have you considered the idea that there just might be a natural, rational, evidentiary justification for concluding that Toyotas are actually designed?

    I would humbly suggest that there will be things you can't get in your petry dish.

    Perhaps, perhaps not. But that's irrelevant. The question is: How do your insane, barbaric scripture justify knowledge about anything at all that doesn't fit into my "petri dish"?

    Generally speaking, making stuff up and calling it true does not impress the skeptic as an epistemic method.

    I am still interested in knowing what implications you think the apparently supernatural beginning of the universe has to a naturalistic worldview.

    The universe does not appear to have a supernatural beginning; indeed that there was a Big Bang at all is not a matter of appearance but of natural, rational, evidentiary justification. Again, I refer you to Hume, Dawkins, or scores of threads on IIDB if you wish to investigate the failure of this line of reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dagood: The Big Bang is not a particular problem for naturalism, no more than any other area of specific scientific ignorance (cough abiogenesis).

    We don't know that it's impossible to investigate "past" the Big Bang. It might be the case that the phrase "past the Big Bang" is not analytically meaningful in the same sense that "north of the North Pole" is not analytically meaningful and not any sort of limit about our knowledge of spheres. [The book to read is A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.]

    (I would speculate on general principles that the reading level evaluator doesn't include comments.)

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "The God of the Gaps argument fails, therefore god does not exist" would be a fallacious argument (the Fallacy Fallacy).

    However, the atheist assertion is typically, "The God of the Gaps argument fails" full stop. It seems clear that, "There's a lot we don't know about the Big Bang, therefore it has (or appears to have) a supernatural cause," would seem an exact instance of the God of the Gaps argument.

    ReplyDelete
  21. DagoodS,

    **You raise a key question. (As seems to be Standard Operating Procedure in your comments. *smile*)**

    I do my best. :)

    **By some account we DO have to define what “God” is prior to searching for it.**

    I wonder if we might even take this a step further, and say we use a definition in terms of visions or feelings. You mention later that you're at the stage where if there is a God, God will have to make him/her/itself known in a "There's no way that this is not God" sort of way.

    I've been thinking about that, in terms of the moments I've had where I've just "known" about God. Perhaps even those were predetermined, in a way. One of the moments was when there was a situation at work that I was scared of, because there had been a mix-up in numbers that had affected parts of what I was working on. I was praying for everything to be okay, and went to bed feeling somewhat sick. I was still feeling sick the next morning, but while driving to work, I had this ... well, there's no good way to describe it, but this wall of calmness kind of slide into me, and almost elevating me above my fear. I just knew it was okay, God was in control.

    The situation wasn't resolved that day. It took a few weeks, and my role was addressed. That calm-wall only stayed about a day, but it was enough that I wasn't scared anymore. I had that certainty, and "knew" it was from God.

    But let's say I had something else happen, like an absolute certainty that when I got to work, I'd be punished by getting cut into little pieces while still alive and eaten. And I had the same "knowing" that this was God's will.

    Any sane person would reject that flat-out, saying that wasn't an encounter from God. It could be my overactive imagination, maybe I was off my medication (I don't take any, it's for example purposes only), or maybe the Devil picked that day to really chase after my soul.

    Both situations had the same type of certainity in knowing it was supernatural. Yet one we'd reject. The only reason why I can see us rejecting it is because we've preset the conditions as to what would come from God.

    So I understand those who accept their faith based on an encounter they can only describe as divine, and that God made Himself known in absolute certain terms. But even in that case, the believer still played a role in determining that it was God, by comparing that to what would be not-God.

    Therefore, if you ever do get your encounter, will a part of you still wonder if you just talked yourself into believing?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Dag
    However, they do hold it is the only writing God-infused in some way. In other words, it is the only writing that deserves the adjective “divine.”

    Whereas the Bible has authority in the church, I don't think God limited his influence to one book. I've never thought that. I even posted once on how God influences many atheists' writings.

    BB
    "There's a lot we don't know about the Big Bang, therefore it has (or appears to have) a supernatural cause," would seem an exact instance of the God of the Gaps argument.

    Not so. If space and time were initiated from that moment, where is the possible natural cause? It would be contained in the effect? There is more than a GOG argument there, you must (or should) admit. Seems like a supernatural cause to me. And I have read A Brief History of Time (its right here).

    The north of the north pole statement is rather funny. There is nothing north of the north pole, true - it ends at a point (like the universe began) but there is something above the north pole that lies outside the world and surrounds it.

    You also pasted the first half of a statement. About my experience I added But you can not accept it because your experience doesn't back it up. So what do we have? My experience is more than enough for me but it is inadmissible in your eyes. That doesn't contradict "empirically meaningless" unless I was talking about my excperience being inadmissible and universally acceptable at the same time. Something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jim: We don't know that space and time were initiated at the Big Bang. We don't know much about the Big Bang at all: It's a theory: An hypothesis about a few properties of a past state of affairs evidenced by a few rather subtle clues we can observe today.

    You're conflating a synthetic argument with an analytical argument. The existence of a north pole is a consequence of the description of a sphere. A description of a sphere does not analytically entail that space must exist "outside" that sphere.

    You're also making a huge, unwarranted and false assumption that I do not or will not "accept" your experience for any reason, much less because my own experience differs.

    I'm not particularly skeptical that you've had some experiences. I'm extremely skeptical, however, that the conclusion that God exists can be rationally justified by the experiences that you've had. My skepticism is especially focused because you yourself have denied that your notions about what "God" means can be justified by experienced, i.e. your notions are empirically meaningless.

    Empirical verification is a specific process, a particular kind of connection between statements and experiences. As OneSmallStep notes, simply saying, "I've experienced the presence of God" is not by itself a verification. Rather, one has some sort of experience (typically "certainty", "peace", and suchlike) for which the presence of God is offered as an explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  24. For the record, let me briefly describe all the reasons why the First Cause argument (and related arguments) go off the rails.

    The first cause argument is thus:

    P1: Everything that began to exist has a cause

    P2: The universe began to exist

    C: The universe has a cause. This cause is identified as "God"

    Both premises include "began to exist", a very subtle and poorly defined predicate. What precisely does this predicate mean? Our naive intuition supplies the somewhat fuzzy but usually adequate notion that there was some point in time in which some object does not exist, then some "cause" happens, and then there's a subsequent point in time where the object does exist.

    We don't know that there was some point in time where the universe did not exist, because space-time is a coordinate system we use to label events within the universe. By that somewhat more precise definition, there is no point in space-time in which the universe doesn't exist, in exactly the same sense as there is no (latitude, longitude) pair in which the surface of the earth does not exist.

    Second, even if the notion of "began to exist" were tightened up and made precise, P1 is a synthetic, not an analytic, statement: causality is not part of the definition of "began to exist". Causality is a scientific theory, an hypothesis justified by absolutely unvarying connections between our observations of particular events.

    As a synthetic premise, it can be denied in any number of ways without entailing a logical contradiction. In particular, concluding that an uncaused cause exists would contradict the premise, proving by contradiction precisely the opposite of what the theist intends to prove.

    Third, even if we ignore all the fatal problems with the premises and definitions, all we can demonstrate is that the observable universe has a cause. We cannot reason from just the existence of a cause to any specific properties of that cause.

    Again, I will mention that demonstrating the fatal flaws in an argument does not prove the opposite of the argument's conclusion. It demonstrates only that the argument is flawed.

    ReplyDelete
  25. P1. God has always existed.
    P2. God created the universe.

    One of the two is an uncaused cause; the universe or what we call God. The latter is more logical - the universe is wearing out, not something an eternal entity would do.

    I suggest we do have a fingerprint but we don't have anything to compare it to.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Jim Jordan: I don't think God limited his influence to one book. I've never thought that. I even posted once on how God influences many atheists' writings.

    So you believe Star Wars and Star Trek and South Park and Groundhog day are inspired, just like…say…the book of of Romans or Mark? Fascinating…

    I love when an argument has been defeated, yet the person gamely holds on to it, regardless of the obvious problem. Better to admit “divine” can be an adjective than to claim these movies, as well as Contact are “divine” as well.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dagoods
    What are you talking about? I am obviously NOT saying that Star Wars is the same as the Bible, the inspired Word of God. Is Star Wars wholly uninspired by God? No.

    God doesn't care if Carl Sagan is an atheist [Yup, He's no respecter of persons]. He still used him to write one of the greatest books on faith I've ever read.

    You're stuffing my argument into a one-size fits all folder.
    Try again, amigo. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Jim: I'm not sure I understand your previous two comments. (To be honest, I'm sure I don't understand them.)

    ReplyDelete
  29. What'd I do now? :-)

    OK, think of the Bible as the authoritative inspired word of God. Not just bits of it, but all of it, is inspired by God. It's the Big Cheese. Other popular works that emulate certain aspects of it are little cheeses, workers in the vineyard.

    ReplyDelete
  30. OK, think of the Bible as the authoritative inspired word of God.

    Every time I try to do that, I either laugh hysterically or vomit in disgust, depending on which parts I've most recently read.

    It really is a disgusting and depraved bit of fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jim Jordan,

    A strange little game we seem to be playing…

    I write a blog entry regarding the basis of what people believe, and how it is different. (If I wanted to use long-winded words, it is an entry on one’s epistemology.)

    You provide a response, referring to the Biblical name for God, the Biblical description of Jesus, and the inspiration of the Bible. Note, I did not mention the Bible in my blog entry.

    Jim Jordan: The Bible is considered not truly the Word of God [although I am guilty of calling it that myself], but the inspired word - an important step away as man is involved. (emphasis in original)

    But when we want to unpack that further, such as how to determine what is “inspired” and what is not, you start to bob and weave. Now you are claiming certain other works, such as Star Trek Episodes that “emulate” the Bible are also inspired. You make the conflicting statements of:

    1) I am not saying Star Wars is the same as the Bible, the inspired word of God.
    2) Star Wars is not wholly uninspired by God.
    3) Both Star Wars (in part) and the Bible are “cheese” (in which “cheese” appears to be defined as “the authoritative inspired word of God.”)

    Normally I give the other person the benefit of the doubt when attempting to determine what they are saying, but now I am completely baffled. YOU are the one who initially relied upon claims about the Bible. Not me. Not flycandler. Not The Barefoot Bum. You said nothing about our looking at certain episodes of Star Trek as well.

    So I will modify my previous statement to keep up with the changing times. “We first have to determine the Bible [and other works such as parts of Star Trek and Star Wars] as divine.” (Note, by “divine” I mean an adjective, not a noun.)

    You seem to break the writings of the world into at least two categories—“cheese” and “not cheese.” What method do we use to determine which media are “cheese” and which media are not?

    ReplyDelete
  32. OneSmallStep: So I understand those who accept their faith based on an encounter they can only describe as divine, and that God made Himself known in absolute certain terms. But even in that case, the believer still played a role in determining that it was God, by comparing that to what would be not-God.

    Absolutely. A person in America who had such a “God moment” would tend to relate that to a Christian God. Unless, of course, they were in a Mormon community, in which case they would relate it to the Mormon God, and the Christian would tell them they may have had a God moment, but mis-interpreted it.

    Unless, of course, they were in a Muslim community, in which case they would believe such an encounter was with Allah, when the Christian and the Mormon would tell them they may have had a God moment, but mis-interpreted it. Unless they were Native American, when the Muslim, the Christian and the Mormon would inform the Native American they mis-interpreted it. Or if they were Jewish…or Christian Science…or Jehovah’s Witness…or Catholic…or Hindu...and so on.

    A Calvinist finds their God Moments reinforcing a Calvinist God.

    If I have an encounter, would a part of me wonder if I talked myself into believing? Most likely not. On occasion, I deal with people suffering from mental illness. They really, truly, 100% believe the United States Government is monitoring them through their teeth filings. Does a small, itty-bitty part of them question the rationale of that belief? Not at all!

    It is likewise possible if I have an “encounter,” whether real, or self-inflicted, I can convince myself to the point I would not even question the idea or entertain the thought I “talked myself into believing.” I never question the thought that I am real. I am not a “dream” of some creature. I would never even think to think I “talked myself into believing” the fact I am real. It is possible I would be equally convinced there is a god.

    ReplyDelete
  33. There's a huge philosophical problem with deductivism: The justification of the premises.

    Deductivism works fine in informal contexts where the premises can be simply taken for granted. The problem arises in a formal context where the premises are controversial.

    Jim Jordan lists his premises as

    P1. God has always existed.
    P2. God created the universe.

    Well, these premises are obviously controversial. How are they to be justified?

    In a "political" sense, Jim doesn't strictly need to justify his premises. He's free to believe — and say he believes — anything he pleases, no matter how stupid, foolish, disturbing or contemptuous I or anyone else finds his beliefs. (And, of course, I'm equally free to believe that his beliefs are indeed stupid, foolish, disturbing and contemptuous.)

    But I must say, I'm curious about Jim's motivation in commenting here. It seems trivially obvious that dagoodS, a long-time Christian, is well-aware of all the points Jim raises. Most atheists are equally well-aware of these points. I hope Jim doesn't think he's bringing these points to our attention; if he does think that, he's sadly mistaken.

    Whom is Jim trying to convince? Us? Or himself?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sorry for hogging the comments, but another point occurred to me.

    I've discussed theism and philosophy in a number of venues, and I've noticed an interesting pattern. Theists, when they choose to argue their position, invariably do so in the following manner:

    Theist: Here's an argument which sounds good and supports my position (Aquinas, Pascal's Wager, etc.).

    Atheist: Well, the argument fails for the following reasons (unjustified assumptions, internal contradictions, faulty logic).

    T: Ok, here's a different argument which sounds good and supports my position...

    A: Well this argument fails for the following reasons...

    [Repeat a few times]

    T: All these arguments sound good if you don't examine them too closely; you're just being obtuse. Besides, the arguments don't matter: You have to have faith.

    ReplyDelete
  35. BB wrote Whom is Jim trying to convince? Us? Or himself?

    That's a good question. Since this is an exercise we both are engaged in I would honestly say the answer is "both". Talking with atheists brings up far more issues than talking with theists, although there is much that fellow theists help with.

    Regarding points of view, I never have found an athiest argument that couldn't be refuted or at least neutralized. I'm honest enough to admit that, based on what you will see as admissible evidence, I cannot prove to you my argument either.

    If my argument fails your test, could it be because your test is 2-dimentional where the answer is 3-dimentional? Just a thought.

    Dagoods
    I think your dilemma lies here:
    But when we want to unpack that further, such as how to determine what is “inspired” and what is not, you start to bob and weave. Now you are claiming certain other works, such as Star Trek Episodes that “emulate” the Bible are also inspired. You make the conflicting statements of:

    1) I am not saying Star Wars is the same as the Bible, the inspired word of God.
    2) Star Wars is not wholly uninspired by God.
    3) Both Star Wars (in part) and the Bible are “cheese” (in which “cheese” appears to be defined as “the authoritative inspired word of God.”)


    These are not contradictory. You are confining God's word to doctrine. I see God as hanging around all the time, influencing where He wants to.

    Dr. Jacob Bekenstein wrote:
    Ask anybody what the physical world is made of, and you are likely to be told ‘matter and energy’. Yet if we have learned anything from engineering, biology, and physics, information is just as crucial an ingredient.” One could say the “physical world is made up of information, with energy and matter as incidentals.”

    Sounds like Logos to me. Maybe I'm biased.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Why do you need convincing? You already have faith. Don't'cha?

    If you're trying to convince us, you're going about it in an ineffective way.

    There isn't an argument against leprechauns, unicorns, Odin, Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster that I can't "refute". Why did you pick one particular superstition to believe and disregard the rest?

    If my argument fails your test, could it be because your test is 2-dimentional where the answer is 3-dimentional? Just a thought.

    I guess you could call it a "thought"; it's happening in your brain. It's not a particularly intelligent thought, though.

    Mostly, you haven't made any sort of argument. Your comments are unpersuasive because they're incoherent, disconnected, facile, and superficial.

    If this were just a matter of taste, I wouldn't get worked up. But theism is inherently evil. It's an instrument of oppression, exploitation, and, in the not-too-distant future, the suicide of technological civilization and perhaps the entire human race.

    Let me clue you in: All the intellectuals and leaders of your movement are atheists. They're lying to you. They're using you, they know they're using you, and if they're not gratified by your suffering they're utterly indifferent to it. You've been played for a fool from day one, just as Dagood and his parents were played for fools by an evil, corrupt clergy. Dagood woke up, and he's trying to wake the rest of you up too.

    That's the cold, hard, ugly truth of the matter. I keep coming back to the debate not because I personally give a rat's ass whether or not you personally waste your life giving thanks to the ceiling. But superstition is literally, actually killing us, and cynical and hardened as I am, I simply can't just sit around and watch.

    ReplyDelete
  37. **Let me clue you in: All the intellectuals and leaders of your movement are atheists. They're lying to you. They're using you, they know they're using you, and if they're not gratified by your suffering they're utterly indifferent to it.**

    Barefoot Bum,

    I reject that very strongly. There may be some atheists in Christian leadership. There may be many. I suspect that many of the televangelist-type leaders lack belief in any kind of theism. But there are many well-meaning Christian leaders who truly believe in it.

    I agree with you that Christianity is false. I am a fellow atheist. But I do not give any credence to outrageous claims like that.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Yeah, I gotta side with JumpingFromConclusions there. I know too many deluded intelligents out there. Hell, I was one for most of my life (if I may flatter myself). It seems downright unreasonable to assume that none of the intelligent Christian leaders are as deluded as their followers. Indeed, it's my belief that for many of them, it's their shared delusion that makes them all the more dangerous.

    For that matter, a little time spent on the Net, especially on USENET, has led me to meet many extremely intelligent, but hopelessly deluded individuals; deluded in ways that have nothing to do with theism. Delusion, and particularly self-deception, is a human condition AFAICT, from which no one is completely exempt.

    ReplyDelete
  39. JumpingFromConclusions: I am a fellow atheist.

    Wow. Did not know this (although I can’t say I am completely surprised.) How goes school? Does the family know?

    (Thanks for the kind words, by the way, on Jim Jordan’s blog. I’m not bothering to post on that subject again. It is such a waste of time.)

    ReplyDelete
  40. **Wow. Did not know this (although I can’t say I am completely surprised.)**

    Yep. Back in May I think I said I was agnostic. Shortly after that, I realized I was an atheist. I had no reason to hold myself to an agnostic position on something I saw no evidence for. I haven't posted very much lately, though, because my heart just hasn't been in it. I still follow many theist/atheist sites and discussions, but lately I have been choosing to keep myself out them more often than not.

    **How goes school? Does the family know?**

    School is going pretty well. I have not made my nonbelief public at my Nazarene school, partly because I don't know if that could get me kicked out. None of my close friends at college even know. I have talked a lot with another fellow de-convert here (he's actually posted at ex-christian.net and de-conversion.com) so it's good to know I'm not the only one here who found my way to atheism.

    As for my family, only my nonbelieving sister knows. It will be strange; both of my parents' kids left the family faith. Fortunately, we never have discussed God/Christianity/religion very much as a family. But I do know my parents will be disappointed, so I have not "come out" yet. I'm not looking forward to telling them about it.

    As for Jim Jordan's blog, I think you made your point clear to anyone reading with an open mind. . . which are the only ones your arguments can affect anyway.

    I was following the entire discussion, and different times I would type a response before thinking, "It's not worth it," and closing the window. But when I read one of his most recent comments, I could not hold myself back.

    By the way, your post here was on the mark. . . as always.

    ReplyDelete
  41. As for Jim Jordan's blog, I think you made your point clear to anyone reading with an open mind. . . which are the only ones your arguments can affect anyway.
    By the way, your post here was on the mark. . . as always.

    What adoration. What grade are you in again? Just teasing, JFC. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  42. Cheap insults of kids in high school. Really classy, Jim. Makes you look like a real man. Did Jesus tell you to do that?

    ReplyDelete