Anonymous said (his comment here):
"The Quote" does not imply that your reasons for dismissing other gods are the same as Stephen's reasons for dismissing yours. It merely states that when you UNDERSTAND your own reasons for dismissing those other gods, you will UNDERSTAND his reasons. I suspect that since you do not even UNDERSTAND the quote, you will not make the mental effort to UNDERSTAND either his reasons or your own.First of all, I would encourage you to assume a name. Make one up if you have to, but please assume a name by which I can identify your arguments. Anyone can contribute as "Anonymous" and I would have no way of knowing if it was you or not.
Now, regarding your comment. I already know the Quote does not imply that our reasons are the same. The content and context of the Quote and Roberts' elaboration thereof both make that pretty obvious. My criticism argues from the understanding that the Quote implies our reasons are similar. That is the implication the Quote makes, and it is rather candid about it. So I will let the readers determine for themselves whether or not I understand the Quote, particularly by my responses here.
(Keep in mind that my criticism regarded the Quote and, by extension, Roberts' elaboration of it. My criticism did not, and cannot, regard your own views nor your perspective of the Quote. Any objection that indicates how my criticism fails to account for some perspective of yours only demonstrates a misunderstanding of my criticism itself. I am certainly able to offer a critique of your perspective on a given subject but that is not what I had done; yet it is my criticism of the Quote that you had responded to.)
What does the Quote itself say? I am going to direct our attention to the verifiable facts here, in an effort to keep this discussion relevant and intellectually honest. What does it actually say? It says that when you "understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods," then you will "understand why I dismiss yours" (emphasis supplied). And then Stephen Roberts himself stopped by this blog—which really made my day, quite frankly, since I had not heard from him in so long—to elaborate not only on the meaning of the Quote but also on what for him, as the originator of the Quote, is the real "meat" of it; specifically, that "if [theists] really understood why they don't believe in the other gods they might understand why their god is hard to believe in too" (emphasis supplied).
These facts are not really disputable. Anyone can independently verify them. Right? Especially when I openly provide the relevant links. The Quote was already fairly clear, and Roberts himself made it clearer still: the fundamental point is that if the Christian theist openly and honestly understands "why" he dismisses all the other possible gods then he will understand "why" the atheist dismisses God (or finds him hard to believe in, at best). In both the Quote and in Roberts' elaboration, the "why" test (reasoning) is the real meat or force of the Quote.
This fact becomes even clearer when one sees there are two questions which the Quote logically and naturally raises in our minds. The first question is, "Why does the atheist dismiss God?" And the second question is, "Why do I (the Christian theist) dismiss all other possible gods?" As I understand it, and Roberts likewise pointed out, the second question essentially acts as the springboard to the answer for the first question; i.e., answering the second question ought to enlighten and enable the Christian theist to discover the answer for the first question.
And my contention has been just this: "Is that actually the case?" Is there any real correlation between the answers to each question? Put it another way: Is it true that by honestly examining and understanding my own reasons for why I dismiss all other possible gods I will be enabled to understand why the atheist dismisses God? The force of my contention, of course, is borne upon the rather unequivocal answer, "No, there is no correlation." Because—
[and here is the essential thrust]
—if I honestly examine and understand my own reasons for why I dismiss all the other possible gods, I actually discover that they have no possible relationship with the atheist's reasons for dismissing God. None, zero. For example, my reasons (for dismissing all other gods) operate from the presupposition of God's existence. The epistemologies and heuristics on either side of the debate differ quite drastically, and at their most foundational levels. Not even the ground or nature of logic itself bears any similarity between us; for the Christian theist, logic is grounded in the very nature of God, and this cannot be said for the atheist—any atheist whatsoever. This is precisely why the theist's reasons (for dismissing all other possible gods) do not, in fact, offer any insight of understanding into the atheist's reasons (for dismissing God).
But notice something compelling here, equally relevant and interesting. The force of this argument can also be shown from the opposite side; i.e., flip the scenario around and it still bears this truth out. If I genuinely and honestly understand the atheist's reasons for why he dismisses God, based as they usually are upon an epistemology grounded in some form of empiricism, I discover that his reasons for dismissing God do not have any kind of relationship to my reasons for dismissing all other possible gods. Our epistemologies are grounded and structured quite differently. And that is the very point of my contention, originally and now expanded upon in this post: the theist's reasons and the atheist's reasons are not even similar, much less the same. This is why the second clause of the Quote is unintelligible. It is simply false (i.e., it bears no correspondence with reality). As I had said previously, the reasons why Roberts rejects God and the reasons why I reject "all other possible gods" are very different: "Being informed of Stephen's reasoning does not inform anyone of my reasoning, nor vice versa."
The first clause of the Quote is incoherent. And its second clause is false. I cannot understand why anyone would want to champion the Quote. (Well, actually I can, but that is the threshold beyond which my skepticism gives way to my cynicism. My skepticism I can defend; my cynicism is more rant-ish.)
jaydecay57 said (his comment here):
I believe the point of the quote is to illustrate the fact that any believer in a monotheistic religion can so readily dismiss all other gods as easily as any atheist, yet can cling so tightly to one slight variation from the others without providing an acceptable reasoning behind their choice.I do not believe the Quote has anything to say about whether or not a theist has the intellectual honesty and integrity to provide "acceptable" reasoning behind his choice. (And I can level a significant and substantive criticism against atheists pontificating to others what "acceptable reasoning" is.) Let me explain what I mean. Whether the Christian provides his reasoning or not, the Quote is asking him to authentically examine and understand his reasons for dismissing all other gods, and that by doing so he will better understand the atheist's reasons for dismissing God. And my criticism shows how this fails the test, i.e., that it is simply not true, that it does not correspond to anything in reality.
Truthfully though the REAL point of the quote (I feel) is to make atheists smile and say "That's what I've been trying to say all along!"Perhaps. But what those atheists "have been trying to say all along" is still incoherent and false, respectively, if it mirrors the first and second clause of the Quote. Like I said, if the Quote is really just humorous nonsense that atheists find entertaining, if it has nothing substantive or real to say about Christian theology, then I should not find any atheists arguing against me if I post about how nonsensical the Quote is. They felt the same way before I even posted, right? As I said before, "It is amusing but incoherent. Great. A smile, a nod, and now let's move along to authentic, intelligible dialogue." Why waste time over something everyone agrees is neither intelligible nor substantive?
I will give you that believing in a god is logical. However all the logical reasons to believe in a god are inherently demeaning to the believer (Fear of the unknown, gullible, ignorant, and other admittedly mean sounding words) which may be why it is difficult for some to see that it is in fact rather silly to say no other god exists except the one you have arbitrarily chosen from the myriad of other choices.Evidently you have not listed "all the logical reasons to believe" because I did not find in your list any of the reasons argued for in systematic theologies or philosophical texts, nor any of the reasons I happen to hold. That is a lot to have left out. I think maybe there are logical reasons you do not even know about (I do not want to assume there are some you know about and willfully omitted); critical reasoning would dictate that as an opportunity to exercise a tone of intellectual charity, admitting there could be logical reasons you have not informed yourself about, instead of rashly declaring that you have listed all the logical reasons to believe. I am assuming, of course, that you hold critical thinking skills in high regard when dealing with competing views. I hope it is a correct assumption.
How do you expect not to be ridiculed?Because I champion reason, critical thinking, and skepticism. Perhaps fundies might ridicule me for that, but not fellow thinkers and skeptics. In my limited experience, they usually demonstrate appreciation for such things being championed, not ridicule. And no, "skeptic" is not a synonym for "atheist."
...you actively chose one God that fits you and ignoring all other possibilities, called it truth.You assume I ignored all other possibilities. I am not sure you have a defensible basis for such an assumption.
But you are correct, I do not determine truth. I discover it—which can happen when one pursues it.
If one [god] is absurd, it inevitably means they all are.It is not obvious how that follows logically. I would love to see the premises that render such a scandalous conclusion.
This is all rather mean sounding, I know, and I do apologies a little, but under the guise of the internet I am safe from your e-god's scorn...regardless, I can take it as easily as I can dish it out, so feel free to bash my grammar and liberal use of ellipsis. I also fully realize that I'm just as ignorant as you and we're all in this thing together...I'm just able to admit and embrace it.I fully and genuinely appreciate your contributions. When people leave their bigotry outside and enter into an authentic conversation on ultimate issues, it can plant seeds that end up shaping the ideas and beliefs of the participants. That is what this blog is all about: the conversations and experiences that shape my itinerarium mentis.
Ok, lets make this simple. The God of the Koran is very similar to the God of the Christian new testament:
ReplyDelete- Both have holy texts professing the truth of their god.
- Both have centuries of tradition
and worship.
- Both have devout believers who have witnessed (their) God's grace in one form or another.
- Both of them have plenty of scholars who will conjure up historical evidence that verifies their myths.
Yet, you choose the Christian God over the Islamic God. To the unbiased observer this choice looks completely arbitrary. Both have as much claim to the truth, yet you fully cast your support behind one rather than the other. Why?
Such a remark (that the god of the Quran "is very similar to" God as set forth in the New Testament scriptures) can be made only by someone with profound theological ignorance of both Islamic and Christian theologies.
ReplyDeleteFirst, although the sacred texts of Christianity and Islam "profess the truth" of their respective deity, neither deity is similar to the other. Christian theology affirms God as a 'trinity' of three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Islamic theology vehemently repudiates such a notion, as does the Quran in rather explicit terms (e.g., An-Nisa, 171).
Second, the fact that both religions have "centuries of tradition and worship" does not demonstrate any similarities between their respective deities. This is could be argued as a similarity in history but not a similarity between deities. 'God' and 'history' are not the same thing.
Third, the fact that "both have devout believers who have witnessed (their) God's grace in one form or another" does not successfully demonstrate a similarity between their respective deities, particularly when one understands not only the remarkable differences between the deities but also the remarkable differences between the 'grace' each dispenses and the terms under which it is dispensed.
Fourth, the fact that both religions have "scholars who will conjure up historical evidence that verifies their myths" does not prove a similarity between the deities. In fact, the historical evidence will demonstrate two very disparate deities.
Yes, I chose Christianity over Islam. To an observer who affirms neither religion, my choice might look "completely arbitrary" but only because they are wholly ignorant of how my choice was made. That is, once they learned how my choice was made it would no longer appear arbitrary.
You assert that "both [Christianity and Islam] have as much claim to the truth" yet you do not provide any reason to think this is the case. What is the nature of truth? Are you positing 'truth' as affirmed by Christianity or as affirmed by Islam? Do you mistakenly think that 'truth' as affirmed by each religion is similar? Do you mistakenly think the criteria for truth by each religion is similar?
The reasons for why I am Christian are very extensive and complex. It is surely not something I could describe in a blog post, nor is there any need for me to.
I may have to concede this argument. Your reasons are not nearly as clear-headed as an atheist would suppose.
ReplyDeleteSuch a remark (that the god of the Quran "is very similar to" God as set forth in the New Testament scriptures) can be made only by someone with profound theological ignorance of both Islamic and Christian theologies.
Saying that the two gods are not similar shows a profound ignorance of the range of human belief in the supernatural. I choose Allah as an example because you'd be more likely to take him seriously, rather than a "strawman" such as Odin, the Thetans, or tree sprites. But I know, your God is very special to you. Your reply very much reminds me of a proud father showing off pictures of a newborn infant, completely unaware of how unremarkable his son is to everyone else.
First, although the sacred texts of Christianity and Islam "profess the truth" of their respective deity, neither deity is similar to the other. Christian theology affirms God as a 'trinity' of three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Islamic theology vehemently repudiates such a notion, as does the Quran in rather explicit terms (e.g., An-Nisa, 171).
The gods are so similar that they talk about each other in order to make sure the believers don't get confused as to the differences. Did the Koran explain how Allah is different from Kali with specific examples?
Second, the fact that both religions have "centuries of tradition and worship" does not demonstrate any similarities between their respective deities. This is could be argued as a similarity in history but not a similarity between deities. 'God' and 'history' are not the same thing.
Of course not, but a long tradition does lend both religions an air of respect that wouldn't be given to Scientology, for instance.
Third, the fact that "both have devout believers who have witnessed (their) God's grace in one form or another" does not successfully demonstrate a similarity between their respective deities, particularly when one understands not only the remarkable differences between the deities but also the remarkable differences between the 'grace' each dispenses and the terms under which it is dispensed.
The similarity is only in the religions' effects on believers, and in the arguments the believers use to convert others. Believers of religions become completely convinced of the legitimacy of their god. Many have personal evidence of their God's existence (faith healings, answered prayers, that "he's in my heart feeling").
Fourth, the fact that both religions have "scholars who will conjure up historical evidence that verifies their myths" does not prove a similarity between the deities. In fact, the historical evidence will demonstrate two very disparate deities.
Yes, the evidence for one doesn't support the other. What I'm saying is that for every "Jesus is real because his face is on a shroud", there's an equally plausible account or artifact in support of Islam.
Yes, I chose Christianity over Islam. To an observer who affirms neither religion, my choice might look "completely arbitrary" but only because they are wholly ignorant of how my choice was made. That is, once they learned how my choice was made it would no longer appear arbitrary.
Your "choice" almost certainly boils down to where and to whom you were born, and where and with whom you grew up with. How completely unarbitrary. If only you'd "open your heart" to Allah, I'm sure you could be convinced of the truth in Islam. (Sorry to be snarky there. If you feel offended by this, then you're one step closer to understanding how offended atheists can get when told they don't have a heart, or re too scared to take a leap of faith.)
You assert that "both [Christianity and Islam] have as much claim to the truth" yet you do not provide any reason to think this is the case. What is the nature of truth? Are you positing 'truth' as affirmed by Christianity or as affirmed by Islam? Do you mistakenly think that 'truth' as affirmed by each religion is similar? Do you mistakenly think the criteria for truth by each religion is similar?
What I see are the heartfelt testimonials of devout believers, hallowed books and sacred sites. I also see implausible stories, incorrect facts, and way too much violence and oppression in the name of God.
Given the notable impotence of your argument, Eric, one is provided very little confidence in what you think a "clear-headed" person is.
ReplyDeleteThe "range of human belief in the supernatural" bears absolutely no relevance to your original argument, which was verifiably refuted (i.e., that "the God of the Koran is very similar to the God of the Christian new testament"). The Quran repudiates the notion of God as a trinity of persons, which is what the New Testament teaches. Ergo, not similar. Welcome to elenctic apologetics.
And where, precisely, does the New Testament depict God talking to or about Allah? I know the Quran has Allah speaking about Christianity's trinitarian God but where do you find God mentioning Allah or the beliefs of Muslims? Even though you claimed that "they talk about each other," I do not think you realize how incredibly anachronistic such a claim is. The New Testament never mentions anything about Allah—or any Muslim beliefs—because they would not exist for another five hundred years (610 CE). Anachronisms make for very poor arguments, Eric.
"The similarity is only in the religions' effects on believers," you said, "and in the arguments the believers use to convert others." I am confident that astute readers will notice the same thing I did: that you have abandoned your original argument, now making a very different one. The similarity is no longer between the deities but, rather, between the influence and proselytization programs of each religion.
By the way, you said that my choosing the Christian faith "almost certainly boils down to where and to whom [I was] born, and where and with whom [I] grew up." Since my father is a Theravadan Buddhist, militant in his atheism with bitter contempt for organized religion, my sister and stepmom are somewhat pagan (beliefs vaguely similar to Wicca) and openly lesbian, my brother is almost completely apathetic to anything that is not World of Warcraft, and my education came by the public education system, which offers no courses in Christianity or any religion, how exactly did this result in me becoming Christian? You need to stop regurgitating that worn out argument; it is considered a very poor argument for a reason (in addition to its committing the Genetic Fallacy).
The fact that they're described as omnipotent, loving gods that promise an eternity in heaven for devout believers and hell for others is totally superficial. Oh, they're also both creators of the universe. The fact that they both claim to be the god of the Old testament is a mere triviality.
ReplyDeleteWhat really matters is the trinity, of course. Does that mean Christianity is more similar to polytheism that it would be to another nominally monotheistic Yahweh worshiping religion? Well then, you should surely give Hinduism a try! Why settle for a 3 for the price of 1 god, when you could have a whole collection of them!
Yes, I know. Your specific God is so very special it's unpardonable to say He is close to anything else ever conceived.
Yes, of course the Christian new testament has nothing to say about Islam. I apologize for implying otherwise. The new testament God was much more concerned with explaining how so very different Christianity is from traditional Judaism.
You are correct that I don't make a distinction between the intrinsic characteristics of a Deity, and the beliefs, arguments and rituals of His/Hers/Its followers. In fact, I'd say that the impact believing in a Deity has on a follower is one of the most important property a Deity has. (The most important property is the evidence, but we won't get into that here.) The believers are only thing that has an obvious effect on day to day life. I concede that this is very superficial compared to the other properties Deities claim, but it is extremely important to the question of why people convert or believe in a particular religion.
For most of us unsaintly people who do not literally hear God, we only have other believers to convince us. Even the holy books have, at the very least, been transcribed and altered by human believers. If two or more people are asking me to believe something on faith, I will surely look at the plausibility and popularity of what they are saying, along with how they themselves came to be believers.
Oh, and I still believe that if you grew up in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, you'd be a devout Muslim instead of a Christian. It's ludicrous to say that social pressures have nothing to do with the religion a person adheres to.
I would be very interested in reading about how you came to your beliefs. If not the "why", then the "how". Have you written about it on your blog?
I can describe two beings, one named Duke and the other named Jake, who are both loving and devoted and are responsible for the condition of the living rooms in their respective houses. Now, it sounds like they are quite similar—
ReplyDelete—until I inform you that Duke is a human and Jake is a dog, an important context which shatters the similarities you had begun to envision. So yes, the 'trinity' point is quite a fundamental distinction which separates the two deities on the point that they are two entirely different orders of being, much like human vs. dog.
And your supercilious question about whether or not the doctrine of the trinity makes Christianity "similar to polytheism" only underscores your profound ignorance of Christian theology, and your lack of basic decency and respect when confronting these issues is made evident by your gratuitous condescending tone. I wonder if, when you are writing, you keep aware that your responses are a matter of permanent public record.
"I still believe that if you grew up in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, you'd be a devout Muslim instead of a Christian." And by so doing, you persist in a logical fallacy. That meets the expectations I had of you. Unless you have something more substantive to argue with a proper tone of decency and respect, your comments will not pass moderating.
Perhaps we've exhausted this topic. I've conceded that you reject other gods for different reasons than most atheists would. While an atheist confronts a potential God to believe in with a relatively clean slate, the theist does not. Basically, the way I understand your argument is that the reason you don't consider other gods because the first commandment tells you not to.
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to writing you off as "profoundly ignorant", I've made the effort to offer you the closest thing to an atheist's perspective to the "I contend we are atheists" argument. I figured that Islam would have enough in common with Christianity that you'd be able to evaluate them as nearly equally viable, and to understand how their subtle differences don't warrant the decision to reject one over the other. Obviously you still feel like this is comparing apples to oranges.
Maybe it's more appropriate to ask you about your particular denomination of Christianity versus others. What are the reasons why your variety is more worthy of being believed than the Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons? Why not the Branch Davidians? Even within this one religion, there are many paths to choose, and so little reason to follow one rather than another.
I have tried to engage you in a way that you would be receptive to. I thought you're intelligent and reasonable enough to actually engage, which is a rare quality for a theist. I haven't written you off with a canned rebuttal. In response, you've offered me nothing I can work with. Calling me "profoundly ignorant" because I've haven't been given reason to read several theolgans' perspectives on the trinity is not a terribly decent thing to say either. You also don't bother to tell me how my understanding of this matter is wrong.
---
Oh yeah, Duke and Jake sound fairly similar. Certainly the idea of "Duke" and "Jake" are equally plausible. I'd expect both of them to warmly greet me in their living room if I've been friendly with them, and to be hostile if I've been belligerent to them. They both would probably fetch me something if I asked for it appropriately. Compared to a starfish, any cognitive or anatomical differences between duke and jake are quite superficial. I have no information to judge who would be a better friend.
Eric's original proposition was, "The God of the Koran is very similar to the God of the Christian new testament," which he followed up with four supporting points. This proposition is thoroughly defeated by the evidence, as I have taken the time to demonstrate. There is nothing similar about them, aside from each being a the 'deity' of a religion. Their differences are anything but "subtle." I will not repeat my rebuttal here. That argument is defeated. He does not seem inclined to concede the defeat but he hardly needs to. The evidence speaks for itself (despite his feelings).
ReplyDeleteAre the reasons for why I dismiss all other possible gods even similar to the atheist's reasons? No, they certainly are not, a point Eric rightly conceded. Ergo, my critique stands.
However, he attempts to pretend that the atheist confronts God-claims "with a relatively clean slate" while "the theist does not." Such a notion could hardly be more incorrect. The atheist confronts God-claims with at least as much epistemic bias as does the theist. It is simply different bias; the criteria he expects God-claims to meet exposes what that bias is. (Liking a particular bias does not nullify it.)
He also tries to pretend that I have offered him nothing to work with. Again, this does not square with reality. I said there is nothing similar between God and Allah and explained precisely why they are not similar. He may not appreciate this difference but he cannot pretend I offered him nothing to work with.
And I don't care if Eric thinks it's indecent for me to say that he exhibits a "profound ignorance of Christian theology." His theological ignorance is a demonstrated fact which he also admits to. As far as I know, facts don't really care about people's sensitive feelings. If he wanted someone who would pander to and coddle his sensitivities, he definitely came to the wrong blog. My arguments and criticisms operate on reason, not feelings. As Oscar Wilde so aptly noted, "Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when he is called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason."
Oh please. The only thing that "hurts my feelings" is that you disappoint me by being terribly stubborn and unengaging. You do not address my main contention, that the leap of faith required to believe in religion is a leap in a very arbitrary direction. Instead, you nit-pick my illustration by refusing to entertain the idea that Abrahamic deities may have something in common. This example is still unnecessary for my point. Even within the group of religions calling themselves Christian, there are many arbitrary leaps of faith to choose from. Many of these sects believe that the others are evil and corrupt.
ReplyDeleteI'd like discuss your "epsitemic bias" claim, though this comment thread is not the appropriate venue for this particular debate. Feel free to email me. Perhaps we could have a more civil discussion if we aren't doing it on a soapbox.
I have some very sharp readers so I'm confident that I am not the only one who recognizes that your disappointment is the product of a delusion, since there is ample evidence conclusively proving that I actually have been engaging. It's true that I refuse to follow your digressions (and indeed quite stubbornly), but that's because I have very little tolerance for fallacious pursuits. I have addressed every point you raised relevant to the material content of my post (e.g., whether God and Allah are "very similar")—which clearly refutes your claim that I've refused to address that issue—but I simply will not address points that are not relevant (e.g., why one Christian sect "is more worthy of being believed" than another, which has nothing to do with Roberts' quote or my criticism of it). Hopefully your feelings will not play a part in any future responses of yours to my criticisms; critical thinking is guided by logical reason, not emotional rhetoric.
ReplyDelete(You are correct that this post's comment field is not the place for discussing unrelated topics. So feel free to send me an email on the "epistemic bias" issue you're interested in. There is an email link on my profile page.)