To the Anti-Religious

[Dunemeister]

On the contrary. The believer makes the claim and has the burden of proof. There is no rational reason whatsoever for believing in the imaginary instigation of the Holy Spirit, and while you are not the first Christian to do so, I believe it is shamefully dishonest to define a belief as "basic" because it receives warrant from any source, no matter how subjective or suspect that source is.

My only claim is:

(a) Christian belief is possibly true in the broadly logical sense;
(b) Christian belief includes IIHS, which, if true, would be a reliable belief-producing (cognitive) mechanism; and
(c) If (a) and (b) are true, Christianity is rational.

I further say that there are no cogent objections to this argument. So far, none have been proposed. A corollary of this argument is that there are no objections to the rationality of Christianity that are not question begging. That is, the objections to the rationality of Christianity presuppose that Christianity is false. So if the skeptic really wants to say that Christianity is irrational, they must lay out an argument that Christianity is actually false. I have outlined several claims already made by atheists historically to say so; unfortunately, none of these claims have been cogently argued. If an atheist here would like to take up that challenge, I for one would be very obliged.

This whole question of "burden of proof" is a red herring. The Christian has no "burden of proof" unless she is trying to prove her position is true, perhaps because she is trying to convince a skeptic that Christianity is true. At least in my case, I'm not doing that.

It really is the gist of your argument. And I can't help noticing that you have avoided answering my point about your arguing in circles.

It isn't. And I haven't. Please do me the favor of reading the argument. I have specifically denied I am arguing in a circle, and I have given reasons why I believe that. I won't repeat that argument. I'll ask you to read it.

 

[Dunemeister]

If we know they are real, we have evidence for psychic powers being real. And thus, to extend that, we know that the psychic powers would constitute as evidence for the belief.

If we don't know psychic powers are real, we don't have evidence for psychic powers being real or not. They might be, they might not be. If they are real and we don't know they are real, then we cannot accept that as valid evidence. If it isn't real and we don't know it isn't real, then we cannot accept that as valid evidence. Either way, we cannot accept psychic powers as valid evidence until we know that they are indeed real - and thus have evidence for the phenomenon.

Once evidence is produced for that phenomenon, then we know that belief in it is rational.

If psychic powers are real, then they could constitute rational cognitive faculties. Much would depend on the story we tell about how these work. This, all hands must admit. And that's as far as I argue. You're right that there is the further question whether they are real. But we can't beg the question at the outset and claim that all people who claim psychic powers are irrational or that beliefs gotten by means of them are irrational.

Admittedly, a person who wants to argue that psychic powers actually exist will have to mount an argument, and surely evidence would be required to make such an argument.

 

[Dunemeister]

[/u]His computer example is flawed at the very beginning. (And I think he very well KNOWS it.) He most certainly DOES go thru a reasoning process to determine the computer is there. But that process is so familiar and so often repeated and so second nature that he can and does ignore it. Just as we all do. BUT it is a reasoning process and he learned it as an infant. AND he conveniently forgets that the computer's existence - should he doubt it - can be quickly verified by a number of objective tests that work independent of his understanding of them.

Omar, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. At the very least, I have one and a half degrees in epistemology and philosophy of mind. Admittedly, that's not enough to make me an expert, but it means that I've had some first-hand experience dealing with such issues as experience, cognition, belief formation, and so forth. Let me go through this example again to show you how you are misunderstanding the very basics.

Infants don't reason. When we are born, we are not fully formed; our cognitive apparatus still needs time to develop. I distinguish cognitive development, which is a matter of mere growth and maturation, from learning, which is a conscious, intentional activity.

Happily though, it doesn't matter what the scientific facts turn out to be for my purposes. What does matter is that, assuming normal cognitive development, I form beliefs based on my perceptions. When I have a perception, I automatically form the associated belief. There is no reasoning at all involved. If there is, perhaps you can lay it out for me. For I honestly don't know what it could possibly be. It might be something like:

1. I am being appeared to computerly;
2. Usually, when I am appeared to computerly, there is a computer there; therefore
3. Probably, there is a computer there.

If this is the argument, it would have to be pretty tentative. For what is the necessary connection between 1 and 3? How can I verify the truth of 2? The answers are "none" and "I can't." For just consider any global skeptical argument, such as that posed by Hume. According to Hume, there is no necessary connection between the facts of my experience and anything like an external world. Perhaps Descartes is right and I am under the influence of an evil demon, or I'm a brain in a vat, or suffering from an undetectable brain lesion, or..... The point is that we have the metaphysical problem -- is there anything out there at all -- and an epistemological problem -- there's no necessary connection between my experience and the truth about the world. Together, these problems are devastating, especially considering there are no good arguments to refute them.

As a result, if it's an ARGUMENT that underpins the rationality, warrant, or acceptability of my perceptual beliefs, I can only regard them with an ironic skepticism. Worse, the same would hold true for every belief I have. It really wouldn't be rational to believe any of the deliverances of my senses.

Seriously, think for a minute. This spitus divantas or whatever Latin is it is - his divine sense - the extra sense he possess and the rest of us don't -just what IS that? Can he share it? No, apparently not. Can it be verified in ANY way? No, apparently not. Can it accurately predict anything? No, apparently not. Can any feature of it any at all - be seen or tested or verified in any way INDEPENDENT of the person claiming it?

Now how do we normally describe such a "sense" and the "facts" it attempts to convey?

Okay, let's think for a minute (rather than spew spit and bile). It is as its name suggests. It's a faculty by which we can discern God and morality. As to your other questions, let's compare it to our faculty for discerning a priori truths, such as mathematical truths. Can we verify it? No. Nobody has determined that a particular part of the brain is responsible for detecting and manipulating such truths. Can our a priori belief-producing faculty (whatever it is) accurately predict anything? No, it can't. Can we see or test this faculty? Well, we can see it operate in the sense that we can see people making mathematical claims, some of which we can share, others of which we can't, independent of the person making the claim. So if your questions are designed to be damning against the sensus divinitatus, it is equally damning against our faculty to obtain a priori truths. The same skeptical approach could also be used to completely eviscerate such things as memory beliefs and probably testimonial beliefs as well, thereby reducing us to knowing almost nothing at all.

But to humour you, how does the sensus divinitatus and the IIHS stack up? Well, about the same as the faculty for a priori truths. As to the last point, can we see it or test it? Again, no we can't see it. In a way we can test it. As with the faculty for a priori truths, we notice that there are a great deal of people who make theological and ethical claims, some of which we can share, others we can't, independently of the person making the claim. So.....

Of course, there are differences, but those are the sorts of differences we'd expect given the sorts of putative truth we are dealing with. We shouldn't expect a faculty that obtains mathematical truth to operate the same way as one that obtains perceptual truth to operate the same way as one that obtains theological or ethical truth. So allowances need to be made that the faculties will look quite different from each other.

Anyway, the point here is only that it's possible in the broadly logical sense. If you don't think it's possible, you have to show how it's impossible. Good luck to you.

 

[rageoftyrael]

dunemeister, your arguments are ridiculous. What i usually see when i read your arguments is you going out of your way to ignore an obvious fact, to make your point. This is what i get from you as i try to read your ridiculously long posts. Your arguments tend to go like this.... 1,2,4,5,8,9. see the pattern? we are missing some obvious stuff. Which is the main reason i've stopped reading most of your posts. i get halfway through and just stop, cause i'm not gonna bother reading an intentionally dishonest argument. and when i say dishonest, i mean when someone decides to intentionally ignore an important point of their argument, because it would be detrimental to their argument.

 

[Vile Atheist]

dunemeister, your arguments are ridiculous. What i usually see when i read your arguments is you going out of your way to ignore an obvious fact, to make your point. This is what i get from you as i try to read your ridiculously long posts. Your arguments tend to go like this.... 1,2,4,5,8,9. see the pattern? we are missing some obvious stuff. Which is the main reason i've stopped reading most of your posts. i get halfway through and just stop, cause i'm not gonna bother reading an intentionally dishonest argument. and when i say dishonest, i mean when someone decides to intentionally ignore an important point of their argument, because it would be detrimental to their argument.

For the sake of argument, point out the issues of contention for you.

 

[Dunemeister]

dunemeister, your arguments are ridiculous. What i usually see when i read your arguments is you going out of your way to ignore an obvious fact, to make your point. This is what i get from you as i try to read your ridiculously long posts. Your arguments tend to go like this.... 1,2,4,5,8,9. see the pattern? we are missing some obvious stuff. Which is the main reason i've stopped reading most of your posts. i get halfway through and just stop, cause i'm not gonna bother reading an intentionally dishonest argument. and when i say dishonest, i mean when someone decides to intentionally ignore an important point of their argument, because it would be detrimental to their argument.

I think you may actually be frustrated that I am making an argument that you haven't seen before and you don't really know what to make of it. Please advise me of the important point I'm missing. I'll ignore your insult to my character for now.

 

[Commoner]

I think you may actually be frustrated that I am making an argument that you haven't seen before and you don't really know what to make of it. Please advise me of the important point I'm missing. I'll ignore your insult to my character for now.

See, again you're ignoring the crucial points!

 

[Vile Atheist]

You are entitled to so think. I don't.

I think so on the basis of the discussion being an otherwise civil one and the sincerity of Dunemeister's belief. You claim you think it doesn't warrant a respectful response on the basis of Dunemeister's argument being flawed.

I'm not disagreeing with you that I find it flawed. But I've never heard of anyone being convinced their argument is flawed simply by insulting them and their beliefs.

There are two approaches to convincing him you're right. You can 1) Insult him, in which case he probably won't take you seriously and will be less inclined to hear what you have to say or 2) Point out the flaws in the argument and present your own. And perhaps he'll see the merit in your argument and abandon his own, should it be sufficient.

Approach 1) is sometimes warranted when arguing with close-minded people, but I don't think so in this case.

Now WHY would you have to DO that?

I don't have to do that. I could insult him, call him an idiot, push his mother down a flight of stairs...but all that would not accomplish anything of merit.

But a civil and honest exchange of ideas allows me to see how people like him think and so I know how to shape my arguments, and it allows him to get an alternative viewpoint and have someone point out the flaws in his argument. And with a little open-mindedness, perhaps we might actually get somewhere.

I don't care about his intellect, I care about his honesty and open-mindedness. I don't mind arguing with someone not knowledgable as it allows them the opportunity to learn something and me the opportunity to present the evidence I'm using to argue what I do. But I do mind arguing with someone who is visibly not honest or open-minded. It's a futile endeavour.

 

[Dunemeister]

See, again you're ignoring the crucial points!

Hehehe.

 

[Dunemeister]

I don't have to do that. I could insult him, call him an idiot, push his mother down a flight of stairs...but all that would not accomplish anything of merit.

Omar was actually suggesting that if, in the course of the argument, you had to outline the basics about why psychic powers et al are dubious, there is no point in debating with me.

But a civil and honest exchange of ideas allows me to see how people like him think and so I know how to shape my arguments, and it allows him to get an alternative viewpoint and have someone point out the flaws in his argument. And with a little open-mindedness, perhaps we might actually get somewhere.

As Omar would say, "Now WHY would you have to DO that?" That is, why would you have to explain to Omar the point of having a civil discussion?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Again, if you just sincerely do not know something, it affords you the opportunity to learn about it.

And what's the point of having a civil discussion? Because that's how adults normally speak to each other.

 

[themadhair]

My only claim is:

(a) Christian belief is possibly true in the broadly logical sense;
(b) Christian belief includes IIHS, which, if true, would be a reliable belief-producing (cognitive) mechanism; and
(c) If (a) and (b) are true, Christianity is rational.

A is false as I discussed earlier which you ignored and IIHS is made up by what I can see so Christianity remains as irrational as when it was first pointed out to you. You are actually relying on a fabricated concept, that you cannot demonstrate or evidence exists, and then relying on assuming the truth of your claim, which you cannot present any evidence for and ignore the evidence agaisnt, in order to claim rationality. What’s the difference between what you have presented and the following:
(a) My godliness is possibly true in the broadly logical sense;
(b) Belief in my godliness includes ‘knowingness’ which, if true, would be a reliable belief-producing (cognitive) mechanism; and
(c) If (a) and (b) are true, then my godliness is rational.

Where is the quantitative difference? Where is the difference in logic? Why not flat out state what your argument boils down to:
If my claim were true it would be rational therefore my claim is rational. This is your argument, which you have tried so desperately to disguise under layers and layers and layers of irrelevant and pointless verbage.

I further say that there are no cogent objections to this argument.

Then you really are not reading the threads. Smoke has repeatedly highlighted the inherent circularity – which you have completely ignored.

This whole question of "burden of proof" is a red herring. The Christian has no "burden of proof" unless she is trying to prove her position is true, perhaps because she is trying to convince a skeptic that Christianity is true. At least in my case, I'm not doing that.

Actually, by your own argument, you have accepted just this burden of proof. You argument is, when stripped of its waffle, simply stating that if Christianity were true it is rational. So you do have to meet the burden of proof to reach your intended conclusion here.

I have specifically denied I am arguing in a circle, and I have given reasons why I believe that.

There are at least three people on this thread who see nothing but circularity in your argument so far. CM and Commoner may be another two.

I won't repeat that argument. I'll ask you to read it.

Still circular.

It's a faculty by which we can discern God and morality.

What is the quantitative difference between IIHS and ANY made up concept used for similar purposes? So far I see none.

Please advise me of the important point I'm missing.

Erm….I’ve point some out, Smoke has pointed some out....

 

[Smoke]

My only claim is:

(a) Christian belief is possibly true in the broadly logical sense;
(b) Christian belief includes IIHS, which, if true, would be a reliable belief-producing (cognitive) mechanism; and
(c) If (a) and (b) are true, Christianity is rational.

If the instigation of the Holy Spirit were (a) known to exist and (b) known to be a reliable source of information, then a belief in Christianity would be rational. Since the instigation of the Holy Spirit is not known to exist and it is not known whether it would be a reliable source of information if it did exist, a belief in Christianity is not rational.

So if our question is, "Is it rational to believe in Christianity," the answer must be "That depends." On what? Clearly, on whether it's true. If Christianity (including the story about IIHS) is true, it's rational to believe it, in the absence of defeaters, via IIHS. If it's false, it's probably not rational to believe it because the only way to rationally believe it would be through the use of publicly available information.

Since it is not possible to know whether Christianity is true, it is not possible, even under the terms of your own convoluted argument, to know whether it is rational to believe in Christianity.

You claim the instigation of the Holy Spirit as your means of knowing Christianity is true, but you know very well that many Christians have claimed on the same basis (and other believers have claimed on an empirically indistinguishable basis) to know things are true that are flatly contradictory.

Allen claims to know through the instigation of the Holy Spirit that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Bob claims to know through the instigation of the Holy Spirit that the Pope is the Antichrist.

Charles claims to know through the instigation of the Holy Spirit that gifts of prophecy and speaking in tongues passed away after the first century of Christianity.

David claims to know through the instigation of the Holy Spirit that the gift of speaking in tongues continues today, and is a sign of the fullness of the Holy Spirit.

Ed claims to know through the instigation of the Holy Spirit that Christ does not want his followers to take foolish risks.

Frank claims to know through the instigation of the Holy Spirit that Christ wants his followers to demonstrate the truth of the Gospel by handling serpents and drinking strychnine.
​

It is thus obvious even to the most casual observer that a belief that one is influenced by the instigation of the Holy Spirit is not a reliable source of information. Having no reason to believe in the reliability of the imagined instigation of the Holy Spirit, we have no rational grounds to consider it as a reliable source of information.

Further, your argument for the rationality of Christianity, or a very close parallel to it, can be offered in defense of absolutely any irrational belief.

Further, your definition of a basic belief is flawed, and even that flawed definition is applied to faith in a flawed manner.

A basic belief is properly a belief that can reliably be believed without evidence. The belief is self-evident or self-proving. Religious apologists have attempted without success to extend this concept beyond beliefs that are self-evident or self-proving, to any belief that is formed by means other than evidence and reason. However, if we define a basic belief as you do, then whether a belief is basic has no bearing on whether that belief is true. A basic belief as you define it may be useful for forming quick, ad hoc impressions, but is no use whatever if we decide to carefully investigate whether something is true.

You think you see a sheep across the road. You hold this to be a basic belief. but your belief that there is a sheep across the road is not, properly speaking, basic. It may turn out to be a dog that looks something like a sheep. Your perception is subject to error. However, some people in your area keep sheep; you have seen sheep before, and it is not altogether unlikely to believe that there is a sheep across the road. Seeing a sheep across the road would not be a remarkable occurrence. You conclude that there is a sheep across the road. This belief is not irrational, despite the fact that it is not a basic belief and is not known to be true. There are, as well, a number of different ways to test this belief.

Suppose, on the other hand, that you think you sense a unicorn across the road. You cannot see it, hear it, or smell it, but you perceive in an inward and ineffable manner that there is unicorn across the road. However, nobody in your area is known to keep unicorns, there are not known to be any wild unicorns living in the area, and in fact, nobody living has ever seen a unicorn anywhere at all. Nevertheless, it is theoretically possible that unicorns exist, and if they exist it is theoretically possible that there is one across the road. It is also theoretically possible that you have some unusual gift of super-perception that allows you to perceive things by other than the usual means. If there were a unicorn across the road, and if you had such a gift of super-perception, it is possible that you could perceive the unicorn across the road. A thorough investigation reveals no evidence of a unicorn, but you continue to perceive the unicorn. Since it is not possible to prove that unicorns do not exist and it is not possible to prove that you have no ability to perceive unicorns, your belief that there is a unicorn across the road is indefeasible by any rational means. There is no way to test the belief, no way to test your claimed gift of super-perception, and no way to test your belief in the unicorn.

Are your belief in the sheep and your belief in the unicorn equally rational? No, they are not. A rational belief in the unicorn requires, at the very least, further investigation. It is reasonable in this case to remain skeptical in the absence of further evidence.

Now, if you go about telling everyone that there is a unicorn across the road and that you have perceived this unicorn yourself even though others can detect no evidence whatsoever of a unicorn, many of your auditors will form the belief that you are mad. They cannot know for certain that you are mad, but many people have gone mad before, and it is not altogether uncommon for a person to go mad. They can see that you are behaving like a person who has gone mad. It is altogether more likely that you have gone mad than it is that there is a unicorn across the road. Their belief is every bit as rational as your earlier belief that there was a sheep across the road, and far more rational than your later (and indefeasible) belief that there is a unicorn across the road.

Admittedly, a person who wants to argue that psychic powers actually exist will have to mount an argument, and surely evidence would be required to make such an argument.

And the same is true of the instigation of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Actually, by your own argument, you have accepted just this burden of proof. You argument is, when stripped of its waffle, simply stating that if Christianity were true it is rational. So you do have to meet the burden of proof to reach your intended conclusion here.

This is my main beef with Dunemeister's argument.

There are at least three people on this thread who see nothing but circularity in your argument so far. CM and Commoner may be another two.

I note the circularity but to be honest, I wasn't quite sure how to word my objection to that precisely (Do you ever get that? Like you know what you want to say, but you can't quite put it into fitting words?). So rather than risk misconstruing my point, I chose to counter-argue down a different avenue until I was more sure of what I wanted to say. But I anticipate I'd have said something similar to what Smoke said.

 

[rageoftyrael]

there was not meant to be an insult to your character, but feel free to take it how you will, most people do anyway. as for finding omissions, anyone else here could do it, i don't currently have the time, nor the patience to go through your uber long posts and find them.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

“I distinguish cognitive development, which is a matter of mere growth and maturation, from learning, which is a conscious, intentional activity.”

And why do you do that? Learning is the ability to acquire information about the environment and use that information to achieve a purpose. Babes learn. Most of the early years of human life are spent learning. My cats learn. ANY life form even single cell organisms learn. They must. Otherwise staying alive would be impossible.

“When I have a perception, I automatically form the associated belief. There is no reasoning at all involved. If there is, perhaps you can lay it out for me. For I honestly don't know what it could possibly be.”

Others already have but just to dot the “i” so to speak. You see a computer in front of you. Based on long and reliable past experience (starting when you were an infant reaching for a crib gym) you reason this thing I see is actually there. You go thru your existing database of images of things and find an image that matches the one in front of you. You conclude this thing I see is a computer. Further your database tells you that computers have certain characteristics. Based on that information you reason that certain activities are now possible. All this is done in an instant with little or no conscious effort of your part. This is because you go thru this process thousands of times a day. You do not NEED to slowly go thru the whole process step by step. Nothing is gained by doing so. ONLY when some unexpected event occurs do you become aware of this process and start to go thru it. If when you type on the keyboard nothing happens you are surprised. You NOW began a NEW reasoning process to determine why what you expected to be true is not so. But if you had NOT gone thru the earlier process you would not be surprised. Indeed you might not even bother to type at all or even be aware of what was around you. You would be setting at desk in a zombie like state.

There is nothing new or remarkable or novel about this analysis. It is little more than everyday observations dressed up in academic language. For you to assert this it all new to you is (with a bow to CM’s sense of decorum) . . . surprising.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

“Of course, there are differences, but those are the sorts of differences we'd expect given the sorts of putative truth we are dealing with. We shouldn't expect a faculty that obtains mathematical truth to operate the same way as one that obtains perceptual truth to operate the same way as one that obtains theological or ethical truth. So allowances need to be made that the faculties will look quite different from each other.

Anyway, the point here is only that it's possible in the broadly logical sense. If you don't think it's possible, you have to show how it's impossible. Good luck to you.”

Why do we have to make such “allowances”? WHY is it that establishing the “universal truth of religious faith” gets a pass? I DENY there are any ethical or theological “truths.” There are only opinions. And the evidence for that is the literally thousands of ethical and/or theological “truths” that have been proclaimed and the fact that many of them contradict each other. If there are any such “truths” you guys haven’t found them. Nor have you demonstrated any systematic way of discovering them,
It is also possible that this entire tale was made up by a band of Jewish religious fanatics anxious to throw off a foreign occupation. If you don't think it's possible, you have to show how it's impossible. Good luck to you.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

“If you don't think it's possible, you have to show how it's impossible. Good luck to you.”

This is a false dichotomy. What is missing here is any sense of probability. Millions of things are possible. That does not make them worthy of belief nor does it make believing in them rational.

It is possible that if I go out and start my car it will explode. It is possible there is bomb rigged to go off when I turn on the ignition. I have no evidence for this, no reason to assume it to be true but it IS possible. Maybe my car was mistaken for someone else’s. Maybe I have unknowingly offended the local Godfather. Maybe he just wanted to demonstrate to the locals that he could do such a thing if provoked and chose me at random as an example. All those are possible reasons for a bomb being in my car.

But is believing there IS a bomb rational?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Excellent responses, Omar. Especially about the ethical truths.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Excellent responses, Omar. Especially about the ethical truths.

J'accord!