Theistic Reasoning

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 2046
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 786 times
Been thanked: 546 times

Theistic Reasoning

Post #1

Post by bluegreenearth »

There are few things more intellectually dishonest than non-negotiable confidence in a theistic belief. Theists should, at the very least, be willing to acknowledge the possibility that they might be mistaken in their belief regardless of their level of confidence in it. So, if you are a confident theist, do the responsible thing and work with us to help you discover where any logical fallacies or other cognitive errors might exist in the reasoning process you are using justify your religious belief.

This isn't to presume that you haven't already performed this sort of critical analysis yourself or to imply that I or anyone else participating in the peer review process is your intellectual superior. To the contrary, if your reasoning process is demonstrably reliable or superior, then sharing it will do me and the other participants a great intellectual service. Alternatively, if any errors happen to be exposed in your reasoning process, you benefit from the opportunity to correct for those errors and it wouldn't mean your theistic belief is false. Therefore, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose from cooperating.

Now, if your theistic reasoning process is complex and nuanced, it won't be practical to post a lengthy dissertation on this thread. Instead, if possible, try to break-down your reasoning process into discreet components and permit us to evaluate it one step at a time.

Finally, despite my attempt to carefully word this OP in such a way to avoid or mitigate for potential misinterpretations, I'm fairly confident at least one theist is going to post an objection to something I wrote that was not deliberately intended. If you are that theist, please just ask for a clarification before submitting your objection or leveling accusations against me. Thank you.

Realworldjack
Prodigy
Posts: 2554
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Theistic Reasoning

Post #221

Post by Realworldjack »

bluegreenearth wrote: [Replying to post 217 by Realworldjack]

I conceded to having miscommunicated my point; not to making a reasoning error. Because my choice of words misled you to believe I had made an error in reasoning, it doesn't mean I've made a reasoning error. You continue to argue against a misinterpretation of my point, and I keep attempting to clarify where my miscommunication has mislead you to believe I've made a reasoning error. Every time I try to explain where the misunderstanding occurred, you insist that your initial understanding of my point was correct and continue with your argument. I'm not sure how you can be confident that you've properly understood my point when I regularly respond to indicate that you are arguing against something that was either miscommunicated or misunderstood. Why bother quoting back to me and arguing against something I've already indicated was a miscommunication or a misunderstanding? You can continue responding this way all you want, but the effort will achieve absolutely nothing.

Obviously, for whatever reason, you have demonstrated no desire to cooperate with anything I've proposed thus far. Since you seem to be completely dissatisfied with my approach, you are welcome to take the lead. How would you prefer to have this discussion proceed?


I conceded to having miscommunicated my point; not to making a reasoning error.

Of course you did not "concede to making a reasoning error", because we all understand it is not possible for you to have a "reasoning error" which I guess is why you are so able to help those of us who are prone to this sort of thing?

Which is also more than likely why you can make comments like these, "to the point that you never have to concede that the constructive criticism of your argument is valid", and also, "How do you propose to ever discover if your argument contains any logical fallacies or influence by confirmation bias when you respond in this way to constructive criticism of your argument"?

You see, you can make these type of comments to others, because you, yourself are freed from this being a possibility, and you are so gracious to now offer your help to those of us who have made the same reasoning errors you once made, when you decided to "commit your life" to a dead man, who you were convinced rose from the dead, and we are all so thankful for your efforts.

Meanwhile, here in the "real world" we have discovered logical errors, in your reasoning process, you simply refuse to acknowledge, and continue over, and over, to claim to have been misunderstood, or that you did not communicate accurately, which is simply a way to avoid having to admit the error. Here is an example,
Because my choice of words misled you to believe I had made an error in reasoning, it doesn't mean I've made a reasoning error.
This is not the first time you have done this sort of thing with me, which would maybe cause me to assume that I may be the problem. However, this does not simply happen as far as I am concerned, it seems to happen with others as well. Here is an example from post 167 to another poster,
This appears to be another example where a failure to properly communicate my point resulted in confusion and an misunderstanding.
And this is right after post 166 which in responding to me you say,
Once again, my failure to properly communicate the concept has led to more confusion.
This seems to be a recurring theme with you? In other words, someone points out a error in your thinking, which you can clearly see, then instead of simply admitting the error, you simply claim that either we are not understanding correctly, or you did not communicate very well. But this really does not work out, as we are about to see.
You continue to argue against a misinterpretation of my point, and I keep attempting to clarify where my miscommunication has mislead you to believe I've made a reasoning error.
As I say, you continue to say this. However, how in the world can I misunderstand, or you miss-communicate this?
Nothing leads me to be an unbeliever, but I could potentially be led to believe Christianity is true or false.
I am not misunderstanding here, because you say, "NOTHING" leads you to be an unbeliever, which would absolutely, necessarily include, "thinking". There's nothing to misunderstand here? When I point this out to you, you respond by saying,
So, when I state that nothing leads me to believe the resurrection claim is true or false, it doesn't mean an absence of thinking is responsible for my absence of belief.
Well, this is nowhere near the same statement, and here you are admitting to thinking, and if one is thinking, there is a possibility of error in one's thinking. However, somehow you have convinced yourself that you hold a position in which, it would be impossible for you to have any logical errors, and or confirmation bias in your thinking, and this is simply a "fantasy".

Next, you point blank claim as to having been prepared to accept something to be true, simply because it was featured on "The Discovery Channel". I immediately understand that something is not quite right about this report, because this either means you are not a critical thinker, because the absolute first thing a critical thinker would do in this case, would be to begin to question. Or, I understood this story could not possibly be true, as reported.

When I bring this to your attention, you go on to admit, the story was not exactly as you reported, but it would rather simply have been an example, of where you COULD HAVE BEEN GUILTY, of confirmation bias, if you were not a critical thinker.

So, what I did was to demonstrate a logical error in your thinking in that it would be impossible to simply accept something to be true, simply because it was featured on "The Discovery Channel" and at the same time claim to be a critical thinker.

There is no way for you to get around the fact that you made a logical error here, which is indeed why you had to change the story to, you really never were prepared to accept the story as true, simply because it was reported on "The Discovery Channel".

So then, instead of admitting the error, you simply change your story. This right here demonstrates, that when you ask me to identify where I may have admitted to confirmation bias, the only thing I could possibly do, is to do the same thing you did, when you changed your story, which would be to give a example, of where I could have been, if I did not think critically.
Obviously, for whatever reason, you have demonstrated no desire to cooperate with anything I've proposed thus far.
Sure I have. You asked for facts, and evidence, I have given you facts, evidence, and reasons to support what it is I believe, and you have ignored these things, and simply supplied another list of facts, which would have nothing whatsoever to do with the list of facts, which support the claims.

So then, while you "CLAIM" (and I stress the word claim) to hold the position to neither believe the claims to be false, nor to believe them to be true, I hold the position that there are reasons to believe the claims, along with the fact that there may indeed be reasons to doubt the claims.

Ergo, I am not insisting that everyone see things in the same way in which I do, which allows me to listen to how, and why folks hold a different position, not insisting that they must, and have to be influenced by logical errors, and, or, confirmation bias.

Now, speaking of one who has "demonstrated no desire to cooperate", this will be at least the 4th time I have asked this question. Are you truly being "intellectually honest" by claiming to hold the position to neither believe the claims to be true, or false? Or, if you were intellectually honest, would you have to admit that you believe the claims to be false, and the position you claim to hold, is simply a tactic which gives you the impression that you can avoid the accusation of logical errors, and, or confirmation bias in your thinking?

This is not a difficult question, and you can answer that you are being intellectually honest when you say, you do not believe the claims to be false. Or, you can admit that you do indeed believe the claims to be false.

Because you see, just like when I figured there had to be something awry with your account concerning "The Discovery Channel" report, as a critical thinker, this report as well begins to send up the red flags in my mind.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 2046
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 786 times
Been thanked: 546 times

Re: Theistic Reasoning

Post #222

Post by bluegreenearth »

[Replying to post 219 by Realworldjack]

Intellectual honesty compels me to acknowledge where the available facts and evidence are insufficient to justify a confident belief in the resurrection claim. What would justify a confident belief in the resurrection claim? We can have that discussion if you want.

Similarly, intellectual honesty compels me to acknowledge where the available contradictory facts and evidence are insufficient to completely falsify the resurrection claim. Am I tempted to believe and assert the resurrection claim is false? Yes. Do I claim to believe the resurrection claim is false? No. However, intellectual honesty compels me to consider the contradictory facts and evidence as sufficient to justify continued skepticism of the resurrection claim. What reasonably obtainable facts and evidence would falsify the resurrection claim? We can have that discussion if you want.

Realworldjack
Prodigy
Posts: 2554
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Theistic Reasoning

Post #223

Post by Realworldjack »

bluegreenearth wrote: [Replying to post 219 by Realworldjack]

Intellectual honesty compels me to acknowledge where the available facts and evidence are insufficient to justify a confident belief in the resurrection claim. What would justify a confident belief in the resurrection claim? We can have that discussion if you want.

Similarly, intellectual honesty compels me to acknowledge where the available contradictory facts and evidence are insufficient to completely falsify the resurrection claim. Am I tempted to believe and assert the resurrection claim is false? Yes. Do I claim to believe the resurrection claim is false? No. However, intellectual honesty compels me to consider the contradictory facts and evidence as sufficient to justify continued skepticism of the resurrection claim. What reasonably obtainable facts and evidence would falsify the resurrection claim? We can have that discussion if you want.


What would justify a confident belief in the resurrection claim? We can have that discussion if you want.
Which has been my whole point here. You ask this question, as if this would involve one specific thing that a theist may point out that would give them this confident belief, when the hope is, that whether one is a believer, or unbeliever, they have put forth the time and effort it would take in order to come to the conclusions they have, which would mean this discussion would take years, which is why we do what we do here on this site day, after day.

This is what I have been saying all along. In other words, it is not as simple as most folks make it out to be, whether believer, or unbeliever. As I have said numerous times, it is not as simple as many Christians make it out to be when they say things like, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it", but it is also not as simple as, "the claims are far too incredible to believe".

This is what causes me to believe, that one was indeed a believer at one time, who admits they did not put a whole lot of effort into thinking in order to become a Christian, and they simply must assume that all Christians came to the belief they have in Christianity in the same exact way in which they did, which demonstrates there still is not a whole lot of thinking going on.

In the meantime, there are very well educated, and intelligent folks on both sides of the equation, some of whom have written book volumes on what they believe about Christianity, one way or the other, which certainly demonstrates that it is not as simple as many make it out to be, and this debate has been raging for some 2000 years.

This alone should demonstrate there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims, otherwise, there would be nothing to debate? I mean, you act as if Christianity came to be, and there is a good chance it would be false, and there are simple ways in which to demonstrate this to be the case, but you have no facts, evidence, or reasons which you can demonstrate to be facts, which would demonstrate that it would be false. Meanwhile, we have facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims.

The facts, and evidence are not only the NT, but the Old as well. I have done a lot of research on my end, which includes reading a lot of material from those who are unbelievers. One of the authors I have read a lot, and have learned a great deal from, is a woman by the name of Karen Armstrong, and I have read numerous books by Miss Armstrong, which include, Jerusalem One City Three Faiths, The History of God, and The Spiral Stair Case, all of which I could not seem to put down.

Miss Armstrong was a Christian. In fact, she dedicated her life to the Church as a nun, straight out of high school. She is very knowledgeable, and knows the history of the three religions very well. In her book, "Jerusalem" as she describes the history of the Jews, she on numerous occasions would use the phrase, "against all odds".

So let us think about this. The OT tells us that the Jewish people were the "chosen people of God". We know for a fact that the other tribes reported in the OT would have indeed been tribes of people in ancient times, and all these tribes are no more.
However, the tribe of people which the Bible describes as the chosen people of God, are still alive and well with us today, and Miss Armstrong would be correct to say that it would be, "against all odds" because the Jewish people would certainly be one of the most, if not the most persecuted people on the face of the earth, with those throughout history attempting to eliminate them, and this continues to be so, as there are those today, who would love to see them eliminated, and are indeed, working toward that end.

Of course, this certainly does not demonstrate that Christianity would be true, and I am sure you and others have your opinion of how all these things would have occurred, but this would not eliminate the fact that, what I have reported would be fact. The question is, when does one begin to think about all these events simply being, "against all odds"?

These are simply a few of the many things we would have to consider, as we evaluated the facts, and evidence involved, and you seem to act as if we can simply throw a few things out there that may have convinced us, in order for you to be able to help us discover our logical errors, and confirmation bias, which you have found a way to rid yourself of.
Similarly, intellectual honesty compels me to acknowledge where the available contradictory facts and evidence are insufficient to completely falsify the resurrection claim.
My friend, it is not simply this fact. You also need to sit down in order to consider what all would have to be involved for the claims to actually be false. Because you see, if one is really intellectually honest, then they will acknowledge there are no easy answers involved here. In other words, any other scenario would be just as incredible as the reports themselves. It is not as though we can simply assume these reports could be lies, false, and or there may have been deception involved some sort of way, without actually thinking through what all would have to be involved, and how incredible this scenario would be.

Next, I want to look at your next two sentences separately,
Am I tempted to believe and assert the resurrection claim is false? Yes.
Notice here how you simply use the word, "believe"? In other words, you are "tempted to believe", and you go on to say, "assert". You then go on to say,
Do I claim to believe the resurrection claim is false? No.
You see, I am not concerned with what you "claim to believe" but rather what you actually believe concerning these events? You could say that you, "do not insist these reports to be false", in the same way I do not insist that the reports would be true, but this still would not affect what we actually believe ourselves. I have no problem revealing what it is I actually believe, without insisting I must, and have to be correct. The only reason I can think of that would cause you not to want to reveal what it is you actually believe, is that you are somehow under the impression that this causes you to avoid the burden of proof? If this is correct, then it is not being intellectually honest, but rather becomes a tactic.
However, intellectual honesty compels me to consider the contradictory facts and evidence as sufficient to justify continued skepticism of the resurrection claim.
I would say this would be a healthy way to look at it, because I understand that it is healthy to continue to critic what it is one believes. In fact, I am on record as saying, "I understand unbelief, and those who do not believe, and why they have come to this conclusion". However, I believe it is also healthy to consider the fact that there are indeed reasons in support of the claims, and that we should also be skeptical about simply dismissing the claims. In other words, you act as if this "skepticism" should only involve one side of the equation, when it should involve, both sides.
What reasonably obtainable facts and evidence would falsify the resurrection claim? We can have that discussion if you want.
This is the discussion we have been having? In other words, none of us can demonstrate what it is we believe concerning these events, but this would not mean that there would not be reason to believe, and, or reason to doubt.

Of course, you will attempt to make to point that you believe nothing concerning these events, and therefore are not obligated to defend a position. While I believe this is an intellectually dishonest position to take, this position still does not eliminate the fact that there are reasons to believe the reports.

To believe there is a possibility that the reports would be false, one would have to assume some sort of scenario. Once you assume some sort of scenario which may be the reason the reports could be false, one would then have to work through all that would have to be involved in order for that scenario to actually be a possibility, and we do not have the time, and space it would take to work through all these things here, which is why one must work through these things on their own, and also why we do what we do here everyday.

As an example, one may bring up the idea that it may be possible for the followers of Jesus may have stolen the body. Some folks act as if this would be a possibility, which would not involve very much at all? However, it would be very involved, to thee point that it would be an incredible feat. However, there are those who are satisfied with any sort of answer, as long as it does not involve the answer they would rather not believe.

You seem to be under the impression that we will one day resolve this issue among ourselves, and I am afraid this will never happen. However, I am fine with this, and welcome the discussion, as I attempt to understand the reasons those opposed to my position believe as they do, not insisting they must, and have to be in error.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 2046
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 786 times
Been thanked: 546 times

Re: Theistic Reasoning

Post #224

Post by bluegreenearth »

[Replying to post 221 by Realworldjack]

For the millionth time, I never once implied that there was a single specific or simple reason theists may point to that would give them confidence in a religious belief. I've regularly acknowledged where a theist will have complex and nuanced reasons for holding a belief. I used the term "discussion" precisely because it will require more than a single statement or argument to justify confidence in a theistic belief. Where I've previously solicited Christians to organize their reasoning into discreet components, it wasn't because I believed theism could be boiled down to one simple step. I use this approach as a way to methodically organize and navigate a highly elaborate thought process. I know it can take years to develop a theistic belief because I also engaged in critical thinking regarding the complex and nuanced reasons for believing in Christianity when I used to identify as a Christian.

I've never declared that there are no facts or evidence theists could use to try and support their belief. I also recognize where some people define the criteria for facts and evidence differently from other people and is probably why some of them do declare that there are no facts or evidence in support of Christianity. That is an epistemological issue which can only be resolved by developing a shared epistemology. However, if neither party is willing to cooperate towards the development of shared epistemology, then there can be no hope for a resolution to that issue.

I also recognize where many of the proposed natural explanations are often criticized by theists for being "just as incredible as the reports themselves." However, the difference between a natural explanation and theistic explanation is that the naturalistic one has an implicit empirical basis. When a claim has an implicit empirical basis, it is not the same thing as having empirical evidence for the claim. Obviously, we cannot go back in time to collect empirical evidence for the claim that a body was stolen. However, naturalistic explanations are based on things we know are empirical. For instance, we have empirical evidence of people stealing bodies in other contexts. This scenario could be reproduced to demonstrate it is possible for a body to be stolen even if it would be an incredible feat. Therefore, however implausible it might be, the stolen body hypothesis has an implicit empirical basis. Meanwhile, we have no empirical evidence of any kind for the existence of anything supernatural. As such, a supernatural explanation has no implicit empirical basis. This doesn't mean a supernatural explanation is automatically false but does make it less reliable than the natural explanation.

I'm under no delusion that we will resolve this theological debate ourselves. As you suggest, it might never happen. Meanwhile, we do have the capacity to ensure our reasoning process does at least contain a mechanism for rooting-out confirmation bias and logical fallacies. We can also learn to distinguish between what it means to be emotionally honest and what it means to be intellectually honest.

Now, I will attempt to clarify the point I tried to make about being tempted to believe versus not claiming to have a belief. This is where the distinction between emotional honesty and intellectual honesty is so important. Emotional honesty compels me to admit where I am tempted to believe the theistic resurrection claim is false. The temptation for that belief comes from both the evidence supporting the resurrection claim which I find to be unconvincing and the evidence against it which I find to be more convincing. However, intellectual honesty compels me to acknowledge where my "feelings" about the facts and evidence could be the result of confirmation bias. More importantly, the evidence against the resurrection claim does not falsify the resurrection claim. Therefore, intellectual honesty compels me to resist the temptation to believe and defend the claim that a supernatural resurrection never occurred because I cannot demonstrate a supernatural resurrection would have been impossible. As such, the intellectually honest position is to be emotionally honest about my temptation to believe the resurrection claim is false but endorse a lack of belief until such a time that the resurrection claim is demonstrated to be true or false. Crucially, while I am tempted to believe Christianity is false, under no circumstance should I act on this presumption in such a way that it causes emotional, psychological, or physical harm to myself or anyone else. This is because it could be a mistake to believe Christianity is false, and it would be tragic to cause harm based on an untestable belief.

The Christians should also endorse a lack of belief in the resurrection claim for the exact same intellectually honest reason. They should be emotionally honest and acknowledge where they are tempted to believe the claim is true. They should understand that their temptation to believe comes from an examination of the facts and evidence in support of the claim which they find to be convincing and the facts and evidence against it which they find to be unconvincing. However, intellectual honesty should compel them to accept where their "feelings" about the facts and evidence could be the result of confirmation bias. More importantly, the facts and evidence do not demonstrate the claim is true. Therefore, intellectual honesty should compel them to resist the temptation to believe and defend the claim that a supernatural resurrection occurred because they cannot demonstrate that a supernatural resurrection would have been possible. As such, the intellectually honest position is for them to be emotionally honest about their temptation to believe the resurrection claim is true but endorse a lack of belief until such a time that the resurrection claim is demonstrated to be true or false. Finally, while they are tempted to believe Christianity is true, under no circumstance should they act on their presumption in such a way that it causes emotional, psychological, or physical harm to themselves or anyone else. This is because it could be a mistake to believe Christianity is true, and it would be tragic to cause harm based on an untestable belief.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Theistic Reasoning

Post #225

Post by Divine Insight »

Realworldjack wrote: Which has been my whole point here. You ask this question, as if this would involve one specific thing that a theist may point out that would give them this confident belief, when the hope is, that whether one is a believer, or unbeliever, they have put forth the time and effort it would take in order to come to the conclusions they have, which would mean this discussion would take years, which is why we do what we do here on this site day, after day.
What most Christian theists do here on this site day after day is evade having to address the reasons they believe in the religion just as you are currently doing.

If it will take you years to explain why you believe in this religion, then I think it's obvious that you don't have any good reasons to offer.

Even the gist of the Bible can be summarized in a mere page or words. Maybe a couple pages if a person insists on covering a few unnecessary points.

The claim that it will take you years to explain why you believe is the same as saying that you have no good reason.

It doesn't even take years to read the entire Bible cover-to-cover.

In fact, the King James Bible is about 200,000 words long. An average reader can read 300 words a minute. This means that it would take an average reader only 11 hours to read the entire Bible.

This would of course be a super fast read. So let's assume they only read it for 1 hour a day. It would take them 11 days. Give them 1/2 an hour a day and it should only take 22 days. At 15 minutes a day they should be able to complete the entire Bible in well under 2 months time.

And it's going to take you years to explain why you believe it?

Something is clearly out of whack here.

I think what we have here is a classical case of evading the issue entirely.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 2046
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 786 times
Been thanked: 546 times

Re: Theistic Reasoning

Post #226

Post by bluegreenearth »

[Replying to post 223 by Divine Insight]

I will add that, to complete a long journey, you have to at least take one step forward. If RWJ cares enough about whether he has reliable reasons to believe Christianity is true, then he will patiently cooperate in the effort to make that determination. If doesn't care about whether his reasons for believing are reliable or not, he will continue to waste time complaining while offering no solutions.

Realworldjack
Prodigy
Posts: 2554
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Theistic Reasoning

Post #227

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to post 222 by bluegreenearth]

For the millionth time, I never once implied that there was a single specific or simple reason theists may point to that would give them confidence in a religious belief. I've regularly acknowledged where a theist will have complex and nuanced reasons for holding a belief. I used the term "discussion" precisely because it will require more than a single statement or argument to justify confidence in a theistic belief. Where I've previously solicited Christians to organize their reasoning into discreet components, it wasn't because I believed theism could be boiled down to one simple step. I use this approach as a way to methodically organize and navigate a highly elaborate thought process.
Okay? So where would you suggest I begin? This is exactly my point? When I began to study Christianity, I acknowledge the fact that I had no way to know if it would be true, which is exactly why I began to study in the first place. The point is, I would not even know where in the world to even begin, while you seem to act as if this would be simple?
I know it can take years to develop a theistic belief because I also engaged in critical thinking regarding the complex and nuanced reasons for believing in Christianity when I used to identify as a Christian.
Okay? So, you seem to be suggesting that you took years of study before deciding to be a Christian, and that it was this study which convinced you that Christianity would be true? If this is the case, then there must, and has to be very good reasons to believe Christianity to be true, otherwise one would never be able to become convinced Christianity would be true, through such studies, which should cause you to understand completely how Christians have come to their conclusions, in the same way in which I understand how folks come to doubt, and, or not believe the reports?
I've never declared that there are no facts or evidence theists could use to try and support their belief.
Oh? So we as Christians, can only "try and support our belief", while you can demonstrate your position, which I take as being we should all remain neutral?
I also recognize where some people define the criteria for facts and evidence differently from other people and is probably why some of them do declare that there are no facts or evidence in support of Christianity. That is an epistemological issue which can only be resolved by developing a shared epistemology.
I understand this as well, and my position is, I am convinced Christianity is true, based upon the facts, and evidence we have, but I do not insist that everyone see things in the same way, and I do not insist that I must, and have to be correct, and those who disagree must, and have to be in error.

I am fine with any position you may hold, and I am not out in order to help you find errors in your thinking, as if I have all the correct answers. Rather, I simply enjoy sharing ideas, opinions, and why one holds their position, without insisting there must, and has to be error in their thinking.
However, if neither party is willing to cooperate towards the development of shared epistemology, then there can be no hope for a resolution to that issue.
But the thing is, you seem to be suggesting that your "epistemology" is the one we should agree on, which is one of the problems we have.
I also recognize where many of the proposed natural explanations are often criticized by theists for being "just as incredible as the reports themselves." However, the difference between a natural explanation and theistic explanation is that the naturalistic one has an implicit empirical basis.
So then, you seem to be suggesting that we take the natural explanation, over the supernatural explanation, simple because it would be natural, even if it would be just as incredible? Can you explain why?

I am not suggesting that we should simply take the supernatural explanation, but am rather asking that we examine all possibilities along with what all would have to be involved in order for this possibility to have actually occurred.

When we arrive to the supernatural explanation, the only objection seems to be, "it's a supernatural explanation, and we should not go with it, even if the other explanations would be more incredible to believe"?
Obviously, we cannot go back in time to collect empirical evidence for the claim that a body was stolen.
So then, are we to simply dismiss this explanation which we have facts, and evidence to support? Or, can we at least work through all that would have had to be involved for such a thing to happen, in order to determine just how possible this scenario would be?
However, naturalistic explanations are based on things we know are empirical. For instance, we have empirical evidence of people stealing bodies in other contexts. This scenario could be reproduced to demonstrate it is possible for a body to be stolen even if it would be an incredible feat. Therefore, however implausible it might be, the stolen body hypothesis has an implicit empirical basis. Meanwhile, we have no empirical evidence of any kind for the existence of anything supernatural. As such, a supernatural explanation has no implicit empirical basis. This doesn't mean a supernatural explanation is automatically false but does make it less reliable than the natural explanation.
Which seems to mean we are back to square one? If neither explanation can be ruled out, then we would need to determine what all would have to be involved in order for any of the explanations to be correct, and if all explanation would be just as incredible, then adding in whether the explanation would be supernatural, or not, would not add anything to the discussion.

You seem to be suggesting that a natural explanation would be preferable to a supernatural explanation, and while I would agree with this, I do not see how this would get us any closer to the truth of the matter? In other words, I do not see how what I would prefer to be the case, would have anything to do with, what the case may actually be?
I'm under no delusion that we will resolve this theological debate ourselves. As you suggest, it might never happen. Meanwhile, we do have the capacity to ensure our reasoning process does at least contain a mechanism for rooting-out confirmation bias and logical fallacies.
You continue to bring up, "confirmation bias" as if I have some sort of desire for Christianity to be true? While I am certain there are many Christians who have such a desire, I can only imagine that it is because they do not have a correct understanding of what it would actually mean. My point is, I would much rather believe Christianity to be false, because who would desire to believe it to be true? I find nothing appealing to believe about it?
We can also learn to distinguish between what it means to be emotionally honest and what it means to be intellectually honest.
I am being as emotionally, and intellectually honest as I can be, by saying, I have no desire for Christianity to be true, and would rather it be false.

The thing is, there are many Christians who come to their conviction that Christianity would be true, based upon the emotions, and this would more than likely involve many former Christians as well. In other words, many former Christians came to be convinced Christianity was true, simply based upon an emotional response, and they are now under the impression that all Christians must, and have to operate in the same way. However, the fact of the matter would be, I purposely never make decisions based upon how I feel emotionally, because I understand this to be a reckless way in which to operate.
Emotional honesty compels me to admit where I am tempted to believe the theistic resurrection claim is false.
I truly appreciate your honesty here, and you will have to simply accept that I have no emotional connection with Christianity, and would rather that it be false.
The temptation for that belief comes from both the evidence supporting the resurrection claim which I find to be unconvincing and the evidence against it which I find to be more convincing.
I have no problem at all with this conclusion of yours, and respect your opinion. However, I have become compelled to believe Christianity to be true based upon the facts, and evidence available. This means we have a difference of opinion, which I am fine with, and I do not insist that you must, and have to be in error, or that there must be some sort of problem with your thinking.
However, intellectual honesty compels me to acknowledge where my "feelings" about the facts and evidence could be the result of confirmation bias.
Again, I would rather Christianity to be false, so I have no emotional connection. Next, I have always had the ability to separate my emotions, from my intellect. In other words, I always attempt to discover any where in which an opposing view could, or would be correct, leaving my emotions aside.

I mean, you seem to act as if this is something you recently discovered, and you are out to explain it to all of us? In the meantime, this is something I have been championing for years, and not simply dealing with Christianity. In other words, when there are folks who seem to be excited about some sort of victory, I am always the first to ask that we slow down, and think more carefully.

I do this with my wife all the time, even when I tend to agree with her. She may be upset at someone by something they have done, and I fully understand her frustration, but I always attempt to get her to sit down, and think through the possibility of this person having a point we may have overlooked.
More importantly, the evidence against the resurrection claim does not falsify the resurrection claim. Therefore, intellectual honesty compels me to resist the temptation to believe and defend the claim that a supernatural resurrection never occurred because I cannot demonstrate a supernatural resurrection would have been impossible.
We are not that far off then. I do not insist that the claims must, and have to be true, but rather there are facts, evidence, and reasons to support the belief. I also understand there may be reasons to doubt the claims. However, I am convinced by the facts, and evidence that the claims are indeed true, without insisting that I must be correct.
As such, the intellectually honest position is to be emotionally honest about my temptation to believe the resurrection claim is false but endorse a lack of belief until such a time that the resurrection claim is demonstrated to be true or false.
Again, your position seems to be the same as mine? You are convinced by the facts, and evidence that Christianity is false, but you are not insisting that it must, and has to be false.

You can continue to insist that you hold a neutral position, but you really do not. Rather, you are convinced Christianity is false, but you do not insist that you must, and have to be correct.
Crucially, while I am tempted to believe Christianity is false, under no circumstance should I act on this presumption in such a way that it causes emotional, psychological, or physical harm to myself or anyone else. This is because it could be a mistake to believe Christianity is false, and it would be tragic to cause harm based on an untestable belief.
My friend, my belief that Christianity is true, is causing no harm whatsoever to anyone else, because I do not insist that I must be correct, and that everyone else must, and has to believe, and or behave in the same way.

Rather, I simply share what it is I believe, along with why I believe as I do, and allow others to examine what it is I say, and come to their own conclusions, based upon the same facts, and evidence.
The Christians should also endorse a lack of belief in the resurrection claim for the exact same intellectually honest reason.
I really do not see how this would follow? You all but admit you are convinced Christianity to be false, and it seems intellectually dishonest to insist that you really have no conviction either way, when you in fact do.

So then, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to suggest that, "I have a lack of belief" when I have been convinced the claims to be true. Being convinced the claims are indeed true, does not mean that I have to insist they must and have to be true.
They should understand that their temptation to believe comes from an examination of the facts and evidence in support of the claim which they find to be convincing and the facts and evidence against it which they find to be unconvincing.
Which is almost exactly what I do? In other words, I admit that I am convinced Christianity would be true, based upon the facts, and evidence available, and go on to acknowledge the fact that there may indeed be reasons to doubt, and, or not believe the claims to be true.
However, intellectual honesty should compel them to accept where their "feelings" about the facts and evidence could be the result of confirmation bias.
Okay, well what about those of us as Christians, who would rather Christianity to be false? Moreover, I completely understand that what I may feel about something, would not enter into the equation at all, and have spoken out publicly, warning other Christians of this very thing. You are "preaching to the choir".

Have you ever believed something, you would rather not believe, but had to believe it any way, based upon the facts, and evidence involved? If you were to come to the knowledge that what you once believed to be true, that you would rather not believe, was actually not true, would you not be relieved? Would you not go on to then understand that what you felt about this, would not have factored in, either way? This is not anything new you are preaching.
Therefore, intellectual honesty should compel them to resist the temptation to believe and defend the claim that a supernatural resurrection occurred because they cannot demonstrate that a supernatural resurrection would have been possible.
Intellectual honesty, compels me to say exactly what I have been convinced of, because this would be the exact truth. However, I do not defend the idea that a resurrection actually did occur, but rather there are very good facts, and evidence in support of the claim, which is exactly what has convinced me.

The only difference I am seeing here is, I am being honest about what I am convinced of, while you are just as convinced Christianity would be false, but claim to hold a neutral position, when this is not the case.
As such, the intellectually honest position is for them to be emotionally honest about their temptation to believe the resurrection claim is true but endorse a lack of belief until such a time that the resurrection claim is demonstrated to be true or false.
The problem here is, I am not tempted to believe a resurrection occurred? I am more inclined to believe that it did not occur. However, I cannot get past the facts, and evidence in support.

The bottom line here seems to be, you seem to be one who would at one time make decisions based upon your emotions, and had a hard time separating the intellect from the emotions. While I completely understand this, you need to understand that there are many of us, who already understand this, and we are not all out there with our emotional antennas in the air, attempting to make our decisions, because we have been, well aware of what you are saying, a long time ago.

You need to attempt to understand, that what you are preaching, is the same exact thing I have been preaching to Christians now for years, and can give you many examples of where I have done this very thing.

Realworldjack
Prodigy
Posts: 2554
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Theistic Reasoning

Post #228

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to post 223 by Divine Insight]
What most Christian theists do here on this site day after day is evade having to address the reasons they believe in the religion just as you are currently doing.
My friend, I have been on this site for over six years now, day, after day, and have given reasons for what it is I believe along with why I believe as I do. There would be no way to escape this.

What is not surprising to me, is former Christians who admit to being convinced Christianity was true, who go on to admit they did not put forth a whole lot of effort into thinking, coming to the conclusion that all Christians came to their beliefs in the same way, which causes them to believe that a Christian can come up with a few little things which convinced them, since it only took a few little things to convince those who were former Christians.

In other words, it was all so simple when they were convinced Christianity was true, and it is just as simple now that they have changed the mind.
If it will take you years to explain why you believe in this religion, then I think it's obvious that you don't have any good reasons to offer.
If it takes years for one to become convinced, then how long do you think it would take to explain the thinking process? Of course, I can certainly understand this sort of thing coming from one who is under the impression that it is all so simple.

In the meantime, there have been those on both sides of the equation, who have wrote book volumes explaining what it is they believe, along with why they believe as they do, which sort of demonstrates it is far more complicated than posting a few little things.
Even the gist of the Bible can be summarized in a mere page or words. Maybe a couple pages if a person insists on covering a few unnecessary points.
Again, I can certainly understand this comment coming from one who would have been convinced Christianity was true, and it did not take a whole lot to convince them, because it more than likely did not take a whole lot to talk them out. In the meantime, there are book volumes on both sides of the equation demonstrating that it is not that simple.
The claim that it will take you years to explain why you believe is the same as saying that you have no good reason.
Again, this is not shocking to hear from you, because it would be many good reasons, not just "a good reason".
It doesn't even take years to read the entire Bible cover-to-cover.

In fact, the King James Bible is about 200,000 words long. An average reader can read 300 words a minute. This means that it would take an average reader only 11 hours to read the entire Bible.

This would of course be a super fast read. So let's assume they only read it for 1 hour a day. It would take them 11 days. Give them 1/2 an hour a day and it should only take 22 days. At 15 minutes a day they should be able to complete the entire Bible in well under 2 months time.

And it's going to take you years to explain why you believe it?

Something is clearly out of whack here.

I think what we have here is a classical case of evading the issue entirely.
And again, this is not shocking at all. If one is simply reading, to be reading, one can certainly read through in relatively a short period of time. However, to actually read in order to examine, and study what it is that is being said, comparing it to what those opposed, have to say, then it may in fact take years.

I think we have demonstrated one who is under the impression that it is all so simple, who has not put a whole lot of effort into thinking whether when they were convinced Christianity was true, nor when they decided to change the mind, the thinking remains the same.

Realworldjack
Prodigy
Posts: 2554
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Theistic Reasoning

Post #229

Post by Realworldjack »

bluegreenearth wrote: [Replying to post 223 by Divine Insight]

I will add that, to complete a long journey, you have to at least take one step forward. If RWJ cares enough about whether he has reliable reasons to believe Christianity is true, then he will patiently cooperate in the effort to make that determination. If doesn't care about whether his reasons for believing are reliable or not, he will continue to waste time complaining while offering no solutions.

Okay? So I have asked you in another post, where you would like me to begin? Would you like me to give you just one reason, and we will work from there? The fact of the matter is, this whole time I have been supplying reasons which you have ignored, and have never addressed?

So, it seems as if you need to get off the bench, and step to the plate, because you have more than enough to critic, you are just avoiding.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 2046
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 786 times
Been thanked: 546 times

Re: Theistic Reasoning

Post #230

Post by bluegreenearth »

[Replying to post 225 by Realworldjack]
...then there must, and has to be very good reasons to believe Christianity to be true...
What makes a reason "good" or "bad" is subjective and contingent upon the epistemology of the believer. People used to have "good" reasons to believe the sun revolved around a flat and stationary Earth because that was the extent of knowledge their limited epistemology would allow. I have no trouble agreeing that those ancient people had "good" reasons for their belief in that context. Today, however, we argue that modern people who believe the Earth is flat and stationary do not have "good" reasons for holding that belief because they are choosing to reject a more reliable epistemology which would allow them to acquire sufficient knowledge to demonstrate the Earth is round and rotating on its axis. Equivalently, given the limitations of your epistemology, I can understand why you judge your reasoning to be good. I will grant that, within the context of your limited epistemology, you have good reasons to believe Christianity is true. Meanwhile, within the context of my limited epistemology, your reasoning is demonstrably flawed. Since I've found my limited epistemology to be more reliable than your limited epistemology, I am justified in rejecting your reasoning. You are welcome to reject my more reliable epistemology if you want to, but I'm not sure what your rational would be for preferring a less reliable epistemology.

Post Reply