Theistic Reasoning

[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.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 236 by Realworldjack]

What we do not have, is any facts, and evidence, which would support the idea that these men would have been involved in the disappearance of the body, and would have known it all to be a lie, and continued in the face of all this persecution, to continue to proclaim what they would have known to be a lie. In fact, as we think about what all would have to be involved in such a feat, it would be incredible.

If someone could provide facts and evidence supporting a more plausible natural explanation for the resurrection claim that didn't involve anyone stealing a body, would that alter your confidence in the belief that a supernatural resurrection occurred?

Do the facts and evidence you've identified justify the belief that a supernatural resurrection occurred or do they merely establish that those men believed a supernatural resurrection occurred? I have no problem granting that those men sincerely believed a supernatural resurrection occurred and were willing to experience persecution, prison, and a painful death in defense of their theology. I'm wondering if those men were justified in sincerely believing a supernatural resurrection occurred? Furthermore, even if it could be established that those men had a reasonable justification for believing a supernatural resurrection occurred given their limited epistemology and theological perspective, does this justify anyone else's decision to share their belief?

[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.

As a matter of fact, I continue to explain what it is I believe, and why I believe as I do. My complaint is the fact that the author of the OP seems to be under the impression that one can simply throw a few facts out there, as if it would have been simply a few facts which would have convinced someone Christianity would be true.

Although this is frustrating for someone such as myself, who understands that it is not that simple, I can certainly understand this sort of thinking coming from one who admits to being a Christian at one point, who now claims there would be no way to justify such a belief. In other words, it was all so simple when they were convinced Christianity would have been true, and it is just as simply now that the mind has changed. "Easy in, easy out.

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.

You continue to ignore the fact that, there have been those on both sides of the equation, who have written book volumes concerning their thinking process, and how they have arrived to the conclusions they have concerning the claims in the NT. This certainly demonstrates there are facts, and evidence in support of the claims, and that it would be way more involved than you would like to admit. But again, this is certainly understandable for those who admit to being convinced of something which had an enormous impact upon their life, who now claim they did not put a whole lot of effort into thinking before becoming convinced.

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.

This sort of thinking certainly explains a lot to me. Because, it would be a fact that it would not take all that long to actually read every word in the Bible. However, simply reading the words, would not be the same as actually analyzing, and studying the content, and comparing what is actually said to what may be said by those opposed. In other words, anyone who can read, can accomplish the task of running their eyes over the words, and it is certainly not shocking to understand there are those who would be under the impression that this is all it would take.

So then, what seems to be, "out of whack" is one who is under the impression that all it would take is a simple reading of the words.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 225 by Realworldjack]

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.

It would be intellectually honest to endorse a lack of belief and emotionally honest to admit having the temptation to believe. It would be intellectually dishonest to defend a belief as though it were true when it has not been demonstrated to be true. If you aren't doing this, then you aren't being intellectually dishonest. For the most part, you give me the impression that you are being intellectually honest by admitting where your belief hasn't been demonstrated to be true. What I fail to understand is why you don't endorse a lack of belief even though you admit the truth cannot be demonstrated in the case of the resurrection claim.

It would be intellectually honest to endorse a lack of belief and emotionally honest to admit having the temptation to believe.

We are saying the same thing in different ways. The only difference is the fact that you claim to stop short of being convinced the claims would be false, while I am honest in acknowledging that I am convinced the claims would be true. However, in the end, we both operate upon what we believe to be true, because if you were truly convinced that Christianity may in fact be true, then it would not be only the Christians faulty thinking you would be concerned about, but also those who insist the claims would be false.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with one being convinced one way or the other, based upon the facts, and evidence available, just as you have demonstrated with your comments concerning, the human evolving from what we have identified as a completely different species. This has not been demonstrated, nor has it ever been observed, but it is perfectly fine for one to be convinced of such things based upon the facts, and evidence available.

Again, I myself hold out for further evidence, but I do not insist that others should see things in the same way. My only complaint would be with those who insist that the human evolving from what we have identified as a completely different species would be a demonstrable fact.

It would be intellectually dishonest to defend a belief as though it were true when it has not been demonstrated to be true.

I agree, which is why I do not "defend Christianity as though it were true", but rather as a something I have become convinced of, based upon the facts, and evidence available, and I allow others to examine the facts for themselves, without insisting that they come to the same conclusions.

If you aren't doing this, then you aren't being intellectually dishonest. For the most part, you give me the impression that you are being intellectually honest by admitting where your belief hasn't been demonstrated to be true.

You are correct, which is why I say we are saying the same thing in different ways.

What I fail to understand is why you don't endorse a lack of belief even though you admit the truth cannot be demonstrated in the case of the resurrection claim.

My friend, there are many things we may not be able to absolutely demonstrate, but the facts, and evidence compels us to believe these things, because the facts, and evidence would be overwhelming. This is why, in a court of law, we are not asked to be convinced beyond any doubt at all, but rather upon any reasonable doubt.

Is there any "reasonable doubt" concerning the claims made in the NT? You may be convinced that there is, but I just do not see it. In other words, every other scenario that has been given to me, would be just as incredible as the claims themselves, making the only reasonable doubt being, the claims themselves would be incredible. So then, we are left with the incredible, either way, which would seem to mean these ordinary men accomplished an incredible feat. I am not inclined to have that much faith in these men.

Of course, it could be argued, that there may be other scenarios which we have not thought of as yet, but what in the world could they possibly be. So then, while I may not be able to demonstrate the resurrection

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 223 by Divine Insight]
My complaint is the fact that the author of the OP seems to be under the impression that one can simply throw a few facts out there, as if it would have been simply a few facts which would have convinced someone Christianity would be true.

Although this is frustrating for someone such as myself, who understands that it is not that simple, I can certainly understand this sort of thinking coming from one who admits to being a Christian at one point, who now claims there would be no way to justify such a belief. In other words, it was all so simple when they were convinced Christianity would have been true, and it is just as simply now that the mind has changed. "Easy in, easy out.

Your comment above was posted after you had already been corrected on your misunderstanding (Re: Theistic Reasoning). The fact that you continue to carbon copy the same argument despite having been informed of your misperception demonstrates that you are knowingly misrepresenting my position. How does this behavior support the claim that you are intellectually honest?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 225 by Realworldjack]

You continue to bring up, "confirmation bias" as if I have some sort of desire for Christianity to be true?

I've already demonstrated by an example where confirmation bias functions on a subconscious level and need not have anything to do with whether you desire for the belief to be true or false. I've also demonstrated where it is possible to mitigate for confirmation bias. The concept of confirmation bias that I've described is not contested. Your continuing failure to comprehend this concept is unfortunate.

What is "unfortunate" is the fact that I happen to understand "confirmation bias" very well, and am always the first to take pause in order to consider if and when it may be possible that I may be guilty myself, which is why I never insist that I must and have to be correct, concerning those things for which I cannot absolutely demonstrate, while there seems to be others who are under the impression that they have conveniently found a position in which it would be impossible for them to be guilty of "confirmation bias" all the while arguing that this would be something that would be on a "subconscious level".

The bottom line here is, you hold the opinion that the claims in the NT would be false. However, since you understand that you cannot demonstrate your opinion, you opt to insist, that no one should hold an opinion either way upon the matter, until, or unless the matter can be demonstrated either way. While I have no problem with you holding such an opinion, this is all that it is, an opinion which cannot be demonstrated.

I on the other hand, admit that I have been convinced by the facts, and evidence, that the claims in the NT would be true, while admitting the possibility of my error, not insisting that everyone agree, allowing folks to examine the evidence for themselves, making up their own mind, not insisting that there must, and has to be error in their thinking, which I am out to fix.

My friend, simply because you made the mistake at one time, of being convinced of something of which you now claim there would be no facts, and evidence to support, does not in any way make you some sort of expert on the subject, allowing you now to demonstrate where others have made their mistakes, because believe it or not, not everyone came to their convictions in the same way in which you did, but rather actually thought through the process carefully.

In fact, what seems to be the case here, is one who admits to not putting forth a whole lot of effort into thinking who now wants to convince us the thinking has changed, when the only thing that seems to have changed, is the mind, while the thinking remains the same.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 225 by Realworldjack]

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.

I endorse a neutral position despite the temptation to believe Christianity is false because that is the intellectually honest thing to do. Are you suggesting that I should be defending the position that Christianity is false rather than endorsing skepticism?

Notice here, that you are claiming to "endorse a neutral position"? This would be an opinion you hold, of which I have no problem with, other than you seem to want to insist that we should all hold such a position, when this cannot be demonstrated, all the while, as you continue to be convinced the claims would be false.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 242 by Realworldjack]

Once again, you are deliberately and blatantly misrepresenting my position (see: Re: Deliberate Misrepresentation). Since you obviously didn't read it the first two times, here it is again for the third time: Re: Theistic Reasoning

[Danmark]

What is "unfortunate" is the fact that I happen to understand "confirmation bias" very well, and am always the first to take pause in order to consider if and when it may be possible that I may be guilty myself....

You appear to be saying you are immune from confirmation bias since you understand it "very well" and have built safeguards against it. If true, that would most likely make you the only person in the world so immune, since it is part of the psyche of humans to routinely search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or strengthens one's prior personal beliefs or hypotheses.

One of the most common forms of bias is to persist in believing discredited magical, religious, and paranormal beliefs. There is no mystery about why 98% of the population of certain countries believes the same religion while in a different country a similar percentage of people believe in a competing religion while rejecting all others.

All of those people will claim they have no confirmation bias; that instead they carefully researched their religion and believe in it only because of their objective investigation.
This of course is ridiculous, as is the claim that such biases don't work on a subconscious level.

Unconscious bias is why even those who carry out scientific experiments, people who are actively TRYING to avoid confirmation bias, still suffer from it and KNOW their own biases will influence their research. That is why experimenters take objective and active precautions such as double blind studies and peer review. In other words, the truly fair person KNOWS he has biases, whether she is a scientist or a religious believer.

[Danmark]

Speaking of confirmation bias, there is a small rabbit that daily ventures out of a thicket and onto my lawn. Curious, I looked up rabbits that are native to where I live. One of them is an endangered species, the Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_ ... gmy_rabbit



I've been discussing this via email with a Wildlife biologist who wants me to take a photo. Pygmy rabbits are very small, the smallest rabbit in N. America. They have thick fur on the inside of their ears, unlike the cottontails whose ear interiors are just skin. They can get as big as 10 inches, tho' usually they are small enough to hold in the palms of your hands.

But they don't have white tails, but as I told the biologist, I want this to be a pygmy:

Thanks. It matches your description about the ears. It does have an off white very short tail you can't see unless he is hopping away. Looks different from the photo of the cottontail. I'll check with your notes in mind. Re: size, yes the first thing I noticed was she/he's on the large end of the pygmy spectrum. ... and my perceptions are influenced by my bias for WANTING this little creature to BE a pygmy.

Thanks Kim. I'll keep checking.

It came out, same spot. Prob'ly too big to be a pygmy. Maybe it's the world's largest pygmy. Ears are definitely furry, almost black (or very dark in the center), but '10" length' prob'ly is an underestimate, and definitely a small tail looking exactly like a cotton ball.
Is the cottontail one of the species used to make the hybrids for their reintroduction?
BTW, as I bother you with this I think of one of best internet spoofs, the letter to the Smithsonian. I don't want to be like "Mr. Williams."

So, even tho' this rabbit is too big and has a cotton looking tail, I am rooting for, and my perceptions are influenced by my desire that this BE a pygmy rabbit. So I focus on the furry ears. Now I am rooting for it to be a GIANT pygmy rabbit or at least a hybrid. Anyway, at least I am aware I may be acting like 'Mr. Williams.'

"Dear Mr. Williams,

Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labelled '93211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post... Hominid skull.

We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago. Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety that one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be 'Malibu Barbie.'

It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradict your findings. However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to its modern origin:

1. The material is moulded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilised bone.

2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimetres, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids.

3. The dentition pattern evident on the skull is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time.

This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, let us say that:

1. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on.

2. Clams don't have teeth.

It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon-dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in its normal operation, and partly due to carbon-datings notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record.

To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon-dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results.

Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science Foundation Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name Australopithecus spiff-arino. Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't really sound like it might be Latin.

However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a Hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your Newport back yard.

We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus Rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.

Yours in Science, Harvey Rowe Chief Curator-Antiquities"

_ Yours in Science, Daniel Arnold, JD, retired, Amateur Wildlife Field Agent