Burden of Answers

[liamconnor]

Both sides have questions which they want satisfactory answers; but are all questions fare?

For instance, many questions raised against Christians are clearly subjective, since they deal with what we might call the 'psychology of God': i.e., Why did Jesus only show himself to his closest disciples? Why did God not immediately eradicate sin within minutes of the so-called Fall? Why choose one man (Abraham) to concentrate on and not communicate universally to all men?

And some Christians require of atheists natural explanations for every aspect of reality: i.e., where does our sense of objective morality come from (note: when they ask this, they are not asking for the origins of the herd-instinct)? If we are naturally evolved from animal ancestry, how did our senses become so dull? How is it that each evolvement of a species consisted in a myriad of changes coinciding simultaneously and compatibly? How is it that we alone have Reason? If the Big Bang happened, what caused it?

(in my experience, a number of atheists here will 'think' they have an answer to all of the questions posed in the second paragraph. Most scientists, of any persuasion, would demur. At any rate, that is not the question for debate, and if you think you know the answers to all those questions, this debate is probably not for you).

QforD: What (in 'your' opinion) are legitimate, reasonable, demands which the opposite side should satisfy before consenting to, or even simply respecting, their position? Examples: Positing the biblical god, are Christians required to know the thought process behind his every action? Or, are naturalists required to explain what caused the Big Bang, or why it happened in one way and not another?


I am hoping this debate does not turn into a focus on each demand and the evidence (or lack there of) for it; this is about 'reasonable expectations' for finite creatures.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]
There's a subtle difference between questioning naturalistic explanation such as the Big Bang and questioning the rationality of God.

To illustrate:
Asking "what caused the Big Bang?" is a question aimed at filling in the blanks. The question in and of itself does not imply any contradiction. It does not imply an accusation of inaccuracy. Asking "what caused the Big Bang?" is not an accusation that the Big Bang never happened.

Alternatively, asking "why did God do X?" is a question aimed not at filling in the blanks but at pointing out a contradiction. The contradiction being that "God is rational, yet does something very irrational". This question is not aimed at expanding any given knowledge but rather questioning existing knowledge. The aim is to point out a contradiction in the claim that God is rational.

In summary, if your question can be formulated as "please tell me more", then I see no burden of answer. But if the question is "please explain this apparent contradiction", then there is a burden of answer since the contradiction, if unresolved, would annul the existing claims that lead to said contractions (such as the claim that God is rational)

[BrainSauce]

n/a

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

I don't think your OP invites debate.
But I am glad you have identified core paradoxes.

So some key questions are why did God select a small people with a xenophobic personality and a small set of rules and say they should rule a small nit of land?

How did he and how can we identify these people?
Personal choice of religion?
Diet?
Some gene?
The birthright?
Combinations?

How are those people the same people that have been eliminated and decimated a few times in history - and what about the Canaan, occupying Jerusalem, not being killed at that time, resulting as a religious shift promoted by an external power, Rome?

Good to start?

[Rufus21]

For instance, many questions raised against Christians are clearly subjective, since they deal with what we might call the 'psychology of God': i.e., Why did Jesus only show himself to his closest disciples? Why did God not immediately eradicate sin within minutes of the so-called Fall? Why choose one man (Abraham) to concentrate on and not communicate universally to all men?

I've seen those types of questions being asked often, but I never thought they were worthwhile. Asking why someone did something or why God allegedly did what he did just leads to pages and pages of speculation and accusation. I've never seen them produce anything fruitful and I can't imagine any real answers coming from that line of discussion.

And some Christians require of atheists natural explanations for every aspect of reality: i.e., where does our sense of objective morality come from (note: when they ask this, they are not asking for the origins of the herd-instinct)? If we are naturally evolved from animal ancestry, how did our senses become so dull? How is it that each evolvement of a species consisted in a myriad of changes coinciding simultaneously and compatibly? How is it that we alone have Reason? If the Big Bang happened, what caused it?

Now these are much more interesting questions! These are things that we can actually investigate and discover instead of just speculating forever. These are much more valid questions, but I don't believe they need to be answered in order for someone to be skeptical of religious claims. Science doesn't need to have all the answers, it just needs to have the right answers.

In any case, the more exciting question is "how do we figure those things out?"

As you anticipated, I believe some of those questions have been answered. Others would be a good topic for debate. (Are we the only species with reasoning skills? Do we have objective morality?)

QforD: What (in 'your' opinion) are legitimate, reasonable, demands which the opposite side should satisfy before consenting to, or even simply respecting, their position?

In my opinion, both science and religion should be held to the same standards. You must search for the solution that fits the evidence (not the other way around) and you must accept the evidence that weakens or disproves your previous hypothesis. If anything, you should be trying to find ways to prove yourself wrong. And, most importantly, don't be afraid to admit that you don't know the answer! It is often the most honest response.

Still just my opinion, but that last part is what theists seem to have the most trouble with. The basis for their entire belief system is faith, but they don't want to admit that it's all just opinion. I've seen people say that they know what God was thinking and know His intentions. I've seen them say that they know things are facts when they are impossible to prove, and even when there is significant evidence against them. As I said in my first paragraph, this line of discussion is fruitless.

Basically, I expect both sides to be honest with each other and themselves.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

in my experience, a number of atheists here will 'think' they have an answer to all of the questions posed in the second paragraph.

All? I would say most. I for one have answers for all but the last one (the one about the Big Bang - no-one knows what caused it, or if the concept of a cause can even apply to it).

And some Christians require of atheists natural explanations for every aspect of reality:

Talking about yourself I take it, since in the past, you have on multiple occasions challenged us to come up with explanations for the origins of Christianity to the minutest detail.
I have to ask though...why is it you and some other Christians require natural explanations for EVERY aspect of reality? Don't you know that "I don't know" is a valid response? After all... we're not the ones claiming to have some sort of connection to or instruction from a supposedly all knowing deity...

Examples: Positing the biblical god, are Christians required to know the thought process behind his every action?

I have to respond to this. Let's say I ask you a question similar to your first paragraph (such as "Why did God command the Israelites to wipe out entire cities?")...and you say you don't know...what leg then do you have to stand on when you start saying (probably elsewhere) that God is loving, caring, wise, compassionate, etc?

It's one thing to say "There is a God"...it's another thing altogether to say "There is a God, he has done XYZ and he is Positive Attributes ABC, even though my holy book has him wiping out life on Earth in a global flood, instructing conquests and massacres etc"

Or, are naturalists required to explain what caused the Big Bang, or why it happened in one way and not another?

Strictly speaking, no. We do not claim to have the answers without having done the work. We do not claim to have the answer(s) straight from the horse's mouth.

[otseng]

n/a

Moderator Comment

Please note that one-liners are against the rules and can be removed.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Divine Insight]

QforD: What (in 'your' opinion) are legitimate, reasonable, demands which the opposite side should satisfy before consenting to, or even simply respecting, their position? Examples: Positing the biblical god, are Christians required to know the thought process behind his every action? Or, are naturalists required to explain what caused the Big Bang, or why it happened in one way and not another?

For me, this "question for debate" reveals a grave misunderstanding of what a "debate" should even be. And the reason I say this is because right in your question you ask for people's "opinions". Opinions should never be debated. Only claims need to be debated.

This is even true in the sciences. For example, as a human I don't claim to know what caused the Big Bang. However, for the sake of scientific argument I am willing to claim that the best hypothesis I've heard thus far is that it started as a quantum fluctuation. At that point I'm going out on a limb to make the "claim" that the best hypothesis to date is that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation. I would then need to provide compelling arguments for why I make this claim. At no point would I need to prove that it's true because I never claimed that it's true, I only claimed that it's the best hypothesis I've heard thus far.

So when debating with people it's always wise to be absolutely certain precisely what it is they are arguing for, or what you yourself are supposed to be arguing against.

In fact, in the above proposed argument, if you wanted to be the antagonist you would actually need to offer a "better" hypothesis for what caused the Big Bang, not merely argue against the idea that the universe might have started as a quantum fluctuation.

Now moving on to arguments over theologies:

To begin with I never argue with the theist. If the theist thinks I am arguing with them that's their misunderstanding.

Any question I ask about any hypothetical God is a question I would ask directly to that God if it did indeed exist. Therefore every theological question I have is a "fair" question.

Also, let's get back to the idea of a "claim" being made. Who's making a "claim" here? Certainly not me. I'm not claiming that a God does not exist. I'm simply bringing up all the reasons why the existence of such a God makes no sense to me and appears to raise far more self-contradictory questions than it provides any answers.

If the theist is "claiming" that their God exists and that their God makes perfect sense. Then surely the burden to answer any questions that I would ask their God should indeed be on them to explain rational answers for. After all, they are the one who is claiming that this God "makes sense". If that's their claim, then shouldn't they be required to defend that claim by offering compelling reasons for why their God supposedly makes sense?

I would never ask a theist a question that I wouldn't ask their God directly if their God actually did exist. Therefore every question I ask is as "fair" as "fair" can be.

If the theist can't answer the question in a rational compelling way, then why should I believe their claim that their God is rational or makes sense?

If the theists proclaims that God works in mysterious ways and even they don't understand why God does the things he does, then they are confessing that they are as confused about their own God as much as I am, and the only difference is that hold out the "faith" (i.e. the hope) that their God is somehow rational even though they themselves cannot see it.

So the moment a theist makes any "claim" about their God, then it's up to them to support that claim.

But if they merely voice an opinion that they think a particular theology seems to make sense to them, then they are just offering an opinion, not a claim. And there is nothing to "debate" at that point.

At that point we could still have a "discussion" of why this particular theology seems to make sense to them. But at that point I could still bring up every question I would have for the God within that theology. And if they couldn't answer the questions I have for this God, then they certainly aren't going to convince me that their theology makes sense.

That's all I know to say.

If the theist becomes "defensive" in thinking that I am being unfair to them with these questions they need to remember that these are the questions I would ask of this God. My questions aren't aimed at the theist, my questions are aimed at the theology that the theist has apparently embraced. And if the theist can't answer my questions in a compelling and convincing manner, then I certainly have no reason to embrace the theology in question.

So for me, this isn't about theists versus non-theists at all. In fact, people who believe they are soldiers in that war are living in an entirely different mental universe from me to be sure.

[Zzyzx]

.

Both sides have questions which they want satisfactory answers; but are all questions fare?

Questions may be IRRATIONAL (rather than unfair) -- and may give insight into the person asking and/or their position as well as the person(s) answering. For instance, 'How can anyone know that the Earth is a rotating spheroid?' shows that the one asking is poorly informed about basics of the Solar System OR they are 'playing dumb' as a debate tactic.

If someone responds to question with factual information and multiple, disconnected references, they demonstrate knowledge of those basics. If they could not present verifiable information, they do not answer the question with credibility.

If the person asking the question refuses to accept multiple, disconnected, verifiable sources, they demonstrate willful ignorance (defined as: 'A bad faith decision to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt. It may also be shown as for a person to have no clue in a decision but still goes ahead in their decision.' http://www.definitions.net/definition/w ... 0ignorance)

Questions about characteristics / attributes / words / actions of 'gods' generally do not lend themselves to answers that are verifiable. They distill to 'this book says so' or 'take my / his / their word for it' -- answers which are unacceptable to those accustomed to dealing with information that can be verified / demonstrated to be accurate.

Strangely, many Theists seem quite willing to take the word of a handful of ancient religious storytellers BUT refuse to accept modern contradictory information presented researchers worldwide.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Justin108]

Alternatively, asking "why did God do X?" is a question aimed not at filling in the blanks but at pointing out a contradiction. The contradiction being that "God is rational, yet does something very irrational". This question is not aimed at expanding any given knowledge but rather questioning existing knowledge. The aim is to point out a contradiction in the claim that God is rational.

I do not equate, "Doing something which seems irrational to me" with "contradictory".

At any rate, it seems you have used this OP to state that atheists are right and theists wrong. Is this a correct impression?