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]

So simple. Whatever arguments you can come up with, apply them to human history first. Even in the case of contradicted history, such as how Chinese and Japanese deem Nanjing massacre differently, we can all start with the firm belief that it did occur!

There's a reason behind this, go figure it out!

Were there any claims associated with the Nanjing massacre that didn't have an implicit empirical foundation?

[Hawkins]

So simple. Whatever arguments you can come up with, apply them to human history first. Even in the case of contradicted history, such as how Chinese and Japanese deem Nanjing massacre differently, we can all start with the firm belief that it did occur!

There's a reason behind this, go figure it out!

Were there any claims associated with the Nanjing massacre that didn't have an implicit empirical foundation?

That's exactly your problem of reasoning. Try to open a history book (the more ancient the better) then count what pages are with empirical foundation!

[bluegreenearth]

So simple. Whatever arguments you can come up with, apply them to human history first. Even in the case of contradicted history, such as how Chinese and Japanese deem Nanjing massacre differently, we can all start with the firm belief that it did occur!

There's a reason behind this, go figure it out!

Were there any claims associated with the Nanjing massacre that didn't have an implicit empirical foundation?

That's exactly your problem of reasoning. Try to open a history book (the more ancient the better) then count what pages are with empirical foundation!

Your response isn't making any sense to me. What do the physical pages of an ancient history book have to do with the information it contains?

[Hawkins]

So simple. Whatever arguments you can come up with, apply them to human history first. Even in the case of contradicted history, such as how Chinese and Japanese deem Nanjing massacre differently, we can all start with the firm belief that it did occur!

There's a reason behind this, go figure it out!

Were there any claims associated with the Nanjing massacre that didn't have an implicit empirical foundation?

That's exactly your problem of reasoning. Try to open a history book (the more ancient the better) then count what pages are with empirical foundation!

Your response isn't making any sense to me. What do the physical pages of an ancient history book have to do with the information it contains?

I randomly fetched one for you,

The Wars of the Jews - by Josephus,
Book 2, Chapter 4:
1. At this time there were great disturbances in the country, and that in many places; and the opportunity that now offered itself induced a great many to set up for kings. And indeed in Idumea two thousand of Herod's veteran soldiers got together, and armed and fought against those of the king's party;

Again, randomly picked. Show me the empirical foundation for how there are 2 thousand of Herod's veteran soldiers got together. There are two thousand and they are veterans.

So by your line of reasoning, there must be empirical foundation on the number 2000 and the term "veteran". Or else it's piece of false history???!!!

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 212 by Hawkins]

I'm waiting for you to follow-up that excerpt from Josephus with an explanation of what you are attempting to demonstrate with it.

[Hawkins]

[Replying to post 212 by Hawkins]

I'm waiting for you to follow-up that excerpt from Josephus with an explanation of what you are attempting to demonstrate with it.

You don't have to. Just explain it with your own words here! Unless you would like it to be your opt out. (notice that you start to argue sneakily!)


Again, randomly picked. Show me the empirical foundation for how there are 2 thousand of Herod's veteran soldiers got together. There are two thousand and they are veterans.

So by your line of reasoning, there must be empirical foundation on the number 2000 and the term "veteran". Or else it's a piece of false history???!!!

[bluegreenearth]

I randomly fetched one for you,

The Wars of the Jews - by Josephus,
Book 2, Chapter 4:
1. At this time there were great disturbances in the country, and that in many places; and the opportunity that now offered itself induced a great many to set up for kings. And indeed in Idumea two thousand of Herod's veteran soldiers got together, and armed and fought against those of the king's party;

Again, randomly picked. Show me the empirical foundation for how there are 2 thousand of Herod's veteran soldiers got together. There are two thousand and they are veterans.

So by your line of reasoning, there must be empirical foundation on the number 2000 and the term "veteran". Or else it's piece of false history???!!!

When a claim has an implicit empirical basis, it means there are known and confirmed examples of that type of thing existing in reality. For example, if I claim to have seen a horse, it is reasonable to belief me because we know horses exist and are fairly common. On the other hand, if I claim to have seen a unicorn, it would not be reasonable to believe me because we have no examples of unicorns existing anywhere today or in the fossil record. Now, the lack of an implicit empirical basis wouldn't make my claim false; just unreasonable to believe.

So, when Josephus claims 2000 veteran soldiers got together, the implicit empirical basis is the fact that we know veteran soldiers are people and that 2000 veteran soldiers is not an impossible number given the population size and density. This doesn't mean Josephus couldn't be mistaken, but there isn't anything in his statement that is unreasonable to believe given the available information. Now, if someone could present contradictory evidence for Josephus's claim, we would have a justification to investigate further. This was the case when textual critics demonstrated where the passage about Christians was not consistent with the language and style Josephus used throughout the rest that document. As such, it has been reasonably concluded that the passage about Christianity was most likely a forgery inserted into later copies of Josephus's text by Christian scribes.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 212 by Hawkins]

I'm waiting for you to follow-up that excerpt from Josephus with an explanation of what you are attempting to demonstrate with it.

You don't have to. Just explain it with your own words here! Unless you would like it to be your opt out. (notice that you start to argue sneakily!)


Again, randomly picked. Show me the empirical foundation for how there are 2 thousand of Herod's veteran soldiers got together. There are two thousand and they are veterans.

So by your line of reasoning, there must be empirical foundation on the number 2000 and the term "veteran". Or else it's a piece of false history???!!!

I disagree with your way of thinking Hawkins.

The bottom line is that I don't accept that historical accounts are necessarily accurate or dependable at al. Many theists who make these arguments fail to realize that history is not carved in stone and should be be worshiped as an exact science.

Historians based their information on ancient hearsay claims. What they are actually reporting is their "best guess" at what might have occurred in those ancient times based on information they can piece together.

In fact, when I took a course on the history of Ancient Greece this is actually what the lecture explained in the very first lecture. Even historians don't claim that what they are presenting has been confirmed to be verified truth. It's just their best guess based on the information they can dig up, including any written documents they have uncovered from the period. But there is no way to know that the documents they have uncovered represents the truth.

Where theists go wrong is in thinking that history cannot be questioned. This simply isn't true.

Besides, when it comes top theology you already know that they cannot all be true. Especially in the Abrahamic arena. How can you point to Christian theology, for example, as being historically correct, while pointing to Islamic theology as being totally made up fiction?

Clearly that would be highly biased. If you're going to pull out the historical arguments then you'd need to accept Christian and Islamic theology as having equal merit.

Let's not forget that you'd need to add Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc, to the list. How about this history of the Inca religion, the Aztecs, even the Egyptians for that matter? What about the historical stories of North American Indian religious tales?

The minute you start to invoking history as being dependable at exposing truth you're lost.

History is simply man's best attempt to try to guess at what ancient people might have thought or done.

Let's not also forget Greek Theology. We call it "mythology" today because no one believes that any of the stories represent anything more than made-made superstitious fables. Why should you think that Christian mythology should be treated any differently?

Your own argument comes back to bite you.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 205 by Realworldjack]

The problem with the argument you've presented is that, if followed to its logical conclusion, results in a paradox. You claim to desire constructive criticism of your argument but also claim any constructive criticism of your argument is also an argument which you respond to with constructive criticism that is also an argument.... on and on to the point that you never have to concede that the constructive criticism of your argument is valid. 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? Seems to me that you are stuck in your belief with no mechanism for identifying or correcting potential reasoning errors. As such, on what grounds do you justify confidence in your belief or are you admitting that you are not confident in your belief?

The problem with the argument you've presented is that, if followed to its logical conclusion, results in a paradox.

This is what you say, but let us see why you say this?

You claim to desire constructive criticism of your argument but also claim any constructive criticism of your argument is also an argument

How can any constructive criticism not be an argument? If you are offering me constructive criticism, you have to be arguing that there is error in my thinking, and there is nothing wrong with this in the least. In other words, an argument does not have to be negative.

which you respond to with constructive criticism that is also an argument.... on and on

Okay? So if you give me constructive criticism, are you suggesting that I should just accept that your criticism would be justified? Or, would it be better for me to listen to what you have to say, analyze it, in order to determine if your criticism makes sense, and then go on to explain to you where I may think you have made an error yourself?

Allow me to ask you this. Have you ever considered the fact, that whomever you may be attempting to give constructive criticism to, may have already thought through exactly what you are attempting to criticize them for, which would mean that they have already thought about what you are attempting to point out?

Next, I have been giving you constructive criticism, and it is not like you are simply accepting what I have to say, but are rather continuing to make arguments, even when you are clearly in error, as we will see momentarily.

to the point that you never have to concede that the constructive criticism of your argument is valid.

My friend, I would have no choice but to concede the criticism would be valid, if it could be demonstrated to be valid, even if I do not come right out and admit my error.

As an example, you attempted to make the argument, that "nothing leads you to unbelief". I challenged you on this , by pointing out that, you must have come to your unbelief without thinking if this would be the case, and you had to concede, but it was not like you conceded that what you first reported was simply not the truth, and that it was a logical error on your part, but you had no choice but to concede the point.

This would not be the only place where this has occurred. You also attempted to tell us, the story reported on the Discovery Channel, and how you were "prepared to accept the story simply because it was reported without any further investigation". However, when I challenge you on this, you had to concede your story was false, but again not in a way in which you concede there would have been logical errors in your thinking.

The point is, if you are able to actually point out these logical errors in my thinking, then I would have no choice but to concede the point one way, or the other, just as you have had to do.

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?

Again, are you proposing that we should simply accept the constructive criticism without thinking about this criticism critically? Would this not be what happened which caused many folks to become convinced Christianity was indeed true for years of their adult life, is the fact that they simply accepted what they were told without thinking?

Next, I expose my ideas, beliefs, and opinions, daily here on this site for many who are opposed to critic. If error in my thinking is exposed, I will have no choice but to concede, just as you have had to do. The funny thing is, you open this OP talking about "intellectual honesty" and how you would like to help the theist find errors in their thinking, but when errors are found in yours, have you really been "intellectually honest"?

Seems to me that you are stuck in your belief with no mechanism for identifying or correcting potential reasoning errors.

Again, I am on this site daily, and you seem to be suggesting that I should simply accept the criticism of others, without attempting to determine if there may be logical errors, and, or confirmation bias in this criticism?

From the OP, it also seems to be that you want to theist to expose themselves to be peer reviewed, but you do not welcome this exposure yourself. In fact, your position seems to be that you do not need to be peer reviewed because somehow you have convinced yourself that with the position you hold, there can be no possibility of logical errors, and confirmation bias in your thinking, and this is simply false.

My friend, if you truly want to be "intellectually honest" then why do you keep avoiding the question as to whether you are being "intellectually honest" in holding the position of simply not believing the claims in the NT would be true, or false? In other words, are you truly being "intellectually honest" when you claim to hold this position? Or, is it that you are really convinced Christianity is false, and this is simply a tactic in which you are under the impression that it protects you from being accused of logical errors, and, or, confirmation bias along with the burden of proof?

If you truly embrace "intellectual honesty" then answer the question.

As such, on what grounds do you justify confidence in your belief or are you admitting that you are not confident in your belief?

You will simply have to take my word for it, but I was looking for a site where I would be in debate with other Christians concerning doctrine, when I ran across this site, only to discover that there were not all that many Christians here.

Again, you will have to take my word, but before I jumped in, I expected there would be many former Christians here on this site. I expected for many of these former Christians to claim they did not think very much at all when deciding to become, or remain to be a Christian. I expected many of them to claim now, they see no facts, and evidence to support Christianity. I expected for some to attempt to blame their parents, friends, pastors, and other Christians for their lack of thinking.

Now, why do you suppose that I would expect all these things before I even have the first conversation here? Could it possibly be the fact, that I have actually sat down and thought through as much as I can possibly think through, which causes me to have already thought through what many others are now thinking?

I came here expecting to find these things, and these are exactly the things I have found, and all I can tell you is, after over 6 years on this site, I am more convinced than ever in my position, exactly because I have been on this site, finding exactly what I thought I would find, and exposing my views to those I expected to find.

Now allow me to go on to tell you something else I suppose. I suppose that many of these former Christians, simply suppose that most all other Christians, come to their conclusions in the same way in which they did, which would be without much thinking at all. Since these former Christians did not think very much in order to be Christians, they cannot imagine any one could possibly think, and become, or remain to be a Christian while continuing to think.

I suppose that many of these former Christians were devastated when the came to the conclusion that Christianity was false, and I can imagine the turmoil, anger, disappointment, regret, and all sorts of other emotions these folks would have experienced.

I can also imagine these folks being caring people, who now feel somehow obligated, to help the many other Christians in the world discover their error as well. I can imagine, and even expect that these folks will find, and help many other Christians to discover their error, which will only be the error of not actually thinking before they make such a major life decision.

I expect, these folks will find these many other Christians to help, because I believe there are many other Christians who do not think. Ergo, I expect Christianity to continue to decline in numbers, as folks come to realize they did not think in order to become a Christian. However, the thing is, I am convinced Christianity will be far better off with less folks, who actually think, than millions, upon millions, who have no idea what they believe, or why they believe as they do.

With all this being said, although we have identified logical errors, in the OP, as well as in your thinking, you very well may help many Christians, because they are not use to actually having to think, and so it may not take a whole lot of thinking to convince them. The problem will come in, when you run into a Christian, who actually thinks.

[bluegreenearth]

[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?