Re: [asa] The theist challenge

I was going to respond but Murray said just about everything I'd say. It's
kind of like asking "what evidence would convince you that your wife doesn't
exist." Well, I have a relationship with my wife, so I really can't think
of anything -- unless, as Phil said, my whole life until now has been some
kind of hallucination.

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>wrote:

> Hi Burgy,
>
> The first step in any discussion is to ask the right question.
>
> As the challenger won't allow discussion of the question - but only "a
> legitimate answer" to a question which rests on an incorrect understanding
> of the evidentiary base of Christian theism - then responding is simply an
> exercise in futility.
>
> Personally, I'd advise dismissing it as demonstrating no understanding of
> any of the following: the actual claims of Christian theism, the limits of
> applicability of the notion of falsifiability, the ultimately
> self-referential nature of the challenge, and the problematic nature of the
> underlying positivistic approach to data.
>
> THESE are the issues which need discussion here, but of course they can't
> even be introduced into the discussion because they aren't "answering the
> question".
>
> An atheist might get the point if one was to call for essays on the topic
> "How can atheists ground moral claims given that atheism is an intrinsically
> immoral world-view" and then refuse to link to anything but "a legitimate
> answer" to the question.
> Makes for a nice parlour game, but it hardly demonstrates an attempt to
> understand what a person of alternative view-point is actually trying to
> say.
>
> I'll only close by suggesting that I understand the evidentiary ground of
> Christian theism to be the action of the Holy Spirit in enlightening the
> individual so as to bring them to a saving awareness of the identity of
> Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God and, through this awareness, into
> relationship with God the Father. How this could be "falsified" in any
> significant sense of the term is difficult to say and I don't know that
> discussion of the point would constitute a "legitimate answer" as defined by
> the author of the below.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray
>
>
>
>
>
> John Burgeson (ASA member) wrote:
>
>> The following is copied from the blog I mentioned earlier today.
>>
>>
>> http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/11/a-clarification-on-the-theists-guide.html
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> In my Ebon Musings essay, "The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists",
>> I wrote that I would link to any theist who was willing to post a list
>> of things they would accept as proof that atheism is true. That offer
>> has been open since I first posted the essay in 2001; it is still open
>> now and will remain open as long as practical.
>>
>> However, for me to consider your essay a valid answer to that
>> challenge, it must answer the question I actually posed: What argument
>> or observation could convince you to not believe in God? If what your
>> essay argues is, "You could never persuade me to not believe in God
>> and here's why," then you are not answering the question that I asked.
>> I will not link to responses that do not give a legitimate answer to
>> this question.
>>
>> In fact, responses of this nature emphasize my point rather than
>> contradict it: for most theists, belief in God is an unfalsifiable
>> construct bearing no relation to the facts of the world. That is what
>> I wrote at the beginning of the Theist's Guide:
>>
>> Many theists, by their own admission, structure their beliefs so that
>> no evidence could possibly disprove them. In short, they are
>> closed-minded, and have been taught to be closed-minded.
>>
>> What this means is that, for me to account your answer valid, it must
>> consist of something that we could, at least in principle, either
>> agree upon or discover to be true. This rules out logical
>> impossibilities, such as "I would become an atheist if I died and then
>> discovered that there was no consciousness after death." (I've heard
>> that one.) It also rules out counterfactual statements - saying that
>> you would cease to believe in God only if the world was different than
>> it is, for example, that you would become an atheist if there were no
>> such thing as love or goodness. (I've heard both of those as well.)
>>
>> If all the items that would drive you to atheism are counterfactuals,
>> i.e., things that we already know not to be true, then what you're
>> essentially saying is that there are no possible discoveries that
>> would make you an atheist, and you have again failed to respond to the
>> point of the challenge. This would be like me saying, "The only
>> possible thing that would make me believe in God would be if the world
>> was a perfect paradise that contained no death, evil or suffering." I
>> think most theists would consider this unfair, and rightfully so. I'm
>> ruling out their answer from the start by making my belief contingent
>> on something that we already know is not true.
>>
>> Now, if you're arguing that you would cease to believe in God if some
>> particular, widely held proposition were falsified, that is a
>> different matter. But in that case, I'd expect that you would
>> supplement this answer by explaining what evidence would falsify the
>> proposition in question. On the other hand, when someone says they'd
>> be an atheist only if there was no love in the world, that's clearly
>> not their intent. They're not imagining a discovery that might be made
>> in this world, but speculating that they'd be an atheist in a
>> different world altogether. I trust that the difference between those
>> two things is clear.
>>
>>
>>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 28 20:34:25 2008