the warfare is mental

On Evidence & Proof, Pt. II: Questions From Lifeguard

In Pt. 1, we discussed SI's version of the oft-repeated "no evidence for God" argument. In the thread, Lifeguard asked a few good questions:

Can an ironclad case for God’s existence can be made? Absent an ironclad case, regardless of why such a case cannot be made, then what is a believer left with besides the naked decision to believe? If even an IRONCLAD CASE does NOTHING without having ALREADY made the decision to believe, then what does that say about the warrant for belief in the absence of an ironclad case? Doesn’t this amount to saying that evidence for the existence of God only becomes evident when you’ve already made up your mind to believe? Isn’t that putting the cart in front of the horse?

I believe answering these questions as clearly as possible is mandatory in making myself understood here, so let's tackle the necessary definitions first.

On Evidence & Proof, Pt. I

If you've spent more than a passing moment listening to contemporary debates between atheists and believers, you're likely to have heard the claim that there is no evidence for God. I've heard this claim countless times, and I believe that many, most or possibly all who make the claim conflate the two related but distinct concepts of evidence and proof.

I also believe that attempts to resolve the matter are futile without firmly cementing the goalposts before beginning. Whether the responses are single or list, I've not once had an atheist accept anything I've ever suggested or heard suggested as evidence for God, and IMO there's nothing more annoying than, "Here is good evidence," followed by some variant of, "No it's not you douche," only to be repeated ad nauseum.

Personally, the most ground I've made in any of these ill-guided discussions was SI's recent concession to evidence of a miracle, albeit shortcoming. I'm okay with that, because like I said, my goal isn't to convert SI or other atheists, and I currently don't believe that a successful ontological argument exists. What they do with what I say remains on them. Anyways, I bring it up at all only because we locked horns over whether or not evidence for God exists again, and the following summarizes my response to SI. Lifeguard asked some good questions as usual, and Ubiquitous Che made himself clear and contrasted SI's stubbornness by confronting my challenge to firmly establish goalposts head-on.

Hat tip to the both of you; we'll get to those in Parts II & III.

Religion Does Not Entail Misogyny

So, I was about sit down and write with a premeditated topic in mind: last week's sentiments on "evidence for God" as discussed last week at SI's. Problem was, I stopped by DaylightAtheism first, where I found the following interesting hypothesis: an inversely proportional relationship between religiosity and misogyny exists - at least - so suggests guest writer Sarah Braasch in her second essay there. I would've left it well alone, but she implied some things about San Francisco that I want to challenge from personal experience, and I feel any San Franciscan in their right mind would have to agree.

If you don't want to read her post first, it's basically a story about how some sailors took her on a cruise through the Neopolitan prostitution subculture, oddly juxtaposed against the religious beast that is Roman Catholicism. As I said, most of her post was easy to sympathize with. Sure, the moral indifference to the victims of prostitution she describes is deeply troubling, especially considering its close proximity to what is perhaps the world's leading religious superpower. Atheists aren't the only ones noting that the abject conditions of humanity ironically persist whether a culture is predominantly religious or not. 

Problem is, she starts to jump the gun and get a little bit preachy for atheism right about here if you ask me:

Two Years & Counting

Well, I didn't realize it until now, but the two-year anniversary of The Warfare Is Mental has come and gone. Not that big a deal, really, but I am actually surprised I've managed to maintain at least enough discipline to hammer out between 2-4 posts weekly on average. That's one thing many people say they struggle with in their writing, and I'm no exception.

Whereas a year ago I was about ready to call blogging quits, all in all, I'd say TWIM's second year was pretty good: we got a handful of post series' legitimately fleshed out; we won an award and gotten listed on the Atheist Blogroll; people slowly started to link us up; and I think we made some legitimate progress in debating some of the classic and contemporary philosophical arguments. I couldn't have done it without you, and it's no surprise interactivity jumped by leaps and bounds last year as well. Whereas our first year netted only 18 comments, we're now steadily approaching 2,000. Really, I gotta give an honest "Thank You" to the people that have stuck around, and also the folks who just add a gem or two to a discussion and never return. All feedback is valuable, and I can't wait to see how our third year will go.

Lastly, there have been a few changes to the blog sidebars that I want to point out. I've expanded the "About This Blog" section significantly, in order to provide a concise and to-the-point reflection of my baseline value system. Getting more specific, I've also added about 20 posts to the "Recommended Posts" section, where one can deduce all sorts of discernible positions that comprise my belief system. These posts have always been here, mind you, which is why I would always get a little annoyed when my detractors would pull the "cl doesn't reveal his beliefs" red herring, which would nearly always re-focus the discussion on my character, effectively obscuring whatever it was we were arguing about in the first place. 

Always eager to deflect rubber bullets, I felt expanding these sections and increasing their prominence was a step towards discussion of my stated beliefs vs. denial that my beliefs have been stated. It also shows that I'm willing take negative criticism seriously, whether I particularly agree with it or not. No matter what else I might think about some of my detractors or their complaints, I listen to them, and honestly ask myself whether or not there might be some truth to them. Most of the time I conclude they're just retributive vitriol, but people have also raised valid points against me or some argument I've made. Us bloggers can really build each other up - or tear each other down!

So anyways, cheers to two years, and we'll see about three.

TWIM On The Atheist Blogroll?

Yep, you saw that right. First I somehow won a shared award for "Best Atheist / Skeptic Site of 2009", and now this:

The other day, I emailed Mojoey from Deep Thoughts and said:

Hey dood, quick question: I think your Atheist Blogroll is an excellent service. I'm not an atheist, but certainly consider myself a rationalist / skeptic / freethinker, and was wondering if I could get added to your blogroll? Technically, I consider myself an agnostic theist. I believe, but will not know until I die... I make a distinction between belief and knowledge... [I later elaborated] I don't know that God exists, but I sure do believe it. So in that sense it's understood by many of my readers that I'm somewhat agnostic. I hope that makes sense. I usually try not to call myself anything, preferring for others to make their own assumptions, as we know they will.

A few days went by, and I figured Mojoey had just wiped his ass with my question and gotten a good laugh. Then this showed up in my inbox:

Well, it would be a first but I am not opposed to it. Our position runs from full on atheist to agnostic, so as long as you call yourself an agnostic blogger... In return, I ask that you help promote the Atheist community by making a small post promoting the blogroll on your blog.

I couldn't believe it. I stated clearly that I'm not an atheist, and that I believe in God. I had to read the emails several times before it sank in. So, that explains the addition of the Atheist Blogroll logo in TWIM's "about" statement, top left. Honestly, this seems like one of those things that might be too good to be true. I can easily see more than one of my detractors who are listed on the Atheist Blogroll giving Mojoey grief for his decision. I'm hoping it will bring more people to the discussion.

I've never had a problem supporting the atheist community, or any other community for that matter. There are decent people everywhere, as there are also not-so-decent people everywhere. In many ways, I tend to identify more with atheists than believers. I feel that most Western believers have been swept away by what's been called churchianity, to the point it completely voids their God-given intellect. Mental passivity may be good for meditation or prayer, but when allowed to run unchecked it will destroy one's life and reduce one to a rigid and loveless automaton.

I've been quite discouraged lately by what I've termed "old-world thinking" in the freethought community, and the analogy is to be found in Israel and Palestine. For now, it seems we've all got one world to live in, doesn't it?

Thank you, Mojoey, for your new-world spirit of cooperation, and giving me a chance.

How Skateboarding Helped My Intelligence

This post was originally going to be titled "How Skateboarding Helped My Education," but by the end hopefully you'll see why education was swapped for intelligence. Though related, the two are not the same thing.

One way people learn things is by observation, which humans have been using to test claims long before science arrived on the scene. Science and its tools merely extend or accentuate our observational abilities, with the added bonus of providing a somewhat reliable filter for false claims. How does this relate to skateboarding?

For The Visual Learners Making Jokes In Back Of Class

I'm a big fan of art, and I really think art's importance is overlooked in (a)theist discussion, so I intend to focus a bit more on art in the immediate future. In order to encourage the necessary discipline, I've decided to introduce a new post series called Visual Arguments. Of course, many bloggers include relevant imagery in their posts - for example, one might use a picturesque scene of stars and galaxies littered across the cosmos to evoke a feeling of sheer inexplicability - but what I'm aiming for here will be something much deeper.

Declaring Santa Claus an equal competitor with God in the marketplace of potentially existing objects is tantamount to declaring Russell's Teapot an equal competitor with dark matter in the marketplace of potentially true astronomical facts. It's just plain pedestrian.
-cl 

I happened to come across this late-90's painting by Robert Williams (founder of Juxtapoz Magazine). Aside from being a master painter with the tenacity of entropy, Williams is also an outstanding writer and gifted logician. I certainly feel privileged to count myself among those who've spoken to the man personally, even if for just a brief moment. [/fanout] 

Anyways, the point of my first visual argument is that I thought detail shot might put things into perspective for SI, PhillyChief, JohnEvo and the countless other coy and flippant atheists who resort to ULFSM arguments, of which today's Santa Claus argument from SI exists in the same set: denigrating rhetorical devices used to convince any followers that their deliverer has defeated the God-dummy. 

Ironically, if it were the late-nineteenth century, I'd willingly bet my last dollar that SI, PhillyChief, JohnEvo and their ilk would all exist in the set of coy and flippant atheists who would have erroneously selected the Piltdown Man out of the following line-up when approached with the question, "Which of these gentlemen really exists?"

*Detail, "Requiem for a Fraudulent Ancestor", Robert Williams from Through Prehensile Eyes 

"At the right and left sides of this picture, purple backdrops cover from top to bottom, forming the ends of the picture with cartoon silhouettes of running cavemen brandishing their clubs. Up in the left corner within a gold-lined oval cameo is a close-up portrait of our venerable champion. His curious features correlate with the odd bones that were cobbled together to perpetuate his existence. The high, round head that indicated intelligence, with the small nose, but protruding snout, gave placement to the enormous ape jaw. Also included are blond locks that would insinuate a certain degree of aesthetic appeal. The gold frame carries a banner that tells all: "Ol' Piltdown Buzz, the man that never was." 

"...[T]he dark green panel at the bottom puts the Piltdown Man in his true historic context. Our legendary figure at last stands with his equals. Along side the Piltdown Man appears Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Paul Bunyan, the Sand Man, and finally, the Boggy Man - here he will always dwell." 
-Robert Williams

Power Commenters On DD's (So-Called) Evidence Against Christianity

Here are a few previews from the initial dialog between myself, Lifeguard, MS Quixote and Dominic Saltarelli, continued from here. Brad is currently absent:

...I was thinking more along the lines of there being certain elements in the GH that are decidedly non-Biblical, rather than simply a reduced set of Biblical attributes. 
(Dominic Saltarelli)

I think that DD could have made that distinction a little clearer...
(Lifeguard)

...it appears DD desired to set a baseline hypothesis without reference to Christianity in order to construct an analytic framework from which to ultimately analyze the claims of Christianity... the GH, as proposed, does not represent a baseline common to all Christian faiths as is necessary to critique Christianity as a whole.
(MS Quixote)

Although by no means do I imply my Power Commenters agree with me in full (actually, Quixote does), we can still clearly see that it's not exactly the same story as over at DD's, right? 

Respect, Or Coddling? Issues, Or Personalities?

Before we begin looking at the MGH and Genesis next week, I'd like to address a lingering issue that I'll need closure on before I can proceed: when his guests first began their assault on my character a few months back, DD seemed to support my complaints, and said to his guests:

It’s not “respectful” to treat people like spoiled children who can’t be trusted to acknowledge differing ideas without throwing a tantrum. Nor is it respectful to assume that believers are constitutionally incapable of handling the truth. 

It is disrespectful to make unsupported accusations against people, e.g. by suggesting that their views are caused by an intrinsically corrupt and immoral nature. I have to say, though, that in my experience atheists like Dawkins are far less likely to make such accusations than to be the target of them. And while it may be tempting at times to think that “the other guy” is arguing out of some personal character flaw rather than a sincere desire to acknowledge the truth, I still think it’s better to debate respectfully, which (as Daylight Atheism points out) means presenting your case honestly, openly, and with a view to the facts. (DD, March 9, 2009, bold mine)

I'd say that's quite interesting in light of some of DD's more recent comments...!

The Masoretic-Greek Hypothesis: Strategy

First, in light of yesterday's definition of the MGH, I submit that the following describes DD's GH's problem summarized: It includes just enough baseline doctrine for DD to make his case, but not enough baseline doctrine that his Myth Hypothesis constitutes a reasonable basis for rejecting the truth claims of Christianity. In short, DD's disproved DDanity - and among others who've said the same - I don't care.

"...by demonizing those he seeks to refute and ignoring their valid criticisms, DD's authoritarian approach begins with and proceeds by disagreement in a spirit of hopeless futility that agreement will somehow ensue."

A Picture's Worth 1,000 Words

When we can't beat 'em, we can always demonize 'em!

The Masoretic-Greek Hypothesis: An Introduction

In a recent comment to John Morales, I applauded DD's approach to go as far back as possible in constructing the Myth Hypothesis' competitor, for the very same reasons that apparently motivated DD to do so in the first place: who wants to get bogged down trying to harmonize all the differing opinions of mainline religions and lesser sects, each of whom claim to be eating from the same salad bar called the Bible? Certainly not me.

Although I think it's an intellectual cop-out, to a certain extent I can sympathize with atheists and unbelieving skeptics when they accuse believers of trotting out Courtier's Replies - because as Hunt said and I'll elaborate on - the Christianity that many believers argue is indeed a moving target. I do not wish to present a moving target in opposition to the Myth Hypothesis. Such would prevent me from being able to win the argument and expose DD's exercise for the rhetorical farce I believe it is.

Dominic accurately described the god of DD's GH as a sort of 'proto-god' intended to falsify the rudimentary undercurrent of all Christian interpretations. Lifeguard aptly noted that stopping the heart kills all humans. Again, DD is a smart man. This is a wise and noble approach. I've never expressed a single objection to DD's methodology and I've said as much since my very first comments in the discussion; it's that DD's cherry-picked his GH with only the baseline Christianity he needs in order to superficially make his case. Like a growing number of others, my primary response to DD's so-called Evidence Against Christianity is that he's not presented a case against Christianity. And like I also said to John Morales, I'd like to slowly strip the words Christian and Christianity from this discussion entirely - that is, until DD can concede that he's not yet presented a case against Christianity.

The intention behind my Masoretic-Greek Hypothesis (hereafter MGH) is both to avoid the pitfalls of doctrinal quibbling and to cover all the ground DD has missed, which should finally prove my case that DD's Evidence Against Christianity relates only peripherally to Christianity. M is the work of the Masoretes, Jewish scribes and scripture scholars living roughly 3,000 years ago in what today would probably be Jerusalem, Tiberius or even what would be considered Iraq (then Babylon, Babylonia). M is the Hebrew rendition of the Tanakh, and many if not most Protestant and Catholic Bibles sample from M, as does the Septuagint (39 books of the OT + select Apocrypha) from which the New Testament writers sampled. G is the New Testament derived as described. This way, we arguably start as close to the actual events and oral traditions as possible, then apply our collective powers of reason to ascertain the set of reasonably permissible predictions - thus hopefully avoiding doctrinal pitfalls like DD intended - but with the added bonus of a positive hypothesis we can have the balls to call Christianity.

This means we'll inevitably discuss Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek, lexicon that may be foreign, unwelcome or intimidating for some. We're bound for some rough spots for sure, as many a discussion between atheists and believers derails around this point, but I have faith in our combined powers of reason, and I refuse to proceed until my jury of believers and atheists can agree that my MGH accurately represents the God of the Bible, whereas DD's GH does not. When and if this agreement is reached - that is the day I falsify DD's so-called Evidence Against Christianity beyond all reasonable doubt.

If anyone has a problem with anything so far, now is the time to speak up. 

TWIM Receives Best Atheist & Skeptic Site 2009 Award

I occasionally Google "The Warfare Is Mental" to see what kind of trash people are talking about me, and the following surprise was both interesting and cool: it turns out TWIM is #26 on HolyBlasphemy.net's list of the 61 Best Atheist and Skeptic Sites of 2009.

In what is a welcomed dose of encouragement, TWIM is referred to as a "great site that [HolyBlasphemy.net's host] enjoy[s] reading," and as a site in which the host has "found some little piece of wisdom or information that inspired" him or her. I always respect someone who realizes one need not be an atheist to be a skeptic or freethinker. Thanks, HolyBlasphemy.net!

More Responses To DD & Co.

As stated earlier today, I'm now responding to DD and company here to thwart DD's perceptions of my personality and hopefully force a return to the issues. Remember, what better way to disable your accuser than to steal his bullets, right? Refusing to comment there should swiftly undermine DD's whining about me being an "infiltrator", "troll", "heckler", "loser", etc. I can't fairly be called any of that if I cease all rapport on DD's blog, and once his bullets have been stolen and his emotions return to a steady equilibrium, once he's exhausted and done contradicting himself by addressing his perception of my personality, I'm hoping DD will return to the issues.

I encourage anyone and especially TWIM's Power Commenters to butt in here. I'm especially wondering who agrees with me that DD's clarion calls for vigilance on addressing issues vs. personalities and not feeding trolls seems contradictory juxtapozed against The Heckler's Defense which is effectively tantamount to armchair psychoanalysis in a troll trough. I'm also especially wondering who feels the Bible's claim that humans cannot see God the Father and live effectively challenges DD's claims that God should be right here, right now, in person.

Is This Conducive To The Pursuit Of Truth?

I was still waiting for the last Power Commenter to respond to Pt. 3 in my response to DD's so-called Evidence Against Christianity when, after a most exuberant and joyous night out enjoying life with my friends (yes, some people actually like me, no I don't pay them, no I don't mean MySpace friends and no, I'm not referring to prostitutes) I hopped online to find 631 very flattering words titled The Heckler's Defense which - like The Loser's Compromise - I fully expect DD to deny are about personalities.

I decided not to respond on DD's blog for a few reasons. Although I disagree that I'm a troll, and I feel that my arguments at EvangelicalRealism are both well-reasoned and made in good-faith, some who disagree are likely to see anything I say as further evidence that I'm indeed a troll. Like a shark to blood, I can sense that DD's just about to his breaking point, and although getting banned from atheist blogs is always flattering, it's also always annoying because it's honestly never my goal - my real goal is the pursuit of truth which entails either emendation or procuring agreement from reasonable individuals that my opponent's argument is not cogent as formed. I hope our new Power Commenting experiment can offer something standard threads seem to have difficulty delivering. At the very least, I can proceed with confidence my Power Commenters won't call each other "mealy-mouthed pricks" or "intellectual cowards," and that they're committed to issues as opposed to personalities. That can't be a bad place to start, right?

Even though my response to The Heckler's Defense is well-reasoned and not trolling, I feel that if I were to leave it in the original thread, such would simply knock the focus further off the issues and reinforce the negative stigmas I earnestly desire to overcome. So, I'm responding here and I'm going to chill off DD's blog in general for a while. 

This is not a concession of defeat for those who like to jump the gun. I will still be very much in this discussion. What better way to disable your accuser than to steal his bullets? Refusing to comment there should swiftly undermine DD's concerns about me being an "infiltrator", "troll", "heckler", "loser", etc. Once his emotions return to equilibrium, once he's exhausted and done contradicting himself by addressing his perception of my personality, I'm hoping DD will return to the issues. Trust me, the last thing I want to do is get banned from his blog before that happens.

I'd like to bring DD's following claim to everyone's attention:

Hopefully we’re pretty much done with the Loser’s Compromise series. I think it’s gone pretty well, and a big part of the reason for that is that this series focuses entirely on the issues, rather than on personalities. I think that’s a good strategy, for a number of reasons. (June 11, 2009)

To me, that translates to saying the Loser's Compromise series focuses on issues vs. personalities, and that such is a good strategy. Presuming DD considers focusing on issues vs. personalities a good strategy outside the Loser's Compromise series, am I the only one who finds that statement odd or perhaps even contradicted in light of The Heckler's Defense, which focuses entirely on personalities and not issues?

Introducing TWIM's Power Commenters

As stated in the introduction, the eBate is a real-time, one-hour long online debate between myself and another writer. I'm saddened to say, my opponent for eBate #1 - Deacon Duncan - has eschewed my invitation.

Nonetheless, life goes on, and without further adieu, I'd like to introduce TWIM's first four Power Commenters: MS Quixote, Lifeguard, Brad and Dominic Salterelli. As stated before, neither Brad, Lifeguard or Dominic Salterelli argue belief: All three are skeptics of the atheist variety, as the last thing I wanted was a bunch of Power Commenters who argue belief, inviting charges of padding the jury. Better, all three of them have shown a consistent and objective willingness to both agree and disagree with me, in the complete absence of insults and personal remarks. The same goes for MS Quixote, only he does argue belief - Calvinist Christianity in particular.

I've selected these men because I am 100% confident that whether they agree or disagree with me, their opinions are the result of rational processes. I'd eventually like to get a decent body of over ten Power Commenters, and in that vein I would also like to invite commenter Jayman whom I know from EvangelicalRealism. So Jayman, if you're reading this and at all interested, drop me a line.

To reiterate, Brad suggested the concept of Power Commenters via reference to computer system administration, and their purpose is "to try and thwart the otherwise invariably downturned trajectory that follows in thread after thread." Originally, the idea was to have the Power Commenters serve as ad hoc moderators or judges during real-time, one-on-one discussion, with comments from the general readership on hold until the Power Commenters have offered their initial comments and criticisms. But why limit them thusly? That being said, the first post to employ Power Commenting will be today's post, which was intended to be part of eBate #1 with Deacon Duncan.

I honestly couldn't care less about the flippant opinions and personal remarks proffered as cogent arguments by the vast majority of my detractors, but the reasoned opinions of my Power Commenters are invaluable to me, and I'd like to sincerely thank them all in advance for their participation.

(To be continued...)

You Can Lead Atheists To Water, But You Can't Make Them Think

*Comments are closed on this post because it was moved here.

For the past weeks, I've foregone Rebutting Atheist Universe to debate Deacon Duncan (DD) from EvangelicalRealism over his series, which for some still-undisclosed reason he's titled Evidence Against Christianity.

It was bad enough when DD gave Dominic Saltarelli (not arguing as a believer) credit for making the exact same argument three people (all arguing as believers, incidentally) made in the first two weeks of the discussion.

It was bad enough when DD denied that his GH was Christianity, yet absolutely refuses to this date to explain why it consists of distinctly Christian pre-conceptions about God.

It was bad enough when DD claimed that all people who apply the tools of reason consistently and without bias in biblical exegesis are skeptics.

It's bad enough that many of DD's commenters are so on the man's nuts that they can't see clearly and end up focusing near-exclusively on me.

It was bad enough when DD eschewed my invitation to one-on-one, real-time debate.

It was bad enough when DD crafted an entire sub-series titled The Loser's Compromise in direct response to his perceptions of my arguments, then denied that the posts were aimed at me.

Now, folks - as if it wasn't bad enough already, as if it could get any worse - DD's latest "argument" has left me truly baffled.

On Beliefs & Justification

I was skating this morning when I encountered a most interesting situation that reminded me of an online discussion at a certain blog I visit.

A woman was walking west on the sidewalk along 16th Street's westbound lane, as I was skateboarding east (approaching her) also in the westbound lane. A few steps in front of the woman and just to her right sits a pad of concrete that I occasionally like to "ollie" up on and off while in transit. It's fun! However, the woman did not know that I occasionally do this. So, when I ollied onto the sidewalk headed for the concrete pad, she flinched and tried to get out of my way, as she obviously thought I was going to run into her.

Although she was wrong, let's distill this into two hypotheses: The first states that I was fully aware of the woman and actually heading for the concrete pad to do my trick (CP). The second hypothesis states that I wasn't heading for the pad at all, rather skateboarding recklessly (SR). Note that SR and CP are mutually exclusive, and note that only one of them can be correct: I was either skateboarding recklessly and unconcerned for the woman, or I knew exactly where I was going and that she wasn't in harm's way. In actuality - unless she wanted me to run into her (some women are like that here, you know) - I know that she didn't even conceive of CP as a valid hypothesis, because she moved directly into my path. We almost did collide!

Food for thought: Even though she moved into my way as opposed to out of it, was the woman's decision rationally justified? Wasn't she just acting logically on behalf of all the currently available evidence? If so, how would things change if the woman had known about the CP prior? Would her decision to move remain rationally justified? What if the two winos across the street had taken to arguing about the matter, with one wino claiming I knew what I was doing and the other claiming I was skateboarding recklessly? Although only one wino could be correct, wouldn't both winos be rationally justified sans further evidence? In other words, even though only one can be correct, neither of their claims are out in left field.

At the very least, can't we say that neither wino is talking irrationally? Why or why not?

A Question For Any Lawyers Out There

Hi all, sorry for the decline in posts, but I'm effectively nauseated by (a)theism discussions right now, and I still want to debate computers, if nothing else, simply because they don't get butthurt and call imply that people are losers prematurely.

So, a quick question: In some (all?) states, when two people commit a violent felony and one of them gets killed, by what logic is it fair to charge one criminal for the murder of another?

This has never made a lick of sense to me. The way I see it, if Drake and Tubbs decide to rob a store, and that store owner kills Drake - how is it ethical to prosecute Tubbs for murder? Am I missing something here? It sure feels like it.

Obligatory Osmosis, Or, My Response To DD's Evidence Against Christianity, Pt. 2

So, I saw an opportunity to combine a response to DD's Loser's Compromise into the ongoing post-by-post dissection of his series Evidence Against Christianity.

According to DD,

There’s a particular approach to the truth that I call the Loser’s Compromise, and it goes like this: “We can’t know the truth about X, so let’s just agree that different people are equally justified in believing whatever they like about it.” Considered superficially, it sounds open-minded and fair, because it appeals to a certain live-and-let-live quality that avoids putting anyone in the wrong. In reality, though, it’s a deceptive rationalization, and an excuse for avoiding the truth instead of embracing it.

First, I've never once stated or implied that if we can't know the truth about something, people are equally justified in believing whatever they like about it. What I have said and what I still say is that when two or more hypotheses are equally consistent with all of the available data, although provisional belief in either would be rationally justified, truth claims remain unsustainable until further evidence favors one hypothesis over another. 

Truth claims are entirely different philosophical beasts than rationally justified beliefs!

A Chat With Lifeguard

Over at Evo's blog, you said:

I've regularly commented over at cl's blog and, from what I've observed, I think his position essentially boils down to this:

"Given the present state of the evidence, neither theism nor (positive) atheism are logically compulsory positions. Therefore, atheist arguments that characterize theist positions as irrational, illogical, or not supported by evidence are often false."

I suspect he feels that this makes theism as warranted as atheism, and I have disagreed with him on that. He has meticulously avoided making a positive statement about his beliefs, religious or otherwise, but my guess is he's an open-minded liberal theist of some sort.

Bottom line? Sometimes I think he's right about certain arguments, and I don't have a problem admitting that. Other times, however, I think he's wrong, and I've called him on that. But I have found he can be pretty reasonable if you (1) don't overstate your case, (2) make concessions when you have, and (3) insist he do the same.

To date, neither of us has convinced the other, but, if that's the point, then... what's the point? Methinks challenging someone and being challenged is a lot more satisfying (and productive) than chasing after the illusion that somehow someone's going to convince a theist blogger to openly admit defeat in an argument about whether god exists.

That was a great comment, and I wanted to first say thanks for that. Bravo on your points 1-3, too. Also, I approve of your description of my position as well, if you'll allow me to note that your description is of course very general. Here are my questions:

1) You said, "Other times, however, I think he's wrong, and I've called him on that." Could you summarize what you'd offer as our primary disagreements? I recall us seeing eye-to-eye on quite a bit, up to and including POE arguments - which actually surprised me. After that, I realized similar sentiments existed elsewhere in the atheist community.

2) I disagree that I've "meticulously avoided making a positive statement about his beliefs, religious or otherwise." I've stated that I'm a believer, and not an atheist; I've stated that I believe prayer studies are not scientifically credible; I've stated my belief that reductionist materialism is incompatible with the data... These are just a few examples, and I could go on. Aren't each of those positive statements that anyone can engage?

Utterly Disappointed, Or, My Response To DD's Evidence Against Christianity, Pt. 1

Beginning here, Deacon Duncan of Evangelical Realism (DD) offers a series titled Evidence Against Christianity which compares the predicted consequences of two hypotheses against real-world evidence to determine which hypothesis seems more likely to be correct. The first hypothesis represents how the world should look if God existed and is called the Gospel Hypothesis (GH). The second represents how the world should look if God did not exist, and is accordingly called the Myth Hypothesis (MH).

I see absolutely nothing wrong with DD's approach, and no believer I'm aware of has voiced a problem with DD's methodology. For example, DD says,

One advantage of comparing two hypotheses by measuring their consequences against real-world fact is that this approach allows us to make a clear, functional distinction between honest, unbiased inquiry and mere rationalization. (DD)

I agree. That's all fine and dandy - but there's a catch: When they assume pre-existing premises, hypotheses must be accurate, and I'm not the only one to claim that DD's so-called Gospel Hypothesis is no gospel hypothesis at all.

Hence, my first and primary claim is that DD attacks a strawman, piecemeal god of his own making - and I submit that I'm not the only one making that claim. I also submit that I've read DD's concerns over criticisms of inaccuracy and found them wanting: I agree that concerns of accuracy are irrelevant when we're creating an hypothesis from scratch, because when we're starting from scratch, there is no standard to inaccurately represent. That DD's positive hypothesis is titled the Gospel Hypothesis entails commitment to specific presuppositions. Further, if DD feels accuracy is irrelevant, why would DD defend the predictions of his so-called Gospel Hypothesis as accurate?

For the past three weeks, I've been methodically undertaking the laborious task of pouring through each of DD's 20+ posts in the series and their according threads. The latter is not nearly as impressive a feat as it seems, as roughly 70% of the comments in DD's threads focus on personal attacks and irrelevant side issues like why it was taking so long for me to respond to a complex post series during finals week.

To those who persevered, I offer my week-by-week, post-by-post analysis of Deacon Duncan's Evidence Against Christianity.

The eBate: Rules & Guidelines

As stated in the introduction, the eBate is a real-time, one-hour long online debate between myself and another writer.

In the introduction, I said I would look for some folks to volunteer as moderators, but I've realized what I was really looking for were qualified people who can assess the debate once it has concluded, and pronounce judgment. So in essence, I was really looking for judges, it seems - but then again - maybe the distinction is mostly semantic. To me, a moderator describes an authority figure whose purpose is to control an open forum. I'm looking for qualified people to stay out of a closed debate until it's over, and then offer their reasoned opinions.

At any rate, I've found what I think are three reasonable volunteers: Commenter Brad, MS Quixote, and Lifeguard, who recently resurfaced over at his blog, The Meme Pool. Neither Brad nor Lifeguard argue belief, either: Both are skeptics of the atheist variety. Better, both of them have showed a consistent willingness to both agree and disagree with me, and we've always had reasoned discussions for over a year now. In fact, though there are good things I can say about anyone including my detractors, I consider Brad and Lifeguard to be the most objective, reasonable and open-minded atheists I've encountered online. The same goes for MS Quixote, only he does argue belief - Calvinist Christianity in particular.

This leads me to the following question, which I'll leave up to whoever wants to answer it (it's been a ghost-town 'round here lately): Should each debater be allowed to bring an equal number of judges? Wouldn't an odd number of judges preclude an annoying tie? Should I ask that my opponent bring judges that do not argue their own position, as I am? Should pairs of debaters make these decisions individually, as opposed to being forced to abide by an overarching agreement?  

In general I prefer simplicity, and I see no need to construct any exhaustive rules orguidelines for what should really be pretty straightforward. I will object to a particular claim and ask the person making it to respond. By closing the comments until after those who have proven their rationalism have spoken, the chance of descent into sub-claims and ad hominem nonsense seems greatly reduced. There is no time limit, but sans a concession from either side, all I ask is that both parties commit to at least one full hour of one-on-one dialog.

The first person I'm going to ask to eBate me is Deacon Duncan of Evangelical Realism, and the topic of our debate - should he choose to accept - will be his new post series, The Evidence Against Christianity.

Any comments and feedback for ways to make this idea as productive as possible would be greatly appreciated.

Two Quick Questions

Finals week is officially over, which means more time for life! And blogging. I have two quick questions for today, and by next week we should be back to the regular posting schedule.

I was taking out the trash this morning like I do every week. Every time I do this, our cats get scared, and I always get a chuckle out of watching them freak out. I know they're safe, but they can't seem to figure this out despite the fact it's happened once a week for their entire lives and nothing bad has happened yet. Still, they run the same program every time they hear the garbage man, and it's funny. Now here are the two quick questions:

1) Is it a violation of beneficence to behave in a way that frightens another sentient being if we know for certain they are completely safe?

2) Am I sick or twisted for finding amusement in my cats' fears?