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.

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?

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?

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!

On Atheists & Blind Faith, Or, False Arguments 27, 28 & 29: Why Prayer Studies Are Not Credible

NOTE: In no way complimentary towards myself, John Evo has since changed his opinion, agreeing with me and challenging PhillyChief to take a more reasoned look at the evidence. "Ask yourself if you did any research at all when cl challenged us... You will find, as you continue your learning and growth, that the advice I gave in this message was well worth considering as it is said to you by someone who thinks highly of you. But take it as you will." John Evo to PhillyChief, May 16, 2009 6:07pm.

---

So I locked horns with PhillyChief and John Evo, again. Big surprise, right? This time it was over the following comment from PhillyChief - who if I remember correctly - claims to be a scientifically-minded rationalist atheist:

Prayer helps no one but the one praying, providing a euphoria and calming effect, which could be comparable to ejaculating.
-PhillyChief

I felt that was an odd statement for a scientifically-minded rationalist to make, but was not surprised that it came from a sarcastic atheist who claims to be "almost always right", and so I replied,

How would you know? Where is that "demonstrable evidence" you're so fond of? Aside from being grossly unscientific, statements like the above appear contradictory alongside appeals to soft atheism as you've recently made on my site.
-cl

At this point John Evo chimed in, submitting some link that was presumably to some prayer study that he felt somehow qualified as the evidence I asked for, but some silly form asking for private information had to be completed in order to read it - and I don't want to join some organization just to refute what is really basic and obvious scientific misunderstanding. As I said multiple times in the thread, John Evo and PhillyChief are more than welcomed to cite any pertinent facts themselves.

To make a long story short, in our discussion I essentially challenged the scientific credibility of all prayer studies. Now I'm not normally a fan of absolute quantifiers, but in this case I will justify my use of the word all. In fact, if I were still screenwriting and had extra money sitting around, I would gladly offer a Randi-esque incentive of at least $10,000 to anyone who can prove the following arguments wrong: Philly's aforementioned comment is inherently unfalsifiable, and sans invocation of counterfactuals no scientifically reliable prayer study is possible.

False Argument #26: The Emptiness Of Theology

I will soon develop this into a detailed, point-by-point response to the source material, but for now, I would simply like to thank Professor Dawkins for providing me with the most easily refuted false argument in this series to date.

In a discussion concerning the "reconciliation" of science and theology, the following atheist sermon was ironically published in Free Inquiry Magazine, Volume 18, #2:

A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and "theology." It remarked that 'People want to know as much as possible about their origins.' I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject? ...[T]he achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?
-Richard Dawkins

The first sentence is Dawkins' subjective opinion entirely, and by implying that theology is not a subject in his second sentence, the Professor reasons in a circle. If our definition of subject is the study of an actual phenomena, that theology is not a subject begins with assumptions about the very questions at hand. As someone keenly points out in the thread, even if God is not real, theology can still be reasonably considered a subject - as much a subject as art or creative writing or music.

What do you think?

Another Question For DD

I don't know if it's the full moon or last night's aforementioned adult beverages or what, but I simply cannot seem to stop thoughts of logic from forcibly invading my mind today. You implied that it's reasonable to want to be with those we love forever, and I agree, but assuming you accept stock claims of theism's irrationality, have you thought of the disadvantage this puts you at?

If loving others is at least a partial motivation for theism, are not the subset of theists who share said motivation at least partially sustained by a rational and reasonable proposition?

An Impromptu Post Especially For Commenter PhillyChief That Also Happens To Double As A Legitimate Response To His Claim

Don't worry, I'm not still drunk at 11:48 am on a beautiful Friday morning or anything, I'm simply trying to break my own personal verbosity record while ironically attempting to change things up with shorter posts here and there, and such is not a concession that those who complain of verbosity are in any way sustained.

With a question I find at least as amusing as talking to Boston Dan last night - if I'm such an idiot, don't you find your sustained interest in dialoging with idiots at least somewhere between "worthy of pscyhoanalytical address" and equally idiotic? And let me be clear, I do not think you're an idiot. Contrary, you make me laugh more than anyone I've encountered online so far save for possibly Modusoperandi or Ex. Though by no means do I agree when you boast to be "almost always nearly right," you are a clever and good writer with a decent dose of excruciatingly sharp wit - and I'd be willing to bet if you showed me your local watering holes that we'd have a great time - as long as we promised to discuss miracle tit and not this instance of flawed logic.

On the other hand, if you're dry, perhaps you were never a real drunkard in the first place. Then again, I wouldn't want to be accused of making a "No True Drunkard" argument!

A Sustainable Conclusion?

I honestly believe that 99% of however many people actually read my posts are going to laugh aloud and dismiss this to the absurd quantity of beer topped off with a Jameson and coke that violated a cardinal rule last night, but if theism is irrational - what says the rationalist of denying the irrational?

Atheism must be irrational if its aforementioned premise is true! I know that sounds preposterous, but please give it a chance. I'm being dead serious, and if I'm arguing from some sort of fallacy or misunderstanding, I'll shamelessly swallow it like the aforementioned adult beverages.

Response To DD's Interpreting Scripture

I decided to create this impromptu post in the event anyone from the original thread wishes to continue rational discourse (Keyword: rational).

The Perfect Analogy For MiracleQuest?

So, I'm running a bit late on the next installment of the Atheist Universe series, but I happened to have an experience this morning that was quite an epiphany. The experience itself was nothing uncommon, grandiose or mystical, and it was something I'm willing to bet most all non-indigenous people experience quite frequently.

The weather is great today, which always makes the 5-mile skate to the warehouse that much more enjoyable. After I'd entered the front door, and as I was walking upstairs, I heard a very loud and unmistakable THUD coming from an adjacent room. Always naturally curious, I wondered what may have caused this noise, and no sooner than I'd finished wondering, the epiphany came on with such strong force that I subsequently wondered if somebody had slipped me a hit of ecstasy or something.

Can we deduce the specific attributes of a rock lobbed into a pond based solely on the ripples produced? Similarly, seeking to affirm or deny acts of supernatural beings puts one on the same epistemologically untenable level as seeking to affirm or deny the specific cause of the THUD one hears in an adjacent room.

On Seeing What We Want To See

Time-warp back to WWI around 1920, Newport (Rhode Island) Naval Training Station. The United States government per the Navy recruited male volunteers to pose as gay decoys to infiltrate the growing homosocial subculture the Navy had come to dislike.

The investigation led to the arrest of over twenty sailors and sixteen civilians, whom decoys then testified against in a series of both naval and civilian trials. One vein of entry the decoys used to gain access into the gay male subculture was the local "cruising areas," which are essentially a phenomenon of any underground subculture. Dopers, pill heads and any other kind of recreational drug user have theirs, as do artists, musicians, writers, bikers and skateboarders. People crave fellowship, and this intrinsic need does not simply disappear because the mainstream disapproves of a particular group.

Rebutting Atheist Universe 1.2

Last week, we stopped in the middle of page 34, and Atheist Universe had already racked up 4 hasty generalizations, 2 rhetorically bolstered arguments, 1 epistemological nightmare and 2 strawman arguments. In the positive, the chapter also aspires to a worthy cause, and contained 1 well-spoken observation that everyone can agree on. Let's return to see how the next ten points go...

A Problem Of Evil: Did I Violate Omni-Benevolence?

I'm one of those people who thinks the Problem of Evil is far from solved. I know, I know... the audacity, right? Skeptics and atheists claim the Problem of Evil logically disqualifies certain definitions of God, specifically the Omni^3 God typically advanced by Judeo-Christian monotheists. I concede that this polemic has been commonly repeated in philosophy circles for over 2,000 years now, but is it true? I cannot consider the Problem of Evil any problem at all sans a reasonable explanation of when and why the allowance of suffering constitutes a genuine breach of omni-benevolence, and I maintain that the burden falls back to the skeptic to demonstrate how or why this is so. Earlier this week, a real-life scenario recalled this question to mind.

I sometimes work in a publishing warehouse where customers can ring a doorbell to signify their presence at the Western entrance. Late one evening this week, somebody rang the bell. I opened up the window and stuck my head outside, where I saw a man and a woman with a baby. I knew instantly that they weren't our customers, and I made the reasonable presupposition they were here to see a tenant in the residential part of the building. So, being in "work-mode," I initially ignored them and was about to go "back to work" when the human factor kicked in. Just because they weren't our customers didn't mean they didn't need help, so I returned to the window. My next intuition was to immediately engage them, but that curiously gave way to a competing intuition suggesting I merely observe for a moment, remaining watchful to ensure they got whatever it was they needed, but still granting enough confidence in their independence to assume they can solve their own problems without my meddling. A brief moment passed.

I noticed the Bay cold along with their momentary uncertainty was causing the woman to suffer. The cold itself had been causing me to suffer all day long, and I was certain where I was - inside the warehouse with a hooded sweatshirt on! No sooner than I could ask myself another question or respond to another intuition, a tenant let them inside of the building, and they were once again happy and warm.

Although it's certainly nice that this story has a happy ending, did I violate the principle of omni-benevolence in that brief moment of observance?

MiracleQuest Continues: My Response To The Ultimate Superstition

In X-Files Friday: The Ultimate Superstition, DD cites Geisler and Turek,

David Hume argued that miracles cannot affirm any one religion because miracles are based on poor testimony and all religions have them. In other words, miracle claims are self canceling. Unfortunately for Hume, his objection does not describe the actual state of affairs. First, Hume makes a hasty generalization by saying that alleged miracles from all religions are alike. As we’ve seen since chapter 9, the miracles associated with Christianity are not based on poor testimony. They are based on early, eyewitness, multiple-source testimony that is unrivaled in any other world religion. That is, no other world religion has verified miracles like those in the New Testament. (G&T)

...then says,

What we have in the New Testament is a well-documented, well-preserved record of people making claims. This does not constitute a body of verified miracles. (DD)

I agree. I've certainly not been afraid to criticize some of G&T's strategies elsewhere, and I agree that in this citation, G&T conflate claims with verification - and that's wrong. To me, it appears G&T simply presume the correctness of that which they are trying to prove, by alluding to it as verified. However, G&T's criticisms of Hume happen to be spot-on, and quite pertinent to our ongoing miracle discussion. That being said, I've also complimented DD's logical prowess elsewhere, but this time he did not address G&T's citation squarely at all - just flanked them with Benny Hinn before proceeding on to their "One Solitary Man" ideas. 

Public Challenge To Anyone: How Would You Parse This?

This morning I'd like to write a post about something that happened a year or so ago, something that pops into my head quite frequently ever since it happened.

It was just after eight o'clock when a buddy of mine who is also a published writer and also likes to drink beer called me up with the equivalent of, "Let's catch the bus down to club so-and-so, and grab a coupla' beers."

"Okay," was my immediate response, and that's how this story starts.

Dawkins, 9/11, Special Pleading & Conflation

So, A Huge And Hitherto Undiscovered Cretacious Beast, Part I turned into a total thread derailment. I'm really upset at Arthur and John Evo, and although I'm not going to ban them, I'm limiting the amount of comments they can make on TWIM. I don't usually punish atheists just for being atheists, but this has become intolerable...

A Huge And Hitherto Undiscovered Cretacious Beast, Part I

Sorry, but the title's a little misleading. This post has nothing to do with evolution. Rather, I was on a thread recently when a commenter whose name I like and would enjoy hearing an explanation of (Mike aka MonolithTMA) made a passing comment that got me thinking:

I always wonder why theists bring up Ockham's Razor as it points about as far away from God as possible, (March 26, 2009 7:44 PM)

I thought that comment was interesting, but I didn't say anything at the moment, just tucked it into the "parsing" file. A few more Ockham's Razor -related comments were subsequently thrown out, the next from the blog owner, Karla:

Ockham's Razor to go with more simple answer that fits. . . To me it would appear that suggesting infinite un-caused universes is more complex than the answer of an eternal being.

Anonymous: And, you would be wrong, as I've explained. god is the most complex "answer" anyone can propose, because the level of complexity for a god would be far and away higher than any other explanation, not to mention all the additional questions it raises, the added layer of the supernatural over the natural universe, and the fact that it can't get off the ground scientifically. You can continue to ignore all of this and erroneously assert that "goddidit" is simple, but it clearly is not.

Does anyone else see the rational difficulties here?

On Full Disclosure & Knee Jerk Reactions

Enough with the crying and whining about lack of full disclosure in discussions between atheists and believers. There are very logical reasons for not painting oneself into some silly little mental category that is both culturally fabricated and deduced via personal experience. So I believe it is ultimately foolish and non-productive for a group of people to assign themselves emotionally-charged and socially-conflated labels while attempting to have anything even remotely close to a rational discussion.

FAR too often it's more of the same in the blogosphere: Believer A shows up on atheist website B and leaves some comment C that falls somewhere between Cro-magnon man and Stephen Hawking on the intelligence scale. Atheist commenters D - Z then proceed to accost believer A anywhere from Bill Cosby to Sam Kinison on the respect scale, each according to their own personal and differing interpretations of what believer A's belief system logically entails. 

The Instinctive Off-Switch

Today I overheard somebody make a statement that really caught my attention and got me thinking. The topic of discussion was Oscar Wilde's book De Profundis, in which Wilde talks about his views on many things, including art, Christ, and art and Christ, which was particularly interesting but a different story altogether. In response, a person whom we'll call J, said, "I was brought up Catholic so I have developed this instinctive off-switch that flips as soon as I feel God is unnecessarily being drilled into my head."

The funny thing is, in De Profundis, Wilde isn't unnecessarily drilling God in anyone's head, but pondering wildly on alternative interpretations of God. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wilde hints in the book that he gives little credence to the God of Catholics and Christians. It seemed to me that the instinctive off-switch flipped in error, at the mere recognition of language that provided cerebral cues as to the subject matter. These cues may or may not have been interpreted correctly, and I couldn't help but wonder: In how many of our debates is raw logic obscured by this very real psychological tendency?

And note that it cuts both ways: Many believers have an off-switch in their own head which flips as soon as anybody presents some reasonable objection to their belief, be that objection intellectual, factual, or otherwise. As an example, in the heads of how many believers do the facts of evolution push an instinctive off-switch? Quite a few, I'd bet.

But at the end of the day, whether in the head of an atheist, a believer, you, me or the guy at the 7-11 down the street, instinctive off-switches always entail surrender of critical thinking to some degree or another, so we should take good care to identify them in our own estimations of reality.

What's your instinctive off-switch? We all have them, and we should all challenge them.

Public Challenge To Rationalists: On What Evidence Might We Rest?

First let me be clear: I consider myself a rational person, and the point of this post is not to denigrate rationalism or rationalists. The value of rationalism as a truth-filter and its tremendous impact on modern society cannot be overstated. When appropriately applied, the philosophy of rationalism leads to or complies with all sorts of tried-and-true concepts: The presumption of innocence sans proof of guilt, the scientific method, the burden of proof, etc. All of these things are sound derivatives of an evidence-based epistemology and by no means do I intend to challenge them.

Yet, any idea can descend into dogma, and no philosophy is good when our application of it encourages rigidity. Consequently, I've noticed I don't always agree with the scope and popular interpretations of rationalism that have ascended to the apex of today's epistemological food chain. In my opinion, they lend themselves all too well to dogmatic thinking and provide the perfect cover for those who unconsciously make the converse mistake of the gullible.

Going further, I often wonder if contemporary interpretations of rationalism entail an irrecoverable contradiction, and therein lies the topic of the post: Contemporary rationalism tells us to assume all claims without evidence are false, yet there's no evidence to support the claim that all claims without evidence are false, so on what evidence might we rest?

**Note: This is not an argument, conclusion or suggestion that all claims are equally credible, either, so don't start flanking me from that direction.

MiracleQuest Continues: On Post Hoc Reasoning & The Re-Captitated Man

So it appears Deacon Duncan has accused me of post hoc reasoning regarding an objection I made to his elaboration on my re-capitation example. I'd like to take a moment to discuss why I feel his complaints are based on an overly-charitable interpretation of my objection, and I'm curious to hear what you think. The linked post is part of a lengthy ongoing discussion, so a little backstory might be helpful.

For the past month or so at EvangelicalRealism, we've been discussing the amount of credibility we can reasonably assign to miracle stories. Now, everyone has different definitions of a miracle and different thresholds of skepticism through which they filter observed events. Phenomena like the Marian apparitions at Zeitoun are obviously sufficient to convince some people, yet others remain skeptical. So how might we define a miracle objectively, in a manner that anyone can apply to any observed event?

I entered the discussion attempting to establish a rigorous set of criteria one could apply to determine whether or not any event might be considered a miracle. That didn't work out very well, so in further attempts to determine the 'miracle switch' in everybody's brains, I introduced the re-capitated man as a hypothetical example, asking skeptics how they would parse such an event. That is, if we observed a man get decapitated, then an hour later we observe the man's head re-attach after which he goes into the bar for a drink, would we have grounds to say something "miraculous" had occurred? 

Public Challenge To Anyone: Biblically Justify The Omni^4 Claim, And What Do You Mean By God?

I've been waiting for another opportunity to poke holes in the lavish presuppositions folks often bring to POE arguments and this recent banter was just what I needed to get motivated.

To review, the Omni^4 Claim is the idea that the God of the Bible simultaneously possesses the following four qualities: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipresence. IOW, that the God of the Bible is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving and all-present. As an aside, many people disregard omnipresence as irrelevant to POE arguments, but I thought I'd throw it in there for historical accuracy if nothing else.

Now first off, nearly every single time I see or hear POE discussions, I see or hear the words "Christians say" or similar and I will tell you upfront - I do not care for dogma nor do I care what other "Christians" say, and I've read the Bible cover-to-cover enough times to know where I stand on the matter. Regardless of your belief system, the purpose of this challenge is for you to provide me with scriptural support you think justifies one or more qualities of the aforementioned Omni^4 Claim, in your own words, not some supposed theologian's.

Second, justify your conclusion and put things in proper scope: If you did in fact conclude that the Bible supports one or more of the omni- qualities, on what scriptural evidence do you rest? Next, do you ascribe said quality or qualities to God the Father alone? Or to what most people mean when they used the word Trinity, as in Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Third, were you strongly unconvinced that the Bible supports any particular point of the Omni^4 Claim? Why?

Related Posts:

Factoring Intelligence Into Assessments Of Morality