Theists, answer please!
Posted on: April 1, 2008 - 1:49am
Offline
Theists, answer please!
At some point in time, as a child (and without the assistance of much wiser adults) we all learn by ourselves to reason that Santa Clause and the Easter bunny aren't real. Even religious kids work it out eventually, why can't they just apply the same logic to Jesus? why does the reasoning stop at religion. Isn't that just a matter of choice - you simply choose not to be reasonable about it!
- Login to post comments
Sorry DrummerMonkey, I don't buy the "same epistemic boat" argument! Just because we may offend millions of christians by the suggestion that Christ was not real, doesn't make his life, death and resurrection any more plausible.
Forgot this link! It's an interesting take on my OP>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhs3Wlb97tE
Nope I think I'm consistent in my reasoning.
I think the evidence does clearly support Christianity.
God offers a compelling answer to the origin of the universe and the human person and I feel that the historical evidence for resurrection does make a good case for belief in Jesus.
Micah 6:8
He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.
What historical evidence?
You think?, you believe? without a single solitary shred of evidence. (other than your book of magic and miracles!)
Well I'm afraid I don't buy your assertation that the same reasoning wherin one believes the absence of Santa or the easter bunny can be applied to Jesus or God.
The argument is simple:
One does not believe in Santa Clause because there is no evidence for his existence. One rejects "The Night Before Christmas" as evidence, since it's only a book.
similarly:
One does not belive in God because there is no evidence for his existence. One rejects the "Bible" as evidence, since it's only a book.
So, where does it fail?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
I really want to, but I just can't see the difference. Please take a look at the link further up the page, I'd like to see your response.
I remember being in grade school and wondering why the other kids didn't realize that Santa and the Easter Bunny didn't exist. As time wore on, most found hidden presents, hidden costumes, or parents performing the acts attributed to Santa or the Bunny. They would then confront their parents and be told the truth. Then a critical mass of enough kids not believing was achieved and nobody claimed to believe anymore.
What the christians are missing is that parent to say "Yes, I made it all up." They want to believe so bad that when they find the hidden presents they make sure to rationalize that the gifts are in addition to what Santa is bringing.
"why does the reasoning stop at religion" - Not to show my jadedness or anything, but, what makes you think that people spend time reasoning things out in life?
Some obviously do, but a lot don't.
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
Everybody reasons! it's a natural human trait, when something doesn't make sense we wonder and reason as to why, some do it poorly, some do it well, but we all do it.
I like your response to my OP, it makes very simple sense, there's probably nothing more to it than that!
i would love to hear a logical reason that shows why you can not! saying you don't buy it doesnt really say anything but "no im not going to listen to reason because im in denial please help me!"
Well for starter God (or Gods) are emblematic of a worldview, to reject the Christian God is to reject the Christian worldview, of Christ as meaning of history, and to reject the pagan Gods is to reject the pagan worldview. God is not separate entity apart from the worldview he is emblematic of.
There goes your distinction.
"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)
I disagree with what you said here, if I understand the point you were trying to make.
To "reject the Christian God" from the atheist standpoint is to dismiss it. I dismiss the idea that the characters in religious holy books are real. This is a seperate issue from the philosophies in the book itself. The "worldview" of the Christian text stands on its own merit like any other text. One can agree or disagree with some or all of the book without ever needing to believe in magic and miracles.
I can take whatever worldview from Harry Potter I like. I do not need to believe in giants to do so... for example.
Double Post [Please Delete]
The brain is telling this person the evidence is historical and real. This is why you have people who can't tell they are lying because of their Belief system which hinges on Faith. Faith is the reasoning by seeing this evidence because the person probably only looked at a Christian Leader Website which only looks at Bias information. Just like the 9/11 Truth-er evidence is only what agrees with the conclusion that has been formed as truth in the brain. The brain in the sense does tell the mind what to perceive truth even abstract truth according to "Why God Won't Go Away"( i love this book explains a lot but I don't do the book justice because of my A.D.H.D.) I going to agree with the book its deals with the mind and how important its functions are.
LegendKillerJustin
I'm getting notification through email that there's been a response to the thread, but when I check, nothing's different. Have I been barred or what?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Thank you JillSwift, I was starting to get paranoid!
False association and genetic fallacy. This is a horrible argument and shouldn't ever be used by a non-theist.
"When the Lord Jesus Christ in His own words describes in some little detail that great drama that's the most important event in all human history, time, and eternity - this event, the great general judgment - the Lord Jesus Christ, then shall He say unto them on His right hand, 'Come ye blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for when you had opportunity at one of Billy Graham's campaigns you went forward and took good ol' Jesus as your very own personal savior.' NO! GET REAL!" - Fred Phelps
Why is it a horrible argument? It's just a simple and straight forward explanation about the delusion.
Why does it need to be more complicated than that? If two thousand years from now people still believe in
Big Foot, it will still be just a stupid belief that will not require a long winded, philosophically based argument to disprove it.
I hesitate to come up with a simple explanation in the light of the detailed explanations given. But, surely when we start to question the reality of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy our doubts are reinforced by our parents and other significant adults. Whereas, in a religious environment, our doubts about Jesus are not validated by those we trust....in fact quite the opposite.
But this does not apply in a non-religious household like the one I was raised in. Having been dutifully sent off to Sunday School (while the parents stayed in bed), when I got to the questioning age my parents and relatives simply acknowledged that they themselves did not believe in Jesus. Consequently, neither did I. It was a relief because even at that tender age I thought the Jesus story was plain silly.
............................................................
"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition". - Isaac Asimov
enzoconti
I never said that you were wrong, because you were at risk of offending millions of people. I don’t care that you offend millions of people. I said you were wrong in putting God in the same epistemic boat as Santa. Mainly because one thinks about God and comes to a belief in God in different ways than Santa.
My response to your video is simple.
It may be the case that we can stop believing in Santa because we find gifts in a parent’s closet.
Analogously can we say we stop believing in God because we find gifts in our parents closet? Well no. The gentleman in the video seems to think that similar reasoning can be applied to God. Perhaps we might discover what “really happens” in the world that God has been attributed to doing. But is this a reason why one does give up belief in God? Perhaps those adhering to a God of the Gaps strategy, but not all theists. Some theists think that in discovering what really happens in the world, God can still be attributed in causing what “really happens in the world“. He, according to theism is the ultimate cause. Is Santa in the same sense an "ultimate cause", no.
There is another case where you stop believing in Santa because of ridicule; this gives one an apparent drive to discover the truth, the child goes to the parent and the parents admit to lying to him in harmless fun. Can the same be said for God? NO! The parents never admit to lying to him at all, in fact they really believe they are telling the child the truth. The child might have the apparent drive to discover the truth about God, but soon realises after going to the parents that they actually believe what they told him, there is no revealing of an ultimate lie. When theists teach their children about God, they are not telling “lies” in the strict sense of the word.
Lets say you decide not to believe in God because you fear ridicule or are ridiculed for your belief. Perhaps you are right about that belief, and God is absent in the universe. Does this mean that your new true belief is justified and rational. No, it does not, you believed not because of reasons, you believed because you were ridiculed, ridicule is not sufficient evidence for true belief. Ridicule is not evidence for anything really.
Interestingly enough Sam Harris has notably advocated converting theists by subjecting them to ridicule. Suppose a theist responds to someone’s ridicule by actually accepting the belief that God is absent, this atheist’s belief is irrational, true perhaps, but not rational.
JillSwift,
I have already given several arguments for why I don’t buy it. But I’ll lay out the argument in point form so you can understand:
Not in the same epistemic boat argument:
1. If belief God is in the same epistemic boat as Santa, then every reason for belief in God is the same for Santa or reasoning about God is the same as reasoning about Santa.
2. But, it is not the case that every reason for belief in God is the same as Santa.
3. Also, it is not the case that reasoning about God is the same as reasoning about Santa.
4. Thus, God is not in the same epistemic boat as Santa.
2 is true, as I already said because God has teleological arguments, cosmological arguments, and arguments from religious experience. While the reasons may not be sound, the reasons presented for the belief in God are very different from one’s presented for Santa. 3 is also true for similar reasons, think of a philosopher that is trying to judge whether God exists or not, he does not typically follow the same procedure as Santa, he investigates the arguments and the evidence given, but the actual content of the arguments and evidence is different. If the content of the arguments and evidence given is different then that seems to be sufficient to say that one reasons about God differently than one reasons about Santa.
First, not in the same metaphysical boat argument:
1. If God is in the same metaphysical boat as Santa, then God and Santa are not ontologically distinct or , less restrictive, God and Santa share some very important properties.
2. God, classically presented is supremely good, supremely powerful and supremely knowledgeable.
3. If F shares some very important properties with God, then F is supremely good, powerful and knowledgeable.
4. Santa is not supremely good, powerful or knowledgeable.
5. Thus, Santa does not share some very important properties with God.
6. God and Santa are ontologically distinct, since they are different referents.
7. Thus, Santa does not share some very important properties with God, and it is not the case that God and Santa are not ontologically distinct.
8. Thus, God is not in the same metaphysical boat as Santa.
Second, not in the same metaphysical boat argument:
1. If God is in a different epistemic boat as Santa, then God is in a different metaphysical boat as Santa.
2. God is in a different epistemic boat as Santa.
3. Thus, God is in a different metaphysical boat as Santa.
P1: God provides reward (heaven) for proper behavior and punishment (hell) for poor behavior.
P2: Santa provides reward (gifts) for proper behavior and punishment (coal) for poor behavior.
C1: Santa is a limited version of God.
P1: The idea of God is given to children by parents and local culture.
P2: The idea of Santa is given to children by parents and local culture.
P3: Evidence God and Santa does not exist, and is instead only reinforced by social expectation, and behaviors of parents and local culture.
C1: God and Santa are unquestioned ideas without evidence.
P1: The idea of Santa tends to fade as contrary evidence is found, i.e. catching parents hiding Santa gifts.
P2: The idea of God tends to fade as contrary evidence is found, i.e. Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, Evolution by Natural Selection...
C1: Santa and God are make-believe.
P1: Santa and God both make believers feel better about life.
P2: Emotions are often the basis for human decision making.
P3: Santa is given up as a belief primarily because of social and parental pressure to do so, as a cultural expectation.
P4: Cultural expectation is for the continued belief in God.
C1: People tend to believe in god because there is no societal pressure to change that belief, and that belief is comforting and desirable.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
What is EPISTEMOLOGY to a child?
I didn't have a clue what epistemology was when I made the comparisons. As a child they were two similarly unbelievable stories, the only difference I could discern was that one of them was regarded as "Untouchable". "Don't even think about, thinking about the validity of god, lest you suffer an eternal punishment".
If there is a story that you are too scared not believe, the older you get the more powerful it becomes, until finally you award it its own epistemological value. I think that a lot of theists do this, they wont shutdown their belief system long enough to test or challenge it. It is exactly this fear of FREE thinking that enslaves the mind!
Have you ever been presented with a valid logical argument before? It's formally valid and I don't think I could make the inferences and premises any more clear. I'm amazed you actually asked for logical argumentation, I presented logical argumentation, and this was your response. I think I'm going to be done with this thread after this post, clearly you "freethinkers" can't be reasoned with.
Yes they have differences! That's the entire point! If you are going to make an analogous argument make sure your actual argument is a STRONG analogy, otherwise philosophers come along and point out the differences and your analogy ends up failing. It's standard critical thinking that you can read about in any practical logic text or critical thinking text. Obviously you can't apply the same logic for Santa and God because, to a theist they are different entities, you're dealing with different arguments, you are dealing with different justification the list goes on and on.
It's not circular, at least not formally, 1, 2 and 3 are formally valid. 3 follows from 1 and 2 via modus ponens. It's a simple argument and if you think metaphysics and epistemology are not entirely separate then I think 1 is true. 2, follows from my not in the same epistemic boat argument, hence 2 is informative. Do you even know what circular reasoning is?
C1 doesn't follow from P2 and there are missing premises in your argument. While I can concede that God provides rewards and Santa provides rewards, and both might punish some people the analogy fails to recognize the immense distinction between heaven and Christmas gifts, and hell and coal. In addition, The premise that is missing would suggest that two entities that have similar properties, and one entity has more power than the other, then one entity is a limited version of the other entity. This is clearly not the case. Judges have more power than the defendants, and similar properties, but the defendant is not a limited version of a judge. Hence the missing premise is false and the argument is unsound. (further, the argument is not valid).
Again, C1 doesn't follow from the premises, so it's not valid. Further P3 is not entirely true, evidence for God might exist, but what we don't have is sufficient evidence. While some ideas about God might be given to some children by there parents, it's not clearly the case that ALL ideas about God are given to ALL children by parents and local culture (This is a stronger version of P1, and it seems it would be needed for your argument to be successful, but the strong version of P1 is false). Some come to believe because epistemic superiors present arguments, that as far as the children can tell are sound, some have peculiar experiences for which they posit particular divine entities to explain there experience. The stronger version of P1 would probably need to be true in order to get a good argument and the conclusion you are looking for, but unfortunately the stronger version of P1 is false. Thus your argument is not sound.
Again not a valid argument, C1 doesn't follow from P1 or P2. Further, the examples you use as "contrary evidence" are not exactly contrary evidence for the idea of God. What revelations in Quantum mechanics and Special Reletivity have I missed that concludes that any of these theories are contrary evidence?
Invalid argument again, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, although this one is closer to valid than the other arguments. P3, according to another premise is false, people tend to continue to believe in Santa because cultural reinforces the belief and parental pressure. You can't really have it both ways. P4 could be false depending on which culture you're talking about, in a philosophy classroom with an atheist prof who is adamant that religions contain mostly false beliefs P4 would be false.
I'm done with this thread, I was asked to present logical arguments and did, but was then chastised for being "dogmatic". Really, this thread was frustrating, and pretty much a waste of time and philosophical energy. I presented valid and what I think are sound arguments and nobody engaged with them, instead you all patted yourself on the back for being such great free thinkers and adhering to the evidence without actually thinking about what evidence is, or engaging with any arguments. Apparently this is what you all hate about theists but you should take a good look at yourselves.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Well, good thing my view of God isn't in the Santa boat on this one.
Nope, not this one either, my parents are atheist, and God belief is hardly social expectation in the social settings I'm from.
QM and S-R are contratictory to God? Didn't get that memo.
The stories I could tell you....
Wait, now I remember why I stopped posting in this thread, but decided to go again for the lulz
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Because my belief in God isn't like belief in Santa?
Then why are you making them out to be?
What about Theists in say Sweden or Denmark?
Belief in belief as in a la Dennett? I don't think I fit that.
Maybe you don't fit Dennett's belief in belief, but it sure looks like it from where I stand.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
I don't get the question, should it be bad or neutral because it's different from a belief in Santa?
You seem to be shooting for a unified theory of Santa and God.
So what are you going for, that some beliefs in God are like Santa or what?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Because Santa doesn't exist and has been falsified and pretty much everyone knows it.
However, I don't think that answeres my question, which is: Why is that a "good thing"?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Because if you know that Santa doesn't exist so there's no point believing in him. If you know something doesn't exist, why believe it?
However, never mind. If I recall, in another thread somewhere you stated your Deistic belief makes you feel better, and if that's so then that's the answer to the question.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
If I understand correctly (finally..) , you're asking why I don't hold God to the same standard of Santa? As in how I can so easily reject Santa but not God?
I kinda answered this in my first post.
Oh and what topic did I say that it makes me feel better?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
But I hold the question of God to the same standard I hold anything else. I reject Santa and Easter Bunny because they don't hold up to those standards.
Then I guess I have to ask why you reject "Santa" and accept "God" in order to understand.
As I've said already, god and santa are identical insomuch as how much evidence there is for either of them. If you reject Santa as an unsupported belief, why not the same for god?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Let's see.
If Santa exists than we should find a cabin in the North Pole with elves building toys, Reindeer etc...
North Pole explored.
Reindeer footprints on roof: Nil
How could Santa deliver all those presents in one night let alone fit them on his sleigh?
etc...
I've yet to see any similar arguments against God.
And what about the classic Santa counter-arguments?
And how about those classic no-god arguments?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
No, but there's no point in believing something that's been disproven is it?
1) Haven't you heard of the banana?
2) I don't think we know much of anything in that regard..
3) Didn't get that memo.
It comes down to the age old argument: If there's evidence for god, please kindly present it. If there is no evidence for god, why do you belive?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
It's a rather long story, but the more I study nature, the more I think there's something behind it.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Somewhat. I wouldn't call it a full blown emotional reaction, but that could be a bias.
Keeping in mind that you are an unusual person and that this argument is about a general north American population:
P1 Children instinctively accept what adults say and do, especially parents, as "truth".
P2 Santa offers a very desirable reward once a year, and is introduced to children by the parents.
P3 God offers a very desirable reward constantly and especially at death, and is introduced to children by the parents.
P4 There is a cultural expectation that Santa will eventually be recognized as a myth.
P5 There is a cultural expectation that God will be accepted as true.
C1 God and Santa are similar in that they are both learned during a period of instinctive credulity.
C2 God and Santa are similar in that they are emotionally attractive in part because of the reward they bring.
C3 The primary difference is the cultural expectation of belief as a person becomes an adult.
And extended conclusion might include that people start finding arguments to support their belief in god. This is also instinctive, you can see examples of people trying to support emotionally driven decisions with reasoning after the fact (especially if the decision turned out to be a "bad" one).
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
I still think you're making this out to black and white but whatever....
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Are you a troll Jill?
Earlier you claimed that we couldn't determine design in the universe, implying a designer, now you're claiming that we can see that there is no design in the universe?
So what is it? How is an argument for design, an argument for god?
What would evidence for design look like?
If you can't say what it would look like, how would you be able to determine there is none?
"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)