Hitchens falsely accused of being "Militant".

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hitchens falsely accused of being "Militant".
The usual suspects hurl false accusations and sell fear mongering once again.

Hitchens picked Easter, and rightfully so, to encourage fellow atheists to speak out against this old debunked myth.

http://stkarnick.com/culture/2011/04/24/hitches-rallies-the-troops-this-easter/

What this writer fails to understand is that Hitchins is not of the same ilk of the likes of Falwell nor Bin Ladin, by any stretch.

He is more akin to Galileo in shouting from the rooftops that the earth is not flat. Hitchens would be the FIRST to defend your right to claim anything you want. But he also defends the rights of others to kick that claim around.

YES it is true that atheists want to see the end of religion. HOWEVER, most of us, including Hitchens knows that 7 billion people will never agree on all issues, much less religion.

So when we say that we want to see the end of religion, what we mean is that it should be treated like every other aspect of your life in that NOTHING deserves a pedestal "just because".

It is the only way humanity can move forward. By being open about other's claims and the ability to kick the tires and the willingness to give up on prior bad claims.

If humans never questioned we never would have left the caves. Thomas Jefferson was one of Hitchen's heros and Jefferson, being a deist himself, would have valued Hitchens fierceness in "question with boldness even the existence of a god"(Thomas Jefferson)

Hitchens isn't out to oppress anyone simply because he wont blindly give respect to a claim. It is because of questioning that women have voting rights and blacks are no longer slaves and it was RELIGION that held them back.

Religion is what holds the Middle East back. Hitchens would no more outlaw religion than believers in pluralistic countries would outlaw other religions. But he, like me is damned tired of the special treatment it gets all over the world.

Religion always has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future. Hitchens is merely saying that for us to grow, we must face the harsh criticism and blasphemy and be unafraid of the prospect of being wrong.

Being wrong does not make one a bad person, it merely means one is wrong. It is wrong to give religion taboo status. That is what Iran does. That is what the state religion of China's communism does.

Hitchens is simply tired of putting up with absurd claims. It is absurd to think human flesh can survive rigor mortis. Thus the death of Jesus as depicted in the bible is absurd.

And Hitchen's blasphemy is in good company with even the likes of Einstein who called his own Jewish tradition, "noble but childish".

Hitchens is simply shouting "THE EARTH IS NOT FLAT"

Being passionate about facts is not "militant" anymore than saying "Thor does not make lighting" is "militant".

Hitchens hasn't strapped a bomb to himself, nor has he shot an abortion doctor. Simply saying 'You are full of shit" isn't being militant. Not liking Hitchen's delivery has nothing to do with the believer's lack of credible evidence.
 
 
 
 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
To the mod who fixed that,

To the mod who fixed that, thanks. I didn't realize I had copied more than the original text after I posted it over there I posted it here. Got ahead of myself and hit submit before editing it.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yes well

 

The soldiers of the cross have trouble seeing things outside their own subjective application of context...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I think the word "militant"

I think the word "militant" is thrown around too often and is used to deflect on things.

 

Such as theist using "militant" to deflect from criticisms of religion rather than addressing the criticism

 

A:"Prove the the Earth is 6,000 years old"

 

YEC: "You're just being militant"

 

It can work the other way though, people take criticism of Htichens or the atheist movement as accusations of being militant including this whole "unapologetic" thing floating around the atheist movement. Such as "You're just accusing me of being militant" or "I'm just being unapologetic" rather than addressing the criticism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Neoatheist
atheist
Neoatheist's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2011-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Precisely Cpt. I have

Precisely Cpt. I have embraced the militant badge. If you agree with their intended insult, it keeps it from being particularly insulting. Then you can move on to addressing the real issue.

If you use the bible as your moral compass, chances are you're lost.

When Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" he wasn't saying that people shouldn't be stoned. He was requesting the first pitch.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I have moved

 

I have moved beyond merely militant. Death to god-think, I sez. 

But yes, I agree with you guys. Using the term militant is like using anti-semitic to describe a critic of Israel's foreign policy. 

The term 'militant atheist' is a fallacious appeal to emotion. 

Given the army of christ claims we all deserve to die, it's clear who the militants really are. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 In general, I tend to

 

In general, I tend to agree with all of this.

 

However, I am bothered by one point. Galileo did not have anything to do with the earth being round. That was Erastothenes. Galileo's major contributions were the moons of Jupiter, proving that stuff does not have to orbit a common center and the phases of Venus which would not have been possible in an earth centered universe.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

In general, I tend to agree with all of this.

 

However, I am bothered by one point. Galileo did not have anything to do with the earth being round. That was Erastothenes. Galileo's major contributions were the moons of Jupiter, proving that stuff does not have to orbit a common center and the phases of Venus which would not have been possible in an earth centered universe.

I did not no that. I shouldn't be surprised. Columbus "discovered America", never mind that there were people there before.

How does history get so fucking distorted?

Seriously, thanks for correcting that.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The usual

Brian37 wrote:

The usual suspects hurl false accusations and sell fear mongering once again.

Hitchens picked Easter, and rightfully so, to encourage fellow atheists to speak out against this old debunked myth.

http://stkarnick.com/culture/2011/04/24/hitches-rallies-the-troops-this-easter/

What this writer fails to understand is that Hitchins is not of the same ilk of the likes of Falwell nor Bin Ladin, by any stretch.

He is more akin to Galileo in shouting from the rooftops that the earth is not flat. Hitchens would be the FIRST to defend your right to claim anything you want. But he also defends the rights of others to kick that claim around.

YES it is true that atheists want to see the end of religion. HOWEVER, most of us, including Hitchens knows that 7 billion people will never agree on all issues, much less religion.

So when we say that we want to see the end of religion, what we mean is that it should be treated like every other aspect of your life in that NOTHING deserves a pedestal "just because".

It is the only way humanity can move forward. By being open about other's claims and the ability to kick the tires and the willingness to give up on prior bad claims.

If humans never questioned we never would have left the caves. Thomas Jefferson was one of Hitchen's heros and Jefferson, being a deist himself, would have valued Hitchens fierceness in "question with boldness even the existence of a god"(Thomas Jefferson)

Hitchens isn't out to oppress anyone simply because he wont blindly give respect to a claim. It is because of questioning that women have voting rights and blacks are no longer slaves and it was RELIGION that held them back.

Religion is what holds the Middle East back. Hitchens would no more outlaw religion than believers in pluralistic countries would outlaw other religions. But he, like me is damned tired of the special treatment it gets all over the world.

Religion always has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future. Hitchens is merely saying that for us to grow, we must face the harsh criticism and blasphemy and be unafraid of the prospect of being wrong.

Being wrong does not make one a bad person, it merely means one is wrong. It is wrong to give religion taboo status. That is what Iran does. That is what the state religion of China's communism does.

Hitchens is simply tired of putting up with absurd claims. It is absurd to think human flesh can survive rigor mortis. Thus the death of Jesus as depicted in the bible is absurd.

And Hitchen's blasphemy is in good company with even the likes of Einstein who called his own Jewish tradition, "noble but childish".

Hitchens is simply shouting "THE EARTH IS NOT FLAT"

Being passionate about facts is not "militant" anymore than saying "Thor does not make lighting" is "militant".

Hitchens hasn't strapped a bomb to himself, nor has he shot an abortion doctor. Simply saying 'You are full of shit" isn't being militant. Not liking Hitchen's delivery has nothing to do with the believer's lack of credible evidence.
 
 
 
 

 

He is being militant because he can't understand that whether or not people celebrate Easter is not a huge deal in the long run. Unless a person takes religion literally like fundies do, then it doesn't make a crap's worth of difference whether or not they say they "believe in Jesus" or not. Most Christians are not fundies, and religion is more of just a cultural tradition. Unless this belief has influence over their lives and how they act toward others, then it doesn't matter - and for most mainstream Christians, it doesn't.

So even though Hitchens is right in theory, he fails in practice. It would be like me standing outside a Justin Bieber concert with a megaphone yelling at fans how stupid they are for thinking he's great. I might be right in theory that Justin Bieber sucks, but in the long term, who really needs to get a life? The person who occasionally listens to bad pop music, or the dude with so much time on his hands that he can't find anything better to do than harass people over it?

If atheists are so enlightened then I'd think we'd see bigger problems in the world than whether or not a mom decides to take her kids Easter Egg hunting once a year. But I guess we still have a long way to go.

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Having now read

 

 

a few more definitions of militant and militant atheist, it's obvious the term is so nebulous as to apply to any sort of enthusiasm or vigor in support of any cause. You can be called militant simply for a firm disagreement - that's the position I think Hitchens takes. Other definitions of militant apply to those who want to destroy religion completely. I think this applies to me. But I'm only down on christianity and islam. Tree worshipping, ancestor worshipping and the veneration of justin bieber's hair seem harmless to me. 

I think the question is this. Should we tolerate the propagation of doctrines that call for the deaths/justify the deaths of other human beings, doctrines that are in clear breach of the Charter of Human Rights? I think we should not. The whole edifice, the structure of religion, is bent on controlling the minds of all on the planet by use of threat of torture and death. Passing this clearly stated aim off as harmless because most people don't really believe in it completely misses the point. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Recovering fundamentalist

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

So even though Hitchens is right in theory, he fails in practice. It would be like me standing outside a Justin Bieber concert with a megaphone yelling at fans how stupid they are for thinking he's great. I might be right in theory that Justin Bieber sucks, but in the long term, who really needs to get a life?

You miss the efficacy of the strategy.

If the Four Horsemen were to sit around, as if at a tupperware party, bitch and moan, and then go home, that would be accomplishing nothing.

Even Brian Sapient won't stop after being violently attacked by a madman for his atheist activist efforts. That's deserving of nothing less than admiration and respect.

It takes fucking balls for guys like Hitchens and Dawkins to stand up to the fucking Pope, and the Roman Catholic church, and openly characterize him, and the church as a immoral, and criminal.

 

 

 

 

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:
If atheists are so enlightened then I'd think we'd see bigger problems in the world than whether or not a mom decides to take her kids Easter Egg hunting once a year. But I guess we still have a long way to go.

Hitchens' choice to choose Easter, to make a statement, is called 'timing'...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


sourkroutamen
sourkroutamen's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2011-04-08
User is offlineOffline
Militant atheists

Well you should know that over 80% of atheists, including Hitchens, believe that militant methods are valid to eradicate religion. It's just what they believe.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Define your terms

sourkroutamen wrote:

Well you should know that over 80% of atheists, including Hitchens, believe that militant methods are valid to eradicate religion. It's just what they believe.

 

Sourkrout. What militant methods? Poison gas? Machine guns? The active promotion of a doctrine of hate for 'evil' theists who deserve to die?

Atheists speak out against the fundamental wrongs of monotheism, including christianity and islam. 

These religions have been physically crushing their opponents for thousands of years and now they are afraid of a little straight talk? 

As for 80 per cent militant atheists - where does this nice round number come from?

The word militant is a label designed to provoke emotion. There's nothing actually militant about atheists. They are just sick of theist bullshit. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


sourkroutamen
sourkroutamen's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2011-04-08
User is offlineOffline
Oops

I guess the number is actually closer to one percent. But that was not intended to be a factual statement.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
sourkroutamen wrote:Well you

sourkroutamen wrote:

Well you should know that over 80% of atheists, including Hitchens, believe that militant methods are valid to eradicate religion. It's just what they believe.

Thumping on the word militant ain't gonna stop the movement to put theism back in the caves, where it belongs.

Put simply, as science, education, and the information highways become more accessible and prevalent, theist fantasies are doomed to become a fringe lunacy.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I think the problem of the

I think the problem of the 'moderate' believers giving some sort of 'shelter' or quasi-legitimacy to the crazies is a real problem, unless they clearly and publicly speak out against the fundies within their own tradition.

The reluctance of many reasonable, intelligent believers to do anything to discredit the faith is a very real issue, in most religions. And admitting that the doctrine can be interpreted, 'incorrectly' of course, in such a way as to inspire/justify some pretty horrendous actions would already be a problem for them, and rightly so.

It seems to me this arises even in innocuous intellectual issues, where I see a reluctance on the part of Alvin Platinga to unequivocally declare the Ontological Argument for God to be the nonsense that it is. Instead he admits that it can only be accepted if a person already certain propositions already, propositions that are themselves not provable. I can understand him not wanting to face the crap he would have thrown at him if he said that an argument with such a long tradition in mainstream Christianity was nonsense, so he weasels out of it.

Maybe he lives near Mr_Metaphysics, and is worried about the fallout from the explosion if he did just say the OA is not valid or sound.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle...

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Maybe he lives near Mr_Metaphysics, and is worried about the fallout from the explosion if he did just say the OA is not valid or sound.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Recovering

redneF wrote:

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

So even though Hitchens is right in theory, he fails in practice. It would be like me standing outside a Justin Bieber concert with a megaphone yelling at fans how stupid they are for thinking he's great. I might be right in theory that Justin Bieber sucks, but in the long term, who really needs to get a life?

You miss the efficacy of the strategy.

If the Four Horsemen were to sit around, as if at a tupperware party, bitch and moan, and then go home, that would be accomplishing nothing.

Even Brian Sapient won't stop after being violently attacked by a madman for his atheist activist efforts. That's deserving of nothing less than admiration and respect.

It takes fucking balls for guys like Hitchens and Dawkins to stand up to the fucking Pope, and the Roman Catholic church, and openly characterize him, and the church as a immoral, and criminal.

 

 

 

 

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:
If atheists are so enlightened then I'd think we'd see bigger problems in the world than whether or not a mom decides to take her kids Easter Egg hunting once a year. But I guess we still have a long way to go.

Hitchens' choice to choose Easter, to make a statement, is called 'timing'...

I agree with most of Hitchens' points, but I think his strategy is way off. The best way to combat the influence of religion is to target the real troublemakers - Jerry Falwel, pedophile priest coverups, not "Easter". If you target Easter you just piss off a bunch of mainstream Christians who would probably agree with most atheists that people like Falwel are nuts anyway. It will just marginalize atheists and make them seems almost like fundamentalists. My point is that Hitchens needs to get his priorities straight - a mom taking her kids to church on Easter isn't a huge problem in the world, but people like Pat Robertson and Falwel who promote hate and extremism as a norm are.

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


sourkroutamen
sourkroutamen's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2011-04-08
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: I think

BobSpence1 wrote:

I think the problem of the 'moderate' believers giving some sort of 'shelter' or quasi-legitimacy to the crazies is a real problem, unless they clearly and publicly speak out against the fundies within their own tradition.

The reluctance of many reasonable, intelligent believers to do anything to discredit the faith is a very real issue, in most religions. And admitting that the doctrine can be interpreted, 'incorrectly' of course, in such a way as to inspire/justify some pretty horrendous actions would already be a problem for them, and rightly so. 

 

 

 

In a way, that's why I threw out my previous comment. Aside from the humor of it, I'm often confronted with my atheist friends telling me how bloody my religion is, like I'm going to force them to agree with me at gunpoint. I agree, Protestants and Catholics have spilled blood many times due to religious disputes. The Middle East is a mess of Muslim and Jewish clashes. I'm not denying that. It's pretty much out of my control. Out of my control like my ancestors who killed millions of Native Americans were out of my control (that would be the reason Columbus "discovered" America).

 

 

 

 

 

Does that need to fall on MY shoulders though? If I shout against this burning Koran bullshit, and the May 21 return of Christ bullshit, does that separate me from the crazies? It's been a constant headache for me to keep myself at a distance from them while still embracing the few ideas I think they have right. Christians attack Islam in the same manner, pointing to the extremists as the norm. Brian37 mentioned that Hitchens didn't strap a bomb to his waist or murder an abortion doctor. Those are extremists, not normal people. Pat Robertson, Terry Jones, Jerry Falwell. You can attack Jerry Falwell and his types all you want and the "reasonable, intelligent" believers will back you up. However, if you attack the people who go to church on sunday with absolutely no desire to burn a Koran, you just piss Christians everywhere off. Generalizations are just pretty much annoying. I think that is where Hitchens goes wrong. His focus is off. I doubt if anybody is going to say he is the most talented debator to walk the planet Smiling Just because I'm a christian doesn't mean I hate people, I'm pretty sure I like alot of people I disagree with. So by all means, show how incredibly nuts the fringe people are for starters and this christian will back you up. And do it before they start throwing nukes wildly about.

 

Well, enough rambling. Back to writing final papers.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I think the

BobSpence1 wrote:

I think the problem of the 'moderate' believers giving some sort of 'shelter' or quasi-legitimacy to the crazies is a real problem, unless they clearly and publicly speak out against the fundies within their own tradition.

The reluctance of many reasonable, intelligent believers to do anything to discredit the faith is a very real issue, in most religions. And admitting that the doctrine can be interpreted, 'incorrectly' of course, in such a way as to inspire/justify some pretty horrendous actions would already be a problem for them, and rightly so.

It seems to me this arises even in innocuous intellectual issues, where I see a reluctance on the part of Alvin Platinga to unequivocally declare the Ontological Argument for God to be the nonsense that it is. Instead he admits that it can only be accepted if a person already certain propositions already, propositions that are themselves not provable. I can understand him not wanting to face the crap he would have thrown at him if he said that an argument with such a long tradition in mainstream Christianity was nonsense, so he weasels out of it.

Maybe he lives near Mr_Metaphysics, and is worried about the fallout from the explosion if he did just say the OA is not valid or sound.

 

The frightening thing is that that school of thought including my friend  Dr. James Sennett are developing and have developed an argument for a justification of faith without belief ( justifiable true belief ).  So the rationality of the argument of faith without believing  the faith claims but accepting it nonetheless sets up the acceptance of the ontological arguments premise.  To me it is an act of desperation. But for the rational Christian who can not believe his or her own  claims is is a salvaging of the Christian Faith as a necessary hermeneutic and system for understanding the world.  Faith without belief is a trusting of the system or religion over and beyond the failure of rational belief!!!! So we can not expect Plantinga to confess the OA as nonsense since the faith stance requires no SENSE!!!! James Sennett from my last conversation seems to be skeptical of this posturing though he can justify it and contribute formally to its development. ( i.e.; It is only a logical game albeit unsatisfying ??? ).  The bottom line is you trust ( have faith ) in a system as meaningful though you can not believe or understand  its warrant claims.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
The realtionship to Craig and my previous post

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8595&printer_friendly=1

 

Question:

Dr. Craig,

I have some questions about Reformed Epistemology and your view on the witness of the Holy Spirit as explicated in Question 68.

Following the lead of Alvin Plantinga, you try to argue that classical foundationalism is self-refuting because the criterion used by classical foundationalism ("only propositions that are self-evident or incorrigible are properly basic&quotEye-wink for discerning properly basic beliefs and beliefs derived from properly basic beliefs is itself neither properly basic nor derived. You say it is not properly basic because, using classical foundationalism's own criterion, it is neither self-evident nor incorrigible. But your assertion that the criterion cannot be demonstrated by using evidence is a bit hasty. After all, you have not shown that the criterion used in classical foundationalism is incoherent; all you've shown is that we simply lack any evidence for it at the moment, but as you know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And unlike the self-refuting criterion used in logical positivism, the one in classical foundationalism can at least be verified in principle. Furthermore, appealing to Reformed Epistemology to escape this does not help either because the criterion used by Reformed Epistemologists ("only propositions that are self-evident, incorrigible, or appropriately grounded are properly basic&quotEye-wink is itself not properly basic and, using Plantinga's hasty reasoning, is not evidentially supported either. So Reformed Epistemology does not do anything to alleviate the problem. Given this, should not one also reject Reformed Epistemology as self-refuting as well?

Second, there are better criteria available than the ones used either by the classical foundationalist or the Reformed Epistemologist, particularly universal sanction. According to universal sanction, a belief is properly basic if it is pragmatically indispensable. The nice part about this criterion is that it allows for a type of evidentialism which avoids all of Plantinga's counterexamples. For instance, under universal sanction, memory beliefs, belief in the reality of the external world, belief in other minds, and so on, are properly basic because doubting or denying them would make living a normal human life impossible. We need these beliefs in order to live happy and fulfilling lives. Now interestingly enough, universal sanction effectively prevents any theistic beliefs from being properly basic, for it is pragmatically conceivable that one lives a happy life without belief in God. I think Sennett in spot on in his analysis here. The reason we accept belief in other minds, the external world, and our memories is not because we somehow "know" that they are true; it is all psychological, for we desperately want these beliefs to be true because we know that it would be impossible to live a fulfilling life without them. Now, Plantinga would probably say that universal sanction is self-refuting, but there are problems with that strategy as mentioned earlier. Would you now agree that universal sanction is superior to Plantinga's criterion?

Third, in the context of Plantinga's work, a properly basic belief is a basic belief that has not been attacked with any defeaters; once a defeater is given, though, the properly basic belief becomes simply a basic one. At this point, one can either relinquish the basic belief or hold on to it in the case that she can find arguments with which to defeat the original defeater, which would then restore the belief's proper basicality. On your view, though, the witness of the Holy Spirit is a properly basic belief AND an intrinsic defeater-defeater, so if someone were to offer a defeater to Christianity that you could not answer, would your belief in God be basic or properly basic?

Next, when you say that one is rational to believe in God on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit, do you mean rational in the sense pertaining to justification or warrant? If by "rational", you mean "justified", then you have really shown nothing. Muslims, Hindus, and atheists are all rational under this definition since they are within their epistemic rights. Nothing has been done to show that Christianity is true. On the other hand, if by "rational", you mean "warranted" in the Plantingian sense, then you need to explain why other properly basic beliefs that are warranted turn out to be false (like faulty memory beliefs).

It is worth noting that the relationship between properly basic non-theistic beliefs and their grounds are vastly different from the relationship between supposedly properly basic theistic beliefs and their grounds. There is always a certain correspondence between the content of an experience and the content of a belief grounded by that experience. For instance, my feeling of pain grounds the belief that I am in pain, not some unrelated belief like "evolution is true" or "a=a". However, according to Plantinga, experiencing guilt, happiness, and danger or reading the Bible serves as grounds for properly basic theistic belief. But surely you notice the disparity here, Dr. Craig! What Plantinga is asking us to do is to conclude, on the basis of a few emotions, that a necessary, eternal, self-existing, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omnitemporal, unembodied mind created the universe out of nothing and regularly interacts with humans and has revealed himself to man in the form of Jesus of Nazareth, who was born of a virgin, performed numerous miracles, was crucified, descended into hell, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and now sits at the right hand of God, exists! The belief is so unrelated to its alleged grounds that one can only wonder how Plantinga gets away with this! Surely you don't believe that belief in the God mentioned above is solely grounded by a mere religious experience, right?

Finally, Plantinga's model presupposes that Christianity is true. Plantinga essentially is defending the proposition: If Christianity is true, then Christian belief is warranted (as explained by his model). But Plantinga never gives any support for the antecedent of that material conditional; he just says that demonstrating the antecedent is not his project. But if that is so, then Plantinga really has not shown much other than that de jure objections to Christianity fail. But I fail to see how his model shows how a Christian can rationally believe that Christianity is true. Do you hold to this view? You seem to argue in the opposite direction of Plantinga: If there is a witness of the Holy Spirit, then Christianity is true. Do you believe that THAT conditional is true?

Thank you,

Timaeus
Unspecified

 

SEE ALSO: 

http://brindedcow.umd.edu/236/sennett.html

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A finite mind cannot grasp

A finite mind cannot grasp or witness to an infinite attribute of any supposed entity.

We could not discern with confidence the ultimate motives of a vastly superior intelligence.

Therefore , even if there is some entity that may match the description of 'God', we could never know that.

Hence, any system based on Theism can have no justifiable absolutes, even if 'God' exists.

We would still have to resort to empiricism etc, but with far less justification for the assumption of induction that the attributes of reality will remain constant, since such a being could change things entirely at any instant.

The idea that Theism is necessary for any absolutes is delusional - any such absolutes that a 'God' may decide to define, would not be independently discernable, and we could never know whether 'God' was telling us 'truth', or misleading us for his own incomprehensible purposes, even if we could be certain we were correctly judging some experience as a 'communication' from this entity.

Accepting that some infinitely powerful consciousness existed, logically implies the end of any certain knowledge.

Secular empiricism does not establish 100% certain knowledge of the nature of the Universe, but Theistic belief destroys any justification for any confidence whatever.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:A finite

BobSpence1 wrote:

A finite mind cannot grasp or witness to an infinite attribute of any supposed entity.

We could not discern with confidence the ultimate motives of a vastly superior intelligence.

Therefore , even if there is some entity that may match the description of 'God', we could never know that.

Hence, any system based on Theism can have no justifiable absolutes, even if 'God' exists.

We would still have to resort to empiricism etc, but with far less justification for the assumption of induction that the attributes of reality will remain constant, since such a being could change things entirely at any instant.

The idea that Theism is necessary for any absolutes is delusional - any such absolutes that a 'God' may decide to define, would not be independently discernable, and we could never know whether 'God' was telling us 'truth', or misleading us for his own incomprehensible purposes, even if we could be certain we were correctly judging some experience as a 'communication' from this entity.

Accepting that some infinitely powerful consciousness existed, logically implies the end of any certain knowledge.

Secular empiricism does not establish 100% certain knowledge of the nature of the Universe, but Theistic belief destroys any justification for any confidence whatever.

 

I wonder can there be an infinite attribute. Supposing that there is an infinite property when we "attribute" we limit the correlation as a finite and definable "attribute".  The attribute may point but not obtain the property that is its referent.  What theists such as Craig are doing with faith without belif is by passing the justification of the faith and having it as a neccesary basic truth claim such as "gravity needs no justification".  Certainly a delusional approach to me.  But there is little response to be made to someone who claims faith as a foundational property of reality!!!


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
That attitude to 'faith',

That attitude to 'faith', and needing no justification, reflects the basic psychology of more than a few believers. They literally have incorporated the assumptions of their faith as foundations of their world-view, such that they can no more question the 'truth' of its assertions, than they can their own existence.

We can understand the mechanisms of the mind leading them to that sort of position, to an extent, but when they attempt to frame a philosophical/metaphysical  argument based on it.... <face-palm>...

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I don't believe for a minute

I don't believe for a minute that William Lane Craig believes his own bullshit.

Not a chance.

I've watched enough of his debates. He's all about ego, and appeals to emotions, by insisting that atheists are nihilists.

He's an attention whore, and completely in his own little world when he debates.

It doesn't even matter who he debates, it's always the same argument.

He can't think on his feet worth a shit. When he gets outclassed, he starts preaching and incoherently waxing poetic about how loving and good god is.

 

He's really fucking weird...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:I don't believe

redneF wrote:

I don't believe for a minute that William Lane Craig believes his own bullshit.

Not a chance.

I've watched enough of his debates. He's all about ego, and appeals to emotions, by insisting that atheists are nihilists.

He's an attention whore, and completely in his own little world when he debates.

It doesn't even matter who he debates, it's always the same argument.

He can't think on his feet worth a shit. When he gets outclassed, he starts preaching and incoherently waxing poetic about how loving and good god is.

 

He's really fucking weird...

redneF I know this group of people. They really believe what they say or their investment in years of study would go down the drain. They delude themselves and others.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
I disagree - because I don't

I disagree - because I don't think that it is mentally possible to "believe" in something like this, unless perhaps you're a patient in a mental hospital. I believe that all Christians, even the die hard fundamentalists know that their beliefs are a lie - or at least know that they have no legitimate reason for believing in them. They just don't care, because they get some type of dopamine rush from playing make believe and lying to themselves and others - Christianity is really just a live-action role-playing game.

I know for a fact that they don't really believe any of it. Because if you ask fundamentalists about some other religion (ex. Scientology), they'll say something like "Oh sure. Some alien created the human race by dropping a nuke into a volcano trillions of years ago - that's absurd." If they're capable of understanding that that type of logic is absurd, then they are capable of understanding that their own "logic" is absurd too. They just don't care - no matter how much it seems like they really believe it, they don't - they lie to themselves and others on a daily basis full-well knowing that it's a lie and have no remorse about it.

Remember that old fairy tale "The Emperor's New Clothes" - that's who Christians are. Even after the emperor found out that he had been fooled, he went out in public naked anyway pretending that he still believed it - because he'd rather make a fool out of himself then have to acknowledge the truth to himself.

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4199
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
just checkin'...everybody

just checkin'...everybody here knows falwell's been dead almost 4 years now, right?


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:just

iwbiek wrote:

just checkin'...everybody here knows falwell's been dead almost 4 years now, right?

such evil lasts longer than the vessel in which it was housed.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:iwbiek

jcgadfly wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

just checkin'...everybody here knows falwell's been dead almost 4 years now, right?

such evil lasts longer than the vessel in which it was housed.

Falwell's spawn still terrorizes Lynchburg Va. But at least when I left 6 years ago that was changing. People are not putting up with that family's bullshit as much as they did.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Recovering fundamentalist

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

I disagree - because I don't think that it is mentally possible to "believe" in something like this, unless perhaps you're a patient in a mental hospital. I believe that all Christians, even the die hard fundamentalists know that their beliefs are a lie - or at least know that they have no legitimate reason for believing in them. They just don't care, because they get some type of dopamine rush from playing make believe and lying to themselves and others - Christianity is really just a live-action role-playing game.

I know for a fact that they don't really believe any of it. Because if you ask fundamentalists about some other religion (ex. Scientology), they'll say something like "Oh sure. Some alien created the human race by dropping a nuke into a volcano trillions of years ago - that's absurd." If they're capable of understanding that that type of logic is absurd, then they are capable of understanding that their own "logic" is absurd too. They just don't care - no matter how much it seems like they really believe it, they don't - they lie to themselves and others on a daily basis full-well knowing that it's a lie and have no remorse about it.

Remember that old fairy tale "The Emperor's New Clothes" - that's who Christians are. Even after the emperor found out that he had been fooled, he went out in public naked anyway pretending that he still believed it - because he'd rather make a fool out of himself then have to acknowledge the truth to himself.

You and I are fully aligned, then.

That's exactly what I mean.

There's a definite 'detour' that they do in their thinking, when it comes to their 'beliefs', that disappears when contmeplating other religions. 

Just a cursory glance, and the determination that it's bunk.

Funny how dat works, huh?...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I think this is right

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

I disagree - because I don't think that it is mentally possible to "believe" in something like this, unless perhaps you're a patient in a mental hospital. I believe that all Christians, even the die hard fundamentalists know that their beliefs are a lie - or at least know that they have no legitimate reason for believing in them. They just don't care, because they get some type of dopamine rush from playing make believe and lying to themselves and others - Christianity is really just a live-action role-playing game.

I know for a fact that they don't really believe any of it. Because if you ask fundamentalists about some other religion (ex. Scientology), they'll say something like "Oh sure. Some alien created the human race by dropping a nuke into a volcano trillions of years ago - that's absurd." If they're capable of understanding that that type of logic is absurd, then they are capable of understanding that their own "logic" is absurd too. They just don't care - no matter how much it seems like they really believe it, they don't - they lie to themselves and others on a daily basis full-well knowing that it's a lie and have no remorse about it.

Remember that old fairy tale "The Emperor's New Clothes" - that's who Christians are. Even after the emperor found out that he had been fooled, he went out in public naked anyway pretending that he still believed it - because he'd rather make a fool out of himself then have to acknowledge the truth to himself.

 

Recovering, but there's definitely a cognitive bag the god put over their heads to allow themselves to believe in their particularly absurdity. My elder fundy brother alleges he deeply investigated all the world's faiths (this was clearly a generalisation) and found only the christianity he grew up with made the cut. His beliefs are a bit obscure. No satan, no hell, nothing that can't be proven using his private epistemology. 

I think christians want to believe so much that they manage to convince themselves this stuff is true. Not sure about Craig. He may just be appealing to nutbags who will donate money to him...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: Not

Atheistextremist wrote:

 Not sure about Craig. He may just be appealing to nutbags who will donate money to him...

I believe he's authored something like 29 books.

And he's a 'professional' philosopher, which means he's paid to lecture and debate.

 

That enough 'cash' incentive and 'ego' payoff for a snake oil salesman?...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4199
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:iwbiek

jcgadfly wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

just checkin'...everybody here knows falwell's been dead almost 4 years now, right?

such evil lasts longer than the vessel in which it was housed.

no, dude, you're thinkin' of sauron.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson