An important year-and-a-bit in my journey from deeply Calvinist to... not that... was spent on the CARM forums. Someone special to me was Catholic, I had accrued a deep and wide knowledge of Catholic apologetics and theology, and so the part of the forums I spent my time on was debating Roman Catholics.
As I said then, and it's true now, the single most frustrating part of Catholicism is not any single bizarre dogma, it's their attitude to truth. If one is a dogmatic thinker, then that's the opposite of being open to new views, the opposite of being open to challenging one's own views. Nothing that is believed dogmatically has any right to be called "truth" because it's unfalsifiable, no standards have been applied at all to test the claim. It's merely dictated, and the sincere Catholics in the pews believe it. They genuinely believe that by being unswervingly committed to the claim that the believe without evidence that they are being virtuous and "putting truth first". But let me reiterate: truth is not dogmatic. It's the opposite of dogmatic.
But seeing the right-on-the-surface problems with Catholic epistemology provided cover for all the Protestants on the forum attacking them. After all, we Protestants don't swear blind featly to a Magisterium, we are not so blind. We think critically! But... reality is more complicated. My retired parents who read 365 Days With Calvin (no, wait, that was last year, this year it's 365 Days With Newton) as a devotional every day have no more thought critically about what they believe and why than the Catholic who is under the Magisterium. Religious belief itself is the thought-stopping technique. It doesn't require the overt dictatorship and authoritarianism of Roman Catholicism.
But in my Protestant apologetic days on the forum (from whence the title come from) I was fumbling around for the right words. It's much better expressed as "Truth is not dogmatic". And it doesn't take Catholic ecclesiology to be dogmatic; Protestants are too. But my choice of "dictated" is a reflection of where I was and who I was addressing. It's meant to be a critique of the Catholic attitude to truth which could never apply to me.
And that's a big part of what wore me down: realizing that it was hard to critique the other side with something that couldn't possibly apply to me. The more I cared about their shoddy attitude to dogmatic truth, and the more I wanted to be intellectually honest and take the high ground over them, the more apparent it was that the people on my side were just as uncritical and dogmatic and the things I was saying applied to my team too.
Truth is open to other views.
Saturday, 3 November 2018
Thursday, 1 November 2018
Off-topic Thursday #2
Derby! Another goal! This time in right net! They'll get this footballing thing sorted in no time. Being a Bbbritish team, they only scored own goals to give the other chaps a Sporting Chance. That's the Bbbritish way!
What's that? Do I hear the other team is also Bbbritish?! Why yes! But Derby nevertheless were playing the game like gentleman in giving away two goals! Sporting I tell you! There are no suggestions of Ineptness or lack of talent whatsoever. Such scurrilous rumours are dismissed magnificently. The Derby coach only looked Woebegone and sighed greatly because of the riot police protecting his highly skilled players from emotionally vexed members of the public who were not real Derby fans, because no real Derby fan could help but admire the expertise and Bbbritish precision of their gallant Own Goals!
Wednesday, 31 October 2018
The underwhelming experiece of coming out atheist
This was news for most people who know me, today. October 31, 2018 a facebook post started with the words "I'm an atheist."
Mileage will vary.
I reckon families are going to be different on this, but my family are repressed and conservative and uncommunicative at the best of times, and nothing will change that now. I will no longer darken the door of their church, but do I fear a lynch mob? No. That said, maybe there are a few facebook posts of CS Lewis quotes from people I knew in my (church) school that are aimed at me by who are now too distant to comment, but in the sincerity and goodness of their hearts think that I might be confronted with their truth and repent. That's a big and common assumption: that the non-believer doesn't understand. It's not easy to think someone who disagrees with any view we hold, especially things as personal as religious views, has rejected it and fully understands it. If we see the other side as reasonable, then we can't treat them as an opponent quite so easily.
I didn't really ever fear a lynch mob -- not from my family who, as I said, aren't great at communicating at the best of times. (Maybe that's worse. People who are open and real - positive or negative - you know where you stand with them.) Still there's undeniably much tension. The fear prior to saying "I'm a non-believer, and I'm no longer part of the church" is overwhelming even though I knew there might not be any immediate tangible consequence. It's extraordinary hard to push through that, but truly, motivating quotes on Instagram or Pinterest can go a long way to convincing you that the plunge has to be taken at some point. Regardless of the lack of a proper confrontation, something changes in families I these moments. At a funeral -- and my grandmother in her 90s is growing ever more frail -- I won't be able to say "she's gone to be with the Lord". At a wedding I can't agree with the sentiment that a deity is going to "bless this union". And so there's this chasm, this unending tension between the people who think a supernatural being is listening to them when they mechanically say a prayer before a meal, and those who keep silent. And no one talks about it. It's uncomfortable.
There's a lot of good YouTubers and resources that atheists can use to point to religious believers and say "look! you're misunderstanding me! listen to this explanation of how you've got me all wrong!" but in my case... no one is going to talk about it. One conversation is enough to suggest that Stephen is too reliant on human understanding (wait... is there an alternative?) and can't be talked to, so that's that. And really, I'd love it if more people would ask good questions of what my reasons are, but they won't. Actually listening to the other side is not a religious trait. That's the hope and encouragement I'd give to many closeted non-believers. Look, religious friends and family might not prod you much about your loss of faith at all. They'll make assumption that y'all just wanna sin, or that you never really believed, and keep it to themselves. Wanting to understand you is not part of the deal. The Bible already tells them "the fool says in his heart there is no God" and to see you (or me) as not a fool means giving up the belief in the accuracy of the Bible. Psalm 10:4; Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53:1, Psalm 74:18 etc. Look those charming verses up if you want to be told you're wicked and foolish. And the opposite is Proverbs 3:5-6. Look that up if you want to be told that you shouldn't think for yourself. Which is obviously not foolish at all.
Mileage will vary.
I reckon families are going to be different on this, but my family are repressed and conservative and uncommunicative at the best of times, and nothing will change that now. I will no longer darken the door of their church, but do I fear a lynch mob? No. That said, maybe there are a few facebook posts of CS Lewis quotes from people I knew in my (church) school that are aimed at me by who are now too distant to comment, but in the sincerity and goodness of their hearts think that I might be confronted with their truth and repent. That's a big and common assumption: that the non-believer doesn't understand. It's not easy to think someone who disagrees with any view we hold, especially things as personal as religious views, has rejected it and fully understands it. If we see the other side as reasonable, then we can't treat them as an opponent quite so easily.
I didn't really ever fear a lynch mob -- not from my family who, as I said, aren't great at communicating at the best of times. (Maybe that's worse. People who are open and real - positive or negative - you know where you stand with them.) Still there's undeniably much tension. The fear prior to saying "I'm a non-believer, and I'm no longer part of the church" is overwhelming even though I knew there might not be any immediate tangible consequence. It's extraordinary hard to push through that, but truly, motivating quotes on Instagram or Pinterest can go a long way to convincing you that the plunge has to be taken at some point. Regardless of the lack of a proper confrontation, something changes in families I these moments. At a funeral -- and my grandmother in her 90s is growing ever more frail -- I won't be able to say "she's gone to be with the Lord". At a wedding I can't agree with the sentiment that a deity is going to "bless this union". And so there's this chasm, this unending tension between the people who think a supernatural being is listening to them when they mechanically say a prayer before a meal, and those who keep silent. And no one talks about it. It's uncomfortable.
There's a lot of good YouTubers and resources that atheists can use to point to religious believers and say "look! you're misunderstanding me! listen to this explanation of how you've got me all wrong!" but in my case... no one is going to talk about it. One conversation is enough to suggest that Stephen is too reliant on human understanding (wait... is there an alternative?) and can't be talked to, so that's that. And really, I'd love it if more people would ask good questions of what my reasons are, but they won't. Actually listening to the other side is not a religious trait. That's the hope and encouragement I'd give to many closeted non-believers. Look, religious friends and family might not prod you much about your loss of faith at all. They'll make assumption that y'all just wanna sin, or that you never really believed, and keep it to themselves. Wanting to understand you is not part of the deal. The Bible already tells them "the fool says in his heart there is no God" and to see you (or me) as not a fool means giving up the belief in the accuracy of the Bible. Psalm 10:4; Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53:1, Psalm 74:18 etc. Look those charming verses up if you want to be told you're wicked and foolish. And the opposite is Proverbs 3:5-6. Look that up if you want to be told that you shouldn't think for yourself. Which is obviously not foolish at all.
Monday, 5 February 2018
Burden of proof
I'm going to respond to a claim made in this:
http://triablogue.blogspot.co.za/2018/02/suppose-all-protestants-thought-alike.html
So give us that evidence. How did you arrive at the conclusion Christianity was right. Perhaps it'll be convincing, perhaps you'll reach into the bag and grab another reason. But it's not for atheists to have to justify non-belief.
http://triablogue.blogspot.co.za/2018/02/suppose-all-protestants-thought-alike.html
To take a comparison, consider a typical debate with a village atheist. They lead with a particular reason for rejecting Christianity. If you shoot down their stated reason, it doesn't faze them at all. They just reach into the bag for another reason. You can go down the list, and it makes no difference.No. The village atheist has no burden of proof. All he needs do is say "convince me". Square one must be non-belief. That's the default. We don't need to give reasons for rejecting Christianity. That's not a belief that stands "until it can be proved wrong", it's a belief that can only exist in the first place if it can be proved right.
So give us that evidence. How did you arrive at the conclusion Christianity was right. Perhaps it'll be convincing, perhaps you'll reach into the bag and grab another reason. But it's not for atheists to have to justify non-belief.
Two (or more) Ways to Live
Sigh. Two Ways to Live (or 2wtl if you're fashionable) is doing the rounds in churches here in 2018. A quick google search brings one to the website, which seems to date to 2003.
Fallacy #1 is obvious, this is a false dilemma. Just ask a Muslim, or Mormon, or Buddhist if the two ways presented by Matthias Media, and Christians generally, are the only two ways. So for someone to believe this, to fall for the false dilemma, they basically have to already believe quite a lot of specifically Christian theology. So there's good old circular reasoning too.
In my google search, I went to "images" and one of them was totally brilliant in it's lack of self-awareness and irony. It had two little pictures, for living my way or God's way, and the text on the side says "Select by tapping one of the pictures. Or perhaps you feel you need more information before you can decide." It's hard not to laugh. More information? No kidding someone ought to ask for more information! Reason and evidence would be great. I'd love to know how many would tap "my way" just to see what judgmental Bible verse they have to scare you with. It's never okay to present two options as if they are the only two options when they're not. Why isn't there a picture to tap for "I'm not convinced you've met the burden of proof a God exists, let alone your specific God"?
-----
Fallacy #2 is closely related. The fallacy of presumption. Even within the dichotomy presented, which shouldn't be a dichotomy, there's obfuscation. The options are merely 1.) live my way - rejecting God, waving my rebellious fist in his face! or 2.) live God's way. So even when you don't live God's way, it's still framed as believing God exists but not wanting God to "control our lives". That's a loaded question.
The whole Two Ways to Live could be captured in the question, "have you rebelled against God?" This is like the question often used to illustrate the fallacy, "have you stopped beating your wife?" It's a yes / no question, providing only two options. The question presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as presupposing that you have a wife. If you have no wife, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded. The Two Ways to Live presentation is likewise a loaded question for presupposing a god exists, that it's the Christian god, and that you believe in it. Whether the unlucky person evangelized by 2WTL chooses "my way" or "God's way", implicit in either answer is belief in God and the accuracy and reliability of the Bible. Those things need to be proved first.
Also look at the glaring assumption of a "loving creator God". This is intellectual dishonesty at it's worst. The creation story in Genesis 1 is just describing the various components on the commonly held, not divinely revealed, "snow globe" cosmology. The waters above and the waters below? The firmament? The stars in the firmament? The fact a few days passed before the sun was created? There are unmissable clues that this isn't describing reality. Two Ways to Live falls at the first hurdle with the assumptions it makes. There's nothing special about Genesis 1 among the hundreds of creation myths we know about. Maybe the loving creator god is Aztec? Their myth is no worse. The Jewish view of the cosmology is no different from other cultures. There's no sign it's divinely inspired. Christians need firmer foundations for an evangelizing presentation that wants to rearrange someone else's life.
-----
Some false dilemmas are not as problematic. But this one is. In some churches, Christians are learning this Two Ways to Live by rote as an evangelizing tool. Somewhere, someone will be put on the spot with the expectation they'll change their whole life (because why would you choose eternal damnation?). This appalls me. Christianity ought to love honesty, but it doesn't. Christians: be ashamed of evangelizing with Two Ways to Live, and stay away from intellectual dishonesty in general. Pretty please.
The message at the heart of Christianity is really quite simple -- simple enough to be outlined in a few pages. It is a message from the Bible about God and his son, Jesus. It is about life and death, and the choice that we all face.
And it all starts with a loving creator God...
Fallacy #1 is obvious, this is a false dilemma. Just ask a Muslim, or Mormon, or Buddhist if the two ways presented by Matthias Media, and Christians generally, are the only two ways. So for someone to believe this, to fall for the false dilemma, they basically have to already believe quite a lot of specifically Christian theology. So there's good old circular reasoning too.
In my google search, I went to "images" and one of them was totally brilliant in it's lack of self-awareness and irony. It had two little pictures, for living my way or God's way, and the text on the side says "Select by tapping one of the pictures. Or perhaps you feel you need more information before you can decide." It's hard not to laugh. More information? No kidding someone ought to ask for more information! Reason and evidence would be great. I'd love to know how many would tap "my way" just to see what judgmental Bible verse they have to scare you with. It's never okay to present two options as if they are the only two options when they're not. Why isn't there a picture to tap for "I'm not convinced you've met the burden of proof a God exists, let alone your specific God"?
-----
Fallacy #2 is closely related. The fallacy of presumption. Even within the dichotomy presented, which shouldn't be a dichotomy, there's obfuscation. The options are merely 1.) live my way - rejecting God, waving my rebellious fist in his face! or 2.) live God's way. So even when you don't live God's way, it's still framed as believing God exists but not wanting God to "control our lives". That's a loaded question.
The whole Two Ways to Live could be captured in the question, "have you rebelled against God?" This is like the question often used to illustrate the fallacy, "have you stopped beating your wife?" It's a yes / no question, providing only two options. The question presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as presupposing that you have a wife. If you have no wife, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded. The Two Ways to Live presentation is likewise a loaded question for presupposing a god exists, that it's the Christian god, and that you believe in it. Whether the unlucky person evangelized by 2WTL chooses "my way" or "God's way", implicit in either answer is belief in God and the accuracy and reliability of the Bible. Those things need to be proved first.
Also look at the glaring assumption of a "loving creator God". This is intellectual dishonesty at it's worst. The creation story in Genesis 1 is just describing the various components on the commonly held, not divinely revealed, "snow globe" cosmology. The waters above and the waters below? The firmament? The stars in the firmament? The fact a few days passed before the sun was created? There are unmissable clues that this isn't describing reality. Two Ways to Live falls at the first hurdle with the assumptions it makes. There's nothing special about Genesis 1 among the hundreds of creation myths we know about. Maybe the loving creator god is Aztec? Their myth is no worse. The Jewish view of the cosmology is no different from other cultures. There's no sign it's divinely inspired. Christians need firmer foundations for an evangelizing presentation that wants to rearrange someone else's life.
-----
Some false dilemmas are not as problematic. But this one is. In some churches, Christians are learning this Two Ways to Live by rote as an evangelizing tool. Somewhere, someone will be put on the spot with the expectation they'll change their whole life (because why would you choose eternal damnation?). This appalls me. Christianity ought to love honesty, but it doesn't. Christians: be ashamed of evangelizing with Two Ways to Live, and stay away from intellectual dishonesty in general. Pretty please.
Saturday, 3 February 2018
Another Mel Gibson Christ movie?
The first one was a big hit at the box office. There was scarcely a Christian who didn't pay to see something they already believed in -- it certainly didn't contain any new information. There's good ol' confirmation bias, the consumption of something vapid because we already knw what it'll say. And a feeling of validation. A big budget Hollywood production that treats a pet belief of many as real history will make Christians feel they're not swivel-eyed lunatics; that they belong; that they're part of mainstream culture. That same dynamic will apply second time around about the alleged resurrection. It's sad because it'll be a thought terminating device. The cultural validation these films give Christians acts as a way to stave off doing any textual criticism. It'll definitely make money.
There are obviously contradictions in the resurrection stories. Other people have covered that well enough:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/04/contradictions-in-the-resurrection-account-2/
So we must wait with some curiosity to see which way the film leans on these contradictions. If it were me, I'd have second thoughts about making the resurrection seem like historical fact when it's more reasonable to conclude it isn't. Surely in trying to write a coherent script someone is going to lose their faith? Can we hope?
There are obviously contradictions in the resurrection stories. Other people have covered that well enough:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/04/contradictions-in-the-resurrection-account-2/
So we must wait with some curiosity to see which way the film leans on these contradictions. If it were me, I'd have second thoughts about making the resurrection seem like historical fact when it's more reasonable to conclude it isn't. Surely in trying to write a coherent script someone is going to lose their faith? Can we hope?
Thursday, 1 February 2018
Off-topic Thursday #1
Yes, that's a Sims house. Yes, I built it. It has suffered though many renovations, and looks fairly interesting now. It's quite the departure from worrying about intellectual honesty in religion and etiological myths in the Bible. (I completely apologize to the one reader who didn't see this coming.)
Inescapably, the houses people build are going to be a reflection of their personality. That's the psychologically interesting part. I'm wondering to myself if some apologists would build an imaginary pixel Noah's Ark. I wonder if even in-game they'd never send the kids to school lest they learn about actual science, or never take medicine because of a Big Pharma conspiracy. My guess is that a lot of the psychological baggage we have in the real world carries over into an imaginary one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)