Vocal atheists often get accused of being "blissfully ignorant" of sophisticated arguments for God's existence . These arguments, we are told, put religious belief on a sound rational footing. However, we are never told exactly what these sophisticated arguments are.
A while back I did a couple of blogs (here and here on these "sophisticated" arguments as outlined in an article by evangelical apologist William Lane Craig. I did not think too much of them.
I had intended to do a few more blogs on them to finish with the arguments that he presented. However, Craig's article gave the minimal backbone of the argument. I was afraid that perhaps I could not grasp the subtility of the arguments from that bare description. So I have since read several books on Christian apologetics and theology. These books have caused me to change my mind.
As I read these books I found myself getting surprisingly angry. I had to stop and try and figure out exactly why that was. The arguments were much WORSE than I thought they were. But was that any reason to get angry about it? I was trained as a scientist. In science, as Nobel-prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman noted, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
We are taught that if we get a result too much to our liking then we are obligated to double-, triple-, and possibly quadruple-check to make sure that it is correct. And THAT is when the results are to our liking. What about when the results aren't to our liking? Then unless there is an obvious error or the results don't make any sense whatsoever for or against our hypothesis, we are obligated to change our hypothesis ... no matter how cherished that hypothesis is. To us those are the rules of the game. They are necessary rules. They make it much less likely that we will go off track and if we happen to already be off track, more likely that we will get back on it without going so far afield that the track is lost forever.
The reason I was getting angry was because these "sophisticated" arguments don't play by the rules. The "sophistication" that lay within these arguments, in fact, seemed to guaranteed that one will fool himself; one will go off-track; one will go so far afield that the track is lost forever.
OK, so the arguments were bad. But perhaps it doesn't matter. Perhaps Christianity is a belief that gives some people solace and others direction in life and does minimal harm otherwise. As I read these books I became more and more convinced that this is not the case. While undoubtedly Christianity does give some people comfort and some people DO find motivation to improve their lives from it, real harm is being done as well. There are real problems that we face in this world and having such an erroneous belief is preventing us from solving them and in some cases causing them.
So instead of doing a few more blogs to cover Craig's list of arguments, I hope do an extended series of blogs dedicated to analyzing the rational basis for Christianity. I hope to average about one a week. That way I can take the time to continue reading and still give an in-depth analysis on all major arguments. It is my goal to make all these arguments understandable. It is only by doing that I have a chance of demonstrating the vacuity of arguments that many readers are likely to passionately want to be true. It is also the only way to substantiate my assertion that Christianity is doing real harm by leading us so far off-track.
Cheers,
DB
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I've nothing to add for now, but I do want to keep an eye on this thread.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I hope to average about one a week. That way I can take the time to continue reading and still give an in-depth analysis on all major arguments.
One a week!? Geeze. With work, and all the research and writing I have with just 2 of my classes, and going to classes, I'll be lucky if I have time to read blogs once a week.
Good luck! I look forward to reading them. :-)
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
... that can achieved with little effort?
I hope to average about one a week. That way I can take the time to continue reading and still give an in-depth analysis on all major arguments.
One a week!? Geeze. With work, and all the research and writing I have with just 2 of my classes, and going to classes, I'll be lucky if I have time to read blogs once a week.
Good luck! I look forward to reading them. :-)
It is a goal. I hope to achieve it.
Thanks,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Ditto Blackout
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Josh McDowell's 'Evidence for Christianity' seemed to cover all the bases - I recommend that one if you haven't seen it already. Its shiny, new, and fat like a telephone book full of flimsy logic and sleight of mind. I understand why you're pissed, and I feel that. Have at em!
Josh McDowell's 'Evidence for Christianity' seemed to cover all the bases - I recommend that one if you haven't seen it already. Its shiny, new, and fat like a telephone book full of flimsy logic and sleight of mind. I understand why you're pissed, and I feel that. Have at em!
I have read McDowell's EVIDENCE THAT DEMAND A VERDICT. That was quite a while ago. I thought it too ridiculous to respond to at the time. I don't plan to use him much at all (although I will discuss the LORD, LIAR, LUNATIC TRILEMMA, but that was originated by CS Lewis and amplified by Peter Kreeft) since not that many people use McDowell as an example of the sophisticated arguments for Christianity and I don't want to go out and buy his book again.
I plan to use the arguments of people like Lewis, Kreeft, Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, and others whom ARE given credit as being proponents of these sophisticated arguments. But I may also delve into the cesspool of arguments given by Lee Strobel (since I do own one of his books and he does reference some prominent evangelical scholars). I suspect I will also be forced to address some of the classical arguments by Aquinas and Augustine as well.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Your argument seems to be based on the premise that something must be rationalized and logical to be right or true, but somethings in life are better looked at differently. Love is irrational. Trusting can be illogical. Telling the truth isn't always rational. Sharing your writing with strangers who are likely to disagree is illogical. But most people would agree that at least some of these irrational, illogical things have their place, and are right/true things to do at least some of the time.
"Live above money; put your heart in front of you and follow it."
Unknown
Your argument seems to be based on the premise that something must be rationalized and logical to be right or true, but somethings in life are better looked at differently. Love is irrational. Trusting can be illogical. Telling the truth isn't always rational. Sharing your writing with strangers who are likely to disagree is illogical. But most people would agree that at least some of these irrational, illogical things have their place, and are right/true things to do at least some of the time.
(1) It is VERY RATIONAL to love. One is unlikely to receive love without giving it. A person who loves and receives love does better than a person who doesn't.
(2) So long as you have reason to trust, there is nothing illogical about it.
(3) I hope my writing expresses views that challenge a person's core beliefs. That is a good thing. There is nothing illogical about it.
(4) Telling the truth is ALMOST always rational. Only under very special conditions is it rational to lie.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Rationality is, among other things, a framework that helps you judge probabilities and optimal solutions. Under certain conditions (love, trust, belief, etc) its best advice may be to use intuition. But without the rational framework, what stops you from making terrible decisions when intuition fails (as it frequently does in love, trust, and belief)? How can people with mutually exclusive intuitions learn what's true? How can an individual with mutually exclusive intuitions (i.e. any human being) learn what's true? Rationality equals the set of reliable truthseeking methods, and in that sense it does equal truth.
Beagle seems concerned with people who misunderstand how rationality works, reach absurd conclusions, and try to persuade the public.
Having been the target of the passion (anger) that you bring to this subject I find your insight here encouraging.
Self examination may help reveal the source of that anger, though outside analysis is often the only way. It is difficult if not impossible for most of us to find our own favorite faults. You should continue to look when you feel this anger. The cop-out is to blame the person/idea that angers you for your own irrational emotionality.
Love the truth.
What source are you going to use to argue against Christianity? I suppose Jesus himself would be asking too much?
"Every happening, great and small, is a parable whereby God speaks to us, and the art of life is to get the message."
Malcolm Muggeridge
Having been the target of the passion (anger) that you bring to this subject I find your insight here encouraging.
I was wondering how long it would take you to put in your inane comments. You should perhaps do some introspection of your own. Ask yourself why it is that people get angry at you. Ask yourself why it is that when they specifically tell you, ... it is because of your dishonest argumentation; you go off on tangents; you intentionally misrepresent what is said; and you ignore criticisms of your response ... that you make no mention of it here.
Self examination may help reveal the source of that anger, though outside analysis is often the only way. It is difficult if not impossible for most of us to find our own favorite faults. You should continue to look when you feel this anger. The cop-out is to blame the person/idea that angers you for your own irrational emotionality.
Everyone is responsible for ones own actions. But anger is an emotion that has evolved for a purpose. There is nothing wrong in expressing that too.
Love the truth.
Boom! There goes another irony meter.
What source are you going to use to argue against Christianity? I suppose Jesus himself would be asking too much?
There are going to be numerous blogs on this subject. I'll try and cover everything. Jesus cannot be used as a source since he is dead and not saying anything. If you mean the teachings of Jesus, then perhaps you could do a blog and tell us exactly what those are. I'll be willing to bet that you wont come up with much of anything that people agree on. I plan to show why that is.
Cheers,
DB
"Every happening, great and small, is a parable whereby God speaks to us, and the art of life is to get the message."
Malcolm Muggeridge
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"But anger is an emotion that has evolved for a purpose."
Was that purpose to allow us to think more clearly?
---
"I'll try and cover everything. Jesus cannot be used as a source since he is dead and not saying anything."
The live sources of Christianity are only able to offer their own personal opinions on what Jesus meant. Even when those become institutionalized by a really really big church they are not Christianity.
---
"If you mean the teachings of Jesus, then perhaps you could do a blog and tell us exactly what those are."
About half of my blogs are exactly that. Though they are also just my understanding of those teachings.
---
I suffered from anger on a few subjects myself as a young man. Like you I often misdirected it toward individuals. Strangely, or not, I was also an atheist at the time.
I found this mantra to be helpful:
"If you are mad, you’re wrong."
Why that is so...would make a nice blog, I'll work on it.