WHAT claim do theists actually make?

[EGarrett]

I noticed that debates with modern "Christians" (and 'spiritual people' in general) where someone quotes the bible or otherwise tries to show contradictions within their claims always end up going nowhere and actually cause the atheist to end up not looking very strong, in my opinion. If you search youtube and watch debates where the atheist tries this tactic, it never seems to work that well.

I recently came to the conclusion that it happens because these people don't actually make any claims. At all. None. Not a single one.

They say they believe there is something that exists which is all-powerful and all-knowing and which created the universe. When challenged on each of these, they will end up saying that it doesn't express its knowledge or power in a recognizable way, it exists in a "supernatural" manner that we can't distinguish from non-existence, and it created the universe at the exact point we currently cannot investigate. The bible they will dismiss as an imperfect interpretation (and with various cliches about gradually getting bronze age man off of sin), and ultimately, "God" works in mysterious ways.

Thus, the only method of debating a Christian that makes progress towards understanding (in them or in others), is in using analogies, explanations of science, and the call for evidence. Going within their claims ends up being a waste of time because they make no claims whatsoever. But if you're aware of one let me know.

[Darat]

...snip...

But if you are aware of a single thing they actually claim, please let me know.

I think it depends on what they label themselves. For example, someone who states they are a Roman Catholic is saying they believe in claims made in the Nicene Creed (and indeed this is true for most of the major denominations of Christianity).

[Marduk]

But if you are aware of a single thing they actually claim, please let me know.

they never say it, but I always get the impression that they think faith makes for a better person
;)

[bokonon]

I think most of them claim something along the lines that Jesus died to pay for your sins, and if you believe this before you die it will help you after you die.

ETA: "Them" being the Christians of the OP, a subset of the theists of the topic.

[JoeyDonuts]

What do theists claim?

God only knows.


:duck:

[Marduk]

I think most of them claim something along the lines that Jesus died to pay for your sins, and if you believe this before you die it will help you after you die.

ETA: "Them" being the Christians of the OP, a subset of the theists of the topic.

I have always responded, well he can give them back then, I enjoy them
:D

[EGarrett]

Note: I edited the original post several times to try to cut it down and make it more clear. I don't know if I succeeded.

I think most of them claim something along the lines that Jesus died to pay for your sins, and if you believe this before you die it will help you after you die.

ETA: "Them" being the Christians of the OP, a subset of the theists of the topic.Okay, so that would be "There was a man who lived about 2000 years ago named Jesus. Who was crucified, and there was a supernatural being that used this event to remove some other thing called sin from all of our lives."

I think we can agree (?) that the supernatural being can't be investigated. So what about the first statement? Is that something that can be investigated? When Christopher Hitchens argued this topic with Dinesh D'Souza, Dinesh replied only by pointing out that Socrates' existence couldn't be investigated either, which is just acknowledging that his Jesus claim wasn't actually something that could be challenged or investigated. Matt Slick used similar tactics when he debated the girl from the Rational Response Squad about the historicity of Jesus. So I'm not sure that "there was a man called Jesus who died" is actually something that can be challenged or investigated. I would thus hold that this isn't a usable claim for debating them either. It is an assertion though that a lot of them make. But if it can't be investigated I personally wouldn't count it as a claim.

[X]

Most theists simply claim they believe in a god.
And that Jesus was either the son of god, or else had a certain philosophical insight.
Generally, it's a personal thing to them. Not something to be pushed on others.

Some Christians claim the Earth is 6,00 years old, the rapture is due any minute now, and us heathens are all going to hell.
But although they may be vocal, they are uncommon.

[MG1962]

Most theists simply claim they believe in a god.
And that Jesus was either the son of god, or else had a certain philosophical insight.
Generally, it's a personal thing to them. Not something to be pushed on others.

Some Christians claim the Earth is 6,00 years old, the rapture is due any minute now, and us heathens are all going to hell.
But although they may be vocal, they are uncommon.

Thats a very good summing up.

[Marduk]

Some Christians claim the Earth is 6,00 years old, the rapture is due any minute now, and us heathens are all going to hell.

blimey, and I thought fundementalists were nuts claiming it was 6000 years old, I had no idea there were fundementalist fundementals as well who think its just 600

remember people, you can't spell fundementalist without also spelling mentalist (you americans might not get this, apparently the word mentalist has good overtones where you are)
:D

[Matt the Poet]

Most theists simply claim they believe in a god.
Well, no this is my problem with the whole ‘minimal theist’ thing. What’s implied in their ‘belief that there is a God’, regardless of how vaguely they define the term, is that it’s worth expending mental effort on that belief – that the existence of god matters in some way. I’ve never debated a theist who can tell me why I should care at all without overstepping their own boundaries and revealing that for all their careful neutrality they secretly think that their god has some sort of meaningful human property, or at the very least that it somehow cares about what we do and wants us to behave in a particular manner.

[And that Jesus was either the son of god, or else had a certain philosophical insight.

That's not theism. That's straight-up Christianity.

[EGarrett]

Well, no this is my problem with the whole ‘minimal theist’ thing. What’s implied in their ‘belief that there is a God’, regardless of how vaguely they define the term, is that it’s worth expending mental effort on that belief – that the existence of god matters in some way. I’ve never debated a theist who can tell me why I should care at all without overstepping their own boundaries and revealing that for all their careful neutrality they secretly think that their god has some sort of meaningful human property, or at the very least that it somehow cares about what we do and wants us to behave in a particular manner.Very good points. They also believe that there being a God implies that they'll live forever, which I think is a key element of it also. And as you said, I have no idea why the universe having a creator means that their consciousness won't shut off when their brain stops working. If you think about that, it's really an absurd non-sequitur.

That's not theism. That's straight-up Christianity.In fairness, I did mainly referencing modern Christians in the OP.

[HansMustermann]

I recently came to the conclusion that it happens because these people don't actually make any claims. At all. None. Not a single one.

IMHO it depends:

1. Some do, some don't. E.g., a militant fundie is a whole different beast than the average christian who hasn't even read his bible, and just vaguely knows that some guy got crucified. (Heck, I've even seen deists, some of which don't even actually really believe in Christ, still label themselves as christians because that's what mommy and daddy taught them they are.)

And even among the fundies, there are IIRC well over 1000 sects.

And then there are a lot who think they're in one sect, because that's the sunday club they go to with their neighbours, although their beliefs fall squarely in a whole other. E.g., a _lot_ of self proclaimed catholics or even protestants, actually have beliefs closer to Pellagianism or Arianism.

Basically don't expect _everyone_ to believe the same claim. Yes, even if you address a claim that person X actually made, persons Y and Z may call themselves christians too and dispute it nevetheless.

2. You have to distinguish between "core claims", so to speak, things which actually mean anything to someone, and claims they make just to hear themselves arguing that their religion is true. The latter are a lot more vollatile and maleable.

Most claims are actually the latter. For most people it doesn't as much matter exactly what does the bible say, as that they want to cling to the promise that they'll live after death. The focus isn't on "claims X, Y and Z are true" but rather on "my religion has to be right, because I'm scared of death otherwise." So even if you manage to demolish one claim, they'll just regroup around another, often even around your opposite interpretation, as what the bible really says. Just because the bible has to be right.

3. A lot aren't as much permanent claims, as transient, disposable _rationalizations_. Big difference. They only exist for a purpose, and the completely opposite claim might be rationalized for a different purpose.

E.g., the same guy who believes that God will surely forgive him for taking it up the rear end, and that it was only the Devil tempting him that way... might believe that his neighbour will burn in hell for just thinking about it. Different conclusion to be reached, so the biblical rationalization changes accordingly.

4. And the square root of the first 3 points is this: any major religion is as malleable and meaningless by itself as Play Doh. Enough rationalizations can be found in the Bible (or the Quran, or the teachings of Buddha, or the Tao Te Ching, or whatever) for _anything_ you might want to rationalize. That's the beauty of it, really.

[sphenisc]

It's simply a lack of belief in the non-existence of God.

[EGarrett]

IMHO it depends:

1. Some do, some don't. E.g., a militant fundie is a whole different beast than the average christian who hasn't even read his bible, and just vaguely knows that some guy got crucified. (Heck, I've even seen deists, some of which don't even actually really believe in Christ, still label themselves as christians because that's what mommy and daddy taught them they are.)

And even among the fundies, there are IIRC well over 1000 sects.

And then there are a lot who think they're in one sect, because that's the sunday club they go to with their neighbours, although their beliefs fall squarely in a whole other. E.g., a _lot_ of self proclaimed catholics or even protestants, actually have beliefs closer to Pellagianism or Arianism.Understood...the word "theists" is very broad, and there surely are some more rabid theists who do make claims that fall apart quickly. I do think though that even if we talked to the more fundamentalist religious people and debated them (Hovind, the Rabbi's that debated Hitchens and Sam Harris), they end up not making any claims either. The Rabbi that debated Harris (pretty certain his name was Wolpe) even outright said after being challenged that he wasn't making any "scientific" claims.

I think the most fundamentalist religious people who do believe actual claims won't debate anyway.

2. You have to distinguish between "core claims", so to speak, things which actually mean anything to someone, and claims they make just to hear themselves arguing that their religion is true. The latter are a lot more vollatile and maleable.That is what I'm trying to find, what their core claims are. Something that they do actually believe to be true and which is distinguishable from not being true.

Most claims are actually the latter. For most people it doesn't as much matter exactly what does the bible say, as that they want to cling to the promise that they'll live after death. The focus isn't on "claims X, Y and Z are true" but rather on "my religion has to be right, because I'm scared of death otherwise." So even if you manage to demolish one claim, they'll just regroup around another, often even around your opposite interpretation, as what the bible really says. Just because the bible has to be right.Agreed. It's wishful thinking. Fear of death, nagging curiosity about the universe and fear of loss of morals are the driving force behind religions. The first is still a big factor, but the other two are a matter of progress and people bothering to read something about altruism or how societies develop.

3. A lot aren't as much permanent claims, as transient, disposable _rationalizations_. Big difference. They only exist for a purpose, and the completely opposite claim might be rationalized for a different purpose.

E.g., the same guy who believes that God will surely forgive him for taking it up the rear end, and that it was only the Devil tempting him that way... might believe that his neighbour will burn in hell for just thinking about it. Different conclusion to be reached, so the biblical rationalization changes accordingly.

4. And the square root of the first 3 points is this: any major religion is as malleable and meaningless by itself as Play Doh. Enough rationalizations can be found in the Bible (or the Quran, or the teachings of Buddha, or the Tao Te Ching, or whatever) for _anything_ you might want to rationalize. That's the beauty of it, really.Rationalizations is an excellent word. This also explains why very often theists are reduced to the pathetic and self-defeating task of trying to question and break down the very idea of reasoning (how do you even know for sure you're here?! it could all be an illusion) just so that they still hold onto their irrational teddy bear.

[Piscivore]

Very good points. They also believe that there being a God implies that they'll live forever, which I think is a key element of it also. And as you said, I have no idea why the universe having a creator means that their consciousness won't shut off when their brain stops working. If you think about that, it's really an absurd non-sequitur.

I think if you turn it around, you'll see that the universe having a creator provides an entity to explain why their consciousness won't shut off when their brain stops working.

[HansMustermann]

Understood...the word "theists" is very broad, and there surely are some more rabid theists who do make claims that fall apart quickly. I do think though that even if we talked to the more fundamentalist religious people and debated them (Hovind, the Rabbi's that debated Hitchens and Sam Harris), they end up not making any claims either. The Rabbi that debated Harris (pretty certain his name was Wolpe) even outright said after being challenged that he wasn't making any "scientific" claims.

Well, he wasn't even lying. No religion makes scientific claims, as in, testable, falsifiable, and subject to Occam's Razor.

Religion doesn't have cases which would falsify it. It has newly discovered mysteries, metaphors and the like.

That is what I'm trying to find, what their core claims are. Something that they do actually believe to be true and which is distinguishable from not being true.

Well, as long as per point 1 you realize that they'll be different for different people. IMHO that "minimal theism" is really the only intersection of the sets, and actually even that's debatable.

E.g., Einstein seems to have considered himself religious just for thinking that something bigger might, or might not, be behind the intricate rules of the universe. I.e., what we'd really call "agnostic" not "religious".

So, well, IMHO there just isn't one grand claim to demolish for everyone. You'd have to chase down everyone and nail their very own particular flavour of woowoo.

But then you probably realize that yourself anyway.

[godless dave]

I think it depends on what they label themselves. For example, someone who states they are a Roman Catholic is saying they believe in claims made in the Nicene Creed (and indeed this is true for most of the major denominations of Christianity).

You would think so, but that hasn't been my experience.

[The Nimble Pianist]

Most theists simply claim they believe in a god.
And that Jesus was either the son of god, or else had a certain philosophical insight.
Generally, it's a personal thing to them. Not something to be pushed on others.

Some Christians claim the Earth is 6,00 years old, the rapture is due any minute now, and us heathens are all going to hell.
But although they may be vocal, they are uncommon.

blimey, and I thought fundementalists were nuts claiming it was 6000 years old, I had no idea there were fundementalist fundementals as well who think its just 600

remember people, you can't spell fundementalist without also spelling mentalist (you americans might not get this, apparently the word mentalist has good overtones where you are)
:D

No, I think you misread.

6,00 was actually European numerical notation for 6.00. These Fundamentalist Fundamentalists believe the earth is exactly 6 years old.

[The Nimble Pianist]

To the OP.

I think you bring up a valid point about particular independent Christians that aren't bound by a particular creed of a particular denomination.

It's these free-agent Christians who essentially make it up as they go along, and improvise after you forward an argument.

[The Nimble Pianist]

You would think so, but that hasn't been my experience.

Hehe. I have a coworker who professes to be a "very devout Catholic" yet the other day she was telling me about the "avatars of God". "Jesus the Son is one avatar, one expression of the one God."

I told her that this sounded a lot like the Heresy of Modalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalism) anathematized by the Catholic Church by the Athanasian Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed).

[Darat]

You would think so, but that hasn't been my experience.

Unfortunately that's also been my experience.

To the OP.

I think you bring up a valid point about particular independent Christians that aren't bound by a particular creed of a particular denomination.

It's these free-agent Christians who essentially make it up as they go along, and improvise after you forward an argument.

I think you find that is quite widespread even amongst people who label themselves as being one of the more mainstream Christian denominations.

[Darat]

Hehe. I have a coworker who professes to be a "very devout Catholic" yet the other day she was telling me about the "avatars of God". "Jesus the Son is one avatar, one expression of the one God."

I told her that this sounded a lot like the Heresy of Modalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalism) anathematized by the Catholic Church by the Athanasian Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed).

Yep, that is exactly what I was meaning. :)

[The Nimble Pianist]

Yep, that is exactly what I was meaning. :)

I think the difference between the free-agent Christians and the ones bound by dogma is that the free-agents have much more wiggle room to back pedal.

My coworker might have been completely ignorant to what her church actually teaches, but once I pointed it out to her, she had no defense to her "being a very devout Catholic".

[Fiona]

Well for what little it is worth, I think you are in the wrong realm of discourse altogether.

[dirtywick]

That's not theism. That's straight-up Christianity.

I understand Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet.

[EGarrett]

I think if you turn it around, you'll see that the universe having a creator provides an entity to explain why their consciousness won't shut off when their brain stops working.Not really, no. I may build an ant farm, that doesn't mean that the ants go somewhere else when they die. They just die.

A "creator" does not automatically imply anything about life or death. You need to assume some sort of other intent for the creator (besides just putting together a science experiment). But that is not automatically there. To act as though there is with no justification is a complete non-sequitur.

Well, he wasn't even lying. No religion makes scientific claims, as in, testable, falsifiable, and subject to Occam's Razor.In that case, the answer to my original question would be "none."

Religion doesn't have cases which would falsify it. It has newly discovered mysteries, metaphors and the like.I don't see the logic or meaning behind this statement. How are you defining "religion?"

Well, as long as per point 1 you realize that they'll be different for different people. IMHO that "minimal theism" is really the only intersection of the sets, and actually even that's debatable.You say that there's a minimal theism that is the intersection of the various beliefs. Finding this "minimal theism" would answer my question. What belief does it consist of? I gave the best definition of one that I could come up with in the OP (there is a thing called god which is all-power blahblahblah) and showed how each of those things is reduced to nothingness by the believer when they're asked to back it up or clarify it.

E.g., Einstein seems to have considered himself religious just for thinking that something bigger might, or might not, be behind the intricate rules of the universe. I.e., what we'd really call "agnostic" not "religious".Please, no references to what Einstein or Hitler thought was true. Nothing is less interesting to me.

So, well, IMHO there just isn't one grand claim to demolish for everyone. You'd have to chase down everyone and nail their very own particular flavour of woowoo.

But then you probably realize that yourself anyway.As long as you acknowledge that there is no claim, then the question is answered.

[HansMustermann]

Please, no references to what Einstein or Hitler thought was true. Nothing is less interesting to me.

Except it wasn't as some appeal to authority, but merely as an example of someone who repeatedly called himself religious for being actually an agnostic. It's not as much "what Einstein thought was true" as just an example of how far someone can get from theism and still figure it's some kind of religion.

[HansMustermann]

In that case, the answer to my original question would be "none."

Pretty much.

I don't see the logic or meaning behind this statement. How are you defining "religion?"

As something that must be true, regardless of evidence or lack thereof. Once you've already decided that the Bible (or Quran, or Tao Te Ching, or Buddha's teachings, or whatever) is a priori true, then it follows naturally that it can't be disproven. If someone finds something that makes no sense, then the religion isn't discarded or ammended like a scientific theory would, but a paragraph just becomes a metaphor, or allegory, or "too big a mystery for mortal minds to comprehend", or whatever other get-out-of-jail card that wouldn't fly if it were science.

But I'm not as much talking about some logic contained in that paragraph, but of what historically happened. E.g., when reality or even the bible itself contradicted the official dogma, it wasn't taken as "man, this dogma is broken, we must change it to fit the data." It was just re-classified as a mystery too big for mortals to understand. E.g., trinitarianism.

You say that there's a minimal theism that is the intersection of the various beliefs. Finding this "minimal theism" would answer my question. What belief does it consist of? I gave the best definition of one that I could come up with in the OP (there is a thing called god which is all-power blahblahblah) and showed how each of those things is reduced to nothingness by the believer when they're asked to back it up or clarify it.

Pretty much just "there is something out there and there is some carrot and stick to be had depending on how you act." From there, it diverges massively even when it comes to _what_ is out there, and what the stick or carrot are. E.g., what a shintoist thinks is not the same thing that a christian thinks.

As long as you acknowledge that there is no claim, then the question is answered.

With the caveat that I was talking about "testable claim", yeah, pretty much.

[stamenflicker]

I've not been around for a stretch, but as a theist there are a few claims I'm willing to make as sort of launch pad for a bunch of assumptions. I'm trying to finish my book now (my other book, not the novel linked below).

Here's my starting point in the book:

---

“God” is real. This is an undeniable fact. The question should never be reduced to such intellectual mediocrity. Theologians and atheists alike must craft better questions if they hope to escape the realm of idiocy they currently occupy.

“God” is a real, but a real what? Here’s the better question; I see no reason to keep anyone in suspense. God is real, but what exactly is God? A person? An entity? A force? A concept? A misnomer? An assembly of alphabetical letters? A colorless green idea sleeping furiously? These questions must be addressed, and the methodology we employ to address them must be the focus of any debate.

“God” is a real idea. The theist must put aside any false hope of a different beginning point. There is no other place to begin if we wish to remain logical. On the grounds of whether or not “God” is a real idea, the atheist must make his stand.

We owe logic nothing. Of course, we don’t have to remain logical. We’ve taken no oath to logic. This isn’t the planet Vulcan and nobody’s put Mr. Spock in charge of the theology department. The atheist might presume some superiority of logic, but ultimately he cannot base the assumption that we should behave logically in anything of substance. The atheist must turn to the “idea” of logic to make his case, and that happens to be an assumption that I share with atheism; I do, however, reserve the right to be illogical provided that I can find a logical reason to cast logic aside. Skeptics need read no further than Lewis Carroll’s “What Achilles said to the Tortoise” to understand what I mean. Anyone too lazy or too daft to read the little two page short story should move on to some Gilligan’s Island re-runs.

We owe ourselves logic. Without Reason, we might as well pack up and go home—we cannot even begin to communicate with each other. I believe that if “God” is a real entity (not just an idea), then all bets are off; that’s quite a dangerous spot for the theists to occupy. In fact, we could argue “anything goes” if this “God” entity isn’t rational. The atheist is more than correct to demand it from us than he imagined; it is to our benefit as theists, as well as beneficial to our species that we respect logic for what it is—a really, really great idea, almost as great as the idea of God.

As theists, we are remiss to toss out terms like “human logic” verses “God’s logic.” In so doing, we muddy the discussion and should most likely just revert to discussing magic and invisible unicorns—both of which I reject on logical grounds (below). As theists and atheists alike we share one thing in common: logic becomes us. It is necessary and productive. We’ll use it up to the very edge of its usefulness after which, we must each individually decide how to proceed.

---

I follow up with two small sections in this chapter -- "The Apologist Takes Offense to the Platform" & "The Atheist Takes Offense to the Platform."

I'd be curious to read some responses here, but I'm not sure how much I can frequent back to respond. I don't have the kind of time I did a few years back.

[HansMustermann]

We owe logic nothing. Of course, we don’t have to remain logical. We’ve taken no oath to logic. This isn’t the planet Vulcan and nobody’s put Mr. Spock in charge of the theology department. The atheist might presume some superiority of logic, but ultimately he cannot base the assumption that we should behave logically in anything of substance. The atheist must turn to the “idea” of logic to make his case, and that happens to be an assumption that I share with atheism; I do, however, reserve the right to be illogical provided that I can find a logical reason to cast logic aside. Skeptics need read no further than Lewis Carroll’s “What Achilles said to the Tortoise” to understand what I mean. Anyone too lazy or too daft to read the little two page short story should move on to some Gilligan’s Island re-runs.

Which is one of the dumbest things I've read in ages.

Just because you refuse to believe in logic -- as the tortoise basically does there -- doesn't change reality. The triangle didn't cease to have two equal sides just because the tortoise refuses to believe in logic.

All that that story says is, basically, that you can't use logic to convince someone who doesn't believe in logic in the first place. If someone doesn't believe in the elementary inferrence, there is no way to use inferrence to convince him, and inferrence is pretty much all logic is about. Any attempt to explain the logic behind it, will necessarily contain an inferrence, which he doesn't accept just because it's an inferrence.

That's all the tortoise does, at every step: refuse to accept inferrence. E.g., ""Do I?" said the Tortoise innocently. "Let's make that quite clear. I accept A and B and C and D. Suppose I still refused to accept Z?""

It's not even a real problem of logic itself, and it's been treated before by for example Bertrand Russell, by making the distinction between implication and inferrence. The tortoise and Achiles both basically just have the sole problem of not being able to distinguish between the two.

You don't need to read Lewis Carroll to figure as much out. You just need to talk to a fundie.

At any rate, it doesn't say that there's anything wrong with logic itself, nor that there is any actual situation where logic doesn't apply. Again: that triangle still has two equal sides whether the tortoise accepts the inferrence or not.

So if you want to be illogical when it comes to your pet dogma, be my guest, but don't expect to be treated as anything else when you do than yet another dumbass who can't use logic. Up to you when you want to play the dumbass card, if at all, but that's the name of that card anyway.

[stamenflicker]

Which is one of the dumbest things I've read in ages.

Just because you refuse to believe in logic -- as the tortoise basically does there -- doesn't change reality. The triangle didn't cease to have two equal sides just because the tortoise refuses to believe in logic.

All that that story says is, basically, that you can't use logic to convince someone who doesn't believe in logic in the first place. If someone doesn't believe in the elementary inferrence, there is no way to use inferrence to convince him, and inferrence is pretty much all logic is about. Any attempt to explain the logic behind it, will necessarily contain an inferrence, which he doesn't accept just because it's an inferrence.

That's all the tortoise does, at every step: refuse to accept inferrence. E.g., ""Do I?" said the Tortoise innocently. "Let's make that quite clear. I accept A and B and C and D. Suppose I still refused to accept Z?""

It's not even a real problem of logic itself, and it's been treated before by for example Bertrand Russell, by making the distinction between implication and inferrence. The tortoise and Achiles both basically just have the sole problem of not being able to distinguish between the two.

You don't need to read Lewis Carroll to figure as much out. You just need to talk to a fundie.

At any rate, it doesn't say that there's anything wrong with logic itself, nor that there is any actual situation where logic doesn't apply. Again: that triangle still has two equal sides whether the tortoise accepts the inferrence or not.

So if you want to be illogical when it comes to your pet dogma, be my guest, but don't expect to be treated as anything else when you do than yet another dumbass who can't use logic. Up to you when you want to play the dumbass card, if at all, but that's the name of that card anyway.

Like I said, we owe logic nothing. We owe ourselves logic. It's a subtle difference, but I'm sure if you put your thinking cap on you'll get it.

And I read Russell's skirt of the Carroll issue. He fails, or better yet, he demonstrates all too well that logic is basically useless without us.

[HansMustermann]

Logic is just a tool, or better said a process or a method. Of course you don't owe it anything. Not any more than you owe anything to maths. And, like any process or method, it doesn't "need" anything whatsoever. It doesn't "need" you. If you apply it, you arrive at logical results, if not, well, woowoo land is full of people who thought they don't need to use logic.


I'm not sure what to make of your whole text, though. I'll assume unfortunate wording, for now, because otherwise it's a collection of non-sequiturs. E.g.,

- "logic is useless without us". Any process or method is "useless" if you don't apply it. But that's misleading. The method still works and the method is still useful. It's deciding not to use it that ends up "useless."

- "Of course, we don’t have to remain logical. We’ve taken no oath to logic." Suit yourself. Nobody will hunt you down for not using logic. It's not like it's a Masquerade violation or anything ;) But of course, that doesn't make lack of logic an equally valid path or anything.

That seems to me like some loaded rethoric at best. It sounds like some great act of fighting for freedom, but it's really just saying that you can choose to be an illogical dumbass if you want to. Which nobody denied.

- "The atheist might presume some superiority of logic, but ultimately he cannot base the assumption that we should behave logically in anything of substance."

More loaded words, like "presume some superiority". No we don't presume anything. Logic quite works. We've had some thousands of years to study all the ways in which you can connect some premises to a conclusion, and that's really the sum of the ways that work. We also had the same time to figure out the fallacies, i.e., ways that _don't_ work and we have the counter-examples for each of them.

As for the second part, that's a non-sequitur. Nobody says you _should_ act logically. You can run around with pencils up your nose and think it improves your drawing skills, for all we care. But logic does say if your conclusion follows from your premises. If it doesn't, that's it, don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

And again, spare me the BS sophistry of pretending you're some kind of rebel against someone telling you what to do. If you want to be a dumbass rather than use logic, be my guest. Of course, that doesn't mean anyone else should take your broken logic seriously, but that's just life.

- "The atheist must turn to the “idea” of logic to make his case"

Aaand more loaded words, like trying to present logic like just some other "idea". Again, logic is just the collection of what's known to work, and what's very well known and documented to not work. Theists seem to have some fondness of pretending that the latter collection is just some arbitrary "idea", some things that are just another way to make their case and arbitrarily discriminated against. Guess what? Fallacies still don't work, regardless of whether you believe that "idea" or not.

- "I do, however, reserve the right to be illogical provided that I can find a logical reason to cast logic aside"

Now this here doesn't even make sense. If you found a logical proof that logic doesn't work, that would be quite the news by itself. And if you don't believe in logic inferrence anyway, how would you infer that it's time to not use an inferrence? What reason would you have to trust the inferrence that you shouldn't use logic?

And so on, and so forth.

[EGarrett]

As something that must be true, regardless of evidence or lack thereof. Once you've already decided that the Bible (or Quran, or Tao Te Ching, or Buddha's teachings, or whatever) is a priori true, then it follows naturally that it can't be disproven. If someone finds something that makes no sense, then the religion isn't discarded or ammended like a scientific theory would, but a paragraph just becomes a metaphor, or allegory, or "too big a mystery for mortal minds to comprehend", or whatever other get-out-of-jail card that wouldn't fly if it were science.Ah, so by "newly discovered" you also mean "newly created." That's fine. But there are plenty of theists who do claim that their beliefs are based on evidence. I would be fine with us both agreeing that those people are really just mistaken or don't actually understand evidence.

Pretty much just "there is something out there and there is some carrot and stick to be had depending on how you act." From there, it diverges massively even when it comes to _what_ is out there, and what the stick or carrot are. E.g., what a shintoist thinks is not the same thing that a christian thinks.Fair enough, seems like a further illustration of things they say that turn out to not be claims.

With the caveat that I was talking about "testable claim", yeah, pretty much.I'm not sure that it is a claim if it's untestable or if there's no actual difference between it being true or not true.

[HansMustermann]

Ah, so by "newly discovered" you also mean "newly created." That's fine. But there are plenty of theists who do claim that their beliefs are based on evidence. I would be fine with us both agreeing that those people are really just mistaken or don't actually understand evidence.

Pretty much. Now maybe I would have phrased it more diplomatically than "don't actually understand evidence", but, yes, I'm not aware of any being up to the scientific standards of evidence. At worst it's circular logic like "God is true because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it's the word of God." And at best it's really some non-sequitur, like evidence of some city mentioned in the Bible, but it still leaves us rather unenlightened about the existence of a God.

I'm not sure that it is a claim if it's untestable or if there's no actual difference between it being true or not true.

Generally that's why it's not testable :p

[godless dave]

Stamenflicker, no one is talking about "behaving" logically. I don't think that's even a meaningful phrase. What I as a skeptic try to do is use logic to determine facts about reality. I have found it to be the only consistently reliable method of determining facts.

[stamenflicker]

Well logic can't really tell us anything about reality, our premises do that and logic tells us how good (or bad) those premises really are. But they don't say anything at all about what's real, which is the point.

And Hans, logic is just another idea. It happens to be a really, really good idea. But nothing more. It gets elevated above most other ideas because of its utility, because ideas can only be measured that way. So the more utility an idea has, the "better" it is. There's not too many other ways to measure ideas without appealing to Plato for self-justification, which is a break from logic.

[godless dave]

Well logic can't really tell us anything about reality, our premises do that and logic tells us how good (or bad) those premises really are.

Logic also allows us to reach conclusions based on those premises.

We learn how well those conclusions correlate with reality through experience.

[HansMustermann]

Well logic can't really tell us anything about reality, our premises do that and logic tells us how good (or bad) those premises really are. But they don't say anything at all about what's real, which is the point.

Again: logic tells you nothing about your premises. Ever. It is just the sum of the known valid ways to connect those premises to a conclusion.

Those premises may in turn be the conclusion to other premises and you can prove them that way.

A particular case of that is via an ad-absurdum. That only works because A => B is equivalent to !B => !A. So really it's just a formalized way of turning premises and a known false conclusion around.

And Hans, logic is just another idea. It happens to be a really, really good idea. But nothing more. It gets elevated above most other ideas because of its utility, because ideas can only be measured that way. So the more utility an idea has, the "better" it is. There's not too many other ways to measure ideas without appealing to Plato for self-justification, which is a break from logic.

It's an "idea" only in as much as walking is an "idea". Any attempt to connect some premises to a conclusion is logic, by any other name. The moment you went "p, therefore q", that's inferrence and is logic. It may be valid logic or it may be broken logic, but it's logic.

If you discovered a new way that's valid and indeed produces corrrect inferrences, it wouldn't be disproving logic, it would be an addition to logic. Same deal if you discovered that an existing way doesn't work as expected.

The only way to not use logic would be if, like the tortoise in that story, you deny the inferrence altogether. Which pretty much leaves you with nothing to connect any premise to any conclusion.

[scimystic]

I noticed that debates with modern "Christians" (and 'spiritual people' in general) where someone quotes the bible or otherwise tries to show contradictions within their claims always end up going nowhere and actually cause the atheist to end up not looking very strong, in my opinion. If you search youtube and watch debates where the atheist tries this tactic, it never seems to work that well.

I recently came to the conclusion that it happens because these people don't actually make any claims. At all. None. Not a single one.

They say they believe there is something that exists which is all-powerful and all-knowing and which created the universe. When challenged on each of these, they will end up saying that it doesn't express its knowledge or power in a recognizable way, it exists in a "supernatural" manner that we can't distinguish from non-existence, and it created the universe at the exact point we currently cannot investigate. The bible they will dismiss as an imperfect interpretation (and with various cliches about gradually getting bronze age man off of sin), and ultimately, "God" works in mysterious ways.

Thus, the only method of debating a Christian that makes progress towards understanding (in them or in others), is in using analogies, explanations of science, and the call for evidence. Going within their claims ends up being a waste of time because they make no claims whatsoever. But if you're aware of one let me know.


Hello EG,

I think that there is an effective way to debate theists, but that very few of us seem to understand or use it. I’ll try to lay it out in 3 simple steps.

1. Overcome the basic epistemological disconnect: Explain to your theist that as you don’t wish to waste his time or yours in a recap of the kind of pointless talking past each other that has characterized most debates between our two sides for the past several thousand years you would like to pre agree – before either side places any proposals whatsoever on the table – a functional selection procedure that you and he can both understand to be capable of separating knowledge from non-knowledge. From my own experience he will probably acquiesce to this, until he understands that you actually mean it. Your object is to get him either to finally accept on-demand-repeatable-physical-observation as the most basic qualification [for your common selection procedure or system] or to clearly state whatever basis he wishes to include as being strong enough to controvert o-d-r-p-o. He will try to drag all kinds of wooliness and obfuscation into the procedure. He will try for several different procedures, which he’ll typically frame as different ‘categories’ or ‘domains’ of knowledge, within which different rules must (of course) apply. And he will almost certainly want ‘truth’ as a special metaphysical property that can legitimately be put up against o-d-r-p-o. He will not be able to explain or define this property in any functional way. He will not be able to answer the question: ‘Exactly what would your sentence “X is true.” be saying about X’. But he will nonetheless want the property. You will need to shame him out of it. There are a great many ways of doing this. Essentially, of showing him and the debate audience that he is being intellectually dishonest in insisting on it. The most basic is though pointing out that it would entirely defeat what he has agreed to do. [You would not then have a functional selection procedure, but two potentially opposable ones]. As noted above, the more he realizes that you are serious (that you will not move forward until you have a functional procedure) the more he will be tempted to disengage. If he does then your object is to show him, and the debate audience, why he had to. That ultimately there is no coherent process or procedure through which theistic proposals can be selected as knowledge*. But let’s assume instead he has some intellectual chutzpa. He stays the course; you’ve now achieved a procedure that you can both see to be capable of clear selection, and are ready to move on.

2. Getting the proposals clearly on the table: He can lay out some theistic proposals that he would like to qualify as knowledge for you and the debate audience, or you can lay out some of your scientific proposals that you know to logically controvert the defining ones of his particular theism. It doesn’t really matter. If he is required to accept any of your controverting proposals at this level then his theistic ones are dead. To take Christianity as an example, the entire edifice of o-d-r-p-o based knowledge clearly rules out a 6,500 year old earth, staffs turning into snakes, water->wine conversion, reanimation after 3 days of death, and so on. And if the miracles are logically dismissed (if he must actually clearly admit that they didn’t happen) then he no longer has any basis for maintenance of their miraculous ontological implications (the whole business of Supernatural Being(s)). But let’s assume instead that you can get him to directly propose some of the defining tenets of his theism. The trick, as in establishment of the selection procedure, is to insist on their being made clear. “Are you proposing a big green God, or a little red God?”; “Does It have a Son?; Is It one Being, or three Being’s?; Did It in some sense write or dictate the Bible?” and so on. As in Step 1 (and well observed by you as this thread’s start) your theist will be very reluctant to go down this road. You will have to shame him along all the way. “We’re all here to seriously consider your theistic proposals, so we want to get them right. What, finally and clearly, would you have us believe”? Get them down on paper. Get him to sign the paper. Because once you start applying the functional selection procedure that you agreed in Step 1 to the irrational mess that he has coughed up you will see dazzling feats of prevarication and obfuscation. He will try to morph the proposals in all directions. He will use every rhetorical trick in the book. Anything to try and twist his proposals away from rejection through your agreed procedure.

3. Applying the knife to the cancer: We’ve already started this above. If you’ve properly executed the first two steps then this one will be the easiest; as our side has been developing powerful arguments to achieve it for thousands of years. The works of all of our heavy hitters, from Democritus and Epicurus up through Dawkins and Harris, will give you an embarrassment of ammunition**. Your theist will be used to being able to dodge and deflect this. But with both feet now nailed to the ground, through your first two steps, the blows will finally start to land. Don’t be gulled into taking pity. Be aware that you’re dealing with an ancient and powerful mind cancer, and that you almost certainly won’t succeed in excising it in one session. Do it as much damage as you can, by speaking clearly and honestly from reason in your mind directly to its counterpart in his, before his old brain levels (which have accreted throughout his life his heavy emotional investment in the proposals) can become fully aware of the threat to them and flood his whole brain with fear and anger chemicals to effectively terminate the dialog. Don’t feel that you’ve failed in not immediately achieving the ‘miracle’ of theistic to science/naturalistic conversion. A more realistic goal is to damage the cancer enough – in his mind and those of the debate audience – to where in at least some their own reason will be able to finish the cure.


*I can best clarify this by pasting an endnote from one of my main essay’s paragraphs:

We are here, from yet another angle, at my underlying point. We can see ourselves to have nothing but our perceptive and cognitive faculties through which to prefer the defining proposals of any irrational knowledge system (for example, Catholic Christianity) over those of any other (say, Scientology). But we cannot, through honest reference to these faculties, arrive at an irrational system. The honest question “What should we embrace as knowledge?” is a direct appeal to observation and observation grounded reason. We can understand these to be capable of yielding – through their apparent interaction with reality (ultimately, through their apparent constraint by reality) – a functional distinction between knowledge and non-knowledge. We cannot understand the dishonest question “What would we like to embrace as knowledge?” to be capable of any such distinction. Basically, we can find no coherent constraint on ‘what we would like’. [Que Annie Lennox; and 'Sweet Dreams are Made of This'.] Anything - and so, in the end, nothing - can be clearly selected.

Note: If you really want to try putting this ‘3 step’ into practice then I’d recommend that you check out my blogsite first, at (http://www.poppersinversion.blogspot.com ). But click on ‘my complete profile’ and try either or both of the shorter essays before plunging into ‘Truth?’

**For serious armor piercing capability I particularly recommend the arguments that you will find in George Smith’s classic ‘The Case Against God’, and in Martin and Monier’s more recent selection of essays ‘The Impossibility of God’. :)

[stamenflicker]

Again: logic tells you nothing about your premises. Ever. It is just the sum of the known valid ways to connect those premises to a conclusion.

Those premises may in turn be the conclusion to other premises and you can prove them that way.

I believe your mincing words, but even if you aren't Aristotle would disagree with you in that premises are statements generally held to be true, and logic is the method by which we demonstrate if they are indeed true, at least in deductive reasoning. Most logic problems arise from inconsistent premises, so to think that logic doesn't say anything about your premises seems either haphazardly worded on your part, or displays an ignorance of overall idea.

It's an "idea" only in as much as walking is an "idea". Any attempt to connect some premises to a conclusion is logic, by any other name. The moment you went "p, therefore q", that's inferrence and is logic. It may be valid logic or it may be broken logic, but it's logic.

By that 'logic' then 'logic' itself is a tautology. To say "I am either walking or I am not-walking" is pretty much the same thing as saying "I am either using valid logic or I am using broken logic." Pretty ubiquitous and a non-defining definition.

If you discovered a new way that's valid and indeed produces corrrect inferrences, it wouldn't be disproving logic, it would be an addition to logic. Same deal if you discovered that an existing way doesn't work as expected.

First of all, it's not about disproving logic. I don't think you'll find that anywhere in anything I've written. Carroll's contribution does indeed show us that logic breaks down when one rejects the inferrences of the argument. He didn't have to go that far really, he could have just as easily rejected the premises and there's no real cure for that disease. But even with valid premises and a tight argument, he shows that you can reject the set boundary itself and that logic need not apply for you to do so -- in fact it can't unless you want it to. Now granted it might seem a little silly in the case of somethng as seemingly tangible as triangle, but it is far from silly in the muddier cases of 'human' experience. But what Caroll does is demonstrate that logic belongs to us, we don't belong to it.

The only way to not use logic would be if, like the tortoise in that story, you deny the inferrence altogether. Which pretty much leaves you with nothing to connect any premise to any conclusion.

What the Tortoise has to do is believe he can make an inferrence, then make it. Of course he still could reserve the right to forgo his belief in the inferrence. He could do so by accepting triangles and in the very next argument he could reject the constitution of squares if he wanted. And Achilles could start the whole process over by saying he can't accept triangles without squares, and we're back to 'square' one.... pun intended. :)

The point being that logic can't tell him where he has to draw his inferrences or where he can opt out in part or in whole to the entire process. There are no logical lines of demarcation within logic itself, except where one chooses to draw them.

[HansMustermann]

Even skipping past the rest of the whole thing... you know, I'm actually ok with theists refusing to make inferrences. Just for comedy relief reasons.

Plus, it would be a refreshing change. Let's see them prove god by _refusing_ to make an inferrence, instead of by making a provably broken kind of inferrence. That'll be something new.

Because that's the usual problem: broken inferrence modes, which are known not to work, and for which there are thousands of counter-examples as to why they don't work. But which somehow are to be taken as correct logic in just that one case.

So, really, if you want to play the tortoise there and reject inferrence... go for it. I mean it.

[stamenflicker]

Don't fret Hans. Mr. Spock takes the con about as much any of the other characters. The only reason why any of this bothered you, in spite of the fact that that fourth paragraph fully gives logic its full props, is that you're bothered I don't hold it in a position of reverence.