Science has closed the gaps in our knowledge of the workings of the world. With each gap that is closed believers move the goal posts, claiming that their God is still active in the world. In effect, until science can close every single gap they will have reason to believe. That is, either science must show it's impossible for God to exist or they can believe despite the massive onslaught of science. Because of this science some of the more reasonable believers will say God is not to be found in the gaps, but instead he is the sustained of the world. Yet look at what they've done. Either they argue from the gaps of they don't. If they do, then they must continually move the goal posts, which means they were wrong in the past. Thus arguing from the gaps is an argument from ignorance. If they don't do this, then this universe looks indistinguishable from a universe without God in it at all.
To be honest I don't think Loftus realizes that the more questions Science answers the more questions get asked. There is not a single thing that we can completely exhaustively claim to have fully explained.
Unless we can prove we do not live in a Matrix, or are not dreaming right now, or are not some brains in a vat, then believers will opine we all have faith. And if they can get us to admit this then they drive a whole truckload of Christian assumptions through that small crevice. Can we prove any of these things are not the case? Then they have every bit of a right to believe the wildly improbable things they do about a triune god, an incarnation, transfiguration, resurrection, ascension, and final judgment. This is a huge non-sequitur. There is no parity here at all, even if we grant these things, which I've written on before.
The bottom line is, we assume a whole lot - things we can't prove. For example, how do we know the light has the same speed all over the universe in all inertial reference frames? We don't really know that but its seems probably true. Loftus' whole argument seems to hinge on him thinking that "a triune god, an incarnation, transfiguration, resurrection, ascension, and final judgment" are all improbable. However he has not proven that they are improbable. No one can. If something is designed and put into place - probability is a stupid thing to consider because probability has nothing to do with it. If Jesus' Resurrection was an predetermined and deliberate act than there is no possibility that it would not happen. Science is full of finding out that the improbable is not only just possible but necessarily true.
There are other things to say but I'll stop for now. Others can chime in with more examples. But just think if a banker told someone that he would probably bring financial ruin upon himself if he invested all his money in one particular stock. What would you think if this guy invested his money anyway because his banker could not prove he would bring financial ruin on himself? Think on this and you see exactly what believers continually do.
I think the investment analogy is flawed. The Christian message is not that if you accept Christ you will bring ruin on yourself. A better analogy is of a person being bankrupt and hopelessly in debt and deserving to spend the rest of their lives in jail given the amount they owe and can never pay back. Then that person gets the news that all they have to do is believe and trust the one they owe and they can get the debt washed away and lavished with untold wealth - more than they can imagine. That is the Gospel. The biggest facepalm of all is that Loftus does not understand what he rejects.
Debunking Christianity: Christians demand that I must show their faith is impossible before they will see that it is improbable.
I have to admit, I had a good chuckle when I read John Loftus' original post. The first thing I thought of was your hairbrained notion that homo sapiens live on Pangea 175 million years ago. Good stuff...
ReplyDeleteYou mean like not being able to tell a difference between a mind and a brain? Yup, hilarity ensues.
ReplyDeleteA majority of cognitive scientist hold the theory that mind is a product of brain.
ReplyDeleteHow many scientist think homo sapiens live od on Pangea 175 million years ago.
Who said that the mind is not a product of the brain? I said that they were distinct and not the same thing. Can't you see the difference?
ReplyDeleteGuess not.
As for who lived on Pangea, I haven't checked how many scientist how the view that people could have lived on Pangea. Just because an hypothesis is held by a minority doesn't mean it's not true or stupid. There was a time when the theory of relativity and Quantum Mechanics were both held by a minority of scientists. The majority can be wrong. Just go ahead and provide your evidence that there is no possible way people lived on Pangea. Just because you don't think it's probable is not good enough.
By the way, just because the human mind and the human Brain are interrelated during life does not mean that they can't be distinct or even independent after death.
ReplyDeleteJust because an hypothesis is held by a minority doesn't mean it's not true or stupid.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely correct. However your pangea hypothesis is stupid. Very very stupid.
If the mind is dependent upon the brain for its existence (which you seem to concede), then that is strong evidence that they can't be distinct or independent after the death (or damaging) of the brain.
You are absolutely correct. However your pangea hypothesis is stupid. Very very stupid.
ReplyDeleteSays you. A lot of people thought Einstein was stupid too. Time will tell who is right. And if I'm wrong it means I'm wrong not the Bible.
If the mind is dependent upon the brain for its existence (which you seem to concede), then that is strong evidence that they can't be distinct or independent after the death (or damaging) of the brain.
I did not mean to imply that the mind is dependent on the existence of the brain. I said that they were interrelated. Given that two people can have the same part of their brains damage and experience different results and consequences means that it is way more complicated than you seem to think it is.
You, obviously are no Einstein. Also, I doubt anyone called him "stupid". Possibly crazy or wrong, but the point is he had data and math working for his conclusions. You have a verse from an ancient near eastern poem that you really, really, really want to be true. All the data from multiple disciplines contradicts your hypothesis, and no data supports it, which makes your hypothesis stupid, very, very stupid.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the fact that peoples minds experience "results" from brain damage doesn't help your position in the least.
You, obviously are no Einstein. Also, I doubt anyone called him "stupid". Possibly crazy or wrong, but the point is he had data and math working for his conclusions. You have a verse from an ancient near eastern poem that you really, really, really want to be true. All the data from multiple disciplines contradicts your hypothesis, and no data supports it, which makes your hypothesis stupid, very, very stupid.
ReplyDeleteObviously, you don't know how visceral objections to a different idea can be. On top of that if I'm wrong or right has no bearing on if Noah was are real person or on the veracity of the Bible. Really dumb reasoning. I admit I could be misreading the scripture. However it's going to take more than your disagreement to make the hypothesis wrong.
Also, the fact that peoples minds experience "results" from brain damage doesn't help your position in the least.
You still don't seem to understand that I am not arguing that the human mind and human brain are completely separate and can't affect the other. I'm not. You are trying to say it's either one or the other. I have never said that. More poor reasoning on your part.
Unless you can prove otherwise, all evidence points to the mind being a product of the brain. There's probably a Nobel in it for you if you can prove otherwise. Good luck.
ReplyDeleteUnless you can prove otherwise, all evidence points to the mind being a product of the brain. There's probably a Nobel in it for you if you can prove otherwise. Good luck.
ReplyDeleteUnless you can prove that there is no mind or mental faculties transcending the human brain, I think you have over stating your point. You are wrong that there is no evidence pointing to the mind being more than just an extension of the material brain. What you should have said was "there is no evidence that I would accept because I must deny that I have a soul that belong to God and he will hold me accountable for every word and deed I have done". That is if you were honest.
It's almost as if you didn't even read John Loftus' original post. He was speaking directly to you.
ReplyDeleteAlso, how about you present some of this alleged evidence.
ReplyDeleteIt's like you didn't even read my response. Of course in his and your warped worldview you see things that way. We have been through most of the evidence already that the mind is more than just the brain but you refuse to not only acknowledge the evidence existence but fail to understand it. With a mind such as yours - hostile to God and His Word - it will take God to get you to see more. Again, that is why I pray for you.
ReplyDeleteWe have been through most of the evidence already that the mind is more than just the brain but you refuse to not only acknowledge the evidence existence but fail to understand it.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we have, but I am pretty sure you've just given your opinions on why you think (want) this is the case. How about some peer reviewed papers?