FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Either Choose Science or God, You Cannot Have Both

John Loftus has been busy today. He has posted two articles today attempting to explain why he thinks you can't have science and believe that God exists. He is wrong, but it is entertaining to see him failing to do it...kinda like the proverbial train wreck. You can't just look away. There is quite a lot to look at but I will be looking at one of them.

I think for a blog post I pretty much nailed it, arguing that science would not be possible if there were a miraculous intervening God. But since science does work then there isn't a miraculous intervening God.

The first article goes off the rails really fast. First mistake: Loftus assumes that either God always intervenes or never intervenes in the natural order of the universe. Where does he get this from? It's not from the Bible.  There is no reason to make either assumption.

So choose ye this day: Either science isn't possible because there is a miraculous intervening God, or science works precisely because there isn't a miraculous intervening God.

False choices because Loftus pretends that there are only two mutually exclusive options.  He ignore the Biblical testimony. He bases his ideas of what God's intervention should look like based on what he thinks God should do. This is wrong.

Christian philosopher Victor Reppert objects of course, on two grounds as far as I can tell:

Reppert's first objection? This:

OK, so skepticism about God is front-loaded once we start doing science? Is this the materialist equivalent of presuppositionalism? If this is the case then it is otiose to mention particular scientific developments as evidence against theism. Science, by its very nature, could never say anything else.

Scientists require evidence before accepting a hypothesis, and so science can only investigate that which is detectable. This is its limitation. We all know this.

So he agrees with Reppert here. 

So it operates on the principle of methodological naturalism. It cannot do otherwise. Science assumes there is a natural explanation for everything it investigates precisely because this is the only way it can work.

And like he said that is its limitation. That means science cannot tell you everything there is to know. 

If natural explanations for events were not possible because God regularly intervened in the world, then science simply would not be possible. Since science does work then a miraculous intervening God does not exist.

Notice the qualification Loftus keeps using in describing God: "miraculous intervening". The Bible  tells us that God makes science possible because it is God that keeps the laws and nature going as it is. God set it up. All science is built on the idea that the laws of nature are repeatable, reasonable, predictable, understandable, and definable. Science is making since of those things but it doesn't explain why reality is set up that way. The Bible tells us God did this to make Himself known to His creation. The Bible tells us that God set all of it up and put it in motion and sustains it. Therefore the Bible completely disagrees with Loftus that if God continuously intervenes we can't do science.  Instead it's because of God that we can do science.

Now there are ways that science could detect the existence of God even if he didn't intervene in the world today, but so far this is not what we find. In any case, that wasn't even my point.

The fact that the universe exists at all shows us that God exists. 

The fact is that it didn't have to turn out that science works. God could have made science impossible by intervening into our daily lives just as ancient superstitious people thought he did.

 Loftus cannot demonstrate that God does not intervene in our daily lives. He does. That is why science works.  That is why we have order and random chaos.

That it has turned out the way it has is evidence a miraculous intervening God does not exist. You cannot say this is "a materialist presupposition" without taking into consideration what could have been.

Exactly. Why would having mass mean having gravity? Why is there equal and opposite reaction for every action? Why would celestial bodies orbit one another in elliptical paths? Why is everything in quantum physics comes in factors of 2 and 4? Why is energy in discrete packets? So much! It's God signing His work.

If God regularly intervened in the world then science would be impossible. The fact that he doesn't is significant. It's evidence he doesn't intervene at all, if he exists in the first place.

How does Loftus know God doesn't intervene in the world? He doesn't know that, nor can he prove that God doesn't. 

Reppert's second objection? This:

I want to make sure I have this straight. If Jesus resurrected from the dead, the science buildings in all the universities should fall down, or never have been built in the first place.

This would, of course, be news to hundreds of living scientists, not to mention the likes of Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, et al.

If God exists then it's entirely possible he could do a select few miracles here and there in the world, occasionally. So the Christian God could have resurrected Jesus from the dead (who else would have done this?) and science could still be possible.

But herein lies a problem fit for God.

The more God intervenes then the less likely science is possible.

Hold up. Why? Oh yeah, because if  Loftus allows for Reppert's point he might actually learn something.

Conversely, the less God intervenes then the more likely science can work.

Still don't get why that's even a reasonable assertion. The Bible points out that it's God who sustains all things. This is what is making it possible for science to be done.You want to know who to thank for science:

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, ² but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. ³ The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. - Hebrews 11:1-3

But science is not only possible it has amassed an impressive amount of knowledge which has produced our modern world. So how likely is it that God has intervened compared with the weight of knowledge science has produced? At best, if God has intervened at all then he has done so in such minimal ways as to be indistinguishable from him not intervening at all.

Nope. Without God, nothing we have would have been possible. 

The lack of divine intervention in our world is counter-productive for a God who wants us to believe or fry in hell.

Loftus, like many, make  a mistake. We have to reach God and know God as God is on God's terms. God is far from hiding.

We are supposedly created as reasonable people.

Adam and Eve were created as reasonable. The rest of us are born in sin and shaped in iniquity - enslaved to sin and so blind that we actually like what we are doing although it is killing us. "Depraved" is the term the Reformers used. Without God we have no hope of getting out of that - characterized by irrationality and unreasonable. 

Reasonable people need evidence. Reasonable people must go with the statistical trends. Reasonable people must compare comparables.

And that is the problem. Unregenerate and unrepentant people don't have the gift of comparables. You can't compare your life with God unless you have ever known God.  

Given the fact that science works precisely because God does not intervene, then it seems to reasonable people that he doesn't intervene at all.

The fact that Loftus can't see that God gives science meaning shows how unreasonable Loftus' conclusion is.  He can't know that God does not intervene at all.

And if that's the case it's reasonable to think he didn't raise Jesus up from the dead either. It's also a good reason to think he doesn't exist at all.

That is why Loftus desires to deny the intervention of God in daily life so much: so her can deny the Gospel and ignore his personal depravity. 

Why would God be like this? Since he's portrayed as a reasonable God and a reasonable God would not do this, then a reasonable God probably doesn't exist at all.

Hint: God isn't like that. Therefore you can't really seriously follow this line of reasoning. 

Debunking Christianity: Either Choose Science or God, You Cannot Have Both

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: I Doubt Rauser is Even Trying To Understand Me

It's amazing to me the lengths the readers who follow and ascribe value to John Loftus' blog will go through to excuse the failure of John Loftus' arguments. This posts as well as a few of the comments go a long way in answering the questions I have about whether or not Loftus' supporter really see the failure of his arguments or not. Short Answer: they don't. I think it is because he tells them what they want to hear and believe. Consider the following.

I have said that Dr. Randal Rauser is not being intellectually honest when it comes to his faith. This does not mean I think he's doing anything unethical or immoral. It means his faith blinds him from being honest with the arguments to the contrary. Let me try, yet once again, to persuade him to throw off his blinders with what I consider one of the dumbest rejoinders to my arguments I think I have ever heard. I do so in hopes he will see it for what it is, and then take seriously that this same blindness affects how he treats other arguments against his faith. I hope in vain though. Dr. Victor Reppert endorses what Rauser wrote, so hey, he's no different. Faith makes otherwise brilliant people stupid, and I mean this.

So if Dr Randal Rauser and Dr Victor Reppert are blinded by their faith, what is that blinds John Loftus?

They must hand out PhD's to almost anyone, is all I can say.

I think jealousy might be part of Loftus' problems (besides sin) because of the derision of Ph.D.'s. Loftus does not have one while Reppert and Rauser do have them. Does that mean that Loftus' opinions are stupid or lack more weight than theirs? Nope. His arguments fail on their own merits.


Let me show you this stupidity from a post Rauser wrote titled, "Is John W. Loftus 'dumber than a box of rocks'?" Warning, this is going to get ugly.

In The End of Christianity John W. Loftus describes the following Christian belief which he finds very implausible:

“That the highest created being known as Satan or the devil, led an angelic rebellion against an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent God … and expected to win. This makes Satan out to be suicidal, inexplicably evil, and dumber than a box of rocks.” (100)

So how could any creature be so dumb as to rebel against the supreme omnibenevolent creator of the universe? John definitely has a point: that is definitely implausible.

 I have seen Loftus make this argument more than once on this blog and to be honest I don't see how rejecting Jesus, as Loftus continues to do, is any smarter. It's the same thing as what Satan did. 

But now consider the following statement John made in his blog:

“If I was convinced Christianity is true and Jesus arose from the grave, and if I must believe in such a barbaric God, I would believe, yes, but I could still not worship such a barbaric God. I would fear such a Supreme Being, since he has such great power, but I’d still view him as a thug, a despicable tyrant, a devil in disguise; unless Christianity was revised.” [The source of this quote in context can be read here at the very end.]

Let’s spend some time chewing on this passage.

According to Christianity, God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent (that is, perfectly good). And worship is, minimally, the ascription of proper worthship to that deity. Incredibly, if that being exists John will refuse to worship that being. Thus we can paraphrase John’s position as follows:

“If I was convinced that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God existed I would refuse to recognize the worship of that perfectly good God and would instead treat him as a despicable tyrant.”

Now wait a minute. John’s accusing Satan [Emphasis his] of being dumber than a box of rocks?

Rauser has a valid point. If Satan was dumb enough to go against an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent  God - the God of the Bible, and Loftus is declaring that he would not worship the God of the Bible, then why not come to the same conclusion that Rauser did. I'd say that everyone who rejects God has something wrong with them. And since we all have and only God's saving power has blessed some of us to see the truth of our own stupidity.

In the comments below Rauser's post BlueDKnight said:

This is an uncharitable reading of Loftus. Charity would have us try to interpret him as saying that the God depicted in the Bible seems barbaric/despicable for letting certain things happen, and perhaps for actively doing certain things. Loftus is not saying he would go to battle with such a being and expect to win, which is what he attributes to Satan. He is simply saying he wouldn't worship him. Indeed he even says he would fear him (e.g., a despicable tyrant is not someone you fight, but someone you might privately fear).

This is a weak "gotcha" kind of thing.

Loftus had made a career in trying to "debunk" Christianity. His stated goals put him in opposition to God. He's fighting God all the way and of course he expects to win. He won't but just like Satan he's going to give it his best try. It's not a "gotcha" moment but another example of a bad argument from John Loftus. 

Clamat said to Randal,

You were eager to suggest John is “dumb as a box of rocks,” and figured out a way to do it: By reading without a reasonable measure of sophistication or honesty. Good luck with that.

John did not write “if I were a Christian.” John did not write “if God were omnibenevolent.” Had John written “If I was convinced God is omnibenevolent…God would be a barbaric, despicable, tyrant against whom I would rebel,” that would be inconsistent and difficult to defend. But that’s not what he wrote. You pay John the respect of assuming he’s not ignorant, why won’t you pay him the respect of assuming he chose to use particular words for a reason? To the extent those words may be ambiguous, why not read his words charitably (!) to determine the meaning he intended and argue against that meaning, instead of one you simply impose?

Agreed that Loftus was not agreeing that God was omnibenevolent but that was not the point Rauser was making. Satan rejected the God of the Bible. Loftus and other atheists do the same thing. One is just as stupid as the other. 

The initial, unstated question of the blog post was whether John would believe God exists if he was convinced “Christianity was true,” i.e., if he was convinced “Jesus arose from the grave[.]” The answer was yes, “I would believe, but I still could not worship such a barbaric God” because that God is demonstrably not omnibenevolent, rather he’s “a devil in disguise.” Would your position be any different had John had written: “If I was convinced [the fact claims of Christianity are] true and Jesus rose from the grave…I would believe, yes, but I could still not worship such a barbaric God[.]” (Do you see what I’ve been doing here? Using John’s actual words to determine what his other actual words were intended to mean? Ah, context.)

Sure wish Loftus and other would read the Bible with the same level of  "sophistication" and "honesty" they demand when other critique what they write. Belief in the Resurrection means that you will worship the God of the Bible. You cannot have one without the other because you will see God's omnibenevolence.  So we are back to rejecting God being a really stupid, stupid thing to do. 

The charge stands: You are narrowly reading a single phrase from John’s post entirely out of context and according to your unilateral definition of a single word in that phrase, in an effort to demonstrate an inconsistency in John’s thinking. No such inconsistency exists.

Rauser's charge does indeed stick because of the inconsistency of Loftus' misunderstanding what it means to worship and believe the God of the Bible.

With these two comments I don't have anything to add. They nail it. articulett has some great comments on Rauser's blog as well.

Although these rebuttals were written a year ago as of now, Dr. Victor Reppert recently said of Rauser's post that "This is a nice critique of Loftus."

When will these two Christian apologists become intellectually honest with their faith against the arguments to the contrary? The very fact that they feel led to concoct stupid straw man versions of our arguments, the very fact that they do not even try to understand what the arguments are, is a telling sign that they are most emphatically deluded.

Maybe providing good contrary arguments would help. Good luck finding some.   I think that there was a fundamental lack of understanding of just how bad off we are without God. The logic presented here illustrates how bankrupt intellect is without God's resources.

If instead they are seeking traffic from my links to their blogs when responding to such drivel, then this is a breach of their ethical responsibility. That is, if they knew this rejoinder to me was a non-sequitur and yet posted it anyway for the hits, I do charge them both with being unethical. How do you expect to be taken seriously by anyone at that point? You are willing to seriously weaken your own credibility for hits.

Non-sequitur does not equal an argument for which you have not defense against. No one should forget that. 

So which is it boys? Are ye stupid or unethical?

Christian, if you want someone who does not purposely misrepresent the arguments for faith before criticizing them, if you want someone who cares about truth rather than playing intellectual chess games, then do not listen to either of them. Listen to me.

I have found some very valuable insight from Loftus - of what not to do. 

Now boys, was it worth the hits?

Amazing how he does not even see that they are trying to help him. No one wants to see other people go to hell ignorantly. Paul was right
 

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
²¹ For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵ They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
²⁸ Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹ they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. ³² Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. - Romans 1:18-32


Debunking Christianity: I Doubt Rauser is Even Trying To Understand Me

dangerous idea: The Moral Argument that Christians don't use, but atheists always rebut

Dr Victor Reppert has posted a very interesting posting posing the following question.

Yet, when I hear atheists talking about moral arguments, they always assume that the advocate of the moral argument is saying that we have to believe in God to lead moral lives, (and indignantly argue that we don't have to believe in God to lead moral lives) in spite of the fact that Christian advocates of moral arguments, at least the ones I am familiar with NEVER say that. 
Why?

I agree with Dr Reppert. I have not ever heard a Christian scholar or apologist argue that unbelievers have to recognize God in order to have a moral code. The argument is that without God, you don't have a foundation for that moral guide any better or binding on everyone. It doesn't matter how often you say that the Bible does not say that godless people do not have morals. The Christian position is that morality is flawed and tainted by sin. So what about Dr Reppert's question. I think atheists default to the strawman position because they cannot give a satisfactory rebuttal to the moral argument for the existence of God and they are too proud to admit their failure.

dangerous idea: The Moral Argument that Christians don't use, but atheists always rebut

Fistbump of the Day: dangerous idea: Is Reasonable Faith an Oxymoron?

Dr. Victor Reppert has written a very insightful post that I think should be repeated:

Faith does seem to involve believing in spite of something. Atheists jump on this and say that what believers are talking about is believing in spite of having no good reason to believe it, and good reason to not believe it.

However, we can, for example, trust that a spouse is going to be faithful even though the spouse is out of our sight. In fact, the Apostle Paul contrasts faith with sight, not reason. Unless seeing is the only way we can have a good reason to believe something, it does seem to me that we cannot say that reasonable faith is an oxymoron by definition.

I agree with him and I find that many Atheist make that mistake because they don't know what "Biblical faith" is. They even make the mistake of missing the obvious that there is no reason to reject anything of great importance if the best you can do is point to the improbability of it. And then to get mad at other who are unconvinced of the lack of evidence? Makes no sense.


dangerous idea: Is Reasonable Faith an Oxymoron?

Related articles

• Why Don't Atheists Cut Down All the Trees? (patheos.com)
• Black Atheists Speak Out About Their Godlessness (patheos.com)
• The Curious Case of Questioning Faith (anythingbuttheist.blogspot.com)
• What Do You Preach? (anotherchristianblog.org)
• Religion for atheists is like alcohol-free lager (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)

dangerous idea: Never Ever Bludgeon Babies? You'll Get an Argument from Peter Singer and Michael Tooley

I'm really glad Dr Reppert posted this on his blog. I think the fact that infanticide and genocide are possible logical consequences of atheistic morality, if you are gonna be consistent about it. Take a look.

dangerous idea: Never Ever Bludgeon Babies? You'll Get an Argument from Peter Singer and Michael Tooley

When Scholars Collide....

I have seen two very interesting exchanges over the past several day. Dr Victor Reppert vs John Loftus. on the "Outsider Test for Faith" concept. Loftus posted an open letter to Dr Reppert. The statement was challenging and defensive, but Dr Reppert responded anyway. Sure hope Loftus at least reads the response. It was a good one, but I doubt Loftus will understand it.

Just as interesting is the back-and-forth between Dr Paul Copan and Dr Matthew Flannagan  versus Dr. Hector Avalos on the morality in the Old Testament and how do do scholarship. Read Flannagan's latest post at his link

Related articles

• Who says we don't need bible scholars? (scienceblogs.com)
• What you miss with Google Scholar (lawlibraryblog.seattleu.edu)
• (book review) "The Christian Delusion" - Ch. 6: The Bible and Modern Scholarship (part 3) (war-on-error.xanga.com)

dangerous idea: Straw Men Burning: Tim McGrew on Misinterpretations of the McGrews' article on the Resurrection

I've been following the discussion on using Baye's Theorem for calculating a probability for Jesus' Resurrection. The paper was originally written by Doctors Tim and Lydia McGrew. Dr William Lane Craig also made a similar argument in his debate on the Resurrection against Dr Bart Ehrman much to Ehrman's consternation. Tim McGrew wrote a response to the criticism posted on Dr. Victor Reppert's blog. Follow the link to read it.

dangerous idea: Straw Men Burning: Tim McGrew on Misinterpretations of the McGrews' article on the Resurrection

In addition Dr. Reppert wrote a short post explaining how he sees the role of probability theory philosophy of religion.

dangerous idea: On the use of probability theory in the philosophy of religion

dangerous idea: Groothuis on Multiverses and Intelligent Design

Victor Reppert recently posted the following on his blog:

Why is the multiverse theory science, and ID not science? Can we appeal to the unobserved and unobservable, so long as it's not personal? Can one, with a straight face, reject theism because of Ockham's razor, and then believe in the multiverse?

Which I totally agree with. I can't see why anyone would ignore the design of the universe and dismiss it as appearance, yet embrace the concept of multiple universe given that we cannot detect them and even scientist who push the idea admit that we will most likely never be able to detect them. Following Dr. Reppert's comment, someone named Anna said the following:

Victor,

I imagine one brand of a skeptic's response to be something like, anything natural is more probable than one instance of the supernatural.

The truly sad thing is that I think she's right. This is totally the kind faulty objection some skeptic might rise. It's silly because what does Intelligent design have to do with supernatural? And why would supernatural causes and effects negate the point that the universe was not a product of uncaused naturalistic processes. Not everyone who sees the universe as having been intelligently designed think it was God. I agree that it was God, but not everyone agrees with me. Intelligent Design merely says that the universe was designed - it does not necessarily discusses the agent of that design nor the purpose of that design. For those, you need greater revelation which we have in the Bible.

dangerous idea: Groothuis on Multiverses and Intelligent Design

Related articles

• What are arguments that support intelligent design (wiki.answers.com)
• How to Test for Intelligent Design (str.typepad.com)

My Common Sense is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: Can You Not See What It Takes to Believe? You Must Bash Science!

John Loftus has posted another mind bending affront to common sense...correction he quotes some mind bending affront to common sense and agrees to it.

Yep, that what Vic Reppert and gang must do, and Vic is supposedly an intellectual whom Christians say stands head over heels above me! lol Is this not completely and utterly ignorant? This is why I cannot believe. To do so you must be ignorant! I need not even respond since someone named Doctor Logic already did. See below:

This letter smacks of "scorched earth", postmodernist anti-intellectualism.

What disgusts me about the sort of rhetoric here is the suggestion that science doesn't advance, or that science is a form of pop cultural entertainment that doesn't deserve our trust.

99% of our knowledge about the world comes from science. The most reliable knowledge we have is scientific. Did a modicum of trust get us to the Moon or eliminate smallpox?!

Science has vastly improved our lives. The Bible never taught us a damn thing.

Christian apologists are more than happy to throw science under the bus if it will save their religion by making scientific inquiry look as arbitrary as the spiritual prejudice that lies at the core of their worldview.

Oh, if only science could be reduced to mere recordkeeping and endless data gathering like in the good old days of the scholastics. Then, there would indeed be no conflict between science and religion. This is what Bob really meant when he said there was no conflict, but, Bob, data collecting isn't science! There is a real conflict between real science and religion.

Science is about control and the elimination of bias, so we can see the world as it really is. Religion is the opposite: it's about the maximization of bias and amplification of prejudiuce and preconception. Science and religion are mortal enemies.

I've read Dr. Victor Reppert's post I can find no "science bashing" in it. Atheists like John Loftus are so quick to label theists as people who hate science - as if there are no scientists who are also theists. Really, really, an affront to common sense. They also will cry foul. All I see that Reppert do in his post is describe the limits of science and why it's not a smart thing to put all of your eggs into its basket if you want to know what reality is. What is wrong with that? Loftus sounds like a religious person who just had his idol spit on. Loftus basically attempts to respond to Reppert's post by quoting a comment by "Dr. Logic". I think to anyone who read this thread should go and see the original post and comments. I think that Bob Prokop's comments bear reading.

"Dr. Logic",

I still fail to understand how you can employ that moniker with a straight face. Everything you wrote in your comment does nothing more than provide yet more evidence for my thesis. You obviously read the posting, but brought along with you your own prejudices and blinders, and saw only what you wanted (or perhaps expected) to see.

Of course science does not "deserve" our trust, any more than our government or my church does. We are dealing with human beings here, who have the same weaknesses and failings that I can so easily see in myself.

(Warning: I'm going to ramble a bit here, but I want to get a lot of points in with my morning coffee.)

As a professional analyst of the Soviet Union for some decades, I learned extensively about the history of scientific research in that country, to include the infamous Lysenko period, where no conclusions were allowed to be drawn in genetics that might conflict with the party line. And you don't have to look to totalitarian societies to see the same dynamics at work. In our own country, the Bush administration routinely manipulated, suppressed, and spun data to push its own line on (i.e., against) global climate change. Corporations such as oil companies brazenly distort data to hide the ecological damage their activities are causing. And don't get me started on the food industry, which does everything in its power to selectively use data to promote its "health" messages.

So no, even the data itself does not exist in some idealistic values-free Zone of Objectivity. Quite often, we have to consider the source.

But when it comes to big-picture conclusions drawn from that data, now we are entirely within the realm of the greater environment (spanning everything from the small scale of the interpersonal dynamics withing the individual research unit to contemporary culture as a whole). There's just no escaping it. This is neither a bad nor a good thing - it just is!

Now my own expertise happens to be in astronomy, so forgive me for using a lot of examples from that field. Might I suggest reading the (short) book "How I killed Pluto, and Why it had it Coming" by Mike Brown, a quite readable and frankly hilarious account of the politics, personalities, shenanigans, skullduggery, and at times even borderline criminality that surrounded the decision to demote Pluto from the status of "planet". This is a perfect example of how, even when absolutely no one contests the actual data involved, the issues of "World View" that might be affected by such information are the furthest thing possible from objectivity.

I could go on, but this post is getting too long as it is. My point is in no way to denigrate science. (I love my healthy teeth, thanks to the science of dentistry!) But let's not endow it with properties (such as objectivity) which it does not deserve.

Debunking Christianity: Can You Not See What It Takes to Believe? You Must Bash Science!

FacePalm of the Day #48 - Debunking Christianity: The Mind/Brain Problem

John Loftus has been been commenting a lot on Dr Victor Reppert's blog lately. His latest driv...er attempt is responding to nature of mind and matter (the brain). My comments will be in italics.


Okay, Okay, I've been participating in a guilty pleasure by visiting Victor Reppert's Blog lately. Vic argued

I am suggesting on principled grounds that a careful reflection on the nature of mind and matter will invariably reveal that there is a logical gap between them that in principle cannot be bridged without fudging categories.

I'm glad Loftus has been reading Reppert's blog, maybe God can use it to reach him.


My responses so far:


You're arguing that we cannot get to a mind from the fact that there is only a brain.


So, let's talk about the mind. If there is a mind can we get to a brain? Think about this. You have merely reversed the argumentation but it leads to the same conclusion. I maintain that there is no logical connection between the mind and the brain. If we presume there is a mind then how does it tell the brain what signals to send to the arm such that it moves? Logically, unless there is a point of contact between them, the mind cannot interact with the brain. You know the problem.


Loftus does not say why this must be true he merely asserts it. I think a good analogy are computers. The hardware - the processor - is like our brain. In this analogy the mind is like the operating system/software that runs the computer. The analogy breaks down quickly but let's ride it for a moments as far as it can carry us. How is the software connected to the processor? It's not in the same way the hardware is connected. I think it's here where the analogy starts to go off the rails. I don't know how the mind and brain are connected. No one really does. Are they connected? Yes. Is the brain all there is? I don't think so? We do have people who have had near-death experiences and while they were brain-dead for few moments, they still reported consciousness.


Would you please define a mind for me? If that definition does not include material properties then how is this not a logical problem? What's your solution?


The mind is our desires, personalities, memories, emotions, consciousness - it's the sum total of everything that makes you who you are. This is more than what you are. When you talk to someone you are interacting with their mind not their brain.


Let's say you have none, or at least, let's say I'm not persuaded. Then we are at a logical impasse.


What to do then?


I'd like to know why does John Loftus think that his persuasion would make it true. Something can be true even if he doesn't think it is.


Trust the sciences. Science repeatedly disconfirms that there is a mind. Drugs, strokes, electromagnetic probing, and a nail through the brain can and does change a person's emotions, ideas, thinking patterns, and a man's personality itself.


Science does no such thing. If a computer's hardware is damaged or changed, don't you think it would change the software? Saying that mind and brain are not the same thing is not the same thing as asserting that they are not connected. Some people get brain damaged or head trauma or even lobotomies and experienced no change in who they are. Just because a person's emotions, ideas, thinking patterns, and personality are affected by changing the brain does not mean there is no mind. I don't know why anyone would expect the mind and body to be totally separate. Making a distinction does not mean making a separation.


In fact, as neurologist Sam Harris has said, if there is a mind there is no reason for God to have created us with brains. If the mind tells the brain what signals to send to the arm then it can by-pass the brain altogether and simply send signals to the arm.


Sam Harris sure likes making assertions that he can't prove. If the mind is your intentions and thoughts then you want to move your arm and the brain sends the signal. To argue that either the brain or mind is unnecessary is a really silly idea and no reason can be found for that.


The brain ends up being unnecessary on the hypothesis there is a God who created the mind. Or you could perhaps give me one function of the brain that could not be performed by the mind if there was one.


Just one.


That is not what theists argue. God created mind and brain - in fact all of reality. We don't understand ourselves or the universe to determined what is unnecessary just yet. As for one function of the brain that could not be performed the mind is the wrong question. The question that Loftus and people like him are afraid of is the question: Where does consciousness come from? I think computers again help us here. Is anyone really willing to argue that if we made a computer with enough circuits and connection (like the human brain) consciousness would result? I don't think so. I don't think consciousness comes form the brain. However research is currently being done that will prove it as our computers become more sophisticated.


I also maintain that on the supposition of a creator god that the vastness and age of the universe isn't necessary. He could have created a world on a flat disk for this. The question at that point is why did god create unnecessary things? The burden of proof is on the theist to show why unnecessary things were created.


I think that Loftus is seriously mistakenly. He failed to show the mind or anything is unnecessary. He first has to prove that the mind is unnecessary.


To the Christian objection that we need our senses and the brain as a storage unit to process the senses I argue that you theists do not take your theology very seriously at all. If there is a mind then it can sense the empirical world on your own assumptions. If there is a mind we do not need our senses. Get it? If there is a mind that can interact with the brain then it can control the brain. If it can control the brain then it knows what the brain is doing. How it does this is left unexplained, but if we take that position seriously it can. Now if it can sense the brain then it can sense the outside world and so we do not need the five senses.


I don't know anyone who thinks that the mind can sense the empirical world. He offers no proof or explanation that the mind and brain are related to one another the way he says it is. It is silly conclude that if the mind can sense the outside world we don't need the five senses. Our five senses organs are like hardware on a modern computer. Microphone of ears. Speakers for mouth. Cameras for eyes. We even have peripherals that sense force so it is like touch. Without software to make sense of analyze the input, all those senses are useless. Same thing with brain and mind. The brain processes the data but the mind makes of the data and determines its values and importance.


You people need to be more consistent here. Consistency, that's all I ever ask.


I'll be happy when Loftus offers such consistence.


But let's assume God created us with senses anyway. The mind supposedly has the characteristics of memory storage, critical thinking, decision-making and so on. What need then of a brain? I simply don't see it based on theistic grounds.


I wouldn't say that the mind store memory. Memory storage is a function of the brain. I believe science has been able to show that. But when it comes to thinking and consciousness there has been no proof that it's only the brain responsible for that.


Why is it that atheists like Loftus Harris are invested in denying the existence of the human mind? Simple. They know that if there is no mind and if all that means that all that there is (to them) is a material world and you can't have a consciousness without a body which (to them) would mean that there in no way could be a god as described in the body. They are trying to get around the scripture, and perhaps not even consciously.

²⁴ “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. ²⁵ And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. ²⁶ From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. ²⁷ God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ²⁸ ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’


²⁹ “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. ³⁰ In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. ³¹ For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
- Acts 17:24-31

Debunking Christianity: The Mind/Brain Problem

FacePalm of the Day #37 - Debunking Christianity: Are Christian Apologists Liars, Ignorant, or Blind?

John Loftus is at it again. I can always count on him for FacePalm worthy posts. Thanks, Mr. Loftus! I am going to annotate his post to point out what failure looks like. My comments will be in red. I'm going to try a different tactic: The Bible has debunked and destroys all of John Loftus arguments - and Loftus wasn't even born yet. .

Keep in mind I'm talking here about credentialed Christian apologists and not the myriad numbers of hacks out there, some of which are liars for Jesus and certainly ignorant. My informed judgment of credentialed apologists, having been one of them, is what follows. If they are lying to defend their faith they are lying to themselves. This is not impossible to conceive given cognitive dissonance theory which predicts that when presented with falsifying evidence believers will deny it depending on how much vested they have in their belief. And they are certainly ignorant about many things, sometimes willfully ignorant. But none of this is done on a conscious level and for that reason they are not conscious of the lies or their ignorance. After all, only the ignorant are ignorant of their ignorance.

FacePalm #1: You can't lie and be ignorant at the same time simultaneously about the same thing.  - by definition. Believers in God are not the only ones vested in their beliefs and choose to be "woefully ignorant".

 ³⁹ Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”
 ⁴⁰ Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”

 ⁴¹ Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains. - John 9:39-41

And yet I have known many Christian apologists who are clearly informed about many things. They face our arguments head on, or so it seems to them. Take for example Dr. Victor Reppert. In the following few sentences I don't think I've ever run across such a short yet adequate summation for the case for faith in the resurrection of Jesus:

I think that as you pull at the story of the founding of Christianity, as you play out the various scenarios all the way through, you end up thinking that none of the scenarios for what might have really happened fit the facts very well. They run into factual brick walls of one kind or another. The Christian story, IF you can get over the initial antecedent improbability of the miraculous, makes more sense of it that any other story does. I think there is no logical proof that a miracle cannot happen, since it is possible that God exists, and God is omnipotent. Further, I think that this miracle is one that God would have a fairly understandable reason to perform. So, given my prior probabilities, the evidence lifts the case for the resurrection at least over 90%. But I can't prove [to] someone else that they shouldn't have priors so low for the Resurrection that it never gets above 10 for them. Both can be rational, and that's just life in the big city. (I also don't think salvation is a matter of passing a theology test). If you don't believe in the Resurrection, then I think there are a bunch of inconvenient facts out there that are hard to make sense of. But I think every philosophy has to deal with inconvenient facts. Link.

He is clearly not ignorant, and yet every sentence above has been debunked many times over by skeptics, including me.-

I have to say that I completely disagree -  FacePalm #2. Loftus hasn't explained anything. Let's see if the Bible has anything more to say about Loftus' presuppositions. . 

So how then can Christian apologists be ignorant and not be ignorant at the same time?

They are delusional. They have been indoctrinated. They are brainwashed. They have blinders on and can only see that which their blinders allow them to see. So they are basically blind.

Jesus answered this. I'd like to see his proof that Christians are brainwashed or blind. If you don't like John 9 here is another verse to show how wrong Loftus is.

³⁹ He also told them this parable: “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit?⁴⁰ The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher. - Luke 6:39-40

David Eller has said that people like him have "a different set of eyes than we do, and they cannot see what we see. Criticizing them, even poking them in the eye, simply does not improve their vision. They are deep inside a Christian box, and until they see the box and the world outside of it, their view is fatally limited."

Interesting. Paul agreed. Believers and nonbelievers truly don't see the same way. It's impossible. Here is the difference. It's not because Christians are smarter or have more intelligence. This isn't the case at all. God makes the difference.

 ⁵ Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.- Romans 8:5-8

Valerie Tarico tells us “it doesn’t take very many false assumptions to send us on a long goose chase.” To illustrate this she tells us about the mental world of a paranoid schizophrenic. To such a person the perceived persecution by others sounds real. “You can sit, as a psychiatrist, with a diagnostic manual next to you, and think: as bizarre as it sounds, the CIA really is bugging this guy. The arguments are tight, the logic persuasive, the evidence organized into neat files. All that is needed to build such an impressive house of illusion is a clear, well-organized mind and a few false assumptions. Paranoid individuals can be very credible.” Trusting Doubt:(p. 221-22).

I'd  like to know where does the lying from Christian believers come in?  Instead Loftus ends his post by suggesting Christians are just as lost as paranoid schizophrenics. Classy. Of course the Bible directly addresses people like John Loftus' inability to understand or find God.

But the way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know what makes them stumble. -Proverbs 4:19

²² Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, ²³ but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, ²⁴ but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.- 1 Corinthians 1:22-24

Debunking Christianity: Are Christian Apologists Liars, Ignorant, or Blind?