amyonyango wrote:But with reference to the OP's opinion that a good strategy would be to concede various arguments and see how the theists do at explaining the rest of their religions' claims, this simply wouldn't work for me.

Absolutely. I don't think you'll ever see me concede a fuckwitted or nonsensical argument, regardless of my approach with a given poster. That way lies madness.

Precambrian Rabbi wrote:And the good cop?

...Goldenmane? TimONeill?

The focal topics listed in the OP are always talked about because a discussion of any other part of religion will inevitably lead to that. I.e, proving the stuff in the bible is correct is only doable if you manage to prove that god exists, and this is only doable by winning those particular focal arguments.

Precambrian Rabbi wrote:

iamthereforeithink wrote:

hackenslash wrote:It should also be pointed out that some of the motivation behind my style is to make others look more reasonable.

You mean this? -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_cop/bad_cop

And the good cop?

...Goldenmane? TimONeill?

Cali!!

Dunno about that. Cali's fucking brutal, generally made much worse by his lack of expletives. I would be tempted to say that I'm glad he's on our side, except of course that if he weren't on our side he wouldn't be as devastating. It isn't possible to be that devastating in this regard while clinging to such absurdities.

Interesting thought experiment, though.

Will S wrote:[I'm not entirely sure, but I may possibly have tried posting this OP in Another Place. If so, it didn't lead to any very interesting discussions, but I'm arrogant enough still to think that it might have done. So here it is ...]

I’m wondering if, in our debates with Christians, we atheists adopt the wrong strategy. Or, putting it a bit less strongly, I’m wondering if there might be useful alternative strategies. Certainly, I’d be interested to hear other opinions.

To me, any strategy that works is the right strategy.

Suppose that we, for the sake of argument, conceded a good deal of what Christians claim. That is, suppose we said to them: ‘I don’t necessarily agree with what you say, but let’s assume that you’re right and see where the argument does (or doesn’t) lead.’

This ain't bad, and it's what I often do - so often, in fact, that very much most of the time, I go ahead and assume God exists for the sake of argument. The only problem is dishonest apologists who want to claim that since you're assuming God for the sake of argument, you therefore believe in God.

Suppose we conceded the First Cause argument: ‘OK – suppose that there can’t be an infinite regress of causes and effects, and that there has to be an uncaused First Cause.’

A perfect application, one which I have been using a lot lately. It's easy to show that the effects we cause are generally nothing more than rearrangements of previously existing material into purposely useful or beautiful artifacts, while the creation of the universe required it be caused out of no pre-existing material. Also, it's easy to show that the change in God's supposedly "timeless" environment, from a first state without a created universe to a subsequent state including a created universe, can be used to characterize an interval in a temporal analogy in God's environment - nothing like time as we know it, but still a method to calculate elapsed "God-time" and to set the first event as antecedent to the second event. Thus, assuming God is the First Cause of the universe, something or someone must have created God, by applying against God the apologist's same arguments directed against the universe.

Or suppose that we conceded the Fine Tuning argument: ‘OK – suppose that the only possible explanation is that some Great Intelligence decided what the cosmological constants were to be.’

Again, it's an effective strategy, particularly with the capitalized adjective. Assume that a Great Intelligence exists, then note the percentage of habitable space is suitable for humans, as well as the percentage of the surface of the earth that is habitable without artificial methods such as undersea protection or floating platforms. When all is taken into account, this Intelligence is not so Great.

Or suppose that we conceded the Objective Morality argument: ‘OK – suppose that when we say “cannibalism is wrong” we are stating a fact, like “grass is green”.’

Another good idea, one which can be taken a step further: also concede the proposition that atheists do not have an objective morality. In order for a theist to accept and believe in God, he must make a determination that it is worthwhile to do so. This becomes uncomfortably tricky for the apologist. In order to adopt a belief in God, a belief that God is good, he must have made a determination that God's moral standard is perfect, at a time which the apologist himself did not have an objective moral standard. So, in order to get to that point of believing in God, he had to employ an ability which he is arguing is not present with those who do not believe in God, thus undercutting his own line of reasoning. Finally, examples can be located in the Bible where portions of God's Perfect Objective Morality significantly changes, indicating it's less of a Perfect Objective Morality and more like Whatever God Approves Of At The Time, Subject to Change.

Or (speaking personally, this one really does break my heart!) suppose that we even conceded Intelligent Design: ‘OK – suppose that living things are the result of intelligent design, by some conscious intelligence’.

That's even easier. Any superficial-level meaning of the term "design" implies an intended purpose, and many things can be observed which have questionable purposes, no observable purpose, or purposes which are inconvenient, dangerous, threatening, or even fatal to humans. God then inherits the responsibility for "all things dark and ugly" (Monty Python), and can be blamed for the criminal negligence of Intelligently Designing things dangerous to humans, and God can be ridiculed for designing Shit That Does Not Work or Is Poorly Designed. Proposals for better design of individual components of human physiology, such as knees, optic nerves, back skeleto-muscular arrangement, or appendixes, can be offered, indicating it's a simple task to improve on God's supposedly perfect, "intelligent" design.

Even if we conceded all this to our opponents, as far as I can see, they are still a very long way from being able to demonstrate the truth of the basic tenets of traditional Christianity: there exists personal God who is deeply concerned for the welfare and behaviour of us humans; the same God has laid down a particular set of rules for human conduct; he became a man in the person of Jesus, and died to save us from our sins, etc.

Yes, but that being said, much of the infrastructure on which they base their beliefs is coming apart, piece by piece. So, in addition to being far away from establishing their position as valid, their position is being dismantled.

In fact, just about the only arguments we couldn’t concede are those which claim that the Bible has a special status as a source of information.

NO! That's conceded on a regular basis! Again, this is not "Establish the validity of what you believe;" that's not gonna happen. Instead, it's more like "This is the basis of what you believe. Let's assume it's all true, as you claim. Here are several arguments which demonstrate what you believe is stupid or wrong." As soon as we can get them to realize they need to selectively ignore parts of the Bible to hold their beliefs together, that's the fracture which eventually leads to a complete breakdown of the belief, or an acknowledgment (at least to themselves) that what they believe isn't necessarily right. For example, it's easy to get a Christian to agree that Bible verses about God's character are correct. The so-called "Deadly Trilemma" in the NASB of 1 John 4:8 ("God is love"), 1 Corinthians 13:4 ("Love is not jealous") and Exodus 20:5 ("I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God") logically refute the existence of that particular God. So, the apologist is forced to acknowledge that God doesn't exist (fat chance of that happening), or that the Bible necessarily contains errors about God's character. Since the Bible is the source document of all we know about God, and everything else (including centuries of Church tradition, current popular apologetics, etc.) is nothing more than somebody else's opinion, any demonstrated errors such as the "Deadly Trilemma" would indicate that nothing in the Bible is necessarily true, and anything we know about God isn't necessarily valid. Once that is conceded on their side, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

What I’m suggesting is that when we atheists (not unreasonably!) argue all these other issues we divert attention from other huge weaknesses in the case for Christianity. It’s as if we atheists are implying: ‘If you lot could win some, or all, of the arguments about the First Cause, Fine Tuning, Objective Morality, Intelligent Design, then it would follow that Christianity is true.’ But that seems definitely not to be the case.

Obviously, the claim that "Christianity is true if any or all of those claims are established" is false. Each one of them depends on an Argument from Ignorance logical fallacy somewhere along the line ("I don't know how this happened, therefore my God did it") coupled with an unjustified "leap of faith" in the last step, because each of those arguments could be applied with equal validity (that is to say, none) to any of the proposed non-Christian gods.

Indeed, would any of the neighbourhood Christians care to comment, or rise to the challenge?

I'm guessing no, at least not in any rigorous manner. Many bring up the same old tired, refuted arguments, and it's a valuable exercise for us to reiterate the refutations, simplifying if necessary to appeal to the younger or less intellectually inclined audiences.

Suppose somebody makes all the concessions mentioned above. Where do you go from there?

Wherever it leads! (To the apologist:) We've assumed your God exists, and these reasons show He's an asshole. We've assumed the Bible is true, and have concluded based on three verses that your God doesn't exist. We've conceded the First Cause argument, and have shown that the First Cause itself needs someone or something to cause it. We've conceded the Intelligent Design argument, and have shown that the Designer was anything but Intelligent. (From the apologist, hypothetically:) If God's existence is conceded, or even just assumed true for the sake of argument, then I've got a foot in the door to gloat that I was right and you were wrong. Since you concede God exists, then all the arguments against an actually-existing God don't count, because He's omnipotent and He transcends logic (whatever that means).

How do you go on to demonstrate the truth of Christianity?

It's all in the gap between the penultimate and final steps of any of the assorted arguments which were conceded (i.e. First Cause, Intelligent Designer, Fine Tuner). Using an unjustified "leap of faith," Christian apologists casually mention that they believe the First Cause/Intelligent Designer/Fine Tuner/whatever happens to be the God of the religion they happen to belong to.

As the author of the OP, I've found this discussion interesting, but it hasn't led where I'd hoped. (On the other hand, I didn't have very high expectations!)

I'd hoped that some religious person would jump up and cry something like this: 'Aha! If you accept the Fine Tuning argument and the Objective Morality argument, then it's only a very small step to .... (some very specifically Christian belief). And here's why ...'

This simply hasn't happened, and, indeed, the discussion had been dominated by non-believers, even though you might think that the OP gave believers a great big opening.

It tends to confirm that evidence and reason don't have very much to do with the formation of people's religious beliefs, and that they tend to be brought in, after the event, to support a belief which has already been formed.

But, of course, that's not a very remarkable conclusion.

If you're going to concede to christians, why not every other religion too?

Ciarin wrote:If you're going to concede to christians, why not every other religion too?

I'm guessing you're referring to paganism. A similar concession cannot be made to paganism, because its epistemic premises are even more unlikely and incompatible with modern science than the Abrahamic religions are. Paganism puts the presence of god in a much more direct, naturalistic, immediate place in relation to the worshiper. God is in the sea, god is in that rock, that tree, etc. With the emergence of Judaism, and more importantly, Christianity, we get the idea that god and the worshiper are something completely separate. God is something "other", he's beyond, unreachable, "out there". Which is why the Romans looked at the Christians as if they were atheists. The removal of god from the comfortable immediacy was too much.

Paganism isn't a religion, and I was actually referring to every religion on the planet, not just pagan ones.

Ciarin wrote:Paganism isn't a religion,

I know.

Ciarin wrote:and I was actually referring to every religion on the planet, not just pagan ones.

Every relevant modern religion has developed characteristics that they share as post-pagan religions. The epistemic change is global and very important.

Chinaski wrote:

Ciarin wrote:Paganism isn't a religion,

I know.

Ciarin wrote:and I was actually referring to every religion on the planet, not just pagan ones.

Every relevant modern religion has developed characteristics that they share as post-pagan religions. The epistemic change is global and very important.

How is Hinduism "post-pagan"?

Chinaski

Your point about God being Other in Christianity is partly accurate, but I think there has always been a tension between that, and what we might call God as Self, or God as here and now.

The latter is exemplified by the mystical tradition, as seen in Eckhart and J. P. de Caussade.

Indeed, it can be found in some of the founding documents, e.g. Paul's 'It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me' (Gal.). But I think Christianity has shied away from the implications of this.

The same tension can be found in other religions. Thus I know Sufis who say that everything is God, yet of course Islam declares that Jesus isn't!

I think partly religion actually acts as a protection against the power of the numinous, hence the Otherness of the divine, which has to be kept at a safe distance, or it will smash the ego world.

Ciarin wrote:

Chinaski wrote:

Ciarin wrote:Paganism isn't a religion,

I know.

Ciarin wrote:and I was actually referring to every religion on the planet, not just pagan ones.

Every relevant modern religion has developed characteristics that they share as post-pagan religions. The epistemic change is global and very important.

How is Hinduism "post-pagan"?

Hinduism is not a polytheistic religion the same way paganism ways. The different gods in hinduism are all different manifestations, different incarnations of the same, singular, divine entity.

So how is hinduism post-pagan?

Ciarin wrote:So how is hinduism post-pagan?

Because it exists with a metaphysical structure that is a development of older, pagan structures. Thought I explained that already...

Chinaski wrote:

Ciarin wrote:So how is hinduism post-pagan?

Because it exists with a metaphysical structure that is a development of older, pagan structures. Thought I explained that already...

Then I don't get what you mean by post-pagan.

Do you think he means people who worship standing stones?

hackenslash wrote:Do you think he means people who worship standing stones?

Not really. I figured it was like "existing after paganism was less popular"

nunnington wrote:I think partly religion actually acts as a protection against the power of the numinous, hence the Otherness of the divine, which has to be kept at a safe distance, or it will smash the ego world.

That's a very interesting thought, nunnington.

nunnington wrote:I think partly religion actually acts as a protection against the power of the numinous, hence the Otherness of the divine, which has to be kept at a safe distance, or it will smash the ego world.

Deepity.