Just Sayin'

Before.

God, if you exist, you could make a decent case for yourself if you strike me down in the next minute. Otherwise, I'm so going to mock you.
— Grundy (@deityshmeity) June 29, 2013

After.

Still alive. (See last tweet.) God, if you exist, you suck.
— Grundy (@deityshmeity) June 30, 2013

On the Transparency of Christian Apologetics

The following is a post to the Christian Apologetics Alliance's Google+ Community by Caleb Dickson, who is well worth a follow.

Apologetics is defined as:

1. Systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)
2. A branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

Of course there are reasons why opposition to Christianity has intensified, especially in recent decades. A flurry of new scientific observations, hypotheses, theories and the resulting philosophical implications that fly in the face of elementary Christian belief have raised more questions than ever in Christian history. These questions have forced Christians to rally support for their beliefs and provide answers for the growing number of inadequately answered questions and, as a result, growing number of atheists.

But to what end? How far are Christians willing to assert and defend themselves in the face of denial? It seems that too many of us all begin this argument with the presupposition that we are already absolutely and objectively right before a conclusion can even be met. But is this an intelligent assumption for those concerned about the social, political, scientific or overall intellectual legitimacy of their position? Or in any discussion for that matter? Are we willing to leave valid points unchecked simply to save our own arguments?

In the interest of intellectual honesty there must be a criteria purposefully defined and agreed upon for the religious themselves to admit that they have failed to win the debate. Otherwise, what's the point? It seems this would otherwise serve to encourage people to blindly oppose everything the counter-argument has to say without accountability.

With the burden of proof resting on the claimant the Christian criteria for disproof seems primarily important. Because the atheist argument isn't an assertion (a rejection of all religious assertion) criteria for disproof doesn't seem to apply there. Yet we atheists too should set our cards on the table. I have my understandings which are continually being revised and expanded based on new information. I will gladly explain them if asked.
I suggest we at least make an attempt to agree on this criteria before the discussion can resume.

1. What fundamental claims of Christianity do you personally think must be proven in order to claim success in proving your religion true, specifically to the atheist? Things that, unaccounted for, should result in failure.
2. By what standards, with what types of evidence and to what degree must your claims be proven?

I thought this was a very well-stated piece...that, of course, got Caleb kicked out of the community. If any on my apologetic readers have responses, please leave them in the comments and I'll make sure Caleb finds them.

Top Ten Authentic Biblical Miracles

10.

9.

8.

7.

6.

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

The Top Ten Ways to Tell That You’re Winning a Debate with an Apologist

10. The apologist projects qualities that apply to them onto you in hopes that it will equate all parties involved. They figure that they can’t lose the argument they are in fact losing because every one is relying on, say, faith. This ultimately ends the argument in a tie...if it were true, which it’s not.

9. Questions are worded as double or triple negatives in hopes that you agree to something that could easily be misread to mean the opposite. If you discover that you’ve made an error and correct it, the apologist labels you an inconsistent flip-flopper for the rest of your debate and/or life.

8. The apologist ignores common meanings of words and applies definitions that only other apologists accept as valid. They do this without telling you what their unorthodox definitions are until pressured. This method allows them to think atheists don’t know what we are talking about because, well, we don’t know what we are talking about. It's a breach of common vernacular in favor of coded, theological jargon.

7. The Gish Gallop tactic is used in which the apologist throws out as many different lines of argument or crack-pot studies as possible. This is an admission that they are unable to rationally discuss any one topic. It’s especially apparent after you ask them to contain the conversation to a particular set of ideas and they refuse.

6. The apologist, fully aware that you don’t believe in their holy book, quotes passages from their holy book.

5. When arguing in a public forum, the apologist responds to other people’s points but ignores yours. Chances are, this is because your points are the most difficult to address and therefore those with the least flaws to exploit.

4. The apologist plays dumb about the topic of debate when you explain how it might help your argument then suddenly becomes an expert when the same topic can possibly help their argument.

3. Instead of hashing out their own ideas and beliefs, they send links in the hopes that freshly Googled internet content can do the debating for them. (Protip: if an apologist hits you with a particularly well-worded argument, search a couple sentences in Google using quotation marks. I’ve found theists copy and pasting other people’s barely relevant arguments as their own. Talk about debating by syndication.)

2. The apologist gets defensive, flustered or angry. When ad hominems start flying from someone who normally preaches “turn the other cheek” you know that you’ve struck upon something unsettling to the apologist. Cognitive dissonance can be very frustrating.

1. You’re debating from a position founded on reality against someone who relies on assumptions of magic, the supernatural, and the divine.

Reasonable Doubt

*America doesn't make witnesses do this in court anymore, but we used to. This meme is now horribly out of date. That said, I believe "so help me God" is still used and Presidents almost always swear in using the bible.

What Aren't There In Foxholes

I’ve been thinking (again) about what truth the phrase “there are no atheists in foxholes” might hold. I know what it’s like to believe in God and I know what it was like to gradually dismiss this belief. There were points in my life where a version of this phrase could have been applied to my experience, but those versions didn’t include the word “atheist”--they applied to a pre-atheist label.

Maybe it's There are no lapsed Christians in foxholes.

For a long while I identified as Christian without any intention of attending church. I believed Jesus was a good example to live by and still entertained the idea of the resurrection. In retrospect, it’s an odd state to be in to only kind of believe Biblical miracles. They are so outside the realm of our experience that I’d think belief in them should be all or nothing; either have complete faith in your indoctrination or soberly dismiss magic in a nonmagical world.

During this time I met the periodic hardships of life and, occasionally, prayed. It was a half admission of helplessness from someone who was too stubborn to be helpless. My “foxholes” came in the form of untreatable pain whether it be personal injuries that medicine couldn’t treat fast enough or, more often, my Christian Scientist mother hurting and unwilling to use medication in the first place. I was further disillusioned by the lack of results from my prayer. I could see this stage in my life lasting longer or even re-upping my Christianity if my prayers were coincidentally answered or I was less aware of probability. Luckily, I knew what confirmation bias was before I knew what it was called. Instead, I dropped the Christian label and moved on to a non-committal religious opinion.

Or how about There are no agnostics in foxholes.

It can be argued that we are all agnostics in that none of us know whether or not a god exists, but it’s clear that some of us think we know. Commonly, agnostics admit that they don’t know and are even unsure of their own belief one way or the other. In that way, I can see the agnostics trying prayer during “foxhole” moments. At this point in my life I really had no expectation that prayer would work, and I don’t recall ever praying as an agnostic, but I also had a “why not” and a “it couldn’t hurt” attitude toward other people praying. If Pascal’s Wager ever had an application, it would be for an agnostic in a dire situation, but to cover his or her bases, he or she should pray to every possible God.

Which brings us back to atheism. What truth does the phrase “there are no atheists in foxholes” hold? Not much. The gut reaction for the uninitiated to agree with the line is a misunderstanding of terms. The dismissal of gods in a society that largely believes in them isn’t an emotional decision, it’s an intellectual one. Likewise it will take an intellectual enterprise to alter that decision, the emotional fear of the unknown need not apply.

Disclaimer: Of course, I can’t speak for all atheists. I can imagine, for instance, that self-proclaimed atheists with little reason behind their atheism outside of a rebellion against their theistic parents may be moved to alter their beliefs by emotional stress. To theists I can only say that you are considerably less qualified to speak for atheists than I and to claim “there are no atheists in foxholes” is to universally do just that.

Morality? What Morality?

Atheists usually argue that morality is subjective because, well, theists argue that morality is objective. Some atheists also argue this because they accept the reality that people define their morality in different ways. This is undebatably the way it is, but doesn’t have to be. If everyone defined morality identically, it could be objective sans deity. Apologists claim that God is needed for a moral standard. The way I see it, a moral standard is needed and this standard not only needn't be God, but it can’t be God.

I define right conduct as simply that which benefits others more than it harms. Wrong conduct is obviously that which harms others more than it benefits. This is a moral standard. From here we can take any action and determine it’s morality objectively. Going on a shooting spree causes direct harm to everyone hit and therefore is morally wrong. Stopping the shooter benefits all those who would have been hit and is therefore morally right. Even if one must kill the shooter to save the rest, it is a morally right action because a greater benefit comes from the one instance of harm. Few would say that this isn't a more nuanced and correct application of morality then strictly following the commandment "thou shalt not kill."

Christian’s define morality in terms of God then use that definition of morality as evidence for God--hold on, y'know I don’t want to generalize.

If there is a Christian within the sight of my text who both believes our morality is evidence for God yet doesn’t use a specific definition of morality in terms of God, please comment or e-mail me. Any definitions referring to the nature of God or an obligation to God are obviously invalid.

Okay, if and when I hear back from someone I’ll update, until then I’ll continue.

Christian’s define morality in terms of God then use that definition of morality as evidence for God. This is textbook circular reasoning which is completely invalid. The Christian doesn’t believe morality exists as I define it and I don’t believe morality exists as they define it. When whether or not this or that version of morality exists is put into question, it makes debate over its objectivity mute. All we can do is bring into focus their fallacious thinking--which is almost always met with defensivness. It’s best to be gentle when pointing out to someone their mental record is skipping.*

*Wow, timely reference. Maybe I should have gone with “their mental streaming video is buffering.” That’s awful wordy. I feel old.