Ep. 106: Is pro-life compatible with Christianity?

[mitchellmckain]

Emery and Norton, thanks for these podcasts; I've listened to this one and the recent is resurrection necessary episode (that one was not very compelling, in my opinion). I really appreciate the continued dedication to reasoned conversation between atheism and Christianity. I am on the Christian side, and I don't think I have time to write a long response at the moment, so I want to summarize the argument so I can go back to it later. Please correct any misunderstanding, Emery.

Yes 2 through 6 is the basic argument. 2 is not a universal Christian belief. However it certainly is a point that many of the Christians that are pro-life also believe assertion number 2 and this argument suggests an inconsistency in the thinking of those that do so.

However lets take a look at the premises (1-4) of this argument ...

1. Christians (more or less) are pro-life.

Which is incorrect. There certainly are many Christians who are pro-life, even churches that have made an official stand against abortion. There are many religions that have condemned abortion including Islam, Hinduism, and Sikh. There are even atheists and agnostics who hold that abortion is a violation of human rights. BUT there are MANY Christians, atheists and others who stand up for the rights of women against such mindlessly cruel and inhuman legalism.

2. God brings the eterenal souls of children to heaven who die before they can make moral or faith decisions on their own, like the decision to follow Christ or not.

That is a bandaid that people plaster onto religious legalism in order to make it more palatable.

3. Humans beyond such a state described in 2 more often than not choose not to follow Christ, presumably to their damnation.

God demands that we make such a choice and it is absurd to think that trying to avoid this can have a good result.

4. A responsible Christian parent ought to make it their highest priority to do whatever he or she can to ensure that their childrens' eternal souls go to heaven.

Impossible. Such an assertion can only be affirmed by a "christian" that has fallen completely into the error of legalism and a religion of works -- as if any human beling could possibly insure that a soul of a person will go to heaven. Salvation is the work of God alone.

[JustJim]

My style is to require objective evidence for things that people try to foist on other people including judgements with regards to reason and sanity.

Ha! Yeah, SURE you do.... LOL... What objective evidence do you require for the religious claims people try to foist on other people?

Assertions that cannot be objectively demonstrated are the substance of religion not science.

Sorry, you're not allowed to exempt religious assertions (assertions that cannot be objectively demonstrated) in order to preserve them from collapse. I'm not going to grant you that exemption, and neither will other atheists. If you want us to take you seriously and give serious consideration to your religious claims and your arguments in support of those claims, you'll need to back them up with something. SHOW us why you think there are invisible spiritual beings floating all around us all the time - watching us, listening to us, intervening to make things happen around us, etc. SHOW us why you think it rained (or someone was healed) because you prayed for that to happen, rather than for some other, demonstrable reason. SHOW us why your insistence that you see and hear your God and/or his spiritual cohorts - with absolutely NO demonstrable evidence to support your claims - is NOT delusional thinking and should NOT be taken as such. SHOW US!

You are certainly free to make up a religion for yourself where you get to call people delusional without objective evidence. There is a science of psychology, but however much but however much people succeed in passing off a such religion as psychology, it just cannot qualify as any kind of science at all. Furthermore, such a religion is no more compatable with the principles of a free society than the intolerant fundies of other religions.

This is just a bunch of talking out of your ass again, as is your usual fallback way of dealing with your anger, frustration, and feelings of inadequacy. None of what you've babbled here, without even proofreading it or correcting its blatant errors, makes sense or is based on reality. Your implication someone wants a religion where they get to call people delusional is a straw man. Your claim that psychology is a religion is stupid. Your claim that psychology just can't qualify as any kind of science at all is based on ignorance. Your attempt to tie psychology as a religion to principles of a free society, as well as your dip down to your usual "intolerant fundies" lingo borders on the psychotic.... Take a chill pill or two... or three... or a handful....

Jim

[madaImadam414]

Mitchell, thanks for responding. I agree with many of your objections, my point in making the list was to make sure I had the argument Emery made straight before responding.

[mitchellmckain]

My style is to require objective evidence for things that people try to foist on other people including judgements with regards to reason and sanity.

Ha! Yeah, SURE you do.... LOL... What objective evidence do you require for the religious claims people try to foist on other people?

Since I don't think that objective evidence is possible for exclusively religious claims, I consider the attempt to foist them on other people as intolerant and incompatable with the principles of a free society.

Assertions that cannot be objectively demonstrated are the substance of religion not science.

Sorry, you're not allowed to exempt religious assertions (assertions that cannot be objectively demonstrated) in order to preserve them from collapse.

Back to this again? Round and round we go....
exempt from what?
1. The lack of objective evidence means that you cannot expect other people to accept the truth of your claims.
2. The lack of objective evidence means that something is not true.
Exempt from #1? NEVER! Exempt from #2? 2 is invalid and unsupportable. There is no need for anything to have any exemption from this whatsoever.
HOWEVER this (#1 and not #2) doesn't just apply to the claims of Christians but to the claims of ALL people on ALL issues. It applies to claims that there is a God AND it applies to the claims that what someone else experiences isn't real outside their own head AND it applies to claims that a person is delusional!

We have been over this before, and you have not ONLY agreed but made the claim that this was all that you were trying to say.... All I am asking is that you apply this consistently, not only to the things that OTHER people believe that you don't agree with but ALSO to the things that YOU believe.

SHOW us why your insistence that you see and hear your God and/or his spiritual cohorts - with absolutely NO demonstrable evidence to support your claims - is NOT delusional thinking and should NOT be taken as such. SHOW US!

NO! YOU SHOW ME that YOUR claim that people who do believe such things are delusional by establishing your implicit (though often rhetorically denied) claim that the things they believe in do not exist outside their own head. Reasonable people are not demanding that you believe in them but only that YOU be reasonable as well about the things that you believe.

Frankly I think that a big part of your difficult here is your insistence upon an exclusively objective reality and a singularity of TRUTH. This makes it difficult to pursue the truth in such a reality where people believe different things without classifying everyone who doesn't agree with you as delusional. I don't have that problem because I don't believe in an exclusively objective reality or a singularity of TRUTH. This pragmatic difficulty pursuing the truth without the absurdity of believing that everyone else is delusional is the principle reason why I am a pluralist with regards to truth and believe that there is an irreducibly subjective aspect to reality itself.

Your implication someone wants a religion where they get to call people delusional is a straw man.

Baloney. People do this all the time.

Your claim that psychology is a religion is stupid.

I said that psychology is a science. However people are constantly making up religions and calling them science. Calling something science does not make it so. Objective evidence is what makes something a science.

Your claim that psychology just can't qualify as any kind of science at all is based on ignorance.

I made no such claim. BUT science is founded on objective evidence and if you are going to invent (or follow) something that doesn't require any objective evidence then I don't care how much you try to con people that such a thing should be called psychology, it is NOT science.

[madaImadam414]

In my last post I summarized the atheist argument by Emery. This was point two:

2. God brings the eterenal souls of children to heaven who die before they can make moral or faith decisions on their own, like the decision to follow Christ or not.

I think, perhaps overstating a little, any understanding focusing primarily on where eternal souls go is mistaken. We can dispense with a lot of the Christian message if we are only concerned with souls; Neo-platonism fits that bill much better. Christ cares about bodies, after all he is God made flesh. He is in the business of bringing bodies to new life. Indeed there is our hope that all of creation will be restored, according to Paul, creation is groaning like a lady having a baby waiting to be brought to new life. If Christianity is true, it is about far more than just about souls, and more than just heaven. God cared about creation enough to take on flesh and to bring a new life to the world itself.

[humanguy]

SHOW us why your insistence that you see and hear your God and/or his spiritual cohorts - with absolutely NO demonstrable evidence to support your claims - is NOT delusional thinking and should NOT be taken as such. SHOW US!

NO! YOU SHOW ME that YOUR claim that people who do believe such things are delusional by establishing your implicit (though often rhetorically denied) claim that the things they believe in do not exist outside their own head. Reasonable people are not demanding that you believe in them but only that YOU be reasonable as well about the things that you believe.

But why don't you simply answer Jim's question? Just answer it, without muddying up the water with your typical weird reasoning.

Here, in case you're confused I'll pose the question again. Can you show us why your your insistence that you see and hear your God and/or his spiritual cohorts is NOT delusional thinking and should NOT be taken as such?

If your answer is yes then show us. Very simple.

[mitchellmckain]

SHOW us why your insistence that you see and hear your God and/or his spiritual cohorts - with absolutely NO demonstrable evidence to support your claims - is NOT delusional thinking and should NOT be taken as such. SHOW US!

NO! YOU SHOW ME that YOUR claim that people who do believe such things are delusional by establishing your implicit (though often rhetorically denied) claim that the things they believe in do not exist outside their own head. Reasonable people are not demanding that you believe in them but only that YOU be reasonable as well about the things that you believe.

But why don't you simply answer Jim's question? Just answer it, without muddying up the water with your typical weird reasoning.

Here, in case you're confused I'll pose the question again. Can you show us why your your insistence that you see and hear your God and/or his spiritual cohorts is NOT delusional thinking and should NOT be taken as such?

If your answer is yes then show us. Very simple.

No. I absolutely deny that you have the right to demand any such thing and thus I will not dignify it with a response. It isn't compatable with the principles of a free society where the burden of proof is on people who would foist their beliefs on other people. Thus the burden of proof is on the theist if he would demand that people be judged by the dictates of their God. But likewise the burden of proof is on the atheist if he would demand that people be judged by what they declare reality to be.

Suppose that I demand that you prove that you don't rape your mother? In free society we say innocent until proven guilty for a reason. Because demands that you prove your innocence of such things should not be dignified with an answer. It is up to the accuser to prove his case first. This demand of you and Jim is exactly the same sort of thing. If you would say that someone is delusional then the burden of proof is upon you to prove it and that means that the burden of proof is on you to prove that such things do not exist and that people don't see or hear what they say. It is only when such claims are used to make demands or judgements of others that the shoe is on the other foot and then the burden is on them to prove that what they claim to see or hear is real.

[JustJim]

Mitch,

How is your claim that you "see" and/or "hear" (literally or otherwise) your God (and others in his spiritual realm), with no demonstrable evidence whatsoever to support your claims, different from delusional thinking?

No demands for anything here. No pushing or "foisting" of any of my own beliefs or opinions onto you. No intolerance or bigotry or anti-deversity of thought behind any of it. Just a simple question intended to get clarification and gather potentially new information.

You can answer or not, of course. No pressure.

Thanks.

Jim

[Keep The Reason]

You really do have your answer, Jim. It's not different. That doesn't mean it is delusional, it just means there's no objective way to support the contention a theist sees or hears god is in any way different from any delusion. No matter how gentle, rational, or carefully you word it, he (and theists in general) will always deflect the simple answer because the simple answer is a checkmate.

You know, I really think this type of thing is that core fuel that can make theists so enraged (look at mitchs response and wording, particularly his comparison to incestuous rape, of all things... which is violence writ large). It is an emotional reaction to saying the Emperor has no clothes. All is well until the veil is removed. Then-- watch out!

[Rian]

Mitch,

How is your claim that you "see" and/or "hear" (literally or otherwise) your God (and others in his spiritual realm), with no demonstrable evidence whatsoever to support your claims, different from delusional thinking?

No demands for anything here. No pushing or "foisting" of any of my own beliefs or opinions onto you. No intolerance or bigotry or anti-deversity of thought behind any of it. Just a simple question intended to get clarification and gather potentially new information.

You can answer or not, of course. No pressure.

Thanks.

Jim

While you're waiting for Mitch, let me ask you a similar question, Jim - How can we tell if your claim that you don't see any evidence for God is denial or not? For that matter, how can you tell?

(and as far as your question, I'd say "no demonstrable evidence that WE can see")

[JustJim]

You really do have your answer, Jim. It's not different. That doesn't mean it is delusional, it just means there's no objective way to support the contention a theist sees or hears god is in any way different from any delusion.

I know it doesn't mean it's delusional, and that's why I haven't said Mitch, or any other theist, is delusional based solely on the fact that they believe they've experienced such things. I asked my questions in the hope that they'd see that, without any demonstrable evidence to support their claims, there is no way to distinguish between delusional thinking and their claims. I think Mitch knows that, but, for some reason, is afraid or embarrassed to admit it.

I think it's VERY important to separate Mitch from the bulk of those who make such claims, since he's the only one on the forum who, instead of answering the questions, attacks the questioners or casts aspersions on their motives and their characters. He insists that their expressions of disagreement with his opinions and beliefs is tantamount to demanding that he give up his beliefs and adopt theirs. NO ONE ELSE on this forum does that! Other believers, ranging from the hardcore "fundamentalist" believers like Tony, Mike, and Rian to the more liberal believers like Scott, Moonwood, and StillSearching or the more naive "fringe" believers like Cleve and Aaron take the time and exert the effort to explain their beliefs and attempt to offer their reasons for why they believe as they do. That is to say, they don't accuse non-believers of being intolerant bigots who are opposed to diversity of thought simply because they disagree and express their differing opinions; rather, they explain why they believe as they do and why they disagree with the opinions and arguments non-believers have expressed. IOW, they're rational, intelligent, mature, thinking, reasonable people who've considered many different opinions and ideas and possibilities and have arrived at different conclusions and opinions from those of non-believers as a result. Mitch is in a category by himself, both in terms of his beliefs and in terms of his being a dick.

You know, I really think this type of thing is that core fuel that can make theists so enraged (look at mitchs response and wording, particularly his comparison to incestuous rape, of all things... which is violence writ large). It is an emotional reaction to saying the Emperor has no clothes. All is well until the veil is removed. Then-- watch out!

I agree with you here so far as Mitch is concerned, but I really don't think that applies to the vast majority of other theists who come here. Mitch is the only one like that I can think of. I disagree vehemently with many, MANY of the theists here, but I LIKE all of them in spite of how much and how strongly we disagree. But I don't like Mitch, and I can't pretend I do. I shouldn't have to.

Jim

[JustJim]

Mitch,

How is your claim that you "see" and/or "hear" (literally or otherwise) your God (and others in his spiritual realm), with no demonstrable evidence whatsoever to support your claims, different from delusional thinking?

No demands for anything here. No pushing or "foisting" of any of my own beliefs or opinions onto you. No intolerance or bigotry or anti-deversity of thought behind any of it. Just a simple question intended to get clarification and gather potentially new information.

You can answer or not, of course. No pressure.

Thanks.

Jim

While you're waiting for Mitch, let me ask you a similar question, Jim - How can we tell if your claim that you don't see any evidence for God is denial or not? For that matter, how can you tell?

(and as far as your question, I'd say "no demonstrable evidence that WE can see")

Hi, Rian...

I'm trying, without any luck, to imagine a scenario wherein someone could be in denial about not seeing something. I can readily see the opposite, how they could see something and be in denial of that, but not the other way around. That is not to say, of course, that my failure to see something is proof that it isn't there. I might be blind to seeing it in the same sense a colorblind person is blind to seeing colors. But that wouldn't be denial; it would simply be an inability to see. Denial, as I understand it from a psychological defense mechanism point of view, implies that the person really does see, but, for some reason, blocks out what he/she sees, or refuses (usually unconsciously) to acknowledge he/she sees it.

I think when people claim they see and/or hear things that others do not, there is at least some incumbent responsibility for them to support their claims with something that others can identify with, if only for the purpose of helping others to understand.

If you say your God and other spiritual beings are here all around us all the time, communicating with those of us who "hear and see" them, interacting with us and the world, manipulating people and events to achieve certain outcomes, and so on, why is it not a legitimate question on my part to ask you to "show me" some evidence I can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell in support of your claim? Why would such questions on my part, even if asked impolitely or in exasperated tones of disbelief, frustration and dismay, be thought of as a demand that you give up your beliefs and cease making such claims? Why would my asking such questions be cause for you to believe I'm intolerant, bigoted, or against diversity of thought? Why shouldn't I ask you to explain, back-up, support, or "prove" your claims? Why would someone be offended by such questions?

If I really can't distinguish between your claims about what you believe and delusional thinking, why shouldn't I be able to ask you about that without you getting all defensive and dick-ish about it like Mitch does? (I know you don't... I'm just a little upset about Mitch right now....)

I can't help but believe that you, or Mitch, or any other reasonable person would ask me to back up or otherwise support my claim that there are fairies living in my garden. That's only reasonable and fair. So why shouldn't I ask you to back up or otherwise support your claims about your God?

Am I missing something here?

Jim

[Keep The Reason]

While you're waiting for Mitch, let me ask you a similar question, Jim - How can we tell if your claim that you don't see any evidence for God is denial or not? For that matter, how can you tell?

(and as far as your question, I'd say "no demonstrable evidence that WE can see")

The problem with reversing the question is that we aren't making any extraordinary claims that something is. So, if you are going to ask this, then it's just as valid to have an infinite list of "How do you know you aren't denying...x?"

And this applies equally to you as a theist as well, so now you're also in the same "trap" you think reversing it on the non-believer is in. Let's show you how:

"How do you know you aren't merely denying Cthuluth as the Lord God of All?" (Well, if you insist I AM denying this, then I can insist you're denying it as well-- how do we know you aren't doing the same thing?)
"How do you know you aren't merely denying Baal as the Lord God of All?" (Well, if you insist I AM denying this, then I can insist you're denying it as well-- how do we know you aren't doing the same thing?)
"How do you know you aren't merely denying IPU as the Lord God of All?" (Well, if you insist I AM denying this, then I can insist you're denying it as well-- how do we know you aren't doing the same thing?)
"How do you know you aren't merely denying Zeus as the Lord God of All?" (Well, if you insist I AM denying this, then I can insist you're denying it as well-- how do we know you aren't doing the same thing?)

You can see how this could go on forever. I do not see any gods. I hear no gods. I am aware of no gods. If you (general "you") didn't assert there were gods in the first place, I wouldn't conjure the idea or even consider it, personally. It only occurs to me because I was told it was so. So I am not making any special claim that something is-- if you are, then you have to explain how you "see" it, or "know" it -- and if you cannot, then don't be surprised that this looks exactly like a delusion to me. Because, it looks exactly like a delusion to me. I maybe wrong, but until you can offer me something (anything) substantial, I have no way of knowing that I am. turning it around on me, when I assert no existing thing, is not a trap for me anymore than it is also entrapping you as well.

Unless we all want to admit that there's no line at all between reality and delusion, which would mean it's all absurd and once more theism would be fully and comfortably rejected upon that foundation, we have to agree that we have some connection to a reality that's out there-- and in that reality, we have obligations to support our contentions. If you cannot, that's on you.

[Keep The Reason]

I think it's VERY important to separate Mitch from the bulk of those who make such claims, since he's the only one on the forum who, instead of answering the questions, attacks the questioners or casts dispersions on their motives and their characters. He insists that their expressions of disagreement with his opinions and beliefs is tantamount to demanding that he give up his beliefs and adopt theirs. NO ONE ELSE on this forum does that! Other believers, ranging from the hardcore "fundamentalist" believers like Tony, Mike, and Rian to the more liberal believers like Scott, Moonwood, and StillSearching or the more naive "fringe" believers like Cleve and Aaron take the time and exert the effort to explain their beliefs and attempt to offer their reasons for why they believe as they do. That is to say, they don't accuse non-believers of being intolerant bigots who are opposed to diversity of thought simply because they disagree and express their differing opinions; rather, they explain why they believe as they do and why they disagree with the opinions and arguments non-believers have expressed. IOW, they're rational, intelligent, mature, thinking, reasonable people who've considered many different opinions and ideas and possibilities and have arrived at different conclusions and opinions from those of non-believers as a result. Mitch is in a category by himself, both in terms of his beliefs and in terms of his being a dick.

Well, this may be so but they also tend to say something like, "Well you do it too!" thinking they can just reverse the question. Rian does it above, and Cleve has done it, Moonwood does it as well. This is certainly not quite like what Mitch does, but it's chicanery none the less because they must know that atheistic "assertions" are not positing assertions at all-- so whence comes this reversal?

I agree with you here so far as Mitch is concerned, but I really don't think that applies to the vast majority of other theists who come here. Mitch is the only one like that I can think of. I disagree vehemently with many, MANY of the theists here, but I LIKE all of them in spite of how much and how strongly we disagree. But I don't like Mitch, and I can't pretend I do. I shouldn't have to.

I agree that the anger-response is less here than in the general public, which is what I was alluding to. There are definitely well considered theists on this site, but the theists on this site don't resemble the theists in general. Generally speaking, theists can pretty pissed off when you checkmate them into supporting their contentions. It's so obvious that one of the rules of some religions is that it's a crime to even ask the question at all in the first place (blasphemy)!

[OzAnt]

How can we tell if your claim that you don't see any evidence for God is denial or not? For that matter, how can you tell?

I found this a particularly interesting question. After all if I, the atheist, genuinely accepts that you can see stuff I can't -- and given it's as obvious to you as the nose on your face -- then I can understand your puzzlement over why I can't see it too, and how it could be quite distressing to you. Distressing to the point of causing you to wonder if I'm in denial, especially if denial is, as Jim states,

Denial, as I understand it from a psychological defense mechanism point of view, implies that the person really does see, but, for some reason, blocks out what he/she sees, or refuses (usually unconsciously) to acknowledge he/she sees it.

So, fair question. You see this stuff that I, the atheist, can't and wonder how the heck everybody else can't.

Ok, well, here's why I don't think I'm in denial. Not every theist sees the god you see, Rian. Different religions see different gods. Even people who believe in reincarnation believe that the evidence is all around them and as obvious to them as your god is to you, Rian.

As KTR almost points out, if I'm in denial about seeing all the various gods as well as non demonstrable evidence of concepts such as reincarnation and we express that as D, you're at risk of being in denial with me to the tune of D – 1. So, I guess if you would like to know if we're in denial or not, instead of asking Jim, an alternative would be to briefly forget about God and ask yourself.

Take care hon'

Ant