Ep. 99: Do Christian moderates enable fundamentalism?

[jambijuce]

Un... friggin'... believable.

I call bullshit on you, yjoeyh. I've heard a lot of cockamamie religious claims in my day, but this is too much. I believe you to be an atheistic "trojan horse" trying to wreak havoc from within the ranks of the believers. While I'm usually a supporter of the "give 'em enough rope..." strategy, this is getting to be hyper-absurd. This is a shamefully deceitful tactic, yjoeyh; shame on you.

If you truly are suggesting the above as your position, yjoeyh, I must say it's one of the most supercilious theistic positions I've heard to date (i.e. Every theist/polytheist believes in my god... they just don't know it).

Thanks!
Ad hominem is one of the highest forms of flattery.

yjoeyh,
I resorted to what you perceive to be an ad hominem attack out of a sincere belief that you were engaging in potentially unethical shenanigans. If you are sincere, I apologize. For the record, I'm very much struggling to take you seriously. You demonstrate yet another shade of faith perpetuated confidence from the theological spectrum of which there is no accountability or limit to what can be claimed or believed. You have redefined virtually every term used (from axiom to supernatural) to suit your argument. You've denied any reliance on the bible, yet insinuate it is a divine edict. You arrogantly assert that you believe in and follow the "correct God" while offering evidence that's convincing only to yourself and then proceed with your "argument" acting as if it's a resolved and agreed upon matter. You fail to in any way define what you describe as the "correct God", in fact you go a step further and "hijack" any and every thing that even remotely hints at a theistic or deistic connotation throughout history as proof of Christianity; to me, this borders on madness. Your "theology" is starting to sound more and more like a megalomaniacal obsession rather than a divinely inspired plan.

I have no intention or need to attack you personally, yjoeyh, but your claims are extraordinarily grandiose and are built upon assumed and asserted beliefs that are grounded solely on your unfounded trust/faith and personal desire/insistence that they are true. You must be aware that the structure of your argument will potentially justify and validate any longstanding established (read axiomatic by your kind) belief. All someone has to do to match the substance of your claim is indicate an ancient source and then assure confidence in the accuracy and superiority of their theology and then claim that all beliefs in other gods/religions corroborates your god (they just happen to misidentify the "correct" god).

I'm still not sure you're being serious.

[yjoeyh]

Hey yjoeyh,

Have you ever heard of Stephen Hawking's assertion that God is not necessary for the creation of the universe? Any thoughts?

I have heard it. I'm a big fan of Hawking, especially his older book, "A Brief History of Time" which was actually somewhat on my reading level.
Philosophical assertions aside, I do find these new ideas to be really interesting from a scientific perspective. Some of these assertions about theoretical physics are over my head (and over most people's heads) but the underlying problem is the conflation of philosophy and science. All Hawking was essentially saying was that there was no "gap" for God to inhabit at the creation of the universe. Since I'm not a proponent of "God of the gaps" type reasoning, that aspect of the assertion is irrelevant to me, whether it is scientifically or even logically sound to begin with. It's no different than those who used to claim that God's the one who made it rain, then science comes along and shows systematically and thoroughly how the process of precipitation works, and exactly how and why the hydrologic cycle works. They were exactly right about the process. God still makes it rain though. Showing how the process works eliminated the gap, but my God was never in the gap to begin with. He was always in the process.
And by the way, even Hawking would reject the assertion that energy is "eternal" in any sense.

Also, if you claim God is an axiom; how is this not begging the question when discussing God's existence.

It is. That's what any axiom does. No argument from me. The point is that discussing God's existence (for or against) is meaningless unless everyone begs a question initially.

[Keep The Reason]

He was always in the process.

This is pantheism then. jambijuice is right that you take the classic definitions of things and manipulate them to suit your argument, which I guess you did warn us about, in that you stated up front "It's all semantics". However much you might enjoy this, I'm of the opinion that sny rewards are short-lived because it ultimately undercuts your case as each argumentative attack you mount becomes less acceptable as you redefine these terms as something they are not.

It is. That's what any axiom does. No argument from me. The point is that discussing God's existence (for or against) is meaningless unless everyone begs a question initially.

Let's remember you beg two core questions however. We both beg the Laws of Logic question. From there, the Reasonist stops and works with models that have corroborative support (or fully acknowledges they are speculative rather than factual without such support). You! on the other hand, propose an entirely new question begging model, that of god. In this second round of question begging, the best you can do is demonstrate a book that in turn you cannot demonstrate is authoritative.

[yjoeyh]

You have redefined virtually every term used (from axiom to supernatural) to suit your argument.

I have not redefined anything. It would be very easy to prove if I did. But you are very close to the mark of what I am trying to do, which is to clarify some very ambiguous usages of terms. I believe people have twisted terms all out of proportion to match their arguments and support their conclusions. In the context of Bible literature, whether or not you agree with it as special revelation from God or not, you must acknowledge that the writers had specific things in mind when they wrote it. Theologians and Bible scholars have meticulously studied and deciphered the original intended meanings of most if not all of these terms I've clarified here. It's not really reasonable to try to apply contemporary concepts, definitions and understandings to ancient texts and terms, which is what most people do on both sides of these discussions. I'm sorry if that comes off as arrogant or self-serving. If I'm wrong, then show me where I'm wrong in any definition of terms I've attempted to clarify. If you are right, I will change my position on them.

You've denied any reliance on the bible

Absolutely untrue.

All someone has to do to match the substance of your claim is indicate an ancient source and then assure confidence in the accuracy and superiority of their theology and then claim that all beliefs in other gods/religions corroborates your god (they just happen to misidentify the "correct" god).

You are right. that's all they have to do. The hard part for them will be the parts I underlined

[yjoeyh]

This is pantheism then.

There is one major difference, a pantheistic God cannot exist without creation. A monotheistic God can exist with or without a creation. That's no different that the laws of logic we were talking about earlier. They exist whether or no there is a universe. Once you have a universe, they still exist within that universe. It's the exact same logic. Also, this is not a "panentheistic" description of God either, because he limits his experience of his creation.

jambijuice is right that you take the classic definitions of things and manipulate them to suit your argument

Not true. If I have ever departed from "classic definitions" of theological or biblical terms show me where. I admit a few terms like "supernatural" or "infinite" I purposefully dismiss because I don't find them useful but actually rather self-contradictory. I can do that though because they are not biblical terms and I don't need them theologically. But I do not attempt to redefine these terms. They mean whatever they mean. I just don't assert them, so I won't let you use them against my position. You would have some valid arguments I could not defend against otherwise.
Now words like "faith" or "love" or "hope" are biblical terms and yes they are grossly misunderstood in modern culture so I don't take that lightly and I won't let these poor definitions (again within the context of scripture) mean whatever you want them to mean. In my definitions of those terms, I am completely consistent with standard theological and Biblical terminology.

Let's remember you beg two core questions however. We both beg the Laws of Logic question.

No, that's not the question you beg. You beg the question than a universe without God is possible within the laws of logic.

[jambijuce]

I think I know how we can better address the issues we are having here, yjoeyh. Will you please give us a definition of your God? That'll give us a little clarity as to what exactly you're claiming (you seem to be claiming EVERYTHING, so a little definition would be immensely helpful). Thanks in advance!

[Emery]

No, that's not the question you beg. You beg the question than a universe without God is possible within the laws of logic.

Just jumping in here a little bit: don't both positions, that universes either with or without god are possible within the laws of logic, equally beg the question?

[Keep The Reason]

No, that's not the question you beg. You beg the question than a universe without God is possible within the laws of logic.

Just jumping in here a little bit: don't both positions, that universes either with or without god are possible within the laws of logic, equally beg the question?

I don't see a godless universe is necessarily begging the question -- it is, of course, asking the question. I think accepting the Laws of Logic is begging the question-- we assume the laws of logic exist because we need them to assume the laws of logic exist. That's as far as begging the question I go.

Before mankind and intelliegence and sentience, this issue of a universe with or without a god was non-existent. As a Reasonist, I'm merely following that protocol; existence is, and that's that. I don't know for certain if a god is (or was) neccessary or not, but I'm not the one suggesting one is, so I expect those who do assert it to supply the demonstration, evidence or proof that their assertion is valid.

The problem for the theist however is they cannot do that without begging the question of god's existence. If they never raise the issue in the first place, I wouldn't consider it one way or the other; however, they are claiming it, so now I have a reactive stance to it, which is "Show me."

But "show me your supportive argument" is not the same as atheists taking a position that existence must NOT have a god. Hell, maybe there was a Prime Mover who moved, and then died. Or maybe there's the IPU out there, creating existences left and right. Or maybe there isn't anything and existences pop into existence on their own. The point is, I readily admit I don't know for certain one way or the other. What I do know is that the theist is trapped begging the question on god, and the atheist is merely rejecting that (or those) premise(s) as invalid. I'm actually not begging the question of "gods are not needed to begin the universe" because it's an unknowable thing and an absurd question to ask in the first place. So I remain disengaged from the question altogether.

If forced to answer, I would say what I have said-- that from all the corroborative and testable evidence we can see, it seems likely as not to be not contingent upon a god to have created existence, but -- and here's where the Reasonist maintains intellectual integrity and cannot be accused of question begging -- it's merely a speculation in either direction. The theist, however, must commit to a god-ordered existence by definition which is why he is called a theist in the first place. The atheist rejects the theists' claims, but is mute on the cause of existence in any definitive way; though we might have opinions on the matter. The long and short of it is: We simply don't know, and we're perfectly at ease with that position.

This question-begging issue is the theists' problem to solve, and if they are trapped into bona fide question begging (and they are), that's their look out, not ours. I'm not forcing them into it, I'm just asking for demonstration that their speculation is valid.

So far, they have failed that single requirement.

[yjoeyh]

No, that's not the question you beg. You beg the question than a universe without God is possible within the laws of logic.

Just jumping in here a little bit: don't both positions, that universes either with or without god are possible within the laws of logic, equally beg the question?

I think you are right that they both beg the question. There's no getting around that for either side. But I don’t think it’s equal.
I think it’s a greater fallacy to suggest there could be a reality without God. At least a theistic worldview does not directly contradict the laws of logic, by suggesting that reality has no explanation. That's not to say anyone can beg the question about how we understand or describe that explanation or specifically what kind of God exists. That's where reasons comes in. Atheistic worldviews are also not axiomatic. Now that’s not a direct argument against them, but when weighing two admitted fallacies, that should tip the scale a little, don’t you think?
The problem comes in when we try to figure out what things are necessary and what things are not. Now KTR and I agreed that the laws of logic at least are necessary, but the problem with that assumption in and of itself is that the laws of logic are just propositional. Propositions don't have the ability to DO anything. They just are. So for the atheistic worldview, one must also assume that reality either has no explanation, OR that propositions have explanatory power. Neither of which are very reasonable assumptions I think.
The thing that Hawking, and others who may be spectacular scientists but who like to dabble in philosophy outside their expertise on the side, try to do is tie in the laws of logic in with the laws of nature. The law of gravity is not a law of logic. Now it DOES have explanatory power, and LOTS of it, but it’s not necessary in the absence of the universe as something like the law of non-contradiction is.

[Keep The Reason]

I think it’s a greater fallacy to suggest there could be a reality without God. At least a theistic worldview does not directly contradict the laws of logic, by suggesting that reality has no explanation.

Now that's what I call a strawman. No one suggests reality or existence doesn't have an explanation. We do reject your proffered "explanation" as undemonstrated, but yours is vastly more fallacious because it's grounded in an entity you have to beg the existence of, which you readily admit!

The problem comes in when we try to figure out what things are necessary and what things are not.

You're question begging again. I don't know what's necessary. You claim you do. You claim god is necessary-- that's begging the question because it's the claim of the necessity of a god we are trying to establish. I just happen to disagree with your conclusion. I readily say, "I have no idea how existence came into being, but what you're claiming doesn't have any support save a book of ancient writing." You won't do that though. You'll accuse me of question begging when I'm neutral on the issue, and then go even further and insist your model is somehow "less irrational". I have neither a rational nor irrational explanation for existence. I do not know and am content in not knowing (and I don't know that I cannot know-- maybe I can, maybe not). Having no position on the question is not irrational. Having a position on the question is irrational because you cannot hope to know, and you already admit you're engaged in yet another round of question begging. I agree. You are. But I'm not simply because I reject your undemonstrated model. I simply am saying, "Joey? You don't know either."

Now KTR and I agreed that the laws of logic at least are necessary, but the problem with that assumption in and of itself is that the laws of logic are just propositional. Propositions don't have the ability to DO anything. They just are. So for the atheistic worldview, one must also assume that reality either has no explanation, OR that propositions have explanatory power. Neither of which are very reasonable assumptions I think.

Or you can say, "I do not pretend to know how existence started" which is the position most atheists take. We may believe it started naturally -- and we may state that the evidence doesn't point to any gods (and it doesn't) but we cannot prove a god didn't start it all.

But neither can you. And, even if you could, you can't prove it's your Abrahamic god, and you can't prove this "god" isn't really just some sufficiently advanced scientist or entity that's mixed us up in some errant laboratory experiment. These are paradoxes you are completely trapped by. I am not, since I simply don't have a question about it. I assume but one thing: In an existing existence, the laws of logic necessarily exist.

Everything else needs demonstration or must at least be capable of being demonstrated. Otherwise, it's assertion (even if it's an assertion that serves "my side"-- like String Theory). This is the only honest position to take.

[yjoeyh]

No one suggests reality or existence doesn't have an explanation.

And this demonstrates God is an axiom.

Having no position on the question is not irrational.

Right but it's also not possible within the context of "is it true or not." I don't believe that you have no position on the question. I don't think anyone else will genuinely grant you that either.

We may believe it started naturally

Do you believe this? You seemed to imply earlier that you did not (i.e. "the eternal nature of matter and energy".)
If you do, I take no more issue with you on that point.

but we cannot prove a god didn't start it all.
But neither can you.

You're right there, and I never said I could.

you can't prove it's your Abrahamic god, and you can't prove this "god" isn't really just some sufficiently advanced scientist or entity that's mixed us up in some errant laboratory experiment. These are paradoxes you are completely trapped by.

What are the "paradoxes? I don't see a paradox here. What am I missing?

I assume but one thing: In an existing existence, the laws of logic necessarily exist.

This is where I have trouble following you and you seem to be using a moving target. One day this is the "only thing" you assume and the next day you say you "assume all sort of things." I already know your next line... "I didn't say I don't assume anything. All I said was I make 'reasonable' assumptions." Actually anyone can clearly read that you say here you assume "but one thing." So which one is it? I'm growing tired of this dance.I can say my assumptions are reasonable and yours are unreasonable. You can say the same for mine. You're not going to get anywhere by making arbitrary assertions like this.

[Keep The Reason]

This is where I have trouble following you and you seem to be using a moving target. One day this is the "only thing" you assume and the next day you say you "assume all sort of things." I already know your next line... "I didn't say I don't assume anything. All I said was I make 'reasonable' assumptions." Actually anyone can clearly read that you say here you assume "but one thing." So which one is it? I'm growing tired of this dance.I can say my assumptions are reasonable and yours are unreasonable. You can say the same for mine. You're not going to get anywhere by making arbitrary assertions like this.

I'll try one last time.

Everyone involved in any discussion or interaction with reality must admit that we presume the Laws of Logic are in place.

Are we in tune on this?

The proposition above in red is a begging of the question. We all must assume these Laws exist in order to discuss whether or not they exist. Question Begging.

That is the ONLY "question begging assumption" my worldview demands.

Does existence have a creator, or not? I do not know. I do not presume to know. I do not postulate one way or the other.

If someone asserts there is a "creator of existence", I require a demonstration that it is so. If they fail at their demonstration, I reject their assertion as FALSE.

Do I assume a variety of beliefs about different things? Sure. But I limit these assumptions to things either that are demonstrated or DEMONSTRABLE. In other words, in order for me to believe in a god, I would have to demonstrate god exists. This is an impossibility without assuming the conclusion in order to demonstrate it (i.e., question begging). If I do happen to hold a belief that is neither demonstrated nor demonstrable, I hold it out as speculation but not axiomatic.

Appealing to ancient texts is NOT demonstrating anything other than appealing to ancient books.

This is my clear position, no dancing, no equivocating-- consistent, self reliant, demonstrable, and non paradoxical.

[yjoeyh]

Hey this is my 200th post!
I never thought I would get this far! It only took two and a half years! I know you guys with thousands of posts are not impressed, but if you knew how rarely I get opportunities to post something AND have something I want to say at the same time, you would be. I guess my new meds are helping!

I'll try one last time.
Everyone involved in any discussion or interaction with reality must admit that we presume the Laws of Logic are in place.
Are we in tune on this?

Absolutely. I think I made it pretty clear that we agree on this. Your reasons for bringing up continually escape me. It has nothing to do with the assumptions made beyond this point.

That is the ONLY "question begging assumption" my worldview demands.

Not true. I've already listed other ways you make "question begging assumptions." Ignoring them and diverting to red herring arguments (literally) doesn't make them go away. You have made some attempts at responding to some of them and I respect that because that is the kind of conversation we need to be having.But as soon as I point out problems with your reasoning, you jump ship and go right back to making points that are either things we already agreed to or things that are completely arbitrary and meaningless, rather than defend your position to its logical conclusion.
Perhaps the problem is that we are trying to tackle too many point simultaneously and points keep getting confused with one another. I know I can get lost in the discussions sometimes you apparently do to.

Does existence have a creator, or not? I do not know. I do not presume to know. I do not postulate one way or the other.

That fact that you are involved in this discussion, demonstrates in and of itself that this is not true. It's disingenuous at best and even borders on self-contradictory.

Do I assume a variety of beliefs about different things? Sure. But I limit these assumptions to things either that are demonstrated or DEMONSTRABLE.

Although you stated earlier, "I might believe, act or behave as if they are true, but that doesn't mean they are demonstrably true" to which I responded that this was self-contradictory. And I will say it again here. You just can't have it both ways.You can't say that you only believe things that are demonstrable and then say you also believe things that are not demonstrable. Having a degree of certainty is one thing, as is being teachable and willing to accept that you might very well be wrong in some areas. I get that, but you either "know" something to the extent that you accept it as true or you do not. If you don't accept it as true, then you do not believe it. You merely make room for the possibility, but make no mistake, you believe it is not true. Otherwise you have a very inconsistent epistemology.

Appealing to ancient texts is NOT demonstrating anything other than appealing to ancient books.

So you don't believe that Genghis Khan was a real person or that his western conquests ever took place? If so, how do you demonstrate that without appealing to ancient texts?
You also assume that it is possible for reality to exist without God - NOT demonstrable
You assume we are not brains in a jar - NOT demonstrable
You assume other people have feelings - NOT demonstrable (your attempts so far to demonstrate this could just as easily apply to a computer, so unless you are willing to admit that you believe computers can also have feelings, you still haven't demonstrated anything)
You assume other minds exist - NOT demonstrable
The list goes on.
All you can demonstrate with each of these things is that you are not alone; that I and other people share your assumptions. Well guess what? I can do that to. That doesn't prove anything about their validity. It does prove one thing though, that all the things in this category are axioms, which are self-demonstrated truth, and ALL are reasonable assumptions.

[jambijuce]

That is the ONLY "question begging assumption" my worldview demands.

I applaud your devotion to "banging your head against the wall", KTR (I hope you've not sustained any damage ). I still can't tell if vjoeyh is being obstinate or he's just (repeatedly) missing the distinction you're clearly making between a required assumption and a consciously applied and purposefully suitable assumption.

you either "know" something to the extent that you accept it as true or you do not. If you don't accept it as true, then you do not believe it. You merely make room for the possibility, but make no mistake, you believe it is not true.

This is crap, yjoeyh. It may be the very thing that is preventing you from being reasonable in regards to a nonacceptance of a claim without evidence or demonstration. Here's a very simple illustration to make my point: if my wife told me there was a bear in the back yard, I could: 1) Believe her and go about my business. 2) Disbelieve her and go about my business. 3) Get up and take a look for myself to verify or disprove her claim. 4) I could refrain from assuming and remain neutral to her claim (maybe there is, maybe not). If I believe her, I assume truth from her based on her reliability in making claims in the past along with a knowledge that we are in "bear country" and bears periodically wander in. If I disbelieve her, I assume untruth due to her unreliability in making claims in the past along with an acknowledgement of the odds that a bear sighting is rare. If I chose option three, I would know without any need for assumptions. Option four is an option and I could indeed remain neutral to her claim; I would not by default disbelieve her.

You are being unreasonable here, yjoeyh. You're staking claim to positions you cannot justifiably defend and making comparisons that do not accurately compare the issues at hand (i.e. whether or not Genghis Khan lived or did anything he's reported to have done is irrelevant to existence; your claim of a "correct God" is not). I think you may be well served to ponder the reality that refraining from committing to a position without convincing and conclusive evidence or demonstration is not unreasonable; sometimes a "non-call" is the best call to make.

[Keep The Reason]

So you don't believe that Genghis Khan was a real person or that his western conquests ever took place? If so, how do you demonstrate that without appealing to ancient texts?
You also assume that it is possible for reality to exist without God - NOT demonstrable
You assume we are not brains in a jar - NOT demonstrable
You assume other people have feelings - NOT demonstrable (your attempts so far to demonstrate this could just as easily apply to a computer, so unless you are willing to admit that you believe computers can also have feelings, you still haven't demonstrated anything)
You assume other minds exist - NOT demonstrable
The list goes on.
All you can demonstrate with each of these things is that you are not alone; that I and other people share your assumptions. Well guess what? I can do that to. That doesn't prove anything about their validity. It does prove one thing though, that all the things in this category are axioms, which are self-demonstrated truth, and ALL are reasonable assumptions.

Well, in reply to your 200th post, I get to pound in the final nail in the coffin on this

See the word "assume" in each of your above assertions? Take that word out, and replace it with:

BELIEVE, ACT, OR BEHAVE AS IF IT'S TRUE

and you'll see where your argument fails. I am tasked, in my worldview, to concede to ONE demand of assumption: the laws of logic are true, necessarily. Everything else relies on demonstration or THE POSSIBILITY of demonstration. Every knowledge claim I have rests on the question begging that the laws of logic exist, and from that point on, it's a "weigh what is demonstrable, or possible to demonstrate". Thereupon, I make value judgments on the veracity of claims based on empirical evidence.

Feelings demonstratably applying to a computer? No, as I've noted brain mapping and chemistry signatures support empirically the emotive response humans have called "feelings" and I don't know about your PC, but mine does not have a living brain and hormones in it ( though it sometimes acts like it has all the nasty hormones). So sorry, but it's demonstrable people have feelings, and minds in fact as the thinking patterns also can be detected.

Ghengis Khan? Not just ancient texts that he conquered, but also archeological evidence he conquered.

Show me archeological evidence of sin, Joey. No, really-- demonstrate "sin", go ahead, I'll wait. How about salvation. Go ahead and demonstrate "salvation". Can you? How about grace, Joey? Can you demonstrate "grace"? While we're at it, let's see some of the god archeology you got there. Got any?

And on it goes. Hell, I might even be able to dig old Ghengis up and experiment on his Mongol corpse thus laying even more claim to his existence. I get it that you'd argue JC went skywards, so conveniently there's no body to checkup on, but what about the apostles, even? Oh, nothing there either, is there? How sad.

Anyway, I'm good with closing this out. Have the final word but I believe, demonstrably so in fact, that I have adequately represented that I have but one REQUIRED question begging, while you walk through life well saddled with them. Which is fine by me.

Thanks for a robust exercise.