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

[Keep The Reason]

What is being discussed here is known as "Regeneration" in Christian theology.

Link

In short, Christians are given a view and an inner knowledge that they are one with god-- it's what we atheists counter with saying they have special knowledge we don't have. They say we can get it merely by accepting Christ, we say things like, "well, when I was a Christian I did do it and was not given to any special knowledge."

There is no way to argue past this as we cannot climb into their heads nor can they climb into ours. As to it possibly being delusional, Sam Harris has covered this in "The End Of Faith" by noting "clearly, there is sanity in numbers".

If one person made these claims (or ten) we'd consider them to be delusional or even clinically insane, like the Heavens Gate people. But since millions, if not billions claim it, it becomes the norm. There's obviously some tipping point in numbers here, but who knows what that might be?

[JustJim]

Joey and Mitch... and other believers who identify with what Mitch says and Joey agrees with....

Yes we Christians see a person and His intent written in its overall pattern, but there is no objective evidence to back it up...

How is that different from delusion or hallucination? I realize that's of no importance to the one who is delusional or hallucinating, but what about to those who aren't hearing/seeing what the hallucinator or delusional person is seeing/hearing? How do THEY distinguish between what is real and what is whacko?

I know it sounds like I'm being nasty here, but I'm really not trying to be that way. I'm genuinely curious, and would really like to know, how I would be able to tell whether what you say you hear/see is "real" (exists outside the imaginations of your brains) or is a hallucination/delusion. Is there no way for me to tell?

Jim

I appreciate your note that you're not trying to be nasty. That's a good thing to say if you're going to be saying something that could easily be taken as mean-spirited, and I appreciate that you took the time to say that.

I appreciate you appreciating that...

To answer your question: No. From what you've written in your posts, I don't think there's any way for you to tell, at least at this point in time.

Ouch.... Oh, well....

Now I don't mean to be nasty either, but I gotta say the best way to describe what I feel is that song verse that says "I once was blind, but now I see." For me, and it sounds like for most Christians here, it's faith PLUS reason. It's like when I was trying to waterski on one ski, and they told me to step over the top of the wave, and I kept saying "but I'm DOING that!!!" ... and then I did it and started skiing on one ski. You think you're doing it before, but then you're really doing it. And it's like if I'm standing by my harp and someone plays a note in another room - the corresponding harp string will vibrate, although I didn't pluck the string. Something in me resonates, for lack of a better word, with Christianity. And so many things, evaluated with my reason, confirm and justify my belief that Christianity pictures the truth. Faith is that final step that we take, if we think it is justified, when reason has taken us as far as it can take us. Christian belief is reason AND faith.

Although I think your analogy doesn't fit very well (maybe I didn't understand it well enough?), I think I can make it even worse. What I think I and other non-believers see is people skiing on TWO skis, but mistakenly believe they're only on ONE ski.

True, you didn't pluck your harp's string to make it vibrate, but your harp's string WAS plucked, so to speak, by the vibrations produced by the harp in the other room. In effect, the person who plucked the string on the harp in the other room also indirectly plucked yours... (I just LOVE the word 'pluck'...)

If what you know and what you experience honestly won't let you believe in God, then I don't see why you should believe in God. But what I know and what I experience makes me believe in God. But you can't get into my head and see what I see and experience what I experience.

No, I can't. However, I can readily identify very well with what you believe and why you believe it, since I also used to believ as you do, and for the same reasons, for many years. Besides, I think it's more than what you know and what you experience that makes you believe in God. I think you also view the world and interpret it from your worldview as a believer (which is normal and to be expected), which results in a plethora of confirmation bias. What you see in the world around you confirms what you already believe. I did the same thing when I was a believer. I do it now, too, but from a different (materialist) worldview. For either of us to do otherwise would be sufficient reason to lock us up in padded rooms. Can you imagine believing God is the creator and force behind and throughout the universe, but refusing to see that in the world around you? I hope not.... But I think people can change their world views and change their interpretations of what they see in the world around them. I think that because I did that, and still do. You have, too, and still do.

Anyhow, it's nice talking with you....

Jim

[OzAnt]

Now I don't mean to be nasty either, but I gotta say the best way to describe what I feel is that song verse that says "I once was blind, but now I see." For me, and it sounds like for most Christians here, it's faith PLUS reason. It's like when I was trying to waterski on one ski, and they told me to step over the top of the wave, and I kept saying "but I'm DOING that!!!" ... and then I did it and started skiing on one ski. You think you're doing it before, but then you're really doing it. And it's like if I'm standing by my harp and someone plays a note in another room - the corresponding harp string will vibrate, although I didn't pluck the string. Something in me resonates, for lack of a better word, with Christianity.

Hey darl',

I'm glad you feel great, I really am. I'm aware of some of the many hardships you've faced from having read your posts on this forum and so I'm really pleased to know that you've got something in your life that consistently feels good and right to you. It must be a terrific anchor in a sea of rougher emotions and feelings.

Just a brief point though on my feelings about feelings. In my teenage days as a Christian I was taught it was quite often bad to follow feelings because feelings can quite often be unreliable. Now, I'm pretty sure the predominant reason for this teaching was to try and help guard a teenager with an abundance of hormones from acting impulsively with another teenager with a similar abundance of hormones but the message was nearly always encompassed in a life -- not just life as a teenager -- lesson.

So, all I want to point out here is that part of my scepticism in allowing my feelings to tell me if I'm right or wrong stems from my lessons learnt as a Christian. Ironic, aye?

You take care gorgeous
Ant

[yjoeyh]

This is really annoying in my opinion, because Mitch would have us believe that in the following dialogue both of us make a claim:
Mitch "I'm Napoleon"
Ant "No you're not"
and this is not the case. It's simply the shorthand version of me saying,
Ant "We have never seen any evidence of the existence of reincarnation. As such I have no reasonable choice but to conclude that you aren't".
Ant

I know this wasn’t directly for me, but it made me think of the way the dialogue seems from my side:

Joey: “I’m Joey”
Ant: “No you’re not”
Ant: “We have never seen any evidence for the existence of Joey. As such I have not reasonable choice but to conclude that you aren’t.”

Sure you can say you have seen evidence for my existence. But if someone else was convinced that the evidence is better explained by some other means, you have no objective data to refute them.

That still sounds like a claim to me.

Rather, the conversation ran like this:
Mitch & Joey “Yes we Christians see a person and His intent written in its overall pattern”
Jim “We don't see that person and His intent written in its overall pattern. What's to stop us from placing you in the same category as other people that see things of which there is no objective evidence?”

Ahh. That’s a good point, I think. I suppose that we could make the same argument. What’s to stop us from placing you in the same category as other people that do not see things that are obvious to us? (For example, if you claimed something like clouds didn’t really exist.)
For me, that basically comes down to the fact that I see you, and other non-Christians as intelligent, and rational in most things. I also see myself as intelligent and rational. So for something so obvious to be missing one of us… well something is just not right. That’s not something I can really put a finger on. Neither can I be absolutely certain that what I see is NOT the delusion. Still I see what I see, and I can’t help that. Even if I am delusional, and choose to lie about it. I would still be delusional AND dishonest at the same time. What is the benefit in that?

[yjoeyh]

What is being discussed here is known as "Regeneration" in Christian theology.

Link

In short, Christians are given a view and an inner knowledge that they are one with god-- it's what we atheists counter with saying they have special knowledge we don't have. They say we can get it merely by accepting Christ, we say things like, "well, when I was a Christian I did do it and was not given to any special knowledge."

I reject the whole idea of Christian mysticism, or special knowledge (sixth sense if you will) that only Christians have. I didn't "get" anything special that I didn't already have when I became a Christ follower.I still knew the same things I knew before. Now for a while, I may have thought I was receiving something special, but I figured out later that was just my imagination.
I think this is just a bunch of superstition.
Whatever "ability" to perceive the kinds of things I'm talking about, I've always had it as long as I can remember.
I think that's why a lot of Christians will accuse Atheists of deliberately ignoring the truth. They know they personally had to reconcile what they knew about God with what they knew about life, so it's hard for them to relate to someone who simply does not know anything about God.

[mitchellmckain]

I reject the whole idea of Christian mysticism, or special knowledge (sixth sense if you will) that only Christians have. I didn't "get" anything special that I didn't already have when I became a Christ follower.I still knew the same things I knew before. Now for a while, I may have thought I was receiving something special, but I figured out later that was just my imagination.
I think this is just a bunch of superstition.
Whatever "ability" to perceive the kinds of things I'm talking about, I've always had it as long as I can remember.
I think that's why a lot of Christians will accuse Atheists of deliberately ignoring the truth. They know they personally had to reconcile what they knew about God with what they knew about life, so it's hard for them to relate to someone who simply does not know anything about God.

Yeah I encountered a claim like this some time ago, where a Christian claimed to be able to tell whether someone else was a Christian or not. I think her impression of this can be explained by my observation that all religious groups develop a special language and that what she was really recognizing was that someone was using this language, however unconscious that recognition may have been.

[Keep The Reason]

What is being discussed here is known as "Regeneration" in Christian theology.

Link

In short, Christians are given a view and an inner knowledge that they are one with god-- it's what we atheists counter with saying they have special knowledge we don't have. They say we can get it merely by accepting Christ, we say things like, "well, when I was a Christian I did do it and was not given to any special knowledge."

I reject the whole idea of Christian mysticism, or special knowledge (sixth sense if you will) that only Christians have. I didn't "get" anything special that I didn't already have when I became a Christ follower.I still knew the same things I knew before. Now for a while, I may have thought I was receiving something special, but I figured out later that was just my imagination.
I think this is just a bunch of superstition.

Whatever "ability" to perceive the kinds of things I'm talking about, I've always had it as long as I can remember.

I think that's why a lot of Christians will accuse Atheists of deliberately ignoring the truth. They know they personally had to reconcile what they knew about God with what they knew about life, so it's hard for them to relate to someone who simply does not know anything about God.

But you do claim some specialized knowledge-- you are saying it right here, in red. You claim you "see it in the world" and then you categorically state it's not either a halluncination or a delusion. That you say you've had it "All along" simply means you've been singled out for it "all along". You make very clear statements about this viewpoint of yours, and you say you don't get why "we don't see it too."

Now you say you reject some kind of "special knowledge" claim as mysticism and superstition.

I don't see consistency here at all. You believe in a god who is all -powerful and divinve, and was made flesh to come to earth to die for your sins, who raised the dead, who walked on water, and who himself came back from the dead, but you don't believe in this almost-rather-mundane idea that you might have been given special knowledge? for the record, I have never had any "ability" for this one way or the other. though I tried, it never held fast. Perhaps I'm just "special" in that poltically correct way we have of saying this about kids with low IQs, hmm?

[mitchellmckain]

Something doesn't need to contradict objective evidence in order to be delusional; it can be unsupported or uncorroborated by evidence. The fact that someone believes something is real, even though what they believe is not supported or corroborated by anything other than their self-reports of what they think they see or hear or feel, IS reason to suspect their belief may be delusional.

Since the truth of this claim cannot be corroborated by objective evidence to be real, then I must declare you to be delusional by your own standards.

[yjoeyh]

Whatever "ability" to perceive the kinds of things I'm talking about, I've always had it as long as I can remember.

But you do claim some specialized knowledge-- you are saying it right here, in red. You claim you "see it in the world" and then you categorically state it's not either a halluncination or a delusion. That you say you've had it "All along" simply means you've been singled out for it "all along". You make very clear statements about this viewpoint of yours, and you say you don't get why "we don't see it too."
Now you say you reject some kind of "special knowledge" claim as mysticism and superstition.
I don't see consistency here at all.

I never said it was a special or unique ability. It's that same senses I use to see, smell, taste, touch, and hear. There's nothing 'extra.' Even writing this post. I see pixels arranged a particular way on a computer screen. They obviously have meaning to me as I'm responding to them. I perceive that you are there and causing a particular arrangement of pixels to be displayed on my computer monitor. I sense that you are trying to say something to me and that I should respond back to you. I don't consider that to be a special or unique ability that I have.

You believe in a god who is all -powerful and divinve, and was made flesh to come to earth to die for your sins, who raised the dead, who walked on water, and who himself came back from the dead, but you don't believe in this almost-rather-mundane idea that you might have been given special knowledge?

Yes.

[OzAnt]

I know this wasn’t directly for me, but it made me think of the way the dialogue seems from my side:

Joey: “I’m Joey”
Ant: “No you’re not”
Ant: “We have never seen any evidence for the existence of Joey. As such I have not reasonable choice but to conclude that you aren’t.”

Sure you can say you have seen evidence for my existence. But if someone else was convinced that the evidence is better explained by some other means, you have no objective data to refute them.

I don't follow, because your example dialogue is inconsistent with the commentary that follows.

What’s to stop us from placing you in the same category as other people that do not see things that are obvious to us? (For example, if you claimed something like clouds didn’t really exist.)

Well, for my own benefit and that of others I should hope that you lock me up. For example, if I claimed cars didn't really exist it wouldn't take long for me to turn into a roadkill pancake. And even though that's evolution taking care of the problem it's still something devastating for a car driver to experience. Even with something as seemingly inconsequential as clouds I'm at a disadvantage to seeing approaching storm clouds and could therefore fail to get out of harm's way. And again, I could cause harm to others needing to save my sorry arse for being incapable of seeing something myself in the first place.

However, if you're relating that to asking what's stopping Christians from locking up atheists, well, all I need to point out is that not all cultures developed (ie: came to see) the same answer to the unknown. The take home message is that mankind developed religion. Your argument would be a lot more persuasive if all these different cultures had seen the same god as you so clearly do. But different cultures have developed different gods that they see as clearly as you see yours. Heck, you could talk to reincarnationists that see reincarnation in the world about them as clearly as you see your god.

This is why I keep coming back to shared-by-all reality. For me, it simply makes sense to reject that which we (humanity) do not all share in our reality. It just seems like the most rational and logical choice.

For me, that basically comes down to the fact that I see you, and other non-Christians as intelligent, and rational in most things. I also see myself as intelligent and rational. So for something so obvious to be missing one of us… well something is just not right. That’s not something I can really put a finger on. Neither can I be absolutely certain that what I see is NOT the delusion. Still I see what I see, and I can’t help that. Even if I am delusional, and choose to lie about it. I would still be delusional AND dishonest at the same time. What is the benefit in that?

Well, I guess that's why it's great that we continue to have these discussions. I participate because at the end of the day I recognise that 'we're all wrong sometimes' and these kind of discussions have the potential to unearth these mistakes.

Ant

[JustJim]

Something doesn't need to contradict objective evidence in order to be delusional; it can be unsupported or uncorroborated by evidence. The fact that someone believes something is real, even though what they believe is not supported or corroborated by anything other than their self-reports of what they think they see or hear or feel, IS reason to suspect their belief may be delusional.

Since the truth of this claim cannot be corroborated by objective evidence to be real, then I must declare you to be delusional by your own standards.

Only if you intentionally misrepresent, misunderstand, or misapply (or all three) my standards. If you used my standards, the most you could declare is that you SUSPECT my claim MAY be delusional. And then, if your were so inclined, you might choose to present your reasoning behind your conclusion that my claim is not supported or corroborated by evidence, or why you think self-reported experiences of things not experienced by others are a valid, acceptable, reliable source of support/corroboration for a claim that something is "real" outside of the head of the person reporting it (remembering, of course, that I've never denied that it's "real" to the person experiencing it). And while you were at it, you might also elect to fairly, non-judgementally examine and evaluate my claim against our knowledge base regarding delusional thinking, rather than just blow it off because it doesn't agree with your erroneous understanding of what is required for one to suspect delusional thinking may be in play.

But, of course, that's not your style, is it....

Jim

[yjoeyh]

I don't follow, because your example dialogue is inconsistent with the commentary that follows.

That's because I'm talking about two different unrelated things. Did you see a contradiction of some kind?

Well, for my own benefit and that of others I should hope that you lock me up.

That kind of thing has definitely happened in the past. I don't think that's the correct response we should take. I hope you wouldn't take that response with us either.

Even with something as seemingly inconsequential as clouds I'm at a disadvantage to seeing approaching storm clouds and could therefore fail to get out of harm's way. And again, I could cause harm to others needing to save my sorry arse for being incapable of seeing something myself in the first place.

Yes, while I certainly respect your viewpoint, I can't honestly say that I can see it as anything other than a disadvantage to you. Still that's no reason for me to try and convince you otherwise if I don't have the means to do so, and especially if I think you've already heard every approach already... have been through some storms, etc.

if you're relating that to asking what's stopping Christians from locking up atheists, well, all I need to point out is that not all cultures developed (ie: came to see) the same answer to the unknown.

The unknown is not what we are talking about though. That's an entirely different matter. Appealing to myths and lengends is common to all cultures on some level. That's part of being human when it comes to dealing with things we don't know. I'm not talking here about speculations about the unknown. I'm only talking about the things that are obvious and apparent to me.

Your argument would be a lot more persuasive if all these different cultures had seen the same god as you so clearly do.

First, it would be an appeal to popularity, so it would be a fallacious argument.
Second, like I said before, I'm not making any kind of argument here. I'm just describing what my viewpoint looks like. I'm not trying to convince anyone else that it's true. I'm just describing why I can't honestly believe it to be untrue.

But different cultures have developed different gods that they see as clearly as you see yours.

That's speculation, since neither you nor I can know how "clearly" I see what I see compares to anyone else, espcially since you say you can't see what I see.
Still, since we are speculating, I think a lot of them probably do see what I see when it comes to God's existence. The truth claims of Christianity might be a little more exclusive (although if we are going to start embracing appeals to popularity, I could point out how both modern and historical religions of the world centered on the truth claims of Christianity.) But like I said, that doesn't prove squat. I just bring it up because I think the direction you are going, appealing to different identies for God in different cultural settings is a dead end.

This is why I keep coming back to shared-by-all reality. For me, it simply makes sense to reject that which we (humanity) do not all share in our reality. It just seems like the most rational and logical choice.

That's the problem, though. You have a view of reality that isn't "shared-by-all." (and again, I could make the appeal to popularity... even shared by most humans.) I don't see reality the way you see it and I don't see how I ever could. I think the problem is that there seems to be this perception that theists and atheists believe basically the same things and then the theists just believes something 'extra.' That's just not the case. Literally everything we believe is fundamentally different. We have zero shared beliefs. We have similar beleifs in some areas, that are useful for us to treat as the same, but at the core level, they are not the same.

Well, I guess that's why it's great that we continue to have these discussions. I participate because at the end of the day I recognise that 'we're all wrong sometimes' and these kind of discussions have the potential to unearth these mistakes.

Agreed. I think that's why I like atheists so much. You guys challenge my thinking the way I WISH more Christians would, and help me grow in my thinking, even as a Christian.

[madaImadam414]

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.

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

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.

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

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.

5. Given 2, 3, and 4, the Christian parent would do better to end their child's life before they can make decisions outlined in 2.

6. Based on 2-5, it is better for a Christian parent to kill their infant/abort their fetus than allow it the possibility of damnation. Or indeed, Christians should do the same to all humans at 2.

Do I have it right? Reductio ad absurdum, Christians should not be pro-life? When I have time, I plan on disagreeing with you about: heaven, and relatedly, the importance of bodies; souls, existence and eternality; and probably the denial of the doctrine of creation implicit in the argument.

[madaImadam414]

One more thing Emery, you could have made the case against protecting all pre-fetal human life stronger. Consider the couple having fertility issues and have a baby via in-vitro fertilization. How many embryos do they make for this process? 10? 15? More? In order to impregnate the woman, they use multiple embryos, rather in a "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" methodology. Is anyone culpable for the fate of the embryos that don't make it? What about the ones left in the fridge? Is it murder if they reach their expiration date?

[mitchellmckain]

Only if you intentionally misrepresent, misunderstand, or misapply (or all three) my standards. If you used my standards, the most you could declare is that you SUSPECT my claim MAY be delusional.

No. Where there is no objective evidence for what someone has experienced, it certainly is possible that they are delusional, but when someone believes/asserts something that isn't consistent with the objective evidence then that certainly IS delusional. Making claims that implicitly should be supported by objective evidence when there cannot be any such objective evidence, is an inconsistency with the objective evidence which sounds pretty delusional to me.

And then, if your were so inclined, you might choose to present your reasoning behind your conclusion that my claim is not supported or corroborated by evidence, or why you think self-reported experiences of things not experienced by others are a valid, acceptable, reliable source of support/corroboration for a claim that something is "real" outside of the head of the person reporting it (remembering, of course, that I've never denied that it's "real" to the person experiencing it).

I deny that an inability to objectively establish that something is real outside the head of a person reporting it constitutes objectively establishing that it is not real outside the head of the person reporting it.

And while you were at it, you might also elect to fairly, non-judgementally examine and evaluate my claim against our knowledge base regarding delusional thinking, rather than just blow it off because it doesn't agree with your erroneous understanding of what is required for one to suspect delusional thinking may be in play.

But, of course, that's not your style, is it....

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.

Assertions that cannot be objectively demonstrated are the substance of religion not science. 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 (to call people delusional without objective evidence) 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.