Atheists/Agnostics: How Much Sense Does God Make?

[bhsmte]

I would have to analyze it according to my worldview. All of us come to the table with certain commitments and worldviews that tell us how to interpret data. Our commitments give us parameters and tell us what is possible and acceptable.

Having a Christian worldview I would have to analyze the claims in light of scripture.

There's more to say, but I'll start with that.

How does your world view impact actual evidence? If available evidence goes against your world view, do you automatically discard it, no matter how valid the evidence is?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Most people feel differently.

Then most people are irrational.

Anecdotal and personal testimony count as evidence in a court of law.

That's not as clear cut as you make it sound. More often then not, these testimonies need to be corroborated.

Suppose that I randomly accuse you of something and I say in court "yes, yes, I saw the dude do that", do you really think you'll get convicted purely by that "testimony" alone?

Of course personal testimony and anecdotal evidence should be examined. But especially when two or three witnesses agree about something that happened the evidence can be strong indeed.

That is again a very dubious statement.
I can, for example, point you to hundreds, if not thousands, of people who'll claim to have been sexually abused on an alien space ship.

I suppose you're equally skeptical of other historical claims?

Depends on the claim.
The more fantastical the claim, the more skeptical I'll be and the more evidence I will require to accept it.

Humans coming back to life is about as fantastical as it can get.

If historical account doesn't count as evidence then you must be skeptical that anything ever happened at all in the ancient world.

Again with the shortsightedness... It all depends on the content of the claim, the amount of independent and contemporary accounts / evidence, the nature of the claim, the source of the claim, etc.

If you are going to equate a claim like "Julius Ceasar marched into Gaul with his legions" with a claim like "jesus came back to life after being dead for 3 days", then I'm just going to point out the obvious flaws.

We have multiple independent contemporary sources from which we can derive that a Roman dude named Julius Ceasar indeed marched into Gaul with his legions. We have independent accounts from Gauls, Germanics and Romans that testify to it. We can go to those battle grounds, dig in the ground and find remnants of a Roman battle. We can look around in the reigion and find Roman temples and villa's. And, last but not least, none of those claims are fantastical claims.

Rome existed.
Rome conquered many regions.
Roman conquerers had legions.

Nothing about those claims requires anything out of the ordinary.
So, even barring ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL, right of the bat those claims are a lot more believable then people coming back to life.

You seem to desperately try to equate any claim about ancient times as being equal in merrit and plausibility. But that simply is not true. It simply does not work like that.

Sure. There's no obvious reason why the Bible deserves more consideration than other historical claims. All of them deserve some consideration.

That is not true either.
A claim like "3000 years ago, an undetectable 7-headed dragon breathed fire into an egyptian temple and revived a pharaoh"
does not deserve the same consideration as "pharaoh X ordered the building of pyramid Y".

Again, historical accounts themselves are pieces of evidence.

Depends on the account. In the case of the bible, they are not. They are claims.

Especially when they're corroborated by multiple historical accounts coming from different parties that say the same thing.

Only if those accounts are independent from one another. The bible, while a collection of books, is all part of the same cult/sect. That's not what I consider corroboration and independent contemporary accounts.

Should we look for other evidence? Sure. What kinds of evidence should we look for? That would depend upon the nature of the claim. Is it true, as you say, that there is "no evidence" for any of the Bible's historical claims outside the Bible itself? Not at all.

Off course the bible will mention true events, places and people.

After all, Spiderman mentions New York as well.

But the Bible isn't written by those who believe outlandish claims. It's written by those who claim to have seen amazing things.

You don't know that because the bible is written by anonymous authors.

Having said that, you can meet up with people today that claim to have been abducted by aliens and sexually abused aboard a space ship. And they'll have a very detailed story to tell you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I would have to analyze it according to my worldview. All of us come to the table with certain commitments and worldviews that tell us how to interpret data. Our commitments give us parameters and tell us what is possible and acceptable.

Having a Christian worldview I would have to analyze the claims in light of scripture.

There's more to say, but I'll start with that.

So.... you'ld use your personal bias and go from there?

 

[Paulos23]

I suppose you reject the biblical accounts of God's miraculous works in history. Why dismiss that evidence?

Because there is no sources outside the Bible describing the same miracles. And in the case of the few that would leave physical evidence, that evidence doesn't exist.

 

[bhsmte]

Most people feel differently. Anecdotal and personal testimony count as evidence in a court of law. Of course personal testimony and anecdotal evidence should be examined. But especially when two or three witnesses agree about something that happened the evidence can be strong indeed.

I suppose you're equally skeptical of other historical claims? If historical account doesn't count as evidence then you must be skeptical that anything ever happened at all in the ancient world.



Sure. There's no obvious reason why the Bible deserves more consideration than other historical claims. All of them deserve some consideration.



Again, historical accounts themselves are pieces of evidence. Especially when they're corroborated by multiple historical accounts coming from different parties that say the same thing. Should we look for other evidence? Sure. What kinds of evidence should we look for? That would depend upon the nature of the claim. Is it true, as you say, that there is "no evidence" for any of the Bible's historical claims outside the Bible itself? Not at all.



Yes these anecdotes are possible pieces of evidence. Now I don't believe in any of these things so I would question the validity of the alleged evidence but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.



But the Bible isn't written by those who believe outlandish claims. It's written by those who claim to have seen amazing things.

Men can make any claim they want in a book, anything at all. Now, coming up with the evidence that the claim is legit, is another matter.

Are you familiar at all with the historical method? That is, how true historians go about their work, in determining whether a written work can be deemed to be historically credible? They look for a variety of evidence and corroboration, that goes far beyond what someone decided to write in a book. This is why, miracles by their very nature, are not substantiated by historians doing historical work. Miracles, are the least likely explanation of any event and historians can not use the historical method to verify them.

When you look at the work of NT historians, they can agree on the following as being historically likely to be accurate:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, they don't claim any other biblical claim about Jesus, is historically credible.

 

[Paulos23]

I think that the Euthyphro dilemma is simple enough. Morality is rooted in the person of God himself. Good behavior imitates God. Therefore it's not a standard outside of God that even he must submit to. But neither is it arbitrary such that it could change on God's slightest whim. It's unchanging -- rooted in his person and character and thus not arbitrary. But it's not an impersonal standard outside of himself.

Dilemma solved in my book.

I wanted to address this part in a separate post. If God is so unchanging, why the change from the old testiment to the new? Why all the killing, burning, and genocide done by him and in his name in the old? And then in the new he is all forgiving?

Sorry, just based on the Bible your idea that God is good and that good imitates God fails. It is more plossible that our idea of God changes to fit our need at the moment (or the leader/state need).

 

[Tree of Life]

That's not as clear cut as you make it sound. More often then not, these testimonies need to be corroborated.

Indeed. The testimony from one witness is not very compelling. Especially if the testimony is without any other evidence.

That is again a very dubious statement.
I can, for example, point you to hundreds, if not thousands, of people who'll claim to have been sexually abused on an alien space ship.

This is not analogous. These hundreds of testimonies are not hundreds of testimonies about a singular event, but about hundreds of individual events. Not very compelling. If there were hundreds of testimonies about a singular event this would be more compelling.

Depends on the claim.
The more fantastical the claim, the more skeptical I'll be and the more evidence I will require to accept it.

Humans coming back to life is about as fantastical as it can get.

Fantastical is in the eye of the beholder. Certain claims are fantastical to you because you come to the table with certain presuppositions and commitments. If you're already committed to atheism and naturalism then certain claims will be patently fantastical. But if you come to the table already committed to theism then the situation is different.

Point being it's not that atheists are unbiased and theists are biased. All of us come to the table with biases and commitments that flavor our interpretation of data.

You seem to desperately try to equate any claim about ancient times as being equal in merrit and plausibility. But that simply is not true. It simply does not work like that.

Based on your presuppositions, that is.

Depends on the account. In the case of the bible, they are not. They are claims.

Come on.

Only if those accounts are independent from one another. The bible, while a collection of books, is all part of the same cult/sect. That's not what I consider corroboration and independent contemporary accounts.

So if a group of people agree about something we should dismiss their collective claims?

You don't know that because the bible is written by anonymous authors.

Some of it is. But we also know who wrote much of it, especially the New Testament.

 

[Tree of Life]

I wanted to address this part in a separate post. If God is so unchanging, why the change from the old testiment to the new? Why all the killing, burning, and genocide done by him and in his name in the old? And then in the new he is all forgiving?

Honest question: how much of the Bible have you studied? Granted it can seem as if the God of the OT and the God of the NT are very different but upon further study these seeming differences dissolve. I've been studying the Bible for more than 10 years and am convinced that the OT and NT present a consistent God.

 

[Tree of Life]

So.... you'ld use your personal bias and go from there?

Yup. You too!

 

[bhsmte]

Honest question: how much of the Bible have you studied? Granted it can seem as if the God of the OT and the God of the NT are very different but upon further study these seeming differences dissolve. I've been studying the Bible for more than 10 years and am convinced that the OT and NT present a consistent God.

Tell us how these differences just dissolve.

 

[Tree of Life]

How does your world view impact actual evidence? If available evidence goes against your world view, do you automatically discard it, no matter how valid the evidence is?

My worldview doesn't impact evidence at all. But I cannot help but interpret data I receive through my worldview. It's impossible to do otherwise.

It is possible for our worldviews to change but this is a long process that requires much cognitive dissonance and, I believe, the grace of God.

 

[Tree of Life]

Tell us how these differences just dissolve.

It would be difficult to do this generally. It's better to do it with actual samples. Show me some alleged inconsistencies.

 

[bhsmte]

My worldview doesn't impact evidence at all. But I cannot help but interpret data I receive through my worldview. It's impossible to do otherwise.

It is possible for our worldviews to change but this is a long process that requires much cognitive dissonance and, I believe, the grace of God.

If one wants to look at evidence objectively, they don't view it through the lens of a world view that has already been determined, they view the evidence on it's own merits and follow it to where it leads. If one can not do this, very little would ever be learned from evidence, because the pre determined world view, would always be getting in the way.

Accurate discoveries of truth, are independent of world views and stand alone based on the evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

It would be difficult to do this generally. It's better to do it with actual samples. Show me some alleged inconsistencies.

Nope. It was your claim the differences in the OT and NT are dissolved when the bible is studied, so support your claim with evidence.

 

[Tree of Life]

If one wants to look at evidence objectively, they don't view it through the lens of a world view that has already been determined, they view the evidence on it's own merits and follow it to where it leads. If one can not do this, very little would ever be learned from evidence, because the pre determined world view, would always be getting in the way.

Accurate discoveries of truth, are independent of world views and stand alone based on the evidence.

I'm afraid that even this is an expression of ideology and worldview. As Zizek says, as soon as we think we've escaped ideology it's precisely then that we're within ideology.

There is no such thing as "analyzing the facts objectively".

 

[Tree of Life]

Nope. It was your claim the differences in the OT and NT are dissolved when the bible is studied, so support your claim with evidence.

The first claim was that the OT and NT present a different God. I'll wait for someone to show me evidence of this.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm afraid that even this is an expression of ideology and worldview. As Zizek says, as soon as we think we've escaped ideology it's precisely then that we're within ideology.

There is no such thing as "analyzing the facts objectively".

It is your opinion then, that the scientific method is not an attempt to view evidence in the most objective manner possible and is much better at being objective then holding onto an ideology when viewing evidence?

So, what ideology would a scientist be in, if they were a Christian and they set aside their Christian ideology, when doing scientific work?

 

[bhsmte]

The first claim was that the OT and NT present a different God. I'll wait for someone to show me evidence of this.

You responded to that by saying the "differences" are dissolved with study, so you are acknowledging with that statement, that apparent differences exist.

So, show us how this study, dissolves the differences.

 

[Tree of Life]

It is your opinion then, that the scientific method is not an attempt to view evidence in the most objective manner possible and is much better at being objective then holding onto an ideology when viewing evidence?

That's not how I would describe science. I would describe science as the study of creation for the purposes of figuring out how to use it for human wellbeing.

So, what ideology would a scientist be in, if they were a Christian and they set aside their Christian ideology, when doing scientific work?

It is not possible for a Christian to set aside Christian ideology. That's what makes ideology ideology.

Neither is it possible for an atheist or naturalist to set aside their ideology in doing scientific work.

 

[Tree of Life]

You responded to that by saying the "differences" are dissolved with study, so you are acknowledging with that statement, that apparent differences exist.

So, show us how this study, dissolves the differences.

I am unaware of any differences.