Dishonest Apologetics

[Cinette]

Atheist!

I think it would be a good idea to stop looking for proof for the existence of God and look at the evidence around you.

Look at life, look at your faculties, look at science, listen to the silence, contemplate beauty and above all consider LOVE!

 

[Lampo]

Yeah, I read all 20 of Kreeft’s arguments a while ago, but I took another look at it to jog my memory. I’ll try not to write a book-length response this time, so if there’s something you think I didn’t address well, let me know.

My first thought was that you could also think about the first premise as saying that there is either something in nature that fulfills our innate desire, or we invent something that fulfills it. For example, humans have a natural desire to have sex without consequences. Unfortunately, there was no easy natural way of preventing pregnancy (other than abusing or killing the woman), so humans have constantly been striving to invent better ways of preventing pregnancy. We currently have contraceptives that fulfill this desire (Even if they’re not 100% effective, they’re still pretty good. And using multiple methods can make the risk vanishingly small.)

Similarly, we all want something that answers all our questions, to think we will be rewarded for all our suffering, and to think we will live forever. Religion is something that can satisfy those desires. The question is whether religion is merely some human creation or whether there actually is a God.

Finally, just because there is something that fulfills our innate desires when we can create something that fulfills them does not mean that there is something that fulfills ALL innate desires. If someone wants to have all their questions answered correctly, actually be rewarded for all their suffering, and actually live forever, and there is nothing that can fulfill those desires, that person cannot do anything about it. It makes sense that there would be something to fulfill our desires as long as we are able to invent something that fulfills them, but it is not clear that there must also be something that fulfills those desires whose fulfillment we can have no control over.

Thanks for your thoughts. I disagree with your argument that an innate human desire is for sex without consequences. I believe there is an innate humane sexual desire. I don’t believe you’ve found a counter example with the one you provided. For a human desire to be innate it must be universal. It must be found wherever human nature is found. Any time, place or culture. Kreeft’s argument from desire is about our search for happiness. The one thing that everyone agrees on is that they want to be happy. Even a suicide wants to be happy. If he was happy, he wouldn’t commit suicide. If you argue that there is the possibility that not ALL of our innate desires can be fulfilled, it assumes there is no valid deductive argument at all. It assumes there is no such thing as abstracting a universal principle from instances of it but only generalizations. If you go into a restaurant and order a dish that is served with gravy and the previous fifty times you’ve done this gravy was served with it are you certain gravy will be served with it this time? No you are not. It’s only probable. An example is that all men are mortal. You have experienced the death of a number of human beings. How do you know all men are mortal? Only because you’ve experienced a dozen deaths? Is it only probable that all men are mortal? It’s not analytic. It’s not like 2+2=4. So maybe it’s not true that all men are mortal. Maybe you’ll never die. But you are quite certain that you will die. How do you know that? Because you can abstract a universal principle.

If you get time, listen to Kreeft’s argument. Here is the link. He articulates it MUCH better than I.

 

[twb1621]

Well, obviously if you assume everything in the Bible is literal truth, then the dream/vision hypothesis does not work. I think that some of the disciples had dreams or visions, but not necessarily all of them, and not at the same time. I think that based on these experiences, they firmly believed that Jesus had appeared to them. As the story was told again and again, it may have been expanded upon and somewhat exaggerated. I think that the gospels are consistent with such an account, since later gospels show evidence of possible embellishment. Mark’s account had a small group of women seeing Jesus resurrected and then not telling anyone about it. John tells a much more vivid account of the resurrection.

Why would the statement that Jesus appeared to 500 be written off if it were false? It does not identify these 500, so there would be no way to show the story to be false. How would someone know it to be false unless they interviewed every single person in the area and all of them said it was false? And if you did that, why would anyone take your word for it? So there was no real way to prove to people that that part of the story was false. I think that some of the apostles believed that the dreams or visions they had of Jesus were real appearances. People often believe things like this. For example, people sometimes think that a dead relative came back to tell them something. So I don’t find it surprising that some of the apostles would see them as real appearances. I also don’t think it’s uncommon for people who would be willing to fight and die for a cause to sometimes exaggerate things in order to win people over to their side. For example, there were firm believers in communism or Nazism who were willing to lay down their lives for their cause (note: I’m not trying to say that Catholicism is evil). However, some of them were willing to exaggerate things a little when speaking to the general public. So I think my alternative hypothesis is perfectly plausible. And I think that if we look at these two options objectively: a man miraculously rising from the dead or a legend developing out of a few dreams and visions, the latter seems more plausible. I guess for those who grow up accepting the resurrection, it does not seem as extremely unlikely as it does to me. But if you do not start from the assumption that Christianity is true, my hypothesis, or many others like it, seem more likely than that an unprecedented miracle took place.

No, its not all literal, but it is all the Truth. No disrespect intended, but your belief system or lack of it in your case is all based on you inability to accept that which you can’t touch or understand in your own mind. If you even had an understanding on human nature, you would eagerly question your own disbeliefs and search deeper. Its your opinions with no credibility. Why? You have no proper training in translating or interpreting biblical text based on the criteria necessary to do so accurately. If you look at what is necessary to determine these translations and interpretations you would better understand where they come from and how. Additionally, these interpretations have originated historically by people from around that era and beyond and have been scrutinized by both Christian and non-Christian scholars each specialized in his or her own field of study throughout history. Again, if you can’t recognize the natural responses of man, you will have more difficulty understanding their acceptance of dieing for the Truth they knew in Jesus personally and their successors knew of them.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I think along the lines of if you can prove with one argument then there is no need for others although it is good that you can approach the subject from different perspectives.

If you have read St Thomas’s proofs, what do you think of the Uncaused Cause? I am thinking that if you are still not convinced now then you must have a problem with this proof.

If so what would they be.

Well, I confess that I have not yet read Summa Theologica. I have read quotes from it and read and listened to a number of different Christian apologists present the argument. I cannot reasonably read books on every single argument for Christianity (since there are thousands). However, I would like to read Summa Theologica at some point. It’s certainly possible that my criticisms are unfounded. But if they are, I’d be interested to hear why.

I guess my main problem is that I don’t see why there cannot be an infinite series of causes. Of course, this means there is no explanation for why the universe exists instead of nothing, but I think this is just as unknowable for theists. Why do God and the universe exist rather than nothing?

And I have some other problems. For example, just because things we see everyday seem to have causes does not prove that all things must have causes. And there are things like radioactive decay whose causes are completely random (according to the best current scientific evidence). I am not certain how cause and effect would work in situations radically different than those I experience. For example, I do not know what things would be like if there was no space or time. So I do not think we can be certain that if the universe began it must have had a cause (even though based on our earthly experience it would seem extremely counterintuitive) or that God must have had a cause.

Would the Uncaused Cause not be a good enough proof of this probability so that you will believe? Again, this is all about a generic God (creator) rather than the God who is Love that one encounters in Scripture.

I am re-joning this discussion rather late so someone may have brought this matter up already.

It would. If it proved that there was some sort of supernatural creator, I would become a deist. But I still wouldn’t have any reason to think God wanted to provide us any evidence of his existence.

 

[Cinette]

Well, I confess that I have not yet read Summa Theologica. I have read quotes from it and read and listened to a number of different Christian apologists present the argument. I cannot reasonably read books on every single argument for Christianity (since there are thousands). However, I would like to read Summa Theologica at some point. It’s certainly possible that my criticisms are unfounded. But if they are, I’d be interested to hear why.

I guess my main problem is that I don’t see why there cannot be an infinite series of causes. Of course, this means there is no explanation for why the universe exists instead of nothing, but I think this is just as unknowable for theists. Why do God and the universe exist rather than nothing?

And I have some other problems. For example, just because things we see everyday seem to have causes does not prove that all things must have causes. And there are things like radioactive decay whose causes are completely random (according to the best current scientific evidence). I am not certain how cause and effect would work in situations radically different than those I experience. For example, I do not know what things would be like if there was no space or time. So I do not think we can be certain that if the universe began it must have had a cause (even though based on our earthly experience it would seem extremely counterintuitive) or that God must have had a cause.

It would. If it proved that there was some sort of supernatural creator, I would become a deist. But I still wouldn’t have any reason to think God wanted to provide us any evidence of his existence.

I realise that the things I say may sound absurd to you but I have long realised that sometimes it is best to see with the heart. I believe that your intellectual approach may be a hindrance. It gets in the way.

You see, you want to understand God and that is impossible for our small minds no matter how bright we may be - no doubt the reason why Jesus chose mere fishermen who were probably illiterate anyway. Jesus told us to be like little children.

God is outside time and we humans can conceive of only 4 dimensions (height, width, depth and time) although scientists no doubt can conceive of more dimensions but they can never go beyond their limitations.

Honest Atheist (my name for you now) look for what is under your nose. Look around you - don’t go searching beyond…

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Atheist!

I think it would be a good idea to stop looking for proof for the existence of God and look at the evidence around you.

Look at life, look at your faculties, look at science, listen to the silence, contemplate beauty and above all consider LOVE!

It’s not that I need proof for everything, I just think it’s pretty unlikely that there’s a God. I really do cherish life and love, but I just don’t see them as signs of God.

I realise that the things I say may sound absurd to you but I have long realised that sometimes it is best to see with the heart. I believe that your intellectual approach may be a hindrance. It gets in the way.

You see, you want to understand God and that is impossible for our small minds no matter how bright we may be - no doubt the reason why Jesus chose mere fishermen who were probably illiterate anyway. Jesus told us to be like little children.

God is outside time and we humans can conceive of only 4 dimensions (height, width, depth and time) although scientists no doubt can conceive of more dimensions but they can never go beyond their limitations.

It doesn’t sound absurd. I understand why you see God in things like love. If God exists then the love we feel is a gift from God. It’s just that I think things like love would be the way they are without God. To me it seems like there’s exactly as much of things like love, suffering, sadness, and excitement as there would be with no God. If there was a God, I’d actually expect there to be less suffering (at least less extreme suffering). So it’s not like I don’t look at the world around me, I just see it from a completely different perspective.

Honest Atheist (my name for you now) look for what is under your nose. Look around you - don’t go searching beyond…

I’ll keep looking; I just don’t expect to find anything.

I hope your family is doing well. I did pray for them.

 

[benedictus2]

I guess my main problem is that I don’t see why there cannot be an infinite series of causes.

This is a fly by post as lunch time is nearing its end. Will address in detail this evening.

There can’t be an infinite series of causes because that would equal zero, hence non existence of this universe.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

No, its not all literal, but it is all the Truth.

Yeah, I know that is the Catholic position on it. My point was that I obviously can’t come up with an alternate hypothesis that is consistent with every word of the Bible, since it makes it pretty clear that God and Jesus are divine.

No disrespect intended, but your belief system or lack of it in your case is all based on you inability to accept that which you can’t touch or understand in your own mind.

I don’t think this is quite true. For example, I accept particle physics, even though I cannot touch it and I certainly cannot understand a lot of it.

The reason I do is because physics research, even when hard to understand, has proven to be a reliable means of finding out truth. No matter how much I learn about things like general relativity and quantum physics, I never truly feel like I understand them or that they make sense to me. However, physics research has led to many scientific breakthroughs whose effects I can see. These are breakthroughs that could not have been achieved if our knowledge of physics was false.

However, I see no confirmation that religion is in any way a reliable means of discovering truth. While some people have religious experiences, they happen to people of all different faiths and can have an evolutionary explanation. So there has been no confirmation that religion in general, or any one religion, is a reliable means of discovering what is true. The main problem is not that I can’t understand it; it’s that I have no reason to think it’s true.

If you even had an understanding on human nature, you would eagerly question your own disbeliefs and search deeper. Its your opinions with no credibility. Why? You have no proper training in translating or interpreting biblical text based on the criteria necessary to do so accurately. If you look at what is necessary to determine these translations and interpretations you would better understand where they come from and how. Additionally, these interpretations have originated historically by people from around that era and beyond and have been scrutinized by both Christian and non-Christian scholars each specialized in his or her own field of study throughout history. Again, if you can’t recognize the natural responses of man, you will have more difficulty understanding their acceptance of dieing for the Truth they knew in Jesus personally and their successors knew of them.

I realize that I have no training in interpreting biblical texts. However, I think I am taking the most reasonable approach. I am saying I don’t know everything, but if you think I’m wrong tell me why. Pretty much no one gets well trained in interpreting every single religious book. Muslims say that you have to know Arabic in order to fully understand the Koran. Have you learned Arabic and studied how to properly interpret the Koran? What I am saying is that if there is no reason for me to think that Christianity is especially likely to be true, there is no reason for me to invest the time to become extremely well trained in interpreting it. I don’t do that for other religions that I currently think are unlikely to be true, and I don’t do it for Christianity either. However, if I saw evidence that made me think there was a 5%, or even a 1% chance that Christianity was true, I would definitely want to explore the Bible in greater depth and learn how to properly interpret it.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

This is a fly by post as lunch time is nearing its end. Will address in detail this evening.

There can’t be an infinite series of causes because that would equal zero, hence non existence of this universe.

But why can’t the universe be uncaused?

 

[davidv]

{snip}

I’ll keep looking; I just don’t expect to find anything.

{snip}

This sounds like a contradiction. If you don’t expect to find anything, why would you be looking?

 

[jpusateri]

But why can’t the universe be uncaused?

The Second law of thermodynamics implies that “there can’t be an infinite series of causes”

 

[anEvilAtheist]

The Second law of thermodynamics implies that “there can’t be an infinite series of causes”

So do you think all the cosmologists and physicists who have theories for ways in which the universe (by universe I mean the physical world) could be eternal just forgot about this?

I’m not an expert, but I’ve read a little of the literature and there are a number of theories that are not invalidated by the second law of thermodynamics. Of course we don’t yet know which one is correct because we don’t yet know whether or not things like string theory are correct.

If you really want to get into a debate about this, please give me some reasons why the second law of thermodynamics makes infinite existence impossible (ideally with citations from the scientific literature).

 

[anEvilAtheist]

This sounds like a contradiction. If you don’t expect to find anything, why would you be looking?

Cinette seemed to be saying not to get too caught up in the philosophical arguments and to take some time to look at the world around me. I think that it can be really good to take time to smell the roses, to ponder the hidden beauty in the world. Even though I have not yet seen it as a sign of God, I think it is worth my time for other reasons. I am not going to use vast amounts of time looking for something that I am pretty sure does not exist as I pointed out in my response to twb1621. But Cinette wasn’t asking me to devote my life to textual analysis of the Bible, she was simply asking me to pay attention to the beauty in life. I think this is a good thing to do regardless of whether I find expect to find anything regarding the existence of God. I guess I should have been a little clearer originally. I didn’t know everyone was going through my posts with a fine-tooth comb.

 

[benedictus2]

But why can’t the universe be uncaused?

Because a being cannot create itself.

 

[benedictus2]

I have spent some time looking into these sources in the past, but I probably should examine them more closely at some point. I do know that several of these sources have things about them that can lead us to question their reliability. However, even if I assume that they are all reliable, why would it matter? None of them contradict what I see as the most likely explanation. I think some of the apostles may indeed have believed that Jesus appeared to them based on dreams or visions.

If you make believing in the Trinity (a God who is love and reveal Himself to man), contingent on Scripture being a historical / factual account, then you will never believe, because Scripture is not a history book even though there are indeed biblical accounts supported by historical/archeological data.

For one thing, there are differing accounts of several events not only of Jesus’s life but also of other events in the OT.

Those who believe in Christ, take the Bible as the Word of God without question that is why discussing faith issues with other denominations is so much easier as we have this common ground.

The most that any debate with an atheist can be arrived at is a generic God although it is may be possible to connect the dots and arrive at the God of Abraham, the Trinity if one really tries (though I have not tried this myself).

As I have said before faith is a gift and is in the realm of spiritual not material realities although it does encompass material realities.

While faith and reason does co-exist in Catholic Theology, a lot of what we believe defies reason – at least – human reason.

I think the atheist/agnostic coming to faith is best exemplified by Alphonse Ratisbonne.

Alphonse Ratisbonne is a highly intelligent agnostic/atheist Jew who had a fierce hatred of Catholicism and Catholics. This hatred extended even to his own brother when his brother converted to Catholicism.

Through a series of evens and incredible divine intervention, he came to believe. In a span of less than 15 minutes, he changed from a complete non-believer to a passionate follower of Christ.

If you are interested in his story here is a link

http://www.marysource.com/articles/alphonse_ratisbonne.htm

Now, his story will be written off as hallucination by sceptics who demand empirical data. But even in ordinary life there are realities that cannot be supported by empirical data. Qualities such as love, goodness, self-sacrifice.

The need to connect to what is divine is a common human experience which transcends cultural boundaries.

Another atheist in this forum once wrote that life becomes hard when the existential pangs start to gnaw.

So I will throw you a very simple challenge.

Pray. Pray to the God you do not believe in but make your prayer something like this:

“I don’t believe you are out there. I don’t even know if I want to believe. But if You are indeed out there and you are what these Catholics say you are then give me the grace to believe. I don’t even believe in what they call grace, but what ever it is, Catholics seem to think it is good so please grant me Your Grace to believe.”

Try to do this daily when you rise in the morning and when you go to bed at night.

It will take probably take 2 minutes if that. If you find that you still do not believe after a month or 3 months then all you will have lost will be 4 minutes of your day. But then again, you just might be pleasantly surprised.

I will ask Cinnette, Tom, Sinner to pray with me for this grace for you.

 

[benedictus2]

So do you think all the cosmologists and physicists who have theories for ways in which the universe (by universe I mean the physical world) could be eternal just forgot about this?

I think physicists and cosmologist who thought like this have since revised their opinion based on scientific data. Now they know that that universe has a begining, is expanding and will soon end. This is quantifiable.

 

[benedictus2]

Well, obviously if you assume everything in the Bible is literal truth, then the dream/vision hypothesis does not work. I think that some of the disciples had dreams or visions, but not necessarily all of them, and not at the same time.
v
v
v
extremely unlikely as it does to me. But if you do not start from the assumption that Christianity is true, my hypothesis, or many others like it, seem more likely than that an unprecedented miracle took place.

I have sort of been following your discussion with Tom and Sinner and I agree with you in a lot of ways because we cannot use the Bible as basis for our arguments. We straight away become guilty of a non-sequitur when we do.

We cannot prove the existence of God from the Bible. The Bible is something we accept as a given.

Now God condescends to give us miracles to help us in our belief. I watched an Interview with an Exorcist and he recounts how one couple upon witnessing the exorcism completely believed. Much of faith is experiential and personal.

As Pascal (a brilliant scientist himself) wrote: In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don’t.

Sometimes all that coming to faith requires is a letting go. A relaxing of our grip on the demand for proof and we find that proof comes, but not quite in the way we expected.

 

[jpusateri]

So do you think all the cosmologists and physicists who have theories for ways in which the universe (by universe I mean the physical world) could be eternal just forgot about this?

Forgot about this? Theorists are supposed to challenge assumptions. Perhaps there is some heretofore unknown factor that has been present in all our interactions with thermal transfer that was not present in the far past that would invalidate the second law. They HAVE to think that way.

However it is a just a conjecture until that factor is known. It is more reasonable to assume it was as it is. It’s just logical and reasonable. Unless you’d like to posit a creator?

 

[twb1621]

if I saw evidence that made me think there was a 5%, or even a 1% chance that Christianity was true, I would definitely want to explore the Bible in greater depth and learn how to properly interpret it.

Start Exploring…

First of all it did not start out as a “Catholic position” for me but rather a search for the Truth.
“…I accept particle physics, even though I cannot touch it and I certainly cannot understand a lot of it.”
Are not particles of a matter?

“…However, physics research has led to many scientific breakthroughs whose effects I can see. These are breakthroughs that could not have been achieved if our knowledge of physics was false.”
Many physicists are leading to the possibility and even probability that there must be a higher force of intelligence (God) who established the universe. Therefore, your opinions are merely accepted from those who choose not to accept such a conclusion… yet.

“…However, I see no confirmation that religion is in any way a reliable means of discovering truth. While some people have religious experiences, they happen to people of all different faiths and can have an evolutionary explanation. So there has been no confirmation that religion in general, or any one religion, is a reliable means of discovering what is true. The main problem is not that I can’t understand it; it’s that I have no reason to think it’s true.”

I understand your dilemma. Religion is not the Subject, as it is a very broad term that takes in every belief whether substantiated in some way or not. Religious experiences are not limited to Faiths but to the direction they offer to the individual. It has nothing to do with what they believe, but what they do not believe or what needs to be addressed through the message. What would your evolutionary explanation offer in the over 5000 years of descriptive prophecies regarding the life and death of Christ. History including the Old Testament confirms Christianity.

“I realize that I have no training in interpreting biblical texts. However, I think I am taking the most reasonable approach. I am saying I don’t know everything, but if you think I’m wrong tell me why. Pretty much no one gets well trained in interpreting every single religious book. Muslims say that you have to know Arabic in order to fully understand the Koran. Have you learned Arabic and studied how to properly interpret the Koran? What I am saying is that if there is no reason for me to think that Christianity is especially likely to be true, there is no reason for me to invest the time to become extremely well trained in interpreting it. I don’t do that for other religions that I currently think are unlikely to be true, and I don’t do it for Christianity either. However, if I saw evidence that made me think there was a 5%, or even a 1% chance that Christianity was true, I would definitely want to explore the Bible in greater depth and learn how to properly interpret it”

No, but with 25 years of investigative and research experience, what I have done and continue to do for over 6 years is research and investigate Christianity and its origins in contrast to other forms of beliefs. That includes where something may be questionable, to referring back through the Vulgates, references to the Vetus Itala and Septuagint, cross referencing with the interpretations of the scholars over history as well as the Church’s interpretations and the partiality or non-partiality involved as well as Roman History which serves well at times. Let us not forget the centuries of discovery in archeological finds, which have served to strengthen the claims of claimed history events. When it comes to questions posed such as yours or whoever, it includes researching or referencing what may be available to offer a viable response. Not pulling information out of a hat. I do this as my thanks to God for His gifts to me and my conversion from my past .

 

[davidv]

Cinette seemed to be saying not to get too caught up in the philosophical arguments and to take some time to look at the world around me. I think that it can be really good to take time to smell the roses, to ponder the hidden beauty in the world. Even though I have not yet seen it as a sign of God, I think it is worth my time for other reasons. I am not going to use vast amounts of time looking for something that I am pretty sure does not exist as I pointed out in my response to twb1621. But Cinette wasn’t asking me to devote my life to textual analysis of the Bible, she was simply asking me to pay attention to the beauty in life. I think this is a good thing to do regardless of whether I find expect to find anything regarding the existence of God. I guess I should have been a little clearer originally. I didn’t know everyone was going through my posts with a fine-tooth comb.

Thank you for sharing this. I was not trying for a gotcha. I was checking to to see if maybe you had succumbed to the “dishonest apologetics” that you so dislike. My point would be that if you a convinced on the non-existence of thing, no matter how hard (you think) you look, you will either not recognize what you see or you will not look in some places, assuming it couldn’t possibly be there.

For many years we have hidden easter baskets for our children. It is truely fascinating to observe their seaching. In this case they are certain the item exists, yet it may take them hours to discover it. Often it can be observed that they will not even look in the place in which it was hidden.