Why do Christians reject the supernatural claims of non-Christians?

[AgnosticBoy]

So, in other words, when convenient, you end up treating such claims as if they were mostly equivalent:

X reject claim Y, because X lack evidence for Y.
X reject claim Y, because X have evidence against Y.

(You cited a claim of first form, then you complained that you weren’t persuaded of the claim of second form.)

I’m afraid that it does not lead to useful communication and investigation…

Would it make any more logical sense to say:
X rejects claim Y, because X lacks evidence for Y.
Then to find out that X accepts claim Z, while not having evidence for claim Z?

That’s clearly a contradiction - - being inconsistent in your standards.

 

[MPat]

Would it make any more logical sense to say:

X rejects claim Y, because X lacks evidence for Y.

Then to find out that X accepts claim Z, while not having evidence for claim Z?

That’s clearly a contradiction - - being inconsistent in your standards.

Contradiction? That is clearly not a contradiction, but something milder.

And maybe you shouldn’t be so harsh on double standards…

After all, you seem to be strangely sure (for an agnostic, who also ended up advocating agnosticism about all experiences) about so many claims concerning what someone else said…

Strangely sure and mostly wrong…

What other logical alternatives are there to your claim? Gorgias’s claim: Christians reject claims that lack evidence. Does this not mean that you accept claims that have evidence? It would be a contradiction (double standard) if it meant otherwise, unless you scale down your claim to apply to SOME claims and not all.

What makes you think that this claim has to be “scaled down” before applying to some claims and not all?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Contradiction? That is clearly not a contradiction, but something milder.

And maybe you shouldn’t be so harsh on double standards…

Well in a honest debate, I expect people to be consistent and logical. If Gorgias and those who follow his line of thinking claim agnosticism (as opposed to rejection) on the supernatural experiences of non-Christians, then there wouldn’t be a need to debate here.

 

[Gorgias]

Two responses:

• It’s not simply lack of evidence that may lead someone to reject something, having actual evidence against a claim can lead someone to reject a claim, as well.

Mind if I pick nits?

I would say that “lack of evidence” is the reason to reject the claim. However, “having actual evidence against a claim” is a reason not only to reject the claim, but to reject the argument altogether.

In other words, if you claimed that the moon was made of green cheese, and wanted to support your argument by claiming that the color of the moon demonstrated that it was made of green cheese, then I might reject your claim by explaining that the color of the moon as viewed from earth comes from the reflection of sunlight on the moon’s surface, not the composition of the moon’s surface. On the other hand, if I wanted to reject your assertion, I might point you in the direction of the studies of the physical make-up of moon rock samples. The former would reject your claim, whereas the latter would reject your assertion altogether.

- By rejection, I’m referring to something false. If there is a lack of evidence, you could either accept it (it’s true), reject it (it’s false), or remain open (I don’t know if it’s true or false).

Agreed. In those cases in which there isn’t a reason to reject the assertion, but only the claim of the assertion, it makes sense to reject only the claim… even if we disagree with the assertion itself. If we have reasons to reject the assertion, charity demands that we provide those reasons to you as well.

That would be a bad assumption, then. That’s like saying “if it’s not raining, therefore it’s sunny out.” It doesn’t follow logically.

What other logical alternatives are there to your claim?

Umm… seriously? OK… if it’s not raining, then it’s not necessarily sunny, because:

• maybe it’s snowing
• maybe it’s foggy
• maybe it’s overcast
• maybe it’s night-time

Simple logic, there. The set of all things Not-X does not imply that a particular thing that’s not X is true.

Gorgias’s claim: Christians reject claims that lack evidence.

Agreed. However, that doesn’t imply that “Christians reject only claims that lack evidence”; there are other claims that Christians reject, too, including claims with insufficient evidence, and claims with counter-evidence, and claims that fly in the face of Christian belief.

Does this not mean that you accept claims that have evidence?

It would be a contradiction (double standard) if it meant otherwise, unless you scale down your claim to apply to SOME claims and not all.

One hopes that you don’t mean that, if evidence is offered, it must be accepted without examination, such that “if I give ‘evidence’, you must accept my claim.”

 

[MPat]

Well in a honest debate, I expect people to be consistent and logical.

Do you include yourself among those “people”?

That was my point: you were not perfectly “consistent and logical” yourself, thus perhaps you should consider being a bit more forgiving to others when you perceive them as being less than perfectly “consistent and logical”…

For example:

If Gorgias and those who follow his line of thinking claim agnosticism (as opposed to rejection) on the supernatural experiences of non-Christians, then there wouldn’t be a need to debate here.

Here you demand agnosticism about numerous claims from others, while showing unjustified certainty about what they were claiming.

That’s also a double standard, you know…

 

[AgnosticBoy]

My question about logical alternatives was meant only for your claim about lack of evidence. Of course, I understood your example about not raining ≠ sunny day.

Agreed. However, that doesn’t imply that “Christians reject only claims that lack evidence”; there are other claims that Christians reject, too, including claims with insufficient evidence, and claims with counter-evidence, and claims that fly in the face of Christian belief.

Okay, so if you only lack evidence for a claim… do you conclude that the claim is false or do you remain agnostic?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I am flagging all this talk STT.

CAF does not permit talk of unconfirmed private vision/revelation

 

[midori]

I thought CAF was going unmoderated?

 

[Gorgias]

Okay, so if you only lack evidence for a claim… do you conclude that the claim is false or do you remain agnostic?

If we’re distinguishing between an ‘assertion’ and a ‘claim of evidence that supports the assertion’, then a claim without evidence leads us to reject the claim. If that leaves us with an unsupported assertion, then there’s no requirement to assent to the plausibility of the assertion, right?

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

I thought CAF was going unmoderated?

No, it is not. You should feel encouraged to flag any posts that are against the rules. The moderators are simply changing the way they administer to the board.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

If we’re distinguishing between an ‘assertion’ and a ‘claim of evidence that supports the assertion’, then a claim without evidence leads us to reject the claim. If that leaves us with an unsupported assertion, then there’s no requirement to assent to the plausibility of the assertion, right?

When I’m confronted with an unsupported claim, I suspend judgement. I don’t accept nor reject the claim.

When I’m confronted with an unsupported assertion, then I reject the assertion but only in the sense that it doesn’t prove what it claims BUT that doesn’t mean that it’s false either! I don’t conclude that anything is false unless I have logic/evidence to show that it’s false.

 

[ericc]

What science has to do with supernatural phenomena? Could you please explain how a scientific method could be used to show that a phenomena is supernatural instead of natural?

In an exorcism, the possessed show a violent reaction to holy objects, even if hidden nor made known to the possessed. That is one of the methods used to filter out pretenders. Though I doubt the exorcist would say he is using the scientific method in his vocation. I read that Holy Water and Oils are very effective in testing such reactions.