Credible/Honest Apologetics?

[The Grand Nudger]

I agree with you that people do equivocate between the differnent connotations of the word faith. To me that's the kind of natural confusion resulting from an ambiguity in overlapping meanings of the English words, trust and faith.

With respect to first principles, I was thinking specifically about the principles of non-contradiction and sufficient reason. More generally, I consider the efficacy of human reason and the intelligibility of reality to qualify as first principles, although I call these positons "existential stances". All of these, the two transcendental certainties, plus the two existential stances, are my first priniples so to speak. On AF at least, most critiques of theistic demostration are based in a rejection of one or more the above mentioned first principles. That means that the critique tacitly asserts variously that reason cannot be trusted or that the universe is not intelligible. And maybe they aren't. Who is to say? People will never agree on first principles.

Not accepting the PSR does not imply accepting that reason cannot be trusted or that the universe is not intelligible.  That's a non sequitur.

Nor does accepting it suggest, imply, or demonstrate a god. Let's go out on a limb and suggest that the trouble you have on these boards has absolutely nothing to do with any disparity in first principles, or because anyone thinks that reason can't be trusted, or that the universe isn't fundamentally intelligible, Neo. You might prefer to have those arguments, instead - but alot of people will take that to indicate that you would really rather prefer not to demonstrate any gods, in the first place.

[Jehanne]

The only first principles an atheist has to accept, is that: the outside world exists, and other minds exist, and we are not a brain in a vat being fed false information. But again, I don't think this is a faith based position, since I have evidence.

As I understand it, many many people in history have reported religious experiences which, for them, constituted solid evidence that God exists. 

In other types of cases, such a large number of people reporting similar experiences would be considered good evidence. Atheists, however, reject the claims of all of these people. What principles do they use for this rejection?

I would say that they are interpreting the evidence in light of a theory. This is something like a scientific theory -- a structuring system through which claims are evaluated. The theory posits the principle that personal experiences do not count as good evidence if they are not backed up by different kinds of evidence -- the scientific kinds of evidence which scientists prefer. 

The principles provided by this theory, which posit certain facts about the world, provide the standards by which atheists reject the claims of millions of people, and settle on the belief that God remains unevidenced. Without these evaluative principles, used to reject people's claims, we would have to admit that the millions of people in history who have claimed personal experience of God do lend credibility to the belief in the existence of God.

So it's pretty clear that to be a thinking conscious atheist in today's world requires commitment to certain principles.

Travis Walton claimed to have been abducted by aliens:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_W...O_incident

Do you accept his claims?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I agree with you that people do equivocate between the differnent connotations of the word faith. To me that's the kind of natural confusion resulting from an ambiguity in overlapping meanings of the English words, trust and faith.

With respect to first principles, I was thinking specifically about the principles of non-contradiction and sufficient reason. More generally, I consider the efficacy of human reason and the intelligibility of reality to qualify as first principles, although I call these positons "existential stances". All of these, the two transcendental certainties, plus the two existential stances, are my first priniples so to speak. On AF at least, most critiques of theistic demostration are based in a rejection of one or more the above mentioned first principles. That means that the critique tacitly asserts variously that reason cannot be trusted or that the universe is not intelligible. And maybe they aren't. Who is to say? People will never agree on first principles.

Not accepting the PSR does not imply accepting that reason cannot be trusted or that the universe is not intelligible. That's a non sequitur.

Hmmm...I was stating a summary opinion, not attempting a logical demonstration. And that was not what I was thinking. Not accepting the PSR undermines faith in the universe's intelligibility.

[Jehanne]

I have no idea why the PSR leads to a deistic/theistic worldview. In my opinion, the PSR via Occam's Razor leads me to conclude that the "Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be."

[Mister Agenda]

Now, I propose to you, what empirical observation would convince you to abandon your theism and embrace an atheistic position?

You pose an impossible challenge by asking for an empirical test by which someone prove could negative. While such a challenge is rhetorically clever during debate, I'm not interested responding to trick questions and arguing over semantics. You clearly have concerns about the Christian faith that I am not prepared to address.

What makes it an impossible challenge? I don't require a strongly empiracle test, someone I know to be missing a limb having it grow into a fully developed appendage shortly after a Christian prayer or blessing without some experimental medical treatment aimed at regrowing limbs would fill me with wonder and gratitude for them and I would consider it evidence that the Christian faith can accompish true miracles. My friend Angel could sure use something like that, she's only got one complete limb.

[Angrboda]

Not accepting the PSR does not imply accepting that reason cannot be trusted or that the universe is not intelligible.  That's a non sequitur.

Hmmm...I was stating a summary opinion, not attempting a logical demonstration. And that was not what I was thinking. Not accepting the PSR undermines faith in the universe's intelligibility.

For you, maybe, but that seems to be because you need it to shore up some otherwise shaky conclusions you prefer to hold. It's motivated reasoning, pure and simple.

I wasn't claiming your demonstration was inadequate. That would be a straw man. I was impugning your conclusion. We've discussed these matters before. I wasn't shooting blind.

But speaking of trade-offs, turning a blind eye to issues with the PSR so that you can strengthen beliefs you haven't reached rationally undermines basic rationality and creates an unintelligible worldview. You've traded one disaster for another.

[Mister Agenda]

The only first principles an atheist has to accept, is that: the outside world exists, and other minds exist, and we are not a brain in a vat being fed false information. But again, I don't think this is a faith based position, since I have evidence. 

Is it a first principle that empirical evidence, interpreted in the light of current scientific theory, is better than revelation? This again seems unprovable and unfalsifiable, but lots of atheists hold to it. How could you falsify the idea that some revelation is true?

The only way you can claim revelations aren't falsifiable is to discount revelations that COULD be falsified. For instance, discard prophecies. Only revelations about things that can't be disproven by evidence, observation, or reason are unfalsifiable...and THEN there's the problem of contradictory revelations. Consistency in diverse regions would be weak evidence that there's something to them when the knowledge they purport would be othewise uknowable, but we don't have that. Revelations are inconsistent, so even if one of them was 'the right one', we'd have no way to know if we consdier revelation to be over evidence and reason.

[Belacqua]

Is it a first principle that empirical evidence, interpreted in the light of current scientific theory, is better than revelation? This again seems unprovable and unfalsifiable, but lots of atheists hold to it. How could you falsify the idea that some revelation is true?

The only way you can claim revelations aren't falsifiable is to discount revelations that COULD be falsified. For instance, discard prophecies. Only revelations about things that can't be disproven by evidence, observation, or reason are unfalsifiable...and THEN there's the problem of contradictory revelations. Consistency in diverse regions would be weak evidence that there's something to them when the knowledge they purport would be othewise uknowable, but we don't have that. Revelations are inconsistent, so even if one of them was 'the right one', we'd have no way to know if we consdier revelation to be over evidence and reason.

I'm not arguing that revelation is reliable. I'm addressing what is and is not falsifiable. Since it's impossible to prove that all of what gets called revelation is garbage, we can't say that knowledge through revelation has been falsified. It has not been shown that, theoretically, it could not occur. We have no proof that it hasn't.

As I said, there may be good reasons to assume that something doesn't exist even though it's not falsified. But I assume that people would need standards of judgment -- i.e. principles they believe in -- in order to reject something that hasn't been falsified. You list some of those principles. So I think we agree that to be an atheist requires adherence to certain principles concerning how we know things.

[Jehanne]

The only way you can claim revelations aren't falsifiable is to discount revelations that COULD be falsified. For instance, discard prophecies. Only revelations about things that can't be disproven by evidence, observation, or reason are unfalsifiable...and THEN there's the problem of contradictory revelations. Consistency in diverse regions would be weak evidence that there's something to them when the knowledge they purport would be othewise uknowable, but we don't have that. Revelations are inconsistent, so even if one of them was 'the right one', we'd have no way to know if we consdier revelation to be over evidence and reason.

I'm not arguing that revelation is reliable. I'm addressing what is and is not falsifiable. Since it's impossible to prove that all of what gets called revelation is garbage, we can't say that knowledge through revelation has been falsified. It has not been shown that, theoretically, it could not occur. We have no proof that it hasn't.

As I said, there may be good reasons to assume that something doesn't exist even though it's not falsified. But I assume that people would need standards of judgment -- i.e. principles they believe in -- in order to reject something that hasn't been falsified. You list some of those principles. So I think we agree that to be an atheist requires adherence to certain principles concerning how we know things.

Read Professor Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, especially, the Poverty of Agnosticism section. No one (or, at least few of Us) is claiming to be in Category 7. Yes, some Revelation may be true -- it's the signal/noise ratio that is the issue.

[Simon Moon]

The only first principles an atheist has to accept, is that: the outside world exists, and other minds exist, and we are not a brain in a vat being fed false information. But again, I don't think this is a faith based position, since I have evidence.

As I understand it, many many people in history have reported religious experiences which, for them, constituted solid evidence that God exists.

But the question then should be, is personal experience actually good evidence?

Especially when it has been proven over and over and over, how easy it is to fool the human senses.

Not to mention, a misinterpretation of an unusual, but otherwise natural change in brain states that could lead one to think they are having some sort of supernatural experience.

Has everyone that has reported religious experiences with a god, actually had an actual authentic religious experience with a god? If only some are authentic, and some are not, how do we tell the difference? How do we go about determining if any of them are authentic experiences with a god?

And how does the experiencer tell if they had an authentic experience with a god, or it was a misinterpreted natural experience?

In other types of cases, such a large number of people reporting similar experiences would be considered good evidence. Atheists, however, reject the claims of all of these people. What principles do they use for this rejection?

I would not reject the fact that multiple people all had an experience, I would reject their interpretation of it. For the reasons I mentioned previously.

There are reported cases of multiple people: seeing bigfoot, UFO, being abducted, seeing Loch Ness monster, experiencing Jinn, seeing Indian gurus: pulling jewels out of the air, floating, manifesting sacred ash, etc. Do you give these all the same credence as god experiencers?

Read the book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds" for perfectly rational explanations of crowd behavior.

I would say that they are interpreting the evidence in light of a theory. This is something like a scientific theory -- a structuring system through which claims are evaluated. The theory posits the principle that personal experiences do not count as good evidence if they are not backed up by different kinds of evidence -- the scientific kinds of evidence which scientists prefer. 

Personal experience is evidence, just not very good evidence. You do know, that evidence of a supernatural nature is not allowed in courts, right? "But judge, that ghost was responsible for hitting my wife in the head with that bronze statue".

Once again, 1000's of people a year experience UFO abduction, Jinn, bigfoot, and dozens of other supernatural events. Do you give them all credence equal to that as god experiencers?

The principles provided by this theory, which posit certain facts about the world, provide the standards by which atheists reject the claims of millions of people, and settle on the belief that God remains unevidenced. Without these evaluative principles, used to reject people's claims, we would have to admit that the millions of people in history who have claimed personal experience of God do lend credibility to the belief in the existence of God.

You are right, I should not have used the word 'unevidenced', I should have stipulated that personal experience counts as evidence, just evidence of a very poor quality.

Your entire paragraph above is one big argument from popularity fallacy.

There was a time when the vast majority of humanity believed: lightening, earthquakes, famine, floods, were all evidence for gods. How did that end up as lending credibility to their claims?

The only principal I have to accept in order to disbelieve gods and other supernatural claims, is, to paraphrase Hume, "A wise person proportions their belief to the quality of the evidence".

So it's pretty clear that to be a thinking conscious atheist in today's world requires commitment to certain principles.

Yes, I have a goal to have as many true beliefs as possible, and eliminate as many false beliefs as possible. Accepting poorly evidenced claims of personal experience with gods, is not a good was to achieve my goal.

And not to beat a dead horse, but if relied on the fact that many people claim to have had personal experiences with gods, as lending any credibility to the claim that gods exist, AND i wanted to remain intellectually honest, I'd also have to accept all those claims about: UFO abductions, Loch Ness, ghosts, Jinn, floating Indian gurus, bigfoot, etc, etc.