Credible/Honest Apologetics?

[The Grand Nudger]

 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. 

Not an issue for any of mans gods - all of which are long disproven, nor is it an issue for pure belief which is either off or on with no particular rational requirement.  Hence the attempted rhetorical retreat into a "ground of being", or a god-in-assertion only of pure possibilities ala many worlds and the modal hook.

For the most part, and I'd point to comments in this very thread to drive this home, the religious really want to assert that their -religion- is true, but rather than do that, they doom themselves to arguments about superstitions they also happen to hold. Their religious experiences as evidence..for gods, somehow. The immediate trouble for superstition there is that people who don't believe in gods also report religious experiences. God's aren't a requirement of religion, or a religious experience - nor do they explain anything about either phenomena. The irony of gods, conceptually, is that they fail the only task we've assigned them. Whether people believe that some fairy or another exists doesn't unite anyone into a moral whole - not even the people who believe in the same fairies are united in this way.

Honest or credible apologetics for a religion are very poorly served by the assertion of superstition. Take vicarious redemption, my go to objection to christianity. If a person wanted to make the case -for- vicarious redemption they wouldn't need to mention christ a single time. Any random joe would suffice (and, as historicists have it, that's exactly what happened). It either is or isn't abhorrent no matter how many fairies or types of fairies exist or people believe in. End of the day, if people can't think of any reason (for loose and novel use of the term reason) that their religion is true or relevant outside of their gods merte (asserted) existence - then we can go ahead and mark down the time of death for this religion and it's gods - as it's on it's way to the same place as all the rest.

[Belacqua]

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.

Yes, I agree with you. This is what I've been saying.

Any atheist who has heard the claims religious people make, and given any thought to them, has rejected those claims. 

As when we evaluate any kind of claim at all, we have principles we use about what constitutes good evidence. For many people, personal testimony is not good enough, because (as I said) we consider it unreliable when it doesn't align with our larger beliefs about how the world is. 

So I think we agree on this point. Thinking atheists have a number of principles they hold to, and a number of standards they use. Their continuing atheism is a result of what they hold to be the best principles.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions about my internal thought processes. Recently, this article came out having to do with both the PNC and the PSR. I had advocated for both in the past, and had always considered them separate issues. I found it interesting that the author saw a relationship between the two. You might find it interesting...or not. Someone like Pyrrho would not be impressed.

https://strangenotions.com/the-transcend...rinciples/

[Jehanne]

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.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions about my internal thought processes. Recently, this article came out having to do with both the PNC and the PSR. I had advocated for both in the past, and had always considered them separate issues. I found it interesting that the author saw a relationship between the two. You might find it interesting...or not. Someone like Pyrrho would not be impressed.

https://strangenotions.com/the-transcend...rinciples/

I read the article, where Dr. Bonnette states the following:

A few confuse the “nothing” of quantum mechanics with the “absolutely nothing at all” that the philosopher is talking about.

Problem is that a physical state of "absolute nothing at all" is well defined, but, from the Uncertainty Principle, such a state cannot exist, physically; therefore, by PSR, the Universe must exist necessarily.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Problem is that a physical state of "absolute nothing at all" is well defined, but, from the Uncertainty Principle, such a state cannot exist, physically; therefore, by PSR, the Universe must exist necessarily.

That's an interesting argument! Although I do not quite follow. Could you flesh it out a bit more?

[Jehanne]

Problem is that a physical state of "absolute nothing at all" is well defined, but, from the Uncertainty Principle, such a state cannot exist, physically; therefore, by PSR, the Universe must exist necessarily.

That's an interesting argument! Although I do not quite follow. Could you flesh it out a bit more?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

[Simon Moon]

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.

Yes, I agree with you. This is what I've been saying.

Any atheist who has heard the claims religious people make, and given any thought to them, has rejected those claims. 

As when we evaluate any kind of claim at all, we have principles we use about what constitutes good evidence. For many people, personal testimony is not good enough, because (as I said) we consider it unreliable when it doesn't align with our larger beliefs about how the world is. 

So I think we agree on this point. Thinking atheists have a number of principles they hold to, and a number of standards they use. Their continuing atheism is a result of what they hold to be the best principles.

But should personal testimony actually be considered good enough by anyone, is the question? Even to those claim to have had one?


People have "personal testimony" for an almost endless number of supernatural claims: various mutually exclusive gods, witches, UFO abductions, encounters with bigfoot, encounters with Jinn, ghosts, zombies, exorcisms, etc, etc, etc.

Most of the people that have some of these 'personal experiences', will understand that most of the other of these claims should not be believed based on the peroneal experience of others, many times because they are rightfully skeptical, and understand the unreliability of peroneal experiences. "My personal experience with my specific god is absolutely true... but come on, alien abductions. Let's be serious."

[The Grand Nudger]

Personal experience is fine for personal motivation and personal acts, I think. Personal experience is certainly convincing. Think of something you personally experienced..and..rightly or wrongly, consider the futility of trying to convince you that it never occurred. I think, if a person says that they experienced the voice of some god and it told them to like..be groovy and stuff..I'd just say, "nice god, you should do that".

It's a shame that gods tend not to be so chill....and it's a shame that apologists and evangelists don't pursue this personal relationship, despite mouthing words to that effect.

[Belacqua]

Yes, I agree with you. This is what I've been saying.

Any atheist who has heard the claims religious people make, and given any thought to them, has rejected those claims. 

As when we evaluate any kind of claim at all, we have principles we use about what constitutes good evidence. For many people, personal testimony is not good enough, because (as I said) we consider it unreliable when it doesn't align with our larger beliefs about how the world is. 

So I think we agree on this point. Thinking atheists have a number of principles they hold to, and a number of standards they use. Their continuing atheism is a result of what they hold to be the best principles.

But should personal testimony actually be considered good enough by anyone, is the question? Even to those claim to have had one?


People have "personal testimony" for an almost endless number of supernatural claims: various mutually exclusive gods, witches, UFO abductions, encounters with bigfoot, encounters with Jinn, ghosts, zombies, exorcisms, etc, etc, etc.

Most of the people that have some of these 'personal experiences', will understand that most of the other of these claims should not be believed based on the peroneal experience of others, many times because they are rightfully skeptical, and understand the unreliability of peroneal experiences. "My personal experience with my specific god is absolutely true... but come on, alien abductions. Let's be serious."

Well, you believe nearly all of the personal experiences you have every day. Unless you're probing the sidewalk in front of you to make sure it's not a hologram, or double checking the produce at the supermarket to check that it's not an illusion. 

As I've said a couple of times now, we hold up our experiences, or the claimed experiences of others, against a pre-determined set of things we hold to be possible. And if the interpretation of the experience falls outside those boundaries, we reject it. 

Your boundaries are clear. Other people's are different. The point I was making is that you use these boundaries and standards in your continuing position as an atheist. These beliefs -- that certain kinds of testimony should be dismissed -- are essential to your atheism.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's only one thing essential to anyones atheism, and you've been here long enough to know that, though it's obviously frustrated you the entire time.