My continuing debate with a Christian apologist

From time to time, I leave some comments on the website of the Christian Apologetics Society which, as far as I can tell, attempt to apologize for and rationalize as many different brands of Christianity as they can. In one recent post, they suggest:

"Also, in [recent exchanges with The Atheist Missionary and another blogger], we found instances of positive claims being made without supporting evidence. We find it somewhat interesting that individuals claiming to be more rational and logical than theists are seemingly unaware of the general rules of debate and logical fallicies. Let's be clear. Under the generally accepted rules of debate, the person making a positive claim has the burden of proof. Thus, if you were to state "they (the deities of Christianity and Islam) are in competition with one another" then the burden of proof is on you to prove your positive claim ("are"). The Christian apologist has no burden of proof. However, Christian apologists must be careful not to "consent by silence."

I responded to this post as follows:

I think part of the misunderstanding of those who complain about "evangelical atheists" is that atheism, unlike the faiths held by Christian apologetics, is not a belief system but rather an approach to thinking. For example, I am the "Atheist Missionary" but I am not so confident in my disbelief to say that you could not prove the existence of a "God" (whatever he/she/it may be) to me. Just show me the proof. Like Richard Dawkins explains in The God Delusion, there is a spectrum of thinking ranging all the way between a strong theist (they do not just believe there is a God, they know there is a God) to a strong atheist (i.e. they know there is no God). Like Dawkins, I am not a strong athiest - I would have to subscribe to the view that there is a very low probability of God, but short of zero. I can't know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life on the assumption that he/she/it is not there.

It is very difficult for me to debate with an ecumenical "Christian Apologist" because it is so hard to nail down what you believe as a matter of faith. If you don't believe anything as a matter of faith and rely on what you feel are convincing historical accounts, then we are of like minds and simply disagree on the sufficiency of the evidence you rely on in support of your beliefs. However, just to be clear, what motivates my mission includes the following:

1. Suckers who "believe" in the power of prayer when it has been consistently proven to be sterile in an experimental environment.

2. Those who rely on The Bible as being literally true (eg. the universe was created in 6 days, the earth is 6000 years old, Noah's ark, Jesus was resurrected and that Jesus was the "son of God", etc.).

3. The silly beliefs of specific faiths and I could rant on about this for weeks if given the chance. Catholics' belief in the infallibility of the pope and transubstantiation. Adherents of the LDS Church believing in the Book of Mormom. Scientologists belief in L. Ron Hubbard's sci-fi fantasy.

The reason why I conclude this post with a reference to Scientology is because I feel "mainstream" Christianity is quite similar to Scientology. Cambridge philosopher Simon Blackburn summed up my view perfectly when he wrote:

"I think that intuitively we understand that beliefs are contagious. So if someone goes along with the herd and follows one of the major surrounding religions of their culture, this need not demonstrate much of a defect. But if someone gets taken in by a minority cult, there is less excuse. It might seem more or less wilful, or the result of an unfortunate stage of life at which they were especially at sea. Other things being equal,someone who believes that Jesus walked on water is not, in our culture, so many bricks short of a load as someone who believed that the Hale-Bopp comet was his vehicle to heaven. Holding the first belief is excusable, given that so many people have been repeating it to you since childhood, whereas you have to go out of your way to pick up the second. You have to acquiesce in your own deception, or want to be deluded. It is said that religions are just cults with armies, but they are also cults with a greater number of practitioners and louder voices, and those greater numbers exert more pressure on children and even adults to join in. So joining in is less of a measure of cognitive vice. Quite sensible people get taken in. But it remains true that we cannot both hold that they believe a lot of things that it is perfectly irrational to believe, and respect them on that account."

Best regards,

T.A.M.

The Christian Apologists response was as follows (with my follow-up comments in square brackets):

Timothy said...
Greetings, T.A.M., and welcome back!

>"Just show me the proof"

That burden does not fall on Christians. Sufficient proof abounds. Our experience is that atheists/nontheists tend to develop all sorts of reasons to discount the existing proof. (Based on the flaws we observe in their online arguements, we suspect their personal reasoning and discounting is equally flawed.)

Christ tells us in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man that even if someone should rise from the dead, many would still not believe (Luke 16:19-31).

[So they don't have to prove anything. They believe because they believe because they believe. I am interpreting this response as simply regurgitating the "Bible tells me so" plus the ontological argument which is: 1. God is something than which nothing greater can be thought. 2. God exists in the understanding. 3. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding. 4. Therefore, God exists in reality. My response is simple: we can more easily conceive of no God as the existence of God.]

>"Suckers who "believe" in the power of prayer when it has been consistently proven to be sterile in an experimental environment."

There are two flaws in this statement. First, the choice of "suckers" which is an ad hominum attack, a classical logical fallacy.

Second, we doubt the "experimental environment" controlled for the possibility of the meta-physical and/or non-cooperation from a meta-physical being. Someone may be interpreting data that a meta-physical being was aware of said experiment and decided not to cooperate as prayer being ineffectual. Data is just data until given meaning. Not all interpretations of data are correct.

[Interpretation: unless and until we find some scientific evidence to support the power of prayer, we will ignore the fact that it could be easily proven in an experimental setting and yet has not been]

>"It is very difficult for me to debate with an ecumenical "Christian Apologist" because it is so hard to nail down what you believe as a matter of faith."

Shouldn't be. We're sure with your powers of rational thought you can deduce to which mainstream Christian segment we belong.

[?]

>"3. The silly beliefs of specific faiths and I could rant on about this for weeks if given the chance."

Name calling. ad hominum. Could have read "The beliefs of..."

>"Catholics' belief in the infallibility of the pope and transubstantiation."

First, we're surprised to see infallibility make your list as infallibility is the result of cold, hard, rational truth. Truth by its nature is infallible, without error, thus even a 2 year-old telling the truth is infallible while telling the truth. Surely you believe the Pope tells the truth from time to time? Catholics seem to be correct regarding infallibility.

[The most delusional schitzophrenic tells the truth from time to time]

Second, what is your rational, logical explanation for Lanciano? Catholics seem to have sufficient scientific proof for transubstantiation.

[Lanciano - I LOVE this one. The subject of a post to be forthcoming shortly]

>"The reason why I conclude this post with a reference to Scientology is because I feel "mainstream" Christianity is quite similar to Scientology."

Yeah? As there are about 2 billion Christians and over half are Latin Rite Catholic and another percentage point or two are Eastern Rite Catholic, the mainstream of Christianity is Catholic. You honestly see Catholicism as similar to Scientology? Interesting.

[I guess might makes right]

We suspect you may be refering to the mainstream of American Christianity which is Reformation Christian versus the mainstream of worldwide Christianity which is Catholic.

>"Cambridge philosopher Simon Blackburn summed up my view perfectly when he wrote:"

Some key things to note in the Blackburn excerpt:

This is yet another psychological explantion for religious adherents and not proof or disproof of the existence of God.

Blackburn seems to err in assuming that all members of the first group have "to acquiesce in your own deception" and makes no allowance for the possibility that members of the first group may have, like the second group, gone out of their way to research and confrm the first. If a member of the first group has examined the evidence and found Christ to be God incarnate, then Christ walking on water is rationally consistent with an almighty God. These members of the first group are then not going "along with the herd".

[Blackburn's point is simple: the fundamental beliefs of Christianity are just as loony as Scientology, no better and no worse. The only difference is the number of people who share those beliefs.]

God bless... +Timothy