From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 7:41 AM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: Questions for theists "Gurnemanz" wrote > > > if it is possible > > > to furnish a scientific explanation, that does not > > > mean that naturalism is thereby established. > > > > It does, if there is nothing that theism explains any > > better than naturalism. > > > I am saying that science does not endorse naturalism I never said it did. Do you disagree that naturalism is established (by parsimony) if there is nothing that theism explains any better? > Science *concerns* itself with naturalistic phenomena, > but it is quite consistent with theism. Arbitrarily many theories and viewpoints are merely "consistent" with science, but that does not make them all valid. > > Gould's oft-cited "non-overlapping magisteria" position would > > be valid if applied to science and philosophy, but is not > > valid when applied to science and religion. > > > Please furnish your demonstration of invalidity. Religion almost always makes empirical claims, and thus overlaps with science. Does your religion not make empirical claims about events 2000 years ago in Palestine? > > The empirical and metaphysical claims of religions are > > subject to the same validity > > criteria as any other such claims. > > > Which empirical claims are made by religion? One empirical claim you may have heard of is that Jesus rose from the dead. > Which criteria are you employing to evaluate > metaphysical claims? The usual ones: logical and parsimonious consistency with evidence and with other truth. For purely analytical claims, one might also need a criterion of utility... > > Since Darwin, thoughtful > > religionists (like you) have abandoned wholesale the empirical > > claims of their religions, but cling tenaciously to the > > metaphysical ones. > > > I disagree that theism makes ( or needs to make) > for the most part empirical claims. "For the most part"? You either make some empirical claims, or none. A claim is either empirical, or it's not. I agree theism needn't make any empirical claims, and would be well-advised not to. However, it almost always does. > > In a few centuries [theists] will be almost gone, and we > > atheists will instead > > be debating mostly the mystics. > > > In your dreams! I challenge you to elaborate on your disagrement with my prediction, by taking the "belief futures challenge" I posted last year. I'll append it below. > > what you call your Argument From Design is nothing more > > than the Argument From First Cause.) > > > You keep mking assertions like this, but nowhere have you > been able to demonstrate this by means of argument. Nowhere except in the "JH: Design Argument" thread last year, and in the "Psychology of Atheism" thread last week. > > In how many years do you expect there will be a consensus for > > your position as widespread as that supporting (say) heliocentrism? > > > I don't understand. What do you mean by 'my position'? Theism -- or fideism as defined below. > I am not a fortune teller, so I cannot predict the future. You just did, by disputing my prediction that theists will be almost gone in a few centuries. > > Do you think there will ever be any compelling new evidence > > for your god, such as new miracles or physical corroboration > > of your holy text? > > > I cannot predict what archeologists and scholars may discover Yes you can, simply by applying your argument that God would never compel belief. Unless, of course, you don't really believe the argument. > > Could any possible evidence convert you to a different > > revelation-based religion, like Zoroastrianism or Sikhism? Could > > any possible evidence convert you to atheism? > > > Certainly. Good answer. I've said what evidence it would take to convert me to Christianity. Can you indicate in any way what sort of evidence would convert you to atheism? > > Do you believe that eternal torment awaits infidels after > > death, and if so do you believe it just? > > > I don't think that it is necessary to posit a Dantean Inferno > if that is what you mean. It's a ridiculously strict subset of what I mean. What I mean is pretty much what you read above. Feel free to assume dictionary definitions for any of the words you are unfamiliar with. > Some theologians speak [..] > There was a medieval theologian who argued [..] I didn't ask what they believed; I asked what *you* believe. Is there some reason why you don't want to answer? > > What (if any) is your holy book's true prophecy that > > you think should be most impressive to skeptics? > > > I would not expect that any of the prophecies in the > Bible would impress skeptics, otherwise ( presumably) > they would not be skeptics. No, it might easily be the case that they are unfamiliar with the details of the alleged prophecy. For example, it's on my to-do list to investigate some prophecy in the Book of Daniel that inerrantists say is spectacular, but I do not yet know the details of it. Again: do you have any reason to believe that your holy book has made any true prophecy that would impress any skeptic familiar with the objective evidence related to it? Or if do you not know of any such prophecy, are you for some reason embarrassed to admit this? ------------- From: Brian Holtz Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Take the belief futures challenge Date: 4 Jan 2001 The definitions: * Fideism is any belief that is based at least in part on revelation and that posits an eternal conscious afterlife the quality of which is determined by one's mortal behavior. * Mysticism is any belief that is based on direct private experience of ultimate reality and that posits a supernatural unity or agency that influences the material world or conscious souls or both. * Naturalism is the belief that reality operates without supernatural intervention and according to lawlike regularities that can be understood through empirical investigation and without special intuition. The challenge: predict what fraction of the human race will fall into each of these categories for the years 2100, 2400, and 3000. My attempt is as follows. (Data for 2000 are from Encyclopedia Britannica.) Fideists Mystics Naturalists 2000 55% 30% 15% 2100 40% 40% 20% 2400 15% 25% 60% 3000 5% 15% 80% -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net