From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 9:46 AM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: Questions for theists Jim Humphries wrote > > Do you disagree that naturalism is > > established (by parsimony) if there is nothing that > > theism explains any better? > > I don't agree that theism does not explain some things > better tham naturalism That's not my question. Please reread it and answer it (looking up "if" in the dictionary as necessary). > the highest level scientific laws- > naturalism is quite unable to explain these, as has been > admitted. That naturalism does not explain X does not imply that any purported explanation of X should be taken as true. > > One empirical claim you may have heard of is that > > Jesus rose from the dead. > > this event does not need to be interpreted literally. Do you or do you not believe Jesus rose from the dead? > it is not clear that the event- > given that it occured so long ago, is an historical > event etc .- could be tested History does not have to be a laboratory science in order to be empirical. Do you consider the historicity of Jesus to be in question? Do you claim that no possible evidence could make a convincing case for the Resurrection? > > Nowhere except in the "JH: Design Argument" thread last > > year, and in the "Psychology of Atheism" thread last week. > > Plainly there is no demonstration of 'reduction' here. See the "Psychology of Atheism" thread for the ongoing demonstration and defense thereof. > > so I was right: there is *no* possible pattern of empirical > > evidence that could dissuade you from theism. > > On the issue of 'empirical evidence', of course there is > no empirical evidence which will falsify theism Do you claim that in no possible universe is theism an unjustifiable belief, and that theism is thus a necessarily justified belief? Do you admit that there is possible empirical evidence that could convincingly verify theism, and that no such convincing evidence exists? Also, doesn't your statement here contradict this earlier one? > > 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. > That does not mean that I would not be willing to abandon > theism as metaphysical explanation in response to, say, > rational arguments for atheism. Is this anything more than a statement that rational arguments for X would make you willing to abandon not-X as a belief? > > You just did, by disputing my prediction that theists will > > be almost gone in a few centuries. > > > I used the expression "in your dreams". That was simply > a way of saying that I saw no basis for your prediction My basis was: Since Darwin, thoughtful religionists (like you) have abandoned wholesale the empirical claims of their religions Do you dispute this? Do you claim that any predicted adherence level for theism in a few centuries is as likely as any other? > for my part I abstain from making predictions of this sort. Are we to believe that "in your dreams" was just your advice that I should similarly abstain, and not a claim that theists will not be almost gone in a few centuries? And is there thus no way to get you to comment on whether you think theism will in the future increase or decrease in the percentage of humans avowing it? > even if scholars and > archeologists produced very strong grounds for > believing that the Gospels were true, it would always > be open to doubt the genuineness of the findings- > atheists might maintain that the materials had been forged > etc.. Forgery, conspiracy, etc. are the reasons why ANY synthetic truth can never be completely certain. We could always doubt a fully self-revealing god as much as we doubt that we aren't brains in vats. So why isn't El/Yahweh more self-revealing? I'll amend and repeat the question you ignored in the Psychology of Atheism thread: Can you elaborate on the difference between "guidance", "credible evidence", "very strong grounds", and "compelling evidence"? Feel free to answer either here or in the other thread. > Thus such findings would not necessarily > result in a compelling case for belief. In other words, El/Yahweh could have arranged for there to be "very strong grounds for believing" in him without contradicting the Divine Shyness argument, but chose not to do so. How can a just and merciful god not give the grounds for belief in him that are as strong as they can be without violating his Divine Shyness obligation? On the topic of Hell, I note your own shyness: > > Do you believe that eternal torment awaits infidels after > > death, and if so do you believe it just? > > 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? > I certainly don't think that Biblical prophecies provide, > or are intended to provide, a strong evidential base for theism. You are thus wiser than many other Christian apologists, although it's not clear in what sense you qualify as Christian. (For example, you seem not to believe in the traditional notion of Hell, the historicity of the Resurrection, or the supernaturality of miracles.) -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net