Posts Tagged ‘atheism’
« Older Entries |
Wednesday, October 7th, 2009
My last entry was about the phrasing of questions to cut off common retreats from the question itself. The last improvement left the question as:
Atheist: Why do you worship a God that allows suffering?
I mentioned that it’s still not a great formulation, and a few comments commented that I was leaving a cliffhanger. What further improvments could be made? Quite a few in my estimation:
Tactic: make specific claims, ask for specific claims. Use clear examples and ask for clear examples.
This ‘tactic’ is a completely symmetric burden for theist and atheist alike. Add specificity to the suffering. It’s much easier to dismiss or trivialize suffering when talked about in the abstract. So take a very specific example of the worst kind of suffering you can come up with: the murder of Jessica Lunsford, the 9 year old girl who was repeatedly raped and then murdered by being buried alive.
Atheist: How can you worship a god that allowed the suffering of someone like Jessica Lunsford?
Now, the question, as it’s worded is confrontational, and we’re going for conversational. Does this mean blunting the criticism at all? No, but it means delivering the full impact of the punch without giving the person you’re talking with a bunch of things to legitimately complain about — those would just be distractions. So, start the interaction from the right mindset. Let me say now that I have read Christian “witnessing guides” that mention witnessing to non-Christians by becoming their friend so that the target is more accepting the Christian message. I disagree with this tactic profoundly, and I am not advocating that atheists try to befriend a person they argue with the goal of sneaking in a deconversion. The goal ought to be effective communication, and with that in mind, try to keep in mind a few suggestions.
- First, the person you are talking with probably holds the beliefs he does because he believes them to be true — not to annoy you.
- Second, your first goal should be to figure out what the person actually believes. Think how annoying is it when you are asked, “So you believe humans evolved entirely by chance?” We don’t want to be arguing against a belief that he doesn’t hold.
- Third, once you know what they believe, try to figure out why they believe what they do. You actually want to know what is going on in their head. You can even word it like:
Conversational Atheist: Help me understand your mindset — because it is honestly a mystery to me — I cannot conceive of ever praising a god that had full power to prevent the suffering of Jessica Lunsford, yet stood by and watched it happen. If such a god existed, I might understand withholding condemnation out of deference to some kind of unknowable reasoning. But it is truly inconceivable to me that you could actually praise such a creature. Do you see where I am coming from?
We are getting close to the best approach that I can think of from the starting question, “Why does God allow suffering?”
Few more nuances: So, as I say elsewhere, fight for the argument that is easiest to defend that is contrary to a fundamental belief. I suggest that it’s unthinkable to praise such a God without knowing the specific reasons for allowing it, and that it’s possible that a person could remain a “is god moral” agnostic. Could I argue that if such a god exists we ought to condemn it? Sure, but there are ways out that the theist has available that take time to wrap up.
Here’s how I would deal with the most common response. Notice that I chose a phrasing that anticipates the response, “But, isn’t it possible that somehow, God has some kind of plan where… greater suffering was averted by this seemingly atrocious event?”
So many ripe targets from such a response, but don’t take the bait. Many atheists are very good at identifying every single logical fallacy and error. They honestly could wrestle every single misstep to the ground, but I’m suggesting that there is considerable argumentative strength in not pursuing every possible argument. Concede as much as you can while retaining a rock solid case on your main point.
Conversational Atheist: Sure, it’s conceivable that a creature that had this power could have a good reason; it’s also conceivable that a creature is a sadistic and evil being. So, I could imagine withholding judgment, and I can imagine condemnation for allowing what appears to be an unfettered evil occur, but, seriously, how could you praise such a creature without knowing the specific good reasons?
Comments, questions, and suggested improvements welcome! As are, especially, if you have tried this approach out yourself: report and success or failures you’ve had.
Tags: atheism, God, Jessica Lunsford, Murder
Posted in Religious Interaction, debate | 6 Comments »
Sunday, October 4th, 2009
My approach to religious debates aims at making the conversations as effective as possible.
What does it mean to have an ‘effective’ debate or conversation?
At minimum, an effective debate has to have actually engaged the real thoughts and beliefs of the participants. In what I’ve witnessed, most religious arguments fail at achieving even at this meager goal.
Beyond a minimal ‘meeting of the minds’ — an effective debate will involve real challenges to the real thoughts of the participants.
And, of course, the most effective argument or debate concludes with one side convincing the other of something they had not accepted before.
I have encountered many people who think that any kind of religious debate or conversation is a waste of time.
As I said before, I aim to make religious conversations between people as effective as possible. I am not expecting my ideas to become dogma — it is almost certain that I have not formulated the perfect recipe that yields the most effective conversations possible — and so I welcome suggestions, challenges, and improvements on all aspects of my approach.
Over the years, I have had hundreds of conversations with pleasant people from every faith — the ideas that I share come from my dissecting these conversations and thinking about what worked, and why; what didn’t work, and why.
Let me give you an example. Imagine two people, one a committed Christian, the other a committed atheist secular humanist. Let’s start with a plausible broadside from the secular humanist.
Atheist: “Why does God allow suffering?”
I have come to think that there are several reasons why this question is phrased terribly. First of all, the atheist is asking the Christian to explain God’s behavior. All other considerations aside, if every other piece of the ensuing argument completely destroys every possible reason that the Christian can think of for God allowing suffering there is a huge retreat still available. Namely, the ‘why should I know why God does that’ 0r some other variation.
Rule 1: Do not let your argument hinge on asking a Christian to explain something he could conceivably say, “I don’t know” as a legitimate answer to an argument.
So, how do you tweak the question to ask essentially the same thing, but to close the “I don’t know” loophole? Ask the slightly improved question:
Atheist: “Why do you worship a God that allows suffering?”
It’s still not great, but notice that answering, ‘why should I know why I do that’ is not a legitimate answer to the question. You may still hear that answer, but even the Christian will feel uncomfortable about such a lame answer.
In watching other people debate or talk, it’s much easier, of course, to be critical of a missed opportunity or a wrong step.
Tags: atheism, Secular humanism
Posted in Religious Interaction, Uncategorized, debate | 13 Comments »
Sunday, June 28th, 2009
I spent some time reading through the more than 180 Reddit comments for my Tough Questions: “Can God do evil?” post. As of this writing, my article has 102 upvotes and 48 down votes — fairly contentious!
One thing that I find odd about the atheism subreddit of reddit.com is the very specific (and inconsistent) notion of what “belongs on the atheism subreddit”. As far as I can tell, an article that focuses on how atheists can debate and engage religious people is definitely not mis-labeled by being in the atheist subreddit. An argument might be made that a hyper-specific atheists-arguing-with-theists subsubreddit is a better fit.
Now, onto some of the criticism of my article. I got a number of challenges like, “Why would an atheist ask anything about something that doesn’t exist?” — Which is an inexcusable challenge from theists, but blows my mind as criticism coming from fellow atheists.
Other criticism: “They will say ‘no, God doesn’t commit evil’.”
More criticism: “This is the same as asking ‘Can God create a rock so big that He can’t lift it?”
Still more criticism: “This doesn’t prove that God doesn’t exist.”
I imagine that most of the criticism comes from people who did not read the whole article. If not, then I have to work on my clarity. Take the last criticism “This doesn’t prove that God doesn’t exist.” — My article also doesn’t prove that oatmeal is a better breakfast than waffles. This criticism only works if I failed to do what I set out to do. I make fairly tight claims that I try to argue, and I write them out explicitly. Let me know if I fail to persuasively argue a claim that I’m actually attempting to prove.
The simple logic of the article goes:
B or ~B
If B, then C.
If ~B, then D.
Asking whether it is possible for God to commit evil is rather straight forward. It is not asking whether you judge God to be moral (at least not initially). If God is ‘limited’ in some way — ie He cannot do evil — I would not argue that this is a strict contradiction of God being all-powerful yet, powerless to do an entire class of actions — I argue that His status as a “moral creature” becomes tenuous.
On the other hand, if God is capable of doing evil, the next question becomes not one of logical possibility, but one of epistemology — how do you know what evil He has done or not done?
If a theist would have a strong issue with either conclusion: C or D, then the argument as a whole is effective.
One funny sidenote — stumbleupon is a great source of traffic for my site overall, but Can God do evil got recommended (hooray) and favorably reviewed (hooray), but categorized under porn (huh?).
I’ve submitted a ‘change category’ request — so it should be fixed soon, but I can imagine anyone hoping to stumble across porn and ending up a religious debate site would be disappointed.
Tags: atheism, God, Reddit
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
Thursday, June 25th, 2009
I’ve posted a new article. Atheists can ask a number of tough questions in the course of a conversation or debate with a theist that quickly lead to some interesting conclusions. The following question can be very effective:
It’s important to get the types of questions straight. A few entries ago I mentioned that an atheist should focus on asking a theist to explain his own actions rather than God’s — Why worship an apparently evil God? Rather than: Why does God allow evil?
It’s another matter all together to ask whether God is actually capable of doing evil. If He cannot do evil (for whatever reason), His omnipotence and praiseworthyness become highly suspect. If He can do evil, then there are some very interesting problems that arise for the theist.
Anyway, I entertain this question in a new article: Tough Questions: Can God do evil?
Let me know what you think!
Tags: atheism, Evil, God, Omnipotence
Posted in Announcements, Religious Interaction, Theology, debate | 3 Comments »
Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009
I recently read one of Alicia Donathan’s (St. Louis Presbyterian Examiner) articles responding to questions from an atheist.
Questions from an atheist part 6:
Q: If there is a loving God, why does He permit–much less create–earthquakes, droughts, floods, tornadoes, and other natural disasters which kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children each year?
As previously noted, the answer to this question is, “I don’t know. And neither does anyone else.”
When you ask a person to explain God’s apparently contradictory actions, you will inevitably get a shoulder shrug, and perhaps a “How am I supposed to know the mind of God?”
Atheists need to figure out the kinds of questions that get a bit deeper. Don’t ask a person to explain God’s actions. You’ll eventually get to the “mysterious ways” layer if you ask deep enough.
The real question is, given that you are dealing with a creature whose motives are mysterious — why are you worshipping it? It’s really fairly simple, either you can know something substantive about God’s actions, morals and motives and can make a judgment; or you can’t know something substantive about God’s actions, morals and motives and have to refrain from making a judgment.
A theist should not be allowed to hide behind “God is unknowable” and simultaneously claim that “God is praiseworthy”.
Do not ask a theist to explain God’s actions, ask a theist to explain his own actions. If the theist worships the God of the Bible, ask something like, “How can you worship a God that commanded His followers to kill children and infants as 1 Sam. 15 claims?”
Tags: atheism
Posted in Religious Interaction, debate | 20 Comments »
Monday, April 13th, 2009
A German bishop has argued that atheism causes and has caused all manner of suffering/genocide/mass murder. Which is to say, he thinks that atheism is as evil as the God that he worships.
The story can be found here: German bishop: Atheism responsible for Nazis and mass murder
The story quotes several atheist organizations that attempt to correct the factual errors of what Bishop Mixa has said. By continually arguing the facts of the matter, we atheists are allowing our opponents frame the debate. When an atheist organization claims that the majority of Nazis considered themselves Christian, modern day Christians are likely to think something like, ‘well, they obviously weren’t very good Christians, but if they were atheists instead just think how much worse it could have been!’
I think a more fruitful approach for an atheist organization and atheists in general would be to respond with something like the following:
Hypothetical Atheist Organization Response:
The bishop can argue that atheism leads to behavior as terrible as that of the God that he worships. Of course, as atheists we have no issue condemning the mass murder that God commanded as well as the mass murder that Hitler commanded.
A major defining difference between our two organizations: the church is the only one seeking praise for the actions of a mass murderer.
We welcome any moral progress that the bishop wishes to demonstrate by condemning the acts of God that he would otherwise so rightly criticize: mass murder and genocide.
For reference I have included two very evil verses that demonstrate the actions and commands that the God of the Old Testament that the bishop has praised.
Deuteronomy 20:16-18
16But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. 17You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, 18so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.
Joshua 10:38-40
38Then Joshua, with all Israel, turned back to Debir and assaulted it, 39and he took it with its king and all its towns; they struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person in it; he left no one remaining; just as he had done to Hebron, and, as he had done to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and its king. 40So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left no one remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded.
When it comes to mass murder and genocide, we need to stop letting the debate be framed in a way that continually forces atheists on the defensive! There is a moral difference here, and we have the upper hand. Repeatedly demonstrate this fact!
Tags: atheism, God, Nazism
Posted in Religious Interaction, debate | 3 Comments »
Monday, March 30th, 2009
I got a little carried away with the artwork, the hats didn’t need to be so ornate, but then again, I’m an artist and I think it’s clear from my work that I have a great deal of talent for drawing. </sarcasm>
Actually, I hope that you enjoy the comic. It deals with Ray Comfort and a billboard that he put up…
Aside: One thing that I honestly don’t understand, is that Ray is now claiming that his “bananas are an atheist’s worst nightmare” video was edited so that it didn’t show the Coke can analogy in the beginning, and just left it with the banana argument. This editing, apparently, doesn’t not show that Ray was making a parody. There is no conceivable parody he could be making against anyone except himself because he only argues for his own position.
Without further ado: Enjoy my Comic: Ray Comfort Billboard
Tags: atheism, Banana, Ray Comfort
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
Saturday, March 7th, 2009
There are many different issues that come up with how people can discover what is good and what is evil.
I find that arguments regarding this topic circle around some fairly… unproductive lines of argument from both the theistic and atheistic sides.
I will eventually write up a few arguments that I’ve found to be useful; but I just posted an argument that I’ve had some success with here: Response to: God is the Source of Morality.
Essentially, it directly tackles the epistemic question of how a person gains knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. Either there are good reasons to think that certain actions are wrong, or there are not. A theist who thinks that humans cannot discover this on their own will have a hard time in justifying how he came to believe that God Himself is good. Specifically, how does he choose to follow God and reject Lucifer? He read God’s book first? What if he had read Satan’s book first? What would that say?
If you do not think that he would have a hard time, and you think you could make the case for him, I’d love to hear someone give the defense a try.
Any other feedback is welcome, as always!
- Conversational Atheist
Tags: atheism, Evil, Morality
Posted in Announcements, Morality | 2 Comments »
Friday, February 6th, 2009
Sam Harris has written a response to the responses to an essay about the conflict between science and religion posted on Edge.org. By the way, the title of this post comes from the concluding paragraph and Sam is writing satire (and is damn good at it).
It is awesome.
His essay can be enjoyed without reading any of the things that he refers to…although reading through the post and the responses first will give added enjoyment.
Feast on just one small sample from:
It’s All True (link loads the page at Sam’s response on the page that includes the original article and other responses)
For instance: it is now becoming a common practice in Afghanistan and Pakistan to blind and disfigure little girls with acid for the crime of going to school. When I was a neo-fundamentalist rational neo-atheist I used to criticize such behavior as an especially shameful sign of religious stupidity. I now realize—belatedly and to my great chagrin—that I knew nothing of the pain that a pious Muslim man might feel at the sight of young women learning to read. Who am I to criticize the public expression of his faith? Bateson is right. Clearly a belief in the inerrancy of the holy Qur’an is indispensable for these beleaguered people.
Ok, I just couldn’t keep it down to 1 quote. One last bit from the same article:
Is there a conflict between scientific rationality and a belief in magic spells? Specifically, is there a conflict between believing that epilepsy is a result of abnormal neural activity and believing that it is a sign of demonic possession? Dogmatists like Coyne and Dennett clearly think so. They don’t realize, as Dyson must, that the more one understands neurology, the more one will understand—and honor—demonology.
Read and enjoy!
Tags: atheism, Muslim, Sam Harris
Posted in Atheist Authors, islam | No Comments »
Thursday, December 25th, 2008
I have written about how Christian belief relates to the plight of “child witches” before in my “Why I engage in religious debates…” essay. But this recent news article is very disturbing and seriously deserves being read twice:
By David Harrison — telegraph.co.uk
“The religious leaders offer help to the families whose children are named as witches, but at a price. The churches run exorcism, or “deliverance”, evenings where the pastors attempt to drive out the evil spirits. Only they have the power to cleanse the child of evil spirits, they say. The exorcism costs the families up to a year’s income.”
…
“At his church in Ibaka, the Bishop pours a homemade substance called African mercury, a potion of pure alcohol and his own blood, into the eyes of a young boy lying on a table. “I want this poison destroyer to destroy the witch right now, in Jesus’ name,” he says.
…
He has recently refined his techniques for dealing with child witches. “I killed up to 110 people who were identified as being a witch,” he says.”
Oh good, the Bishop has killed 110 children who were witches.
Where did he get such an awesome idea?
I can think of one place…
Exodus 22:18 You shall not permit a witch to live.
Now, this is where sometimes a “but that’s an Old Testament verse!” response comes in. All right, let’s take Jesus’ actions as reported in the Gospels for insight into dealing with reality. Let us consider how to deal with demon possession, witches, and other supernatural problems. According to the Gospels, there is hardly a more widespread and pervasive problem.
Is there anything that Jesus does more of in the Gospel accounts than cast out demons?
No. And just to give you a flavor, here is a partial list of demon-verses from just the Gospel of Matthew: (when I integrate these verses into a full essay, I’ll link up each verse individually).
Search in Gospel of Matthew for Demons:
Matthew 4.24: So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought to him all the sick, those who were afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics, and he cured them.
Matthew 8.16: That evening they brought to him many who were possessed by demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and cured all who were sick.
Matthew 8.28: When he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demoniacs coming out of the tombs met him. They were so fierce that no one could pass that way.
Matthew 9.32: After they had gone away, a demoniac who was mute was brought to him.
Matthew 12.22: Then they brought to him a demoniac who was blind and mute; and he cured him, so that the one who had been mute could speak and see.
Matthew 15.22: Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, ‘Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.’
Matthew 17.18: And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and the boy was cured instantly.
One slight positive of publicizing stories like this is a followup story:
The ‘Bishop’ from the first story is arrested. Good. It’s a start.
Perhaps Western Christians who visit this page do not consider it a good thing that witches are being killed and that children with demons are being cast off into society. Two points.
- Why would these Western Christians no longer worry about demon possession and witches? A closer reading of the New Testament? Surely not.
- Western Christians often feel the need to spread their superstition to all corners of the world through missionary work — and perhaps their own … tempered … view of Christianity is less of a problem. But when you get an already highly superstitious place to adopt your version of superstition, they just may believe in your magic book even more fully than you do.
Tags: atheism, child-witches, superstition, witches
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
« Older Entries |
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=09be6735-9e5d-49b5-8d01-a32674c38105)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=0b86b937-04f4-4bb3-b1dd-d0a443e8b986)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=670f7de3-feb0-4930-ba37-734ae296ff1c)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=57779a14-baed-4d3e-a447-6c59463ada09)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=fd496038-b3de-409b-b319-3d93ac06b4ab)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6c90b315-c36b-4ae5-8bbf-2221f6849295)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=181a0b03-2439-4b7a-9da8-b6ce208d40b0)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ded0c009-95ff-4849-9cc5-55a644fc9257)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d28b060f-e091-456e-adcb-6cd7aebaa4c5)
