Wyrdsmyth

Maybe the challenge from Andrew is along the lines of "how open is your mind?" I.e., how willing are you to admit the way you see things and interpret things might be fundamentally wrong? His position all along seems to be that we are not atheists merely because we discern a lack of evidence for anything like deities, but more broadly, that we are committed to a naturalistic worldview, and therefore are going to do everything we can to look for naturalistic explanations (even for fantastic or "miraculous" events), and also to discount the supernatural. Andrew, am I correct in representing your position?

If I am correct, then we are not dealing merely with an assessment of evidence (how can we, when Andrew has as of yet produced none?), but more broadly with Andrew's implicit challenge that most of us atheists are close-minded to the point that even if we would be presented with the most overt evidence imaginable, we still wouldn't be able to see the forest for the trees. So to speak.

In several cases, many of your responses may only have "verified" the point Andrew was trying to make; namely, that you are "committed" to a naturalistic worldview that is inherently antithetical to (even, more rhetorically put, hostile to) any "competing" theistic interpretations of the world.

Now, contrary to what he may assert, I am not trying to put unfair words into Andrew's mouth, and neither am I attempting a mode of condescension. Moreover, if he feels I have in any way misrepresented him, I invite him to correct me and re-state his position for himself.

Speaking for myself, I feel there are a number of issues that need to be sorted out. First, does Andrew have any "evidence" at all, or is this just all a hermeneutical dog and pony show? He may claim to have "evidence" but disdain the producing of it, on the thesis that we're going to dismiss it anyhow, on the grounds that our "worldviews" have built into them an a priori rejection of all things godly or supernatural. Judging from his prior posts, I wouldn't rule this out as his possible upcoming route. The other route I can imagine him taking is in presenting the evidence, and when rejected, questioned, or receiving an ambiguous response to it, he can say "A-ha! This verifies what I've been asserting all along -- no evidence is good enough for you atheists! You are all committed to a worldview in which there is no God, and more, no God is even possible to you!"

But something more needs to be said about atheism in general, particularly my own brand of it. Others may speak for themselves. But I have to say, I did not arrive at becoming an atheist through a single, melodramatic epiphany. No naturalist or college professor deconverted me, or in some wily way, tricked me into abandoning warm, secure theism for cold, pseudo-rational materialism. I arrived at atheism, gradually, starting with a dim hint that I and everyone else around me in church were singing hymns not to a benevolent all-father god, who warmly took in our finite adoration and invisibly smiled back to us -- but that we were just singing hymns. From that initial kernel of doubt, unarticulated and buried in an insecure adolescent's developing mind, my doubts grew and my worldview shifted and slowly, bit by bit, I realized I no longer believed and maybe I never really did. I suspect many of us have had similar experiences, and even many of the theists on this board have, too (although they might now discount them as "backsliding" or a "brief time of questioning" or something like -- again, let them speak for themselves). But at no time in my life was there this overt, pointed or intentional "commitment" to naturalism, or willful "rejection" of the God I'd been raised to believe in. And at no time did I do something like evict religious belief from my life and replace it with something like "faith in naturalism" or "science" or anything of the sort.

I know there have been many alleged "miracles" out there, and so forth; some hoaxes, some still unexplanable... But call it an increased awareness of human gullibility, fear, desire for security, and also human duplicity... Whatever it is, in some ambiguous way, it has made me distrustful of all things spiritual and supernatural. A couple of flim-flams and snake-oil salesmen don't mean all prophets are frauds, I know... But what I see and live in is a natural world, full of some things we understand and some things we don't, and a few charismatic speakers and old scriptures that claim to have the secret revelations to connect us with the supernatural, and all we have to do is trust them, and everthing will be alright.

Beyond this, I really don't know what I can say to theists like Andrew and others. It's hard to sum up one's life and the way one has developed into a few concise paragraphs. I know my own main concern is that I don't like for theists to misunderstand us, or misrepresent us. I certainly don't intend to misrepresent them.

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

Panta Pei

Wyrdsmyth:

Thanks for giving Andrew the benefit of the doubt regarding your perceived clarification of his motivation and intent.

However, I do not feel so generous on this issue.

He used words like "sworn" and "notarized" to infer authenticity without making it comletely clear that the issue was hypothetical in order to illicit some general responses from atheists.

Then he used their responses (which were offered from various assumptions due to his intentional vagueness) from a falsehood to render theistic judgements upon them.

He finally admitted after much prodding that the entire position was not factual at all.

This entire exercise was dishonest and provides no real clarification of any issue or clear position from any of the respondents due to the fluid foundation from which Andrew is free to manipulate his opinion based on whatever response he gets.

He then implies that though he made up the first miraculous claim, he expects us to believe his 'miraculous malady' tale from the memory of his childhood. Gullibility lies with theism, not atheism so he can give that whole angle a rest.

His assertion that :"My counter point is quite simple. I don't think it is merely a lack of belief but a very strong fundamental belief in naturalism that is the source of disbelief. And the responses thus far have borne this out." is completely disingenuous and seems predetermined from his fixed mindset and use of ruse.

There is no such thing as dogma or creed or 'fundamental belief' for "naturalism". Such is the desperate need of theists - to recreate atheism as a belief in "something" rather than a disbelief in theism (particulary the brand of myths, legends and fables that they espouse).

The atheists I know (and have seen in this forum)are open-minded about their position and still await the real evidence that theists have only tried to provide via hypothetical smoke and mirrors.

~ Steve

PS Hey, Wyrd, aren't you agnostic?

HelenM

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andrew_theist:
So in effect you would agree with me that when an atheist claims they are objective reviewers of the evidence and if only there was some compelling evidence of the supernatural they would change there minds that this is actually a bogus claim? And the theist with the best of intentions attempting to produce such evidence is really engaged in an act of folly since even the invocation of aliens could be thought of as more likely?

No, you've missed the point of my list. My point is, there is no way to know which is more likely, since numerous alternative explanations are possible, especially since you have removed the requirement of naturalism in explaining the event. Once there are no rules, how can you be sure of the answer?

For example, what evidence can you assemble that would prove only Jesus could possibly have created that miracle?

I agree with you that no evidence of miracles will ever be accepted by atheists, not because they are pigheaded, but because it is a logical impossibility. For consider the following sequence....

1) The head re-attachment was actually caused by a telekinetic in the crowd.

but even more

2) There was no accident. Someone in the crowd simply reached out with their ESP and created the illusion of one.

but further...

3) There was no crowd and no race. The entire event was created in the minds of the TV viewers by someone with ESP.

until finally...

4) There are no viewers, no TV, no crowd, no psychic powers. The universe is just a dream in your mind.

Michael

Jayhawker Soule

I think the question is legitimate and thought provoking.

Given an event that could, in my opinion, be characterized as miraculous, and that has been validated to my satisfaction, I would presume it to be "1. An unusual event with an unknown natural cause."

Dr. Retard

First off, I knew from the outset that this was a hypothetical. The name of the thread itself is in the conditional mood. I don't think Andrew was trying anything sneaky.

Now, in response to the question, I would probably say that it's either 1 or 4, possibly 2 or 3. Even if became persuaded that this was a scientifically inexplicable event, though, there would be no reason to judge it a miracle, since the event has no religious significance whatever. It's as if scientists discover some massive object just floating in mid-air somewhere on Earth, in apparent contradiction to all known physics. While I would certainly be surprised by such a discovery, its being a miracle would be the last thing from my mind. What does a floating object have to do with God's motives vis a vis humanity?

Now, if we had a scientifically inexplicable event with real religious significance, then we can start talking miracles: Suppose an evil atheist rises to power and orders the Pope beheaded, but when it happens, the head floats back up, re-attaches itself and the Pope begins to hover and glow while the stars begin to spell out "DO NOT FORSAKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, WHICH IS GOD'S CHOSEN MEANS OF INTERACTING WITH HUMANITY". This would be better explained by the intervention of the Christian God than by that of aliens, for obvious reasons. An atheist who didn't believe just because of lack of evidence would be nuts not to switch to theism in such a case, all other things being equal.

joedad

Without getting into semantics, I think you have just reinforced Andrew_Theist's point that atheists are biased in favor of naturalism, just as theists are biased in favor of supernaturalism.

Having observed said event, as a biased atheist, your definition from Andrew's perspective would change slightly to read:

An unusual event with an unknown supernatural cause.

Or perhaps "[i]...with an arguably supernatural cause.

My disagreement with Andrew's point in this regard is along Wyrdsmyth's line of reasoning. Andrew makes an argument from ignorance. Wyrdsmyth makes a prediction from knowledge and experience. And that is not a cut on Andrew.

This appears to me to be the only substantial difference between the two conclusions.

And if this is indeed the limits of miraculousness, then it is at best, an IMHO, only an interesting sideshow to the reality of carrying on with survival, and all the more reason to question its validity and importance.

joe

Jayhawker Soule

joedad: Sorry, but I haven't a clue what you're saying.

TollHouse

Shit man! If sci-fi has taught me anything, it's that radiation can give any shmuck super-hero powers.
That X-ray turned you into superhero! You should be out figthing crime instead of wasting your time here.

TollHouse

Ahhh...another bullshit story.
Andrew, do you understand why we are atheists yet?