Does the Bible make God stupid and insecure?

[HansMustermann]

You are also "dishonest" because you turn an intellectual problem into a moral problem. Honesty depends on the intentions of someone and you have no information about the intentions of all Christians. But you prefer to call them dishonest because it is a more shocking disqualification. To affirm what is not known in order to incline the opinion of others in your favour is dishonest.

You know, though, this is downright ironic. He assumes intent and calls them dishonest, which you apparently object to. Then IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH you just postulate what his intent is, in order to call him dishonest

I think that doing yourself what you condemn in others is the textbook definition of "hypocrisy"

 

[HansMustermann]

Intelligence often depends on the means, not the results.

Only if by "means" you mean a functioning brain. Intelligence is defined and generally understood as the capacity to learn, apply what was learned, and reason.

Yet what we see in apologists is ultimately a wilful failure to do either. They can be exposed to information contradicting their dogma all day, and conveniently discard it the next day again. It's called cognitive dissonance, but ultimately it's a failure to learn. It's a funny name for when integrating new information into one's existing world model goes wrong, i.e., failure to actually learn from that new information. And considering that ultimately they end up with is some utter failure of logic, there goes the capacity to apply and reason too.

So yes, they are being stupid.

I don't care how skilled or intelligent they are in some other skill, or on another domain. But when it comes to Christianity, yes, that intelligence goes right out the window, and they're starting to act stupid.


To reuse one of P.Z.Myers' examples as an analogy, would you say that being a brutal, sadistic serial killer is compatible with Christianity? Well, looking at the history of the Inquisition and crusades and pogroms and whatnot, one might even be inclined to say "yep, totally." But if you asked most Christians nowadays, they would gladly tell you that nope, it's against everything that modern Christianity teaches. It is not in fact compatible with Christianity.

Yet Dennis Lynn Rader, a.k.a. "the BTK (bind, torture, kill) killer" was both a professed Christian and one of the most evil men who ever lived. He not only killed some ten victims in some of the most horrific ways, but he wrote letters to the police BRAGGING about it. Not only he showed no remorse or repentance, but he actually BRAGGED about it.

I think most people would agree that that is not particularly Christian. In fact he wasn't acting anything like a Christian when he did any of that.

And I put it to you that the same applies to intelligence and Christianity. Regardless of what their intelligence and skill may be outside the domain, when it comes to apologetics they are not, in fact, acting like an intelligent person. The two are in fact incompatible.


And by this time, someone is probably just itching to jump in with the retort that, yeah, but see, people can compartmentalize. And I'll even grant that.

But compartmentalizing means not applying both at the same time. If you ever have to do that, that's your clue that you are, in fact, dealing with incompatible notions.

And I'll return to the BTK killer as an example: he was compartmentalizing too. The whole Christianity thing was on a different shelf, when it came to his *ahem* hobby of torturing people to death. It doesn't mean the two are perfectly compatible, then. It means precisely that one has to keep them separated, because they don't quite mix.

And the same applies to religion and science, or generally religion and the capacity to reason soundly. Sure, you can compartmentalize. In fact, most people do. But that's just the clue that the two can't work together.

 

[acbytesla]

You have a problem that is common to many atheists in this forum: you are intolerant and dishonest.

You are intolerant because you judge the intelligence of others by their results. If it matches you, he is smart, if it doesn't match, he is dumb. Intelligence often depends on the means, not the results. You have not probably read books by Paul Ricoeur or Simone Weil, but you think they are silly because they are Christian. This is intolerance.

You are also "dishonest" because you turn an intellectual problem into a moral problem. Honesty depends on the intentions of someone and you have no information about the intentions of all Christians. But you prefer to call them dishonest because it is a more shocking disqualification. To affirm what is not known in order to incline the opinion of others in your favour is dishonest.

There is no valuable atheism without tolerance and honesty .

Wow! Did your read my post? Apparently you didn't.

I never said that one couldn't be intelligent and be a Christian. I know lots of people that fit that description.

But your observation is correct. However your analysis is wrong. I'm not turning an intellectual problem into a moral problem. It is a moral problem. I was a Christian half my life. And yet I always knew I was engaged in special pleading and sophistry. The reason I no longer identify as a Christian is I hated my dishonesty.

I contend that Christians just accept it without thinking or they engage in mental gymnastics. So either they are not intelligent or they refuse to use apply the same epistemology that they use for everything else.

 

[HansMustermann]

I contend that Christians just accept it without thinking or they engage in mental gymnastics. So either they are not intelligent or they refuse to use apply the same epistemology that they use for everything else.

Actually, it's the latter. And here's a simple exercise to prove it: tell someone that the Emperor of the Universe has decreed that all taxes on Earth are to be paid into your bank account. See if they're willing to accept "you have to have faith" as proof.

The thing is, everyone is a skeptic on just about any domain except what they really really want to believe. Be it religion or alternative medicine or a conspiracy theory or whatever.

In fact, even then they don't suspend skepticism for ALL of them. Just one. An author whose name escapes me at the moment once noted, based on the letters he received about one of his books on such nonsense beliefs, EVERYONE was in complete agreement that all except one in his book is completely bogus. All that differed was which one. But otherwise homeopaths were completely in agreement that acupuncture is bogus, raelians agreed that scientology is BS, etc.

So it's not really like anyone has to learn a new skill or mode of thinking. They'd just need to stop making excuses for why for just one thing different rules apply.

 

[acbytesla]

Actually, it's the latter. And here's a simple exercise to prove it: tell someone that the Emperor of the Universe has decreed that all taxes on Earth are to be paid into your bank account. See if they're willing to accept "you have to have faith" as proof.

The thing is, everyone is a skeptic on just about any domain except what they really really want to believe. Be it religion or alternative medicine or a conspiracy theory or whatever.

In fact, even then they don't suspend skepticism for ALL of them. Just one. An author whose name escapes me at the moment once noted, based on the letters he received about one of his books on such nonsense beliefs, EVERYONE was in complete agreement that all except one in his book is completely bogus. All that differed was which one. But otherwise homeopaths were completely in agreement that acupuncture is bogus, raelians agreed that scientology is BS, etc.

So it's not really like anyone has to learn a new skill or mode of thinking. They'd just need to stop making excuses for why for just one thing different rules apply.

It is special pleading.

 

[HansMustermann]

Ayup.

 

[David Mo]

Only if by "means" you mean a functioning brain. Intelligence is defined and generally understood as the capacity to learn, apply what was learned, and reason.

Yet what we see in apologists is ultimately a wilful failure to do either. They can be exposed to information contradicting their dogma all day, and conveniently discard it the next day again. It's called cognitive dissonance, but ultimately it's a failure to learn. It's a funny name for when integrating new information into one's existing world model goes wrong, i.e., failure to actually learn from that new information. And considering that ultimately they end up with is some utter failure of logic, there goes the capacity to apply and reason too.

So yes, they are being stupid.

I don't care how skilled or intelligent they are in some other skill, or on another domain. But when it comes to Christianity, yes, that intelligence goes right out the window, and they're starting to act stupid.

Psychologists distinguish learning ability from intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to respond to new problems in unforeseen circumstances.

You believe that there are intelligent Christians, but they cease to be so when faced with the problem of God's existence. But I don't think there can be people who are intelligent sometimes and sometimes not. Intelligence is a capacity. Probably the answers they give to the problem of God's existence are also intelligent, even though they are guided by a principle that you and I consider false. But you call them stupid because you don't agree with them. I don't think your answer is very intelligent (irony).

 

[David Mo]

Wow! Did your read my post? Apparently you didn't.

I never said that one couldn't be intelligent and be a Christian. I know lots of people that fit that description.

But your observation is correct. However your analysis is wrong. I'm not turning an intellectual problem into a moral problem. It is a moral problem. I was a Christian half my life. And yet I always knew I was engaged in special pleading and sophistry. The reason I no longer identify as a Christian is I hated my dishonesty.

I contend that Christians just accept it without thinking or they engage in mental gymnastics. So either they are not intelligent or they refuse to use apply the same epistemology that they use for everything else.

If you didn't believe what you were saying, you were dishonest. But I don't think you can apply the same argument to everyone who says something you dislike. That would be "dishonest". And it is a very common vice in Internet forums. As soon as someone is against you it is a troll. Especially when he says something you don't understand well. Don't fall into such an unintelligent vice. It is a vice parallel to that of the Christian who sees in the atheist someone possessed by the devil, fanatic, hypocrite, liar, and so on.

Discussions between individuals cease to be rational when they address to the (perverse) intentions of the opponents. Whether they are Christians or atheists.

 

[HansMustermann]

Psychologists distinguish learning ability from intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to respond to new problems in unforeseen circumstances.

You believe that there are intelligent Christians, but they cease to be so when faced with the problem of God's existence. But I don't think there can be people who are intelligent sometimes and sometimes not.

Psychologists also know about the thing I've already mentioned, namely cognitive dissonance, and how it can be solved by discarding actual data and keeping bogus beliefs. Which is exactly suspending intelligent thought.

Your not thinking it's possible... meh, I'll go with the actual psychologists there.

Intelligence is a capacity.

And like any other capacity you can use it or not, for a particular problem or even on a whole domain.

It's the same as an Audi R8 is a "fast" car, being capable of speeds up to 333 km/h (207 miles per hour for you imperials). But it doesn't mean that if I spot a random R8 on the street (and I've seen a couple actually) it will actually be going fast. It has the capacity to go fast, but it could be doing 30km/h in a residential zone, or indeed be at a clean 0 km/h because it's parked.

Probably the answers they give to the problem of God's existence are also intelligent,

You know that that kind of bare postulate even has a name, right? It's called the sophisticated theology defense.

It's the inevitable postulate, if any thread about religion goes for long enough, that someone somewhere has a perfectly intelligent/logical/whatever interpretation of religion, but apparently the atheists are just not sophisticated enough to know it. Except, as it turns out, it's also too sophisticated for the ones doing the postulate, because they can never actually show it.

More seriously, look, if you want to introduce that premise, it's your burden of proof to show that one actually exists. Otherwise any reasoning based on it is unsound.

Just stating a baseless belief that "probably" one exists is meaningless. I could believe that D&D style dragons are probably real, but that doesn't mean I can use them for my commute.

even though they are guided by a principle that you and I consider false. But you call them stupid because you don't agree with them. I don't think your answer is very intelligent (irony).

Considering that your answer is just a case of personal disbelief and a baseless assertion, both textbook fallacies, really, who cares?

 

[HansMustermann]

If you didn't believe what you were saying, you were dishonest.

Uh, no, it's still just you having comprehension problems.

His message from which you started the whole nonsense actually stated, and this is a copy and paste quote, "There may be intelligent people that are Christians, but Intelligent and Christianity is an oxymoron." My emphasis of the operative word there. Turning it into some form of 'there are no intelligent Christians' is just your own strawman.

So, you know, it's pretty funny to see you accuse him of dishonesty, when YOU are the one using a dishonest argument technique to that end.

As I keep saying, doing exactly what you're damning others for is the definition of hypocrisy.

 

[acbytesla]

If you didn't believe what you were saying, you were dishonest. But I don't think you can apply the same argument to everyone who says something you dislike. That would be "dishonest". And it is a very common vice in Internet forums. As soon as someone is against you it is a troll. Especially when he says something you don't understand well. Don't fall into such an unintelligent vice. It is a vice parallel to that of the Christian who sees in the atheist someone possessed by the devil, fanatic, hypocrite, liar, and so on.

Discussions between individuals cease to be rational when they address to the (perverse) intentions of the opponents. Whether they are Christians or atheists.

I'm sorry. I don't believe an intelligent critical thinker with sound epistemology can evaluate the god question and still believe without engaging in special pleading. And that is intellectually dishonest.

Hans nails it. It is wilfull cognitive dissonance.

 

[arthwollipot]

B) you're totally exempt if you use any other weapon than a sword. E.g., why priests in the crusades were supposed to use a mace.

That's largely a myth, based on the depiction of Bishop Odo in the Bayeux Tapestry wielding a cudgel, and perpetuated by early editions of Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[David Mo]

Psychologists also know about the thing I've already mentioned, namely cognitive dissonance, and how it can be solved by discarding actual data and keeping bogus beliefs. Which is exactly suspending intelligent thought.

Your not thinking it's possible... meh, I'll go with the actual psychologists there.



And like any other capacity you can use it or not, for a particular problem or even on a whole domain.

(...)


You know that that kind of bare postulate even has a name, right? It's called the sophisticated theology defense.
It's the inevitable postulate, if any thread about religion goes for long enough, that someone somewhere has a perfectly intelligent/logical/whatever interpretation of religion, but apparently the atheists are just not sophisticated enough to know it.
(...)

More seriously, look, if you want to introduce that premise, it's your burden of proof to show that one actually exists. Otherwise any reasoning based on it is unsound.

Just stating a baseless belief that "probably" one exists is meaningless. I could believe that D&D style dragons are probably real, but that doesn't mean I can use them for my commute.


Considering that your answer is just a case of personal disbelief and a baseless assertion, both textbook fallacies, really, who cares?

I know the theory of cognitive dissonance. I have mentioned it several times in this forum and I have some writings about it on the Internet. Sorry, in Spanish. But cognitive dissonance is only applicable to the case where a Christian believes in some facts that are refuted by later facts. For example: the imminent coming of the Kingdom. If my belief is metaphysical or based on subjective experience, cognitive dissonance never occurs. For example: the allegorical interpretation of the passage where Joshua stops the sun cannot be refuted by historical evidence.

I'm not defending any theology because it might be intelligent. Evil can be intelligent. Sometimes evil is very intelligent. Intelligence doesn’t makes the wrong be right

Don't give me easy slogans. Burden of the proof is a condition for factual discussions. Ii think you have here a language problem. I think you don't distinguish between being wrong and being stupid. Therefore you call stupid anything that is not according with your personal beliefs. A big mistake that is usually paid for in debates with intelligent Christians.

 

[David Mo]

I'm sorry. I don't believe an intelligent critical thinker with sound epistemology can evaluate the god question and still believe without engaging in special pleading. And that is intellectually dishonest.

Hans nails it. It is wilfull cognitive dissonance.

I don't understand what specious arguments you're talking about. It seems to me that you should explain more specifically why that is dishonest and what you are talking about. To believe that Jesus really walked the waters? Or to believe that Jesus preached love to the poor? Or to believe that a principle of life can be found in the gospels? Because they are three very different things that I don't see what they have to do with the desire to deceive others (dishonesty). Or do you mean something else by dishonesty?

On cognitive dissonance see my answer to Hans.

 

[HansMustermann]

I know the theory of cognitive dissonance. I have mentioned it several times in this forum and I have some writings about it on the Internet. Sorry, in Spanish. But cognitive dissonance is only applicable to the case where a Christian believes in some facts that are refuted by later facts. For example: the imminent coming of the Kingdom. If my belief is metaphysical or based on subjective experience, cognitive dissonance never occurs. For example: the allegorical interpretation of the passage where Joshua stops the sun cannot be refuted by historical evidence.

Well, technically yes it can. Because absence of evidence can actually be evidence of absence, where that evidence would be expected if the stated condition were true. Basically if X => Y, then !Y => !X. The absence of Y does become evidence of the absence of X.

Trivial example: if I claimed to have an everlasting magical fire in my garage, the absence of any flames, heat, or much CO2 is in fact evidence that there is no fire in there.

Phenomena involving the sun, moon or astronomical events like the horribly wrong eclipse in Matthew, would be of major interest to thousands of astronomers in various civilizations at the time.

E.g., pretty much the whole of Mesopotamia was heavily into astronomy, and especially observing the sun and moon to keep the calendar aligned. See, it wasn't done by a formula, like they do nowadays with the Chinese or Islamic calendar, but the king had to decree every year when does the new one start and the old one end, and to that purpose he consulted the royal astronomers.

E.g., in Egypt, the sun was at the top of, well, every pantheon they ever had. Stuff like it stopping moving on a special day would have interested the hell out of them.

What I'm saying is that you'd see tablets, stelae, papyri, and various myths in which they explain why their chief god did that. Sure, it wouldn't be "so the Canaanites can kick each other's ass", but some suitable heroic spin for themselves, but it would be there.

The probability of every single astronomer and king and court scribe deciding that, meh, the biggest astronomical event EVER is not worth recording, is infinitesimal.

Basically the absence of evidence does become evidence of absence.

And then there's the physical problems I've explained before.

There's literally a LOT of data that needs to be discarded (e.g., via cognitive dissonance) or compartmentalized, if one wants to keep believing that story.

I'm not defending any theology because it might be intelligent. Evil can be intelligent. Sometimes evil is very intelligent. Intelligence doesn’t makes the wrong be right

I never said you were making a moral claim, so that seems a bit irrelevant. Sure, even evil can be very intelligent. But you haven't shown that religion can be intelligent either.

Don't give me easy slogans. Burden of the proof is a condition for factual discussions.

1. If you postulate that Christians have an intelligent theology somewhere, that's a factual claim. Support it or drop it, really.

2. And if your excuse is that your side of the discussion is non-factual gaga, and it's a free for all to just make stuff up, then I'm not interested in it in the first place.

Ii think you have here a language problem. I think you don't distinguish between being wrong and being stupid.

Sort of. I'm calling anything illogical/irrational by the alternate name of "stupid". It certainly doesn't fit any proper application of an ability to reason that I know of.

Therefore you call stupid anything that is not according with your personal beliefs.

... aaand there you go off into dada land again. There is no therefore there. Logic isn't a matter of personal beliefs. There are idiots who wish it were, but it's not. We had only, what, some 2500 years or so to figure out what actually works and what doesn't. And it's independent of whether you believe in it or not.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't understand what specious arguments you're talking about. It seems to me that you should explain more specifically why that is dishonest and what you are talking about. To believe that Jesus really walked the waters? Or to believe that Jesus preached love to the poor? Or to believe that a principle of life can be found in the gospels? Because they are three very different things that I don't see what they have to do with the desire to deceive others (dishonesty). Or do you mean something else by dishonesty?

On cognitive dissonance see my answer to Hans.

I'm talking about anything supernatural. That there is an all powerful all knowing being that created the universe and everything in it. That this being took the form of his own son so he/it could be tortured. Etc etc etc.

Not whether you find certain aspects in the bible uplifting or inspirational. I also find some (definitly not all) of the philosophy reportedly taught by Jesus as such.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

It's fun arguing about God isn't it?

It's like jerking off to Hentai. It's totally not real and a complete waste of time that will never lead to anything.... but man, is it fun as Hell.

 

[acbytesla]

It's fun arguing about God isn't it?

It's like jerking off to Hentai. It's totally not real and a complete waste of time that will never lead to anything.... but man, is it fun as Hell.

By that reasoning, what isn't a waste of time?

 

[HansMustermann]

Jerking off to hentai, obviously. Wait, is it just me?

 

[David Mo]

Well, technically yes it can. Because absence of evidence can actually be evidence of absence, where that evidence would be expected if the stated condition were true. Basically if X => Y, then !Y => !X. The absence of Y does become evidence of the absence of X.

Trivial example: if I claimed to have an everlasting magical fire in my garage, the absence of any flames, heat, or much CO2 is in fact evidence that there is no fire in there.

Phenomena involving the sun, moon or astronomical events like the horribly wrong eclipse in Matthew, would be of major interest to thousands of astronomers in various civilizations at the time.

E.g., pretty much the whole of Mesopotamia was heavily into astronomy, and especially observing the sun and moon to keep the calendar aligned. See, it wasn't done by a formula, like they do nowadays with the Chinese or Islamic calendar, but the king had to decree every year when does the new one start and the old one end, and to that purpose he consulted the royal astronomers.

E.g., in Egypt, the sun was at the top of, well, every pantheon they ever had. Stuff like it stopping moving on a special day would have interested the hell out of them.

What I'm saying is that you'd see tablets, stelae, papyri, and various myths in which they explain why their chief god did that. Sure, it wouldn't be "so the Canaanites can kick each other's ass", but some suitable heroic spin for themselves, but it would be there.

The probability of every single astronomer and king and court scribe deciding that, meh, the biggest astronomical event EVER is not worth recording, is infinitesimal.

Basically the absence of evidence does become evidence of absence.

And then there's the physical problems I've explained before.

There's literally a LOT of data that needs to be discarded (e.g., via cognitive dissonance) or compartmentalized, if one wants to keep believing that story.



I never said you were making a moral claim, so that seems a bit irrelevant. Sure, even evil can be very intelligent. But you haven't shown that religion can be intelligent either.



1. If you postulate that Christians have an intelligent theology somewhere, that's a factual claim. Support it or drop it, really.

2. And if your excuse is that your side of the discussion is non-factual gaga, and it's a free for all to just make stuff up, then I'm not interested in it in the first place.



Sort of. I'm calling anything illogical/irrational by the alternate name of "stupid". It certainly doesn't fit any proper application of an ability to reason that I know of.



... aaand there you go off into dada land again. There is no therefore there. Logic isn't a matter of personal beliefs. There are idiots who wish it were, but it's not. We had only, what, some 2500 years or so to figure out what actually works and what doesn't. And it's independent of whether you believe in it or not.

The allegorical interpretation of a text does not defend that what is described in the text is factually true. You have wasted time with the introduction of your comment. That does not mean that you are stupid, but that you have made a mistake.

Irrationalism can be defended intelligently or stupidly. What you consider logical may not be logical. You may be wrong, but that doesn't make you stupid. Maybe the irrationalist is wrong, but this doesn't make him a stupid.

It looks like you don't know any intelligent Christian. It is strange. I am atheist myself and I have not many books by Christians. But I know some that made me thinking on why they were wrong. An this is what I call intelligence: some thing that makes you think. I put some examples: Descartes, Rousseau, Kant (these are classics), Dunn, Meier, Crossan, Bultmann, Schweitzer (about the historical Jesus).

In this forum I had an interesting debate with a certain Tim O'Neill who pretended that there is no conflict between science and religion. (He said he was not a Christian but he was defending the Christian hard line on this subject). About Hypatia and Galileo. He was a tough guy. He was wrong in the main idea but knew how to argue.

If you want to see an intelligent Christian in action, I recommend the polemic between Copleston and Russell. Here: http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_radio.htm . Although I think it's useless. You'll say Copleston was wrong and that's why he was stupid and dishonest. You've decided beforehand.

Hey, is there anyone smart in this world who thinks differently than you? Who?