My experience with christian apologists.
My apologies for the length of time between posts. I got lazy and focused on other things for awhile. Before we get into the main topic, a quick life update:
I'm fairly happy with my career at Siemens, I think I'll put down roots for now. Great benefits, lots of PTO, relaxed work atmosphere.
I'm enjoying my time with Christie, after several months in a steady relationship, we're still very happy together. Neither of us are in a rush to make any big changes, we just savor the time we have.
Okay, on to the main event.
I've spent a fair amount of time debating a variety of different apologists, some better than others, but all of them amateurs. I feel this is fair, since I also do not have formal debate training. I will provide a list of their most common arguments below:
1. Argument from morality. I see this one a LOT. Christians seem to think that they have a monopoly on the concept of good and evil, that somehow humanity would have NO IDEA how to deal with crime and punishment without their bible. It's frankly an absurd idea, and one that stems from an ignorance of human history. We had functional societies and legal codices long before the bible even began to be assembled.
2. Argument from design. So, this is more prevalent among fundamentalists that are still clinging to the creationism fallacy. However, another version is gaining popularity among more liberal groups, I'll define that as the "law of constant values". In other words, the universe operates under precise values that govern the laws of physics. There are perfectly good explanations for this concept, and it's a fallacy to attribute them to a deity just because you don't understand it.
3. The cosmological argument. This is actually a series of different arguments, all approaching the subject from a slightly new angle. They all share the burden of explaining the existence of a god through inference. It goes as follows: If all things need a cause to exist, then the universe needed a cause to exist. Therefore, god caused the universe to exist. It's a bad argument, and it's come under fire many times from both sides of the aisle over the past few hundred years. It makes a leap of logic that is simply uncalled for.
4. Argument from personal experience. I think this might actually be the MOST common argument. It's not surprising at all, given the emotional nature of religion. It really boils down to people saying, "I felt something, and I KNOW it was GOD." Good luck making any headway with this type of person. Of course we have no way to know for certain the cause of an emotional reaction in the chemistry of our brains. Well, we can with the proper equipment, but few of us have access to that sort of thing. To me it's a horrendously flawed argument, because every religious person on earth could make the same claim. The Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and every major and minor sect of christianity and judaism could say they felt the presence of their particular god, and nobody can proclaim them liars or deluded without endangering their own position.
Really, virtually any argument in favor of a particular faith has obvious natural explanations. In order to embrace religion, a person must choose to reject all reason and logic, close out their faculties of skepticism, and allow their emotions to override the evidence.
I cannot and will not do that. If any sort of deity does exist, then it knows the evidence that would convince me of it's existence. As I am not convinced, either the deity doesn't care to provide the proof, or doesn't exist. In either case, I have no reason to ever embrace delusion.
I'm fairly happy with my career at Siemens, I think I'll put down roots for now. Great benefits, lots of PTO, relaxed work atmosphere.
I'm enjoying my time with Christie, after several months in a steady relationship, we're still very happy together. Neither of us are in a rush to make any big changes, we just savor the time we have.
Okay, on to the main event.
I've spent a fair amount of time debating a variety of different apologists, some better than others, but all of them amateurs. I feel this is fair, since I also do not have formal debate training. I will provide a list of their most common arguments below:
1. Argument from morality. I see this one a LOT. Christians seem to think that they have a monopoly on the concept of good and evil, that somehow humanity would have NO IDEA how to deal with crime and punishment without their bible. It's frankly an absurd idea, and one that stems from an ignorance of human history. We had functional societies and legal codices long before the bible even began to be assembled.
2. Argument from design. So, this is more prevalent among fundamentalists that are still clinging to the creationism fallacy. However, another version is gaining popularity among more liberal groups, I'll define that as the "law of constant values". In other words, the universe operates under precise values that govern the laws of physics. There are perfectly good explanations for this concept, and it's a fallacy to attribute them to a deity just because you don't understand it.
3. The cosmological argument. This is actually a series of different arguments, all approaching the subject from a slightly new angle. They all share the burden of explaining the existence of a god through inference. It goes as follows: If all things need a cause to exist, then the universe needed a cause to exist. Therefore, god caused the universe to exist. It's a bad argument, and it's come under fire many times from both sides of the aisle over the past few hundred years. It makes a leap of logic that is simply uncalled for.
4. Argument from personal experience. I think this might actually be the MOST common argument. It's not surprising at all, given the emotional nature of religion. It really boils down to people saying, "I felt something, and I KNOW it was GOD." Good luck making any headway with this type of person. Of course we have no way to know for certain the cause of an emotional reaction in the chemistry of our brains. Well, we can with the proper equipment, but few of us have access to that sort of thing. To me it's a horrendously flawed argument, because every religious person on earth could make the same claim. The Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and every major and minor sect of christianity and judaism could say they felt the presence of their particular god, and nobody can proclaim them liars or deluded without endangering their own position.
Really, virtually any argument in favor of a particular faith has obvious natural explanations. In order to embrace religion, a person must choose to reject all reason and logic, close out their faculties of skepticism, and allow their emotions to override the evidence.
I cannot and will not do that. If any sort of deity does exist, then it knows the evidence that would convince me of it's existence. As I am not convinced, either the deity doesn't care to provide the proof, or doesn't exist. In either case, I have no reason to ever embrace delusion.
Comments
Post a Comment