September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« The Bible Does Not Approve of Everything It Records | Main | Christianity Is the Story of Reality »

March 03, 2016

Comments

It's pretty arrogant to go telling other people what they believe. That's a good way to set up straw men - is that what you're trying to do? The Christian thing would be to actually listen to other people and actually consider what they're saying.

John,

Agree.

BTW, your webpage is well done, interesting, and thoughtful. I don't take you lightly.

Now, on the nature behind "No-God", the Christian here is not defining Non-Theistic belief, for that would be to define, say, an entirely material-based metaphysical accounting of all which is, say, Mind, or all which is, say, Love.

The Christian is not doing that here.

Rather:

The claim amounts to far, far more than "No-God" for it also amounts to rejecting evidence which forces reason and logic out of the purely material based paradigm on many fronts which cannot even in principle be salvaged or accounted for by the materialist project.

That the Non-Theist fails to deal with his own paradigm's (any Non-Theistic paradigm including Spinoza's pantheism) disingenuous treatment of physics / the physical sciences which cannot account for, say, our entire first person experience vis-à-vis mind and perception and ought, and so on (and far more of course) amounts to the Christian's justified demand for an explanation of that sort of low-level metaphysical accounting. Ultimate freedom from our mind may be the right move, just as the final elimination of *any* (Cosmic) evil there in 5 year old dying of cancer may also be the right move.

But the Non-Theist has to argue that such moves are in fact the right moves when it comes to rock-bottom metaphysical accounting.

And such is what we never see from our Non-Theist friends. Instead, they conflate such a demand to an appeal to gaps when it cannot be even in principle an appeal to gaps.

"God did it” is nowhere claimed. It is not the stuff of “gaps” which ruins all of the Non-Theist’s hopes, but, rather, it is the many corridors painfully constituted of unavoidable reductio ad absurdums, plural. There is no need to appeal to God. Nor to Gaps. Simply avoiding absurdity is enough to guide reason. That the Christian’s paradigm happens to avoid such final eliminations of lucidity is not an appeal to God, nor to “God did it”. How could it be? Rather, it is the result of simply allowing reason to do its proper work regardless of the consequences.

Of course, leaving materialism / Non-Theism behind is not a direct step into Christianity. But that's not the point here. The point is No-God vs. God.

What the typical atheist asserts is not that there's no God, but simply that he doesn't know. If you ask such an atheist to provide reasons why God doesn't exist, the atheist could just as well say he has none.

Tim Barnett draws a strict distinction between agnostics and atheists, but the simple fact is that most atheists are agnostics to some degree. Either Tim Barnett is unaware of this fact, or else maybe he prefers to ignore it. It's much easier to defeat a straw man in debate than an actual man.

Some Christians accuse atheists of avoiding discussion, or avoiding the burden of proof, but that's not it either. Atheists are perfectly willing to provide arguments for things they actually believe. For example, I'm happy to explain why I think the evidence for God makes no sense.

But again, if you expect me to argue that God doesn't exist, you're out of luck. As far as I know, God might exist.

[1] Atheism

[2] Agnosticism

[3] There is no god

[4] I do not know if there is a God

[5] We cannot know if there is a God

[6] Non-Theism and/or the materialist's / naturalist's accounting is valid

[7] I don't know if Non-Theism and/or the materialist's / naturalist's accounting is valid

[8] We cannot know if Non-Theism and/or the materialist's / naturalist's accounting is valid


[3] forces [6] or else [4] emerges


That the Non-Theist fails to deal with his own paradigm's (any Non-Theistic paradigm including Spinoza's pantheism) disingenuous treatment of physics / the physical sciences which cannot account for, say, our entire first person experience vis-à-vis mind and perception and ought, and so on (and far more of course) amounts to the Christian's justified demand for an explanation of that sort of low-level metaphysical accounting. Ultimate freedom from our mind may be the right move, just as the final elimination of *any* (Cosmic) evil there in that 5 year old dying of cancer may also be the right move.

But the Non-Theist has to argue that such moves are in fact the right moves when it comes to rock-bottom metaphysical accounting.

But they rarely do, as they seem to be conflate said request for an appeal to gaps.

"God did it” is nowhere claimed. It is not the stuff of “gaps” which ruins all of the Non-Theist’s hopes, but, rather, it is the many corridors painfully constituted of unavoidable reductio ad absurdums, plural. There is no need to appeal to God. Nor to Gaps. Simply avoiding absurdity is enough to guide reason. That the Christian’s paradigm happens to avoid such final eliminations of lucidity is not an appeal to God, nor to “God did it”. How could it be? Rather, it is the result of simply allowing reason to do its proper work regardless of the consequences.

Of course, leaving materialism / Non-Theism behind is not a direct step into Christianity. But that's not the point here. The point is No-God vs. God.

Of course we can add [9] and [10] here:


[9] God

[10] The Non-Theistic or materialist's / naturalist's metaphysical accounting is incoherent

[9] forces [10] else [4] emerges

Etc.....

Now, Panpsychism may attempt to make both work, but the terms and definitions there will have to be put on the table as it's a sort of amorphous attempt most of the time and so, on charity, we have to give it a chance to define and qualify.

But if Mind is in fact Necessary from A to Z and exists from the ground up, it is obvious that we have left any meaningful sense of [1] and [3] behind us and have now begun the ascent into Theistic epistemology.

The comparison with those who don't believe in Santa Claus is perfectly appropriate. Non-believers in Santa Claus don't just lack a belief in him -- they believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist. And that belief is not founded on some logical conclusion that Santa Claus doesn't exist but rather on the reasonable belief that if he did exist, there would have been tangible evidence of it. Just like most atheists non-belief in god. I think the term "agnostic" implies more than a lack of belief that god positively must exist or couldn't possibly exist but rather that the question of the existence of God is very much up in the air.

The problem is that evidence of God forces us into the *same* ontological locations as [6].

But if [6] is rejected, the one cannot escape [4] and so [3] collapses.

Interfacing with Santa Clause does not force us into the *same* ontological locations as [6]. Hence the analogy is a mix of an equivocation and a non sequitur.

Typo:


..... But if [6] is rejected, then one (we) cannot escape [4] and so [3] collapses.....

John Moore,

It's pretty arrogant to go telling other people what they believe. That's a good way to set up straw men - is that what you're trying to do? The Christian thing would be to actually listen to other people and actually consider what they're saying.

Ever heard the expression that actions speak louder than words? Internet atheists are, by and large, far too evangelistic (and angry) to be the simple agnostics they claim when you push them to justify their own assertions.

In addition to this, we have the actual words of Antony Flew who started the whole movement of presumptive atheism. So we know that it was started as an attempt to unusually construe the term so as to avoid the burden of proof. In this case we have both words and actions to justify our suspicion.

What the typical atheist asserts is not that there's no God, but simply that he doesn't know.

That doesn't comport with my experience talking to atheists. They don't just say they don't know if there is a god. And on the occasion that they do make the claim their confidence that I'm wrong and their mockery speak much louder and make their claim ring hollow.

You claim:

If you ask such an atheist to provide reasons why God doesn't exist, the atheist could just as well say he has none.

Maybe you're padding your exit by saying that the atheist *could* say such and such. But in my experience what atheists *actually* say is that the reason they know God doesn't exist is because of the problem of evil or because absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Atheists are perfectly willing to provide arguments for things they actually believe.

Anyone who has talked to many atheists online will have to chuckle at this. It seems like you're the one trying to create the straw-man, not Tim, but not so that you can burn him but so that you can distract us from the real man on fire. Perhaps your time would be better spent trying to convince your compatriots on atheist forums to stop dodging the burden of proof and stop being so cocky and condescending if they are to be taken seriously as agnostics.

John Moore makes a specific truth claim, that "the simple fact is that most atheists are agnostics to some degree".

I'd like to ask for the data please.

I'm not an atheist, not even an agnostic but to be a good sport how do you prove something does not exist? I think Bertrand Russell addressed this issue in his famous celestial teapot analogy. Which is summarized here from Wikepedia......

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion.[1] Russell wrote that, if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the ground that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

You can Google for more info regarding the celestial teapot analogy.

It's hard to argue for or against the existence of something that does nothing (like an incorporeal celestial teapot). It's much easier when the head-to-see entity exhibits real effects (like gravity). The problem comes when people run the argument that the hypothetical existence of non-interacting phenomena disproves the real evidence for God's interactions.

In response to people wondering whether it's really true that most atheists are agnostic, here are two sources to check:

(1) The Reddit atheism FAQ says, "the vast majority of atheists are at least technically agnostic."

(2) In chapter 2 of his "God Delusion" book, Richard Dawkins says he's agnostic but leaning toward certainty. He says he'd be surprised to meet many people in his category 7 (being certain that God doesn't exist.)

On the other hand, if you're debating with an atheist, it's always good to ask that person what he/she believes, instead of assuming something based on generalities. It's easy - just say "Are you absolutely sure God doesn't exist?" If they say "yes," then you're off to the races, and you can have a fun time debunking their empty claim.

Santa Clause, Teapots, and the Agnostic:

Such items are touched on at:

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/

Which is the Maverick Philosopher. By using its search box for “teapot” one finds that standard fare discussions on standard fare fallacies pop up. It’s a start.

Recall from earlier:

[1] Atheism [2] Agnosticism [3] There is no god
[4] I do not know if there is a God [5] We cannot know if there is a God

[6] Non-Theism and/or the materialist's / naturalist's accounting is valid [7] I don't know if Non-Theism and/or the materialist's / naturalist's accounting is valid [8] We cannot know if Non-Theism and/or the materialist's / naturalist's accounting is valid

[9] God [10] The Non-Theistic or materialist's / naturalist's metaphysical accounting is incoherent

The problem with the appeal to Santa Clause and Tea Pots and the misguided claim that rejecting God does not force one to embrace nonsense is simply this:

The evidence of God forces us into the *same* ontological locations as [6]. But if [6] is rejected, then we cannot escape [4] and so [3] collapses. And then it gets worse: Interfacing with Santa Clause and with Tea Pots does not force us into the *same* ontological locations as [6], unless we just up and change all definitions such as “Being Itself” (and so on….). Hence the analogy is a mix of an equivocation (on the one hand) and a non sequitur (on the other hand). And worse.

To deny God is to affirm nonsense, and that the Non-Theist so passionately resists this is evidence of his own lack of understanding of just what the word “God” entails and (also) just what “X” the rejection of God necessarily leaves him affirming, whether he wants to affirm said “X” or not.

A very brief outline of the problem:

“Perhaps, however, it is a mistake to presume good will here. It may be the case that not every party in these debates is especially willing to acknowledge the qualitative difference between ontological and cosmological questions. A devout physicalist is likely to find it not merely convenient but absolutely necessary to believe that the mystery of existence is really just a question about the physical history of the universe, and specifically about how the universe may have arisen at a particular moment, as a transition from a simpler to a more complex state within a physical system. At least, it often seems pointless to try to convince such persons that none of the great religions or metaphysical traditions — absolutely none of them — thinks of the “creation of the universe” simply in terms of a cosmogonic process, and that the question of creation has never simply concerned some event that may have happened “back then,” at the beginning of time, or some change between distinct physical states, or any kind of change at all (since change occurs only within things that already exist), but has always concerned the eternal relation between logical possibility and logical necessity, the contingent and the absolute, the conditioned and the unconditioned. And I suspect this is not simply because they are incapable of understanding the distinction (though many are) but also because they have no desire to do so. The question of being is not one that physics can shed any light upon at all, and so the physicalist has no choice but persistently — even sedulously — to fail to grasp its point. To allow the full force of the question to break through his or her intellectual defenses would be, all at once, to abandon the physicalist creed.” (David Hart, The Experience of God)

I agree with John that rather than trying to pigeon hole somebody based on the label they use to describe themselves an risk attributing views to them that they don't actually hold, it's better (and more polite) to ask ask them more about their views.

But I also agree with Tim that a lot of atheists use the "lack of belief" definition of atheism as a way to avoid having to shoulder any burden of proof in a conversation. After all, a lot of these atheists actually do think God does not exist. They may not be certain about it, but it's not like they have no opinion on the matter. It's just much easier and less stressful to have a conversation when the other person has to do all the work.

I atheism compatible or incompatible with Christianity?

Sorry. I posted when I meant to preview.

I meant to write this:

I just have one question:
Is atheism compatible or incompatible with Christianity?

Incompatible. To be a Christian you have to say "Yes! I believe! Praise the Lord!" But the atheist just stands there uncomfortably and says nothing.

If you prod the atheist and tell him to be like the Christian, that's when the atheist starts complaining and often ridiculing Christianity.

Only claims can be incompatible with other claims.


Most non believers who would identify as athiest would say that there is no evidence to suggest that a god exist. That is a point that gets stressed a lot by atheists and one that the article doesn't consider . As a phenomenon the subject of why people do believe is very interesting one .And there is no denying the impact in shaping every aspect of our lives throughout history .socially politically, The arts, science,.Philosophy,literature..etc. So even if you do not believe in evidence for a deity or superior being or in magic given the influence and status in society (good and bad) that it commands then it is understandable from an anthropological view point that it is of interest.

I would presume that christians look at other faiths, superstitions, and perceive the damage and the harm that they do. Angry (or vocal) atheists simply do the same but include christianity on that list.

"I would presume that christians look at other faiths, superstitions, and perceive the damage and the harm that they do."

This Christian believes that the other religions in the world are mostly beneficial in this temporal life, but happen to be false. So bad presumption.

But the question is whether atheists make claims. If they don't, then it is impossible for atheism to be incompatible with Christianity.

James,

"Most non believers who would identify as athiest would say that there is no evidence to suggest that a god exist. That is a point that gets stressed a lot by atheists and one that the article doesn't consider."

To deny A is to affirm B and that is necessarily the case given the unavoidable overlap of ontological territory wherein claims are being made by affirming either No-God or God. That is a point which gets stressed a lot by Christians and one that the Non-Theist fails to consider, and then unjustifiably resists when considered.

As per the comment of "Posted by: scbrownlhrm | March 03, 2016 at 04:57 PM

James,

Materialism is nonsense.

That is, to be more precise:

No-God is nonsense.

Care to make a claim to the contrary?

Wisdonlover

..."But the question is whether atheists make claims. If they don't, then it is impossible for atheism to be incompatible with Christianity."

Could you phrase the question differently please?.I'm not sure what your asking.

scbrownlhrm

...To deny A is to affirm B and that is necessarily the case given the unavoidable overlap of ontological territory wherein claims are being made..

I am interested in your comment.and I am sure that its me but I just don't understand what point your trying to make.

.scbrownlhrm

...No-God is nonsense.

Is no-Santa Claus nonsense

Is no-tooth Fairy nonsense

Is no-Thor,god of Thunder nonsense

Is no-Noah's ark nonsense.

In what sense is your claim different to a six year olds claim that there is a Santa Claus.?

This Christian believes that the other religions in the world are mostly beneficial in this temporal life, but happen to be false. So bad presumption.

My mistake.

Having said that is your view on this indicative of how most other christians think' And again most non-believers I'm sure would agree that at a community level, faith based organisations can be a positive thing too. But mostly beneficial' is a bit weak I'd say. Religions do good but it is questionable that the positive attributes they inspire make up for the demonstrably bad and harmful things they do.
Islam are probably the most generous and charitable religion in nearly every society (even contrys where they are not the default faith choice) but their faith based attitude toward women and in some cases their faith based justice system regarding human rights is pretty appalling..

scbrownlhrm

Materialism is nonsense.

That is, to be more precise:

No-God is nonsense.

Care to make a claim to the contrary?

Is this the "god of the gaps" argument you are alluding to?
ie. The fact that we exist at all neccessatates a need for a creator .

Not at all.

It's your own paradigm's unavoidable array of reductio ad absurdums which said paradigm's means cannot even in principle traverse.

James,

See my last comment. If you don't understand the different ontological implications in the term "God" as compared to Santa, well that is perhaps the reason behind your obvious confusion.

Atheists sometimes assert something like, "If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

This, of course, is an attempt to show that the claim that "atheism is a religion" is absurd. But not so fast:

Imagine, if you will, someone who thinks that stamp collecting is stupid, who tells everyone that stamp collecting is stupid and useless, who seeks out and infiltrates groups of stamp collectors in order to tell them how stupid they are for collecting stamps, who places ads in public places like billboards and buses denouncing and belittling stamp collecting, and even tries to get stamp collecting and it's associated events and activities banned from public places.

Hobby? Or religious devotion to a cause?
Atheists have certainly turned "not collecting stamps" into a "hobby."


I once told a materialist atheist that I was a amaterialist. I simply did not believe that materialism sufficiently explained the universe. Since normal matter only makes up 4% of the universe and the fact that at the end of the 19th century physicists thought they pretty much had everything sewn up, one cannot say that in 100 years our view of reality may make our current one look quaint.

Apparently that is a sign of intellectual dishonesty and playing word games and proof was needed to hold that position.

Burden of proof? I don't see why I should not believe a proposition based on another person telling me that they do not agree that I have sufficiently proved it to them. That may be relevant to whether they accept it, but not on whether I accept it. Whether it is true or not, does not depend on whether either one of us agrees.


As for non-stamp collecting not being a hobby, my usual response is that if you make YouTube videos, run a blog or podcast, and/or write books about not collecting stamps then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

scbrownlhrm

It's your own paradigm's unavoidable array of reductio ad absurdums which said paradigm's means cannot even in principle traverse.

Lol.. Thank you.
You made my day.

James,

No problem. Keep working on the Santa routine. It seems to fit you.

James-

You are asking me to state again the question raised by the OP.

What makes it difficult to understand that question?

The author states,

"And if the atheist thinks it is a reasonable belief, he should have reasons to believe it. "

Which might well be true and his reason would probably be along the lines of
"there is no evidence to believe in the existence of a god'. I don't see why conceding that point would then mean he then has to go on to prove that a god does not exist.
Am I misunderstanding the author here?

What is it you mean when you use the term " then it is impossible for atheism to be incompatible with Christianity." ?

I'm addressing precisely those atheists who claim that they make no claims.

Some atheists may well forthrightly admit that they make claims like "There is no good argument for the existence of God." Or even "There is no God".

Offhand, these seem like claims that are not known unless proven.

(Just as the claim that "God exists" seems to be a claim that is not known unless proven.)

I am not concerned with atheists who admit to making claims like those above.

I'm concerned with those who say that atheists do not make claims.

Atheist's don't make claims.

Why?

Because they evade and hedge and thereby dissolve the actual content of all that is "claim" within their own, well, claims.

How do they do that?

First they equate the term "God" and all that is necessarily (metaphysically) entailed in that term, and equate it to Teapots and Santa. Then when asked to make a claim with respect to "Your claim of no-god is nonsense" they simply evade and hedge rather than justifying the coherence of their claims (no-god) with respect to, not Santa and Teapots, but, rather, with respect to Being Itself and, as the earlier quote of David Hart noted, the eternal relation between logical possibility and logical necessity, the contingent and the absolute, the conditioned and the unconditioned.

I incur no burden via lacking a belief.

I get a burden of proof when I claim a belief I do hold is true.

It doesn't even occur to me to justify lacking beliefs I lack.


How about you?

Do you justify lacking beliefs you lack?

How about beliefs you've never heard of?

Do you go around justifying the fact that you lack those beliefs?


I don't believe in any gods.

So, I have to wait for you to 1) express your god belief and 2) explain why you have it.

At that point, if your reasons don't impress me, I can tell you why.


I understand there's an asymmetry here.

Not my fault though. That's just the way it is.

Is atheism compatible or incompatible with Christianity?

Here's the situation:

I am not convinced Christianity is true.

Nor am I convinced that any other god exists.

I'm a non-theist. A non-believer An atheist.

The situation is entirely compatible with Christianity being true.


So, according to you, Ron, is it possible to be a Christian atheist?

That's equivalent to the question of whether Atheism is incompatible with Christianity. That's the question I was asking.

I wasn't asking whether the existence of atheists was compatible with Christianity (which is what your remarks boil down to).

I incur no burden via lacking a belief.

It doesn't even occur to me to justify lacking beliefs I lack.

Do you justify lacking beliefs you lack?

How about beliefs you've never heard of?

Do you go around justifying the fact that you lack those beliefs?

The subject of this thread, Ron, is whether atheism really is the lack of belief.

Not whether a lack of belief can bear the ever elusive burden of proof so revered by some.

But just to humor you, because I like you, lacks of belief can be different in kind, and some can be irrational. (I won't bother with burden of proof talk.)

I grant that it is not irrational to lack a belief in something you've never heard of or thought of.

But even if atheism is a lack of belief, the idea that it is like a lack of belief in the unimagined is ridiculous. Whatever atheism is, it's not that.

Atheism, it seems to me, if it is a lack of belief, is closer to lacking a belief in the external world. Lack of belief in the external world is of a quite different kind than the lack of belief in the unimagined. And it seems, at least plausible, to say that lack of belief in the external world is irrational. Likewise atheism.

So, according to you, Ron, is it possible to be a Christian atheist?

Seriously? Or are you just trying to waste my time?

No. According to me. You can't be a Christian atheist.

Christians believe in a certain god and atheists don't believe in any.
_________________________________________________________

I am not convinced Christianity is true. Nor am I convinced that any other god exists.

I'm a non-theist. A non-believer An atheist.

Here, I'm defining what I mean by 'atheist': a person not convinced of the existence of any god.

You originally asked:

Is atheism compatible or incompatible with Christianity?

Sounds like:

Is believing in the Christian god compatible with not believing in any god?

Or:

Is the existence of the Christian god compatible with the non-existence of ALL gods?

Obviously, if anyone (an atheist, say) says There is no god, then THAT is incompatible with any claim of being Christian they might make.

Obviously, Christianity can't be true if there is, in fact, no god.

Is one of those what you want someone to say?

The subject of this thread, Ron, is whether atheism really is the lack of belief. Not whether a lack of belief can bear the ever elusive burden of proof so revered by some.

The OP says

This attempt to change the definition of atheism to a lack of belief is a tactic to try to shift the burden of proof. But it won’t work.

I figure that makes the ever elusive burden of proof so revered by some on topic.

I offered a synonym for a particular species of lack of belief: not being convinced.

I hope this synonym is helpful in people understanding the limits of the burden I bear.

I'm not convinced by the arguments offered for theism.

I have (and give) good reasons for not being convinced.

If I have a burden, having and giving those reasons for my non-belief is the extent of it, as far as I can see.

It never occurred to me that not believing required any justification until I heard all the bad reasons people give.


Go ahead and ask atheists an any of the multitude of atheist websites and you tube channels why they don't believe in God. I bet you the vast majority will state the following as their primary reason:

- There is a lack of evidence for the existence of gods and/or other invisible supernatural beings. Therefore belief is not justified.

Another common problem is that the concept of "God" is often vague or ill defined.

This is so simple and common sense. If you believe that some kind of god exists then all you need to do is present compelling evidence for said deity.

That's it. Why then do apologists like the OP feel the need to re-frame the argument away from this simple problem?

If there is compelling evidence for a particular god or gods then all the believer needs to do is provide it. That's it. Why does this need to become a complicated argument? Either there is good evidence or there isn't.

Instead the OP attempts to apply this bizarre rhetorical trick to get us away from discussing evidence (or lack thereof) and set up a straw man position where non-believer is attacked for the inability to prove a negative. This is even more disingenuous if the believer hasn't even defined what kind of gods are being discussed.

In real life we reject claims all the time for no other reason that lack of compelling evidence. This is not considered strange or controversial.

If I get an email from a supposed Nigerian prince offering me a cut of his $15 million USD inheritance if I help him get the money transferred out the country. Do I have a burden of proof to demonstrate that that the person who wrote the email is a fraud to justify my skepticism? Is it not prudent to remain skeptical when the only evidence presented is an anonymous email with no way to objectively verify the claim?

If it is not possible to be a Christian Atheist, then there is some claim that Christians and Atheists disagree about.

There has to be some X where the Christian says X and the Atheist says not-X.

My question, Ron, was aimed at underscoring this point. Atheists do make claims. Claims in which they deny something that the Christian affirms.

If that were not the case, then Athesim cannot be incompatible with Christianity. It would be completely on the table that there could be a Atheist Christian.

The next question is "What is that X...that point of disagreement that makes the two positions incompatible?"

It cannot be, merely, the view that there is no good evidence of the existence of God. One can affirm a proposition one has no evidence for.

Atheist Claim:

To claim that one is no being offered sufficient evidence with respect to necessary modes in and of Being Itself and, as the earlier quote of David Hart noted, the eternal relation between logical possibility and logical necessity, the contingent and the absolute, the conditioned and the unconditioned, ipso facto entails one of two claims:

We'll call evidence for God "ABC",

[1] The evidence offered in ABC is incoherent and contradicts perceived reality.

[2] X is coherent but the evidence offered by the Christian's ABC contradicts X.

It's that simple.

If the Non-Theist is simply uninformed with respect to necessary modes in and of Being Itself and the eternal relation between logical possibility and logical necessity, the contingent and the absolute, the conditioned and the unconditioned, or just hasn't thought it through, well neither of those unfortunate facts get the Non-Theist off of the proverbial hook of claim-making amid [1] & [2].

There has to be some X where the Christian says X and the Atheist says not-X.
>

This while compatible/incompatible thing has run its course.

It's arguing about definitions with frosting on top.

But, for auld lang syne, one last lap.

No there doesn't 'have to be some X...'.

Not if being an atheist means being unconvinced of the existence of any god.

No, it is not at all on the table that there could be a Atheist Christian.

Not, unless there are Christians who are unconvinced of the existence of any god.

If you define atheism so it makes a claim incompatible with Christianity, then, yes, it's incompatible with Christianity.


Scintillating.

RonH,

You're *still* claiming [1] and/or [2] as per my last post.

RonH,

All of which obviously is necessarily with respect to the necessary modes in and of Being Itself and the eternal relation between logical possibility and logical necessity, the contingent and the absolute, the conditioned and the unconditioned.

The comments to this entry are closed.