Re: #17: DEBATE "Is There Sufficient Evidence For The Christian God"

Link to Cellar Door Skeptics Podcast
Link to Blog Entry for this Event



I haven't really been paying much attention to the atheists' commentaries in a while other than a few videos here and there. In following up with some of the guys I used to listen to, watch, or read, from Atheist Analysis, I discovered that Atheist Analysis was no longer in business. Sounded like there was some juicy controversy behind the scenes but bottom line is the original leaders had a difference of opinion and had to part ways. It's a shame, I think, because atheism should continue to form public associations and disseminate their material far and wide, so more believers are aware of their best arguments, and hopefully develop or learn better ways to respond to these challenges.

So, I was directed to the new forum for some of the former AA staff: Cellar Door Skeptics. Having been reconnected, I was immediately directed to their latest materials. One of them was a debate between Christopher Tanner (atheist) and Aaron Furlong (reformed Christian). It was a rather lengthy offering and so I felt I had to split it between two days of listening. Overall, I think it was generally a good exchange between the two, respectful, well controlled, and it sounded like both sides were honest when they didn't know how to respond.

I just have some brief observations.

1. The resolution for the debate, "Is There Sufficient Evidence For The Christian God?", was weak. Obviously, the affirmative side (Christian) believes there is sufficient evidence, and the negative side (Atheist) believes there isn't. Between Christians that threshold may vary widely, as much as it may between atheists. Perhaps the resolution would have been clearer and more focused to be simply "The Christian God exists", or "The necessary precondition of logic and science is the existence of God as the foundational principle". Furthermore, the Christian admits he is not an "evidentialist", but he is a "presuppositionalist". So, the foundation of the affirmative side is not to give proof for the existence of God, but simply pointing out that no matter what course of logical argumentation the atheist uses, he must necessarily admit to the absolute need for a foundational principle(s) upon which his logical discourse relies upon. Only God can be that principle. 
2. Tanner makes a great case for only believing in things that are true. I would agree. Unfortunately, since he admits that he cannot be absolutely sure about anything, then this must necessarily mean he cannot ever really accept anything to be true. I would suggest he re-think the consistency of his position or adopt a sense of truth being provisional, that is to say, truth is the best explanation we have for now, accepting that at any given moment, it could be disproven and replaced with a new position, which may even be God. I don't know if he means this when he uses the word "true" or "truth".
3. Furlong gave a good introduction to his presuppositional attempt at presenting or defending God. Unfortunately, I feel like he has memorized the method of his art so well, that he had a very hard time when it came to addressing the issues Tanner brought up, which require an evidentialist familiarity to be able to respond to. For example, the validity of the Bible, was discussed. Furlong didn't really spend a lot of time defending his Bible and why it's reliable. On this point, I'd give to Tanner. It's not necessarily Furlong's fault. The problem is the Protestants don't have a good answer. The Catholics have a better answer. If God exists, and Jesus was God, he founded the Catholic Church, and the Church is what is foundational and not the Bible alone.
4. Judaism is a religion, but the word Jewish refers to both an affiliation with the religion as well as an identification with the "Jewish people". It is a race. Hitler was about a pure race, not a pure religion. 
5. Tanner didn't seem to realize the gravity of admitting that he doesn't believe that anything is absolute, and yet he holds absolute positions, for example, God doesn't exist, Christianity is wrong, telling a woman she ought not to have an abortion is wrong, the opposition views to LGBTQI issues are wrong, etc. 
6. There doesn't have to be a contradiction between God's omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omnipresence, with God allowing evil, or not lying. These are not new questions. Philosophers and theologians have been debating these issues for millennia. Those solutions only make sense within a Christian worldview. This issue puts the cart before the horse. 

I'm sure I missed a lot of significant points I wanted to address as I was listening to the debate. Perhaps I'll give it another listen and revise this post.

I look forward to staying in touch with these gentlemen. Perhaps, I'll give in and accept the invitation to address my worldviews or engage in debate.

Laurence Gonzaga

3.19.16

A Response to Atheist Analysis’ Christopher Tanner - Part II

Link to Comments at Atheist Analysis

“The parents locked Leelah away!. They took every form of communication away from her except CHURCH! They took her even out of school (which was confirmed by WPCO News). They gave her back her stuff after months of isolation then they restricted where she could go. She said over the last year she had seen her friends 3 times! You tell me how the hell that is right?”

Are you saying non-religious parents wouldn’t do this? I don’t believe I’ve seen any Biblical or church directive that has ever prescribed this. Maybe their brand of Christianity or their pastor advised this; I really don’t know (and neither do you). I think a commentary on the choices these parents made can be assessed on their own. Any causal relationship their behavior has with their religion from what we can draw from what we know of the case would only be speculative. My opinion is that imposed isolation is not helpful for anyone that has symptoms of depression.

“And we are not talking about Leelah being a bad person and getting caught stealing or harming others, BUT BECAUSE SHE IS TRANSGENDER!”

So it would be justified punishment for those things?

“Come on Laurence how the can you sit there and type this with a serious face? It is not because Leelah killed herself just because she was depressed. She was isolated, taken to counselors that do not care to deal with transgender issues (probably because they they do not believe in it) and give a high dose of anti depressants which in teens has been known to cause suicide.”

Christopher, individuals commit suicide for all sorts of reasons. Everyone has varied thresholds of what their personalities can bare to take. It would only be opinion to suggest that it is because of the imposed isolation and inadequate counseling that led to the suicide. I was not aware the child was prescribed antidepressants. By whom was this prescribed? Primary physician or psychiatrist? As in any case even in adults psych meds can precede suicide, but you can’t really say they cause suicide.

“So if an atheist or apitheist house hold respected a child for any reason to that extreme of a basis, sent them to counselors that only practiced pseudo-science, and then allowed their child to take high dose of medication that has been shown to increase the risk for suicide then I would be just as angry. And if this same house hold did this because of something they did not understand that did not harm the family, I would be fucking irate.”

I didn’t ask if you would be mad. I asked what would you blame? If parents make bad choices then let’s talk about the choices. It is illogical to just blame their choices on their religion as the irreligious can and do make the same choices. You added “counselors that only practiced pseudo-science”. I was talking about atheists going to atheist therapists. Suicides happen for various reasons, Christopher. If a client commits suicide, you can’t just blame the methods of the professional. If the professional violates the code of thics for their license then that’s a different story.

“So I am not being unjust in my analysis of their parenting. I am taking the known information and making a judgment based on it which is what all normal people do. I even gave them the benefit of the doubt and said that their religion had poisoned their thinking. You eluded to that they were bad parents and their religion had nothing to do with it.”

If the religion influenced their choices then we would have to get that from their admission. Otherwise we are speculating on it. Maybe they learned it from their family culture? Who knows?

“Now I have reasons to believe and there has been books written by others that suggest we would be better off without religion. You do not get to make the claim that I am using mystic power to see what would happen without religion and then turn around and say if we diid not have religion that we would be narcissistic personalities rising up. You are guilty accusing me of what you did your self in the next sentence.”

Good point. So, let me retract my precognitions. That still leaves you with my objection. We can only imagine a world without religion. However, we do have atheistic societies that have nevertheless replaced religion for nationalism or some other personality cult. They have new documentaries on happiness ideologies by self-help gurus.

“Now the problem is that this blog nor my second one was not the time or the place to discuss life without religion. I can write a future blog if you want but these blogs were not about the total overview that life would be better without religion.”

OK. I look forward to it.

“Last I bestow anger and vitriol when ignorance is displayed. Her parents with either bad parents or ignorant because of their religion.”

Not sure who you will win over if vitriol is your approach. The parents may or may not have been ignorant because of their religion. I can’t say as I don’t know what their religion taught.

“But my latest batch of vitriol comes because while I will continue to have the conversation about religion and will keep my vitriol in check for that, THE LIVES of Transgender individuals and the ignorance displayed in society for the UNEQUAL treatment of those individuals I will not keep my tongue. I will speak out, and pointedly because those that do not care nor understand the issue at some point are not worth discussing and I will fight to change the laws so people can not suppress Transgender Individuals.”

More power to you. I can appreciate when people are passionate about causes they believe in. I was just curious if you feel your style wins people over to your cause. Otherwise you are preaching to your choir. 

A Response to Atheist Analysis’ Christopher Tanner

Link to Comments at Atheist Analysis

Christopher Tanner writes (to “Speck Of The Cosmos”):

I appreciate the comments. I have been a trans and lgbtq Ally for probably 8 years now openly speaking out. I understand you want the article to be written by a trans person and I have nothing against that either. I also know many trans individuals in the movement and am personal friends with them well.

But that doesn’t mean I should be quiet. It doesn’t mean I should wait and let someone else write something. As allies we have to speak up. We have to voice that we are disgusted with this treatment. We have to tell people that they need to also stand up. Without the support of everyone a minority group will get bullied. Would it be more powerful coming from a transgender individual yes I think it would. But that doesn’t mean I should keep quiet.

As for not harassing the parents I am split. I think they are horrible people but I think their religion is worse. That is why I posed it as either their religion has made them bad people or they are bad people. But ultimately if we didn’t have religion we would not have this as big of an issue. I still think it could be but not to the extent it is because of religion. I am sorry but I think religion has done so few good things for society that I would rather not have it at all.

But I am not reducing the trans struggle to just religion because people are bigoted no matter what. But I can point out that the struggle would be easier without religion especially if we accepted science for what it was and instead of going to church on Sunday they spent 3 hours reading about science. Knowledge is power.

Lastly if you don’t feel the need to give the girl a proper burial that is fine. You don’t have to. I feel that it would send a message to society no matter what that even if someone doesn’t accept their child as trans that society will and society will start to instill this in people since the parents have failed to do so.

Laurence responds:

“As for not harassing the parents I am split. I think they are horrible people but I think their religion is worse. That is why I posed it as either their religion has made them bad people or they are bad people.”

They are bad people? I’m sorry, do you know what actually happened or did you just go blog surfing? On what basis or standard do you call them “bad”? If you are a father, and I think I heard on one of your programs you are, aren’t you lucky the public doesn’t know your misdeeds and bad choices as a parent. If I find a story of a teenager who commits suicide in an atheist, agnostic, or this latest BS I’ve been reading about “apatheist” household, who will you blame? The facts are what they are for this case, and they don’t need your spin on the matter to suit your agenda. If you want to raise awareness for your cause, so be it. But you’re sounding as “judgmental” as religionists are portrayed as. If you were once one of those kinds of Christians, you may have left the religion, but you kept the same vitriol.

“But ultimately if we didn’t have religion we would not have this as big of an issue. I still think it could be but not to the extent it is because of religion. I am sorry but I think religion has done so few good things for society that I would rather not have it at all.”

Oh I see, you have the mystical power to peer into parallel universes that don’t have religion. Religion may not be here in a hundred or a thousand years, but it is here now. Get over it, dude. If there was no religion, narcissistic personalities would still rise up and call the people so some ideological action. I never had a problem with the “question authority” kind of slogan. I think that’s good, but you can actually do that without being an asshole as well. Believe it or not, I like what you and Atheist Analysis is doing. Some things are thought provoking, but then there are some moments of vitriol like my encounter with those Prophetcast idiots, and the messenger(s) lose their credibility, and ultimately hurts the message.