From: Jeffrey D Koperski <jkopersk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated,alt.atheism
Subject: A Christian Who Thinks: reply to Todd
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:31:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Ohio State University

>>Finally, most Christians do not realize that their
>>beliefs ARE defeasible. No belief within any
>>theory (including Christianity) within any
>>  discipline (philosophy, economics, physics) is
>>  immune to revision.  If W.V. Quine is right, and
>>  he usually is (Quine is the best living philosopher),
>>  theories are subject to change.  Quine includes
>>  mathematics and logic as possible, though very
>>  improbable, candidates for change.  Christianity
>>  is no different.  The fact that I might give up
>>  Christianity some day to maximize my own
>> rationality, you seem to think, immediately
>>  disqualifies me from the faith.  I take it that my
>>  position is very much in line with Paul's

>>  "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is
>>  futile." 1 Cor. 15:16

> Here again, we run into problems with natural
> language.  From this statement we can't really
> tell what he was thinking.  Was he really thinking
> it's possible that Christ was more than a normal
> man, or was he thinking ``If Christ has not been
> raised, then I'm a monkey's uncle''? I realise
> that in the practice of Christianity, there is
> change in that interpretations are constantly
> revised, but the beliefs being interpreted cannot
> change, and that is where the dogma lies.
                 
If I understand correctly, you take Paul's belief to 
be a dogma.  I'll need a better understanding of 
your use of 'dogma'.  Paul seems to have a justified 
belief (and, under the standard definition, if that 
belief is true, then Paul has knowledge) based on 
first hand experience and eyewitness accounts.  What 
more makes it a dogma?  If the addendum is an
indefeasibility clause, my point is precisely that 
Paul takes his belief in the resurrection to be 
defeasible.  In addition, the preceding verses take 
care of the potential ambiguity: 

"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching 
is useless and so is your faith.  More than that, we 
are then found to be false witnesses about God, for 
we have testified about God that he raised Christ 
from the dead."  If this is the case, Paul says, 
"...we are to be pitied more than all men."

My apologies for taking the earlier verse out of 
context.  That is a sloppy and dangerous practice.
I suggest you read the entire chapter to rule out 
any further spurious interpretations.
>                                                                              
                 
> >                                                                            
                 
>>If the evidence for the resurrection can be better explained by a naturalisti
c              
>>theory (hallucination, plot, etc.), which it has not to date, then I will giv
e              
>>up Christianity if not theism itself.  Please see my earlier post, A Chritian
               
>>Who Thinks, for a short list of sources for this evidence.  I can't hope to  

>>condense it adequately here.                                                 
               
>                                                                              
                 
>This is not about evidence for or against theism.  This is about people       
                
>attempting to pass off faith for something rational, like philosophy.         
                
>Sure it's a word game, but any communication in natural language is           
                
>a word game.                                
You'll need to say more about your Wittgensteinian 
leanings.  If we are involved in incommensurable 
language games (the atheist game and the theist
game), we ought to stop the discourse now--it is 
pointless.  

The points I've made are quite legitimate topics in 
philosophy.  The well-respected atheist Antony Flew 
says, qua philosopher, "[W]e both construe 
resurrection, or rising from the dead, in thoroughly 
literal and physical way. . . .  We are again agreed 
that the question whether, in that literal 
understanding, Jesus did rise from the dead is of 
supreme theoretical an practical importance." 
Furthermore, standard philosophy of religion texts 
include discussion on the epistemology and religious 
experience, resurrection/reconstitution, and
revelation.  Your judgment on what counts as 
philosophy and what does not are simply not in 
agreement with the practice of professional 
philosophers.

> >                                         
                                                    
>>As I skim through the postings on this board, I 
see that atheists, like                     
>>Christians, are mostly ignorant of the best
defenses for the other side.  There
>>are many misunderstandings about the genre of the
bibical texts, their
>>preservation and transmission, the nature of
Christianity as a set of beliefs
>>rather than "an institution", and about why a
person would want to be a
>>Christian in the first place.  That's unfortunate,
but I realize that most of the Christians you run
>>into cannot communicate this information and settle
the slogans.  Worse yet, you take it that what
>>passes for Christianity on T.V. is the same thing
that Christ died for.  Televangelists hurt the faith
>>tremendously and much of what I tend to say to non-
Christians is damage control             >>against
>>these charlatans (most are, but not all).
     
>                                                                              
                 
>I have a very dear friend who is Christian, and She 
and I have had sophistocated conversations about 
Christianity and why she's a Christian                      
> and why I'm not.  She believes vehemently that I 
am doomed to burn in hell unless I become a 
>Christian, but that does not offend me (of course 
>there is no hell in my system of beliefs), and I 
don't consider her nasty. It is typical of religious 
>thinking, however.
>              
                                                                               
  
>                                                                              
                 
> The slogan quoters and televangelists are typical 
products of religious thinking too.  This is the 
>kind of behaviour that religions encourage.  The 
thinking is not philosophical, it's religious.  You 
>and I disagree on this basic point, as you see 
religion as a philosophy. That type of talk hurts my 
>ears about as much as ``poetry is a mathematics''.                           
>          
Actually if we consider history and not just
contemporary Christianity, we see that these persons 
are rather atypical.  There have alway been 
charlatans, of course (the Old Testament contains 
warnings against false prophets) but hucksters that 
prey on innocent persons are not are found among 
atheists, I'm sure.  Your average con man is not 
likely to be a religious person, I would think. In 
fact, the classical Greek skeptics were professional 
debaters who would take up anyone's argument for 
money.  Paul warns against such persons and 
practices explicitly in letters to the churches in 
Asia Minor and Greece.  

And a minor point in informal logic, the existence
of slogan quoters and televangelists does not bear
on the soundness of my arguments nor on the truth of 
my historical claims.  To suggest either of these is 
an informal fallacy, although I'm not clear whether
you are, in fact, asserting this.

> >                                                                            
                 
> > Some of you have asked, "Why Christianity?"  
Primarily because the evidence is              
>>better, but to know that you would have to examine 
the evidence and not simply listen to claims and 
>>counterclaims.  All theories (in science and all 
other fields) have rivals.  No where but in religion
>>would you dare claim that the existence of rival
theories makes the entire discipline bogus.  How do
>>you (rationally) justify this prejudice?

>
> I'll try to illustrate the point for you:

>    Newton, a scientist, can believe in Newton's
laws, then come to                            >
believe they are wrong, and he is still a scientist.

>    A philosopher can be a theist, then become an
>athiest, and he                              >    is 
>still a philosopher.                                                          
          
>                                                                              
                 
>    A Chistian can be a theist, then become an 
>athiest, and he is                              >    
>*no longer* a Christian.  Do now you see how 
>Christianity differs  from philosophy?                                        
                                   
>                                                  
You misunderstand my point.  The phenomena I too
briefly described is known as underdetermination.  
For any field and any set of data in that field, 
there are numerous (perhaps infinite) rival theories 
that cover the phenomena at hand.  This is why the 
are multiple theories in economics, sociology, 
psychology, philosophy, and all of the sciences 
(consider the various quantum cosmologies currently 
competing with one another).  Now the existence of 
rival theories does not count against rationality of 
any of the disciplines.  Underdetermination is 
simply a fact that no amount of data can neutralize.  
Given the existence of rivals in every intellectual 
discourse known to man, how is it that the existence 
of rival religions counts against religion in
general?  Such a "dogma", if you will, seems 
prevalent on this board, but it is taken for 
granted, not argued for.

If your point is merely that philosophy is broader
than Christianity and the former encompasses (at
least a significant part) of the latter, then we are
in total agreement.  If, on the other hand, you are
trying to demarcate theology from philosophy or
philosophy from science, you have not succeeded--and
for good reason.  This task has been abandoned as
hopeless by philosophers for some time now.

Thank you,

Jeff
Xref: sparky alt.atheism.moderated:11 alt.atheism:14422