From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faith is illogical
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:58:46 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Oct12.170822.25715@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes:
>From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
>Subject: Faith is illogical
>Date: 12 Oct 92 17:08:22 GMT


>Heb 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
>things not seen.

>-----------------
>Gratuitous Definition:

>Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks
>without knowledge, of things without parallel.
>                Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

>-----------------
>Many Christians base their belief in God on faith.  I wish to show
>that the Christian God cannot exist if faith is a requirement.

>DEF: Faith as I interpret it is either belief without supporting 
>evidence, or belief that the evidence points to God's existance 
>in spite of naturalistic explainations for the evidence.

>If you disagree with this definition, please provide a counter-example.

-- kenny: 
I'm afraid a Christian would take issue with this definition of faith,
insofar as he would be willing to argue at all. Heb 11:1 does say that
evidence is involved -- "the evidence of things". So it sounds like
faith is not totally devoid of supporting evidence.  

Soooo, let's try --
Believing in spite of naturalistic explanations.  This probably comes 
closer, I suspect, but I don't think it will help your overall argument 
[sigh--too bad; it looked promising.] Here's the COUNTER-EXAMPLE: I firmly 
believe, hope, nay, have an abiding faith, that my daughter has not lost her 
virginity on last nite's date. I cite my knowledge of her past modesty, 
uprightness and intelligence in choosing nice guys to go out with, etc. You 
explain all this "evidence" as a result of my disposition to self-deception 
in this matter with the all machinery of a full-blown psychological theory [
analogy with your "naturalistic explanation"]. I would say there could be 
cases where my confidence was justified, despite your psychologizings.

So, if I'm right so far, you apparently haven't succeeded in adequately 
representing the christian notion of faith in any way that would allow
the rest of your argument to procede smoothly. Let's see how the rest of 
the argument goes.

1) Faith, by this definition, is the acceptance of the logical 
fallacy of Special Pleading.  Why should we accept a supernatural 
explaination over a natural one?

Well, if a Christian says he's experience some kind revelation or something,
and believes this, I'd say he could be justified. Some claim religious 
experiences are self-authenticating in a way that naturalistic explanations 
are not. It's a possibility, isn't it? But then we wouldn't have a case of
special pleading. Or not obviously.

2) God, as defined by Christians, will prevent atheists from entering Heaven 
due to their lack of faith.  This is required because to admit atheists to 
Heaven reduces Christianity to a mere crutch for life.  (I don't know of 
many Christians who will willingly admit the crutch purpose.)

This is probably an oversimplication of christian theology. Some religionists
hold that God will hold out the offer of ultimate salvation to those who don'
t have a chance to accept God in this life [Mormons, Greek orthodox, I 
think--and the Universals in general].  How you get from "preventing 
atheists to heaven" to the reduction of christianity to "a mere crutch for 
life" is unclear to me. Some christians, at any rate, would admit that 
religion can function as a crutch, though the majority would probably use
words like "consolation".

3) God, as defined by Christians, is just.

So far so good. I would say "God on any definition would *have* to
have this attribute", but no matter.

4) Requiring atheists to accept a logical fallacy is unjust.

Uh, oh well. 4 depends on 1, and I produced a counter-example to 1, so
you can't have 4. So the argument collapses.

Note: I did not equivocate on the word 'just' in 3 and 4.  For 
Christians to claim God's justice is different than our own is 
to commit the fallacies of Special Pleading and/or Argument from
Authority, etc.

Some do claim that God's morality differs from our own, and, provided
the earlier premises in this argument can be shored up, this might
work against some believers. Ocham, e.g. believed that if God told us
to hate him it would then be right to do so. Others hold that God is
beyond good and evil. But now I'm digressing.

Conclusion:  A Just God, as defined by Christians, can't exist since
it would be unjust to prevent atheists from entering Heaven for their 
failure to yield to the logical fallacy of Special Pleading.  Q.E.D.

Alas, only if 1 can be rehabilitated vis-a-vis my criticisms. Give it
a shot. I'm with you all the way on this one, jeff.




>-- 
>> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
>> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
>> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////