My Discourse With A Christian Apologetic...

dtalton · August 6, 2005

NOTE: I apologize ahead of time for the poor formatting.

I have just finished a course, PHI101, at Rio

Salado community college. I took the exam last week, and was notified today

that I failed the course! I am so proud, I have never failed in college before

and am glad I can finally say I have! I, for some reason, have a strange feeling

that I may have been at the mercy of an Elsworth Toohey though. I had a standing

B in the course, but supposedly bombed the final. For entertainment purposes,

I have included a discourse with my instructor about the existence of God.

Verbatim, this is the assignment:

Does God exist? Provide three reasons, pro or

con, for your thesis. Do not use tradition, upbringing, or authority as reasons;

use evidence and arguments. (If you are really unsure or simply agnostic, provide

three reasons why you hold the position you do.)

Note that this is asking me to take a stance,

probably my personal belief. I am an atheist. Little did I know that my instructor

was a Christian apologetic! I have a very busy schedule, and my arguments are

very weak, and I did not have time to research them fully. Nonetheless, this

is a 101 course, so I used the following:

Energy can be created from nothing, disproving

the “it had to come from somewhere” argument.

The general uneducated person needs a reason to

explain the unexplainable without having to think.

Belief in God requires mystical, illogical thinking,

and contradicts our biological faculties.

Like I said, these are weak arguments, but still

more valid than the classic “If God exists, why is there evil in the world”

etc. tripe.

I am now currently looking for a course that teaches

classical philosophy. This course included such great highlights as “Feminist

Philosophy”…

It wasn’t my intention to do battle, if you could

call this that. I’ve had more enriching conversations with dedicated theists.

I think I am more upset as this is my first encounter with philosophy outside

of my own private study. That and it cost me $300 for the class.

Here are some excerpts from my arguments, my instructors

responses are in brackets [ ]. My text is blue, his is red. My peppery comments

are italicized. Hopefully you will find these as amusing and enjoyable as I

did.

Belief of god requires mystical thinking. At no time

has it<span

> [?]<span

> ever appeared, except “through” man. The existence of god is based on

faith in the unseen. This is a similar tactic employed by snake-oil salesmen

and hack parlor tricks. People want to be tricked.<span

color:black'>

[Like they are tricked with things like wind, atoms, backs

of objects, love, thoughts, etc.?  These aren’t seen either, but do they

require mystical thinking?]<span

> <span

>

There is almost always a requirement for an external

influence to communicate with god, be it church, swami, priest, and seer. The

exchange almost always requires the believer give power to the channel to receive

communication rites. A person cannot both think mystically and rationally, as

there is no rational explanation of god; there is always a separation.

[How do you know this?  Did you read the arguments

in the book?]<span

> <span

>

Even knowing that rational thinking is what keeps

us alive, healthy, and well, people still want to believe in magic and fairy

tales to dictate their behavior on a daily basis

People need something to aspire to, similar to the concept

of forms. Something to hold them is awe. Most need to feel their lives have

meaning through something greater than themselves. An average person typically

isn’t comfortable thinking they are one-hundred percent responsible for their

life, actions, and disposition. Fortunate or not. The belief in god lends this

to the believer. Give me your tired, your poor. Give me your sins and transgressions

and be forgiven. Very Freudian. Not believing in god requires strength and solid

fiber of character.

[Even if this is true, it’s not an argument why God doesn’t

exist.  God can still exist and this be true.  It may also require

more strength to believe in God since you can’t just live however you’d like

anymore if He’s really keeping score.]<span

color:black'> <span

color:black'>

It requires time to think, question, and rationalize.<span

> <span

>

[so all believers are idiots?<span

color:black'>]<span

color:black'>

It requires time to develop a more healthy moral

system outside of the believers. One based solely on accountability, reliability,

and truth in action. Belief in god is relief of accountability to your fellow

man.

[How in the world does this follow?  Why is it that

Christians have founded all the great schools, hospitals, orphanages, etc.?

You might find <a href="http://www.str.org" target="_blank">www.str.org</a> and

<a href="http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com" target="_blank"><span

style='color:red'>www.pleaseconvinceme.com</a> helpful.

I stated his claim of “Why is it that Christians have

founded all the great schools, hospitals, orphanages, etc.?” was a blanket statement,

sophomoric, and basically garbage. He then struck back with<span

> [No more sophomoric than claiming that “Belief in god is relief of accountability

to your fellow man” as you

said.]

They do. If you are ultimately accountable to a supernatural

being, with

his/her command being recognized over the dictates of your fellow man,

where then does accountability lie?

[ultimately human accountability is to God,

since He’s the source of truth

and justice, etc.  But Jesus put it this way: the first commandment is

to

love God, and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself.  So humans

are still accountable to one another, particularly since humans are made

in the image of God.]<span

color:black'>

[sophomoric… totally out of touch with history.]

Show me great Christians who have spread joy and

love throughout the world

and saved millions. If I were to write a list, it would consist of

philosophers, psychologists, Fortune 50 businessmen, and scientists.<span

>

[And like most of these are atheists without

any religious motivations?

Nonetheless, numbers here don’t make for a good argument for or against

God’s existence.]

Here he knows I can get numbers if I need to, and

backs down. The proof always lies with the claimant.

NOTE THE ABOVE LINKS TO APOLOGETICS WEBSITES

My comical retort, drawing directly from Objectivist

ideals, may have been too much for him to handle:

You might find this helpful, it is the basis of my argument:

Existence exists - and the act of grasping that statement implies two

corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one

exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of

perceiving that which exists.

If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with

nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness

conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it

could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of

something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you

possess is not consciousness.

[This has nothing to do for an argument why

you think God doesn’t exist or why you are at least skeptical concerning

His existence.]

I believe this wholly correlates to the non-existence

of God. I don’t think I need to expand that idea on this forum…on with more

funnies..

I've obviously struck a nerve, and gladly so. You have

definitely given me

food for thought.<span

color:black'>

I decided to be nice and see where he took this<span

>

[This happens to be my favorite subject, so I’m

glad

you’re playing along!  But unfortunately, this is going to be my last

response due to time constraints.  To further pursue this, I’ll give you

some references so you can see where my mind is on all this.]<span

>  <span

>

What the goal of my stance was is this: the existence

of god cannot be known

through reason (unless you are Aquinas), only through faith.<span

>

[There are many other philosophers

who think the same here, but they don’t make such a radical divorce of

faith and reason that you are.]

I know there are other philosophers, Aquinas is just

an ideal example. Note the copout of “time constraints”. This is an online course.

There is no classroom time allocated. Why are we arguing numbers?

Here is where it gets REALLY bad. He denies the dictionary

definition, and from what I know of, the general populations definition of what

faith is. I have since asked a born-again Christian, and a non-denom pastor

what they thought about my argument and they both agreed with me.

The second definition of faith dictionary.com provides

is:

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

The first being:

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person,

idea, or thing.<span

color:black'> <span

color:black'>

[i have faith in my dad coming through when he

says he

will.  Is this divorced from reason?  Of course not.  I have

all sorts of

reasons why I can trust him.]

Ummm, that’s not faith…

The second definition clarifies the first. That

the confident belief in

the idea does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.<span

>

[This is your assumption that I don’t hold.]

This is my argument for mystical thinking. Thinking

not based in known

reality, but in the supernatural; sight unseen and not able to be

logically explained or materially proven WITHOUT faith.<span

>

[i don’t grant your

definition.  You’re assuming the supernatural is already something other

than known reality.  You’re using faith in your definition, but you’re

trying to use reason, although I don’t think it’s very good.  You’re

accepting a very recent (relatively speaking) societal understanding of a

radical division between facts and values.  For more on this, you really

should check out Nancy Pearcy’s “Total Truth”.]

I do incorporate psychology in my arguments. It helps

tremendously to

understand, even on the smallest levels, why people think they way they

do. Things in the nature of "why would man assign man-like characteristics

to a god?". These are the questions that I think of when I question

religion. Maybe an argument I should have taken is why do most religions

god have emotion? Emotions, non-rational behavior, are chemically

triggered. That means god would have a physical manifestation, with

chemistry similar to ours.

[This is the problem with Freud and others… it’s

called the genetic

fallacy.  It’s attributing the wrongness of an idea to its dodgey origins.

Man may arrive at a belief in God that way, but it has nothing to do with

whether God really exists or not.  It’s like saying my 2nd grade teacher

was a terrorist, therefore I can’t believe that 2 + 2 = 4.]

After this he states that I still have yet

to logically explain why God doesn’t exist. My arguments are weak, but valid

enough for a 101 class covering this question.

And here we have sloppy solisism and another

apologetic reference:

Entirely correct, I was not trying to say otherwise.

It was a fairly poor

illustration of the point that God can only be explained logically by

holding a premise of faith. How could god be explained without faith?<span

>

[Now that’s a much better question!  But it

may be similar to how can I

explain the existence of other minds without faith?  I’ve never seen a

person in my life, technically speaking.  How do I know that everyone else

isn’t a highly complex robot?  Of course I have reasons based on an

analogy to myself, but when it comes down to it, I have to exercise some

amount of faith.  For more on this, see Alvin Plantinga’s “God and Other

Minds”.]

Belief in god is relief in accountability to your fellow

man. I few quick

examples are Jihad, abortion doctor murders, polygamy, slavery, spousal

abuse, forced submission. The world’s largest religions support these

ideals.

[so what? ~Does Christianity or Judaism today support

these? Are

you telling me that atheism has no social problems? What about all the

murders committed by atheists for their utopia? ~Let me put it to you

this way: suppose your car breaks down in the ghetto at night and you see

3 guys coming to your car. Would it make any difference to you to know

that they are coming from a Bible study?]

By following a doctrine that

allows for transgressions against others for what amounts to as a

difference of opinion is absurd. Most major religions have such doctrines.<span

>

I replied:

I am not implying atheism has no problems whatsoever.

Some of the biggest

monsters of the past century were atheists, I assume this is what you are

talking about when you mention the murderers. Some of the biggest saints

were also. Not saints in a religious sense, but in the sense of them saving

lives, helping people help themselves, and spreading all around good will.

A good example would be Paul Muller, with his discovery of DDT as a great

pesticide. DDT did, until it was banned, save one million lives a year.<span

>

[Then this is really irrelevant to the question

as to whether God exists

or not.]

The why the !@#$ did he ask it? I was answering his

question. This is the type of man you can hand a can of soda and he will tell

you that it does not exist and you did not just hand him a can.

To answer the broken down car question: do you think

those same bible

study people would approach me and my broken down car if I was wearing

gang colors and cursing? They may still, but I’m sure they would think

twice. It’s a moot point though, as we are referring specifically to

Christian doctrine, and the goodness of Christians, not the existence of

god. If I were a good Christian in a fascist muslim ghetto, I’d be shot.<span

>

[it is moot, but there are such things as Christian

martyrs.  For more on

many of them throughout history, see DC Talk and the Voice of the Martyrs’

“Jesus Freaks”.  Many of these were simply passive, but were active in

helping others that were very likely to kill them.]

Woohoo DC Talk! No comment.

</div>

Hal · August 6, 2005

He's a philosophy professor and you are taking his class. His job is to encourage your critical thinking, and to teach you how to formulate sound and persuasive arguments. Most of his replies dont seem like apologetics - they seem like perfectly reasonable counter-arguments to the points you are making, which I'd imagine he is expecting you to address. Have you ever heard of playing 'devils advocate'?

If I paid for a class and the professor just nonchalently agreed with my arguments without challenging me, I'd be wanting my $300 back. If you keep approaching philosophy with a pointlessly hostile attitude like this, you're just going to waste both your time and money.

Edited August 6, 2005 by Hal

dtalton · August 6, 2005

He's a philosophy professor and you are taking his class. His job is to encourage your critical thinking, and to teach you how to formulate persuasive arguments. Most of his replies dont seem like apologetics - they seem like perfectly reasonable counter-arguments to the points you are making, which I'd imagine he is expecting you to address. Have you ever heard of playing 'devils advocate'?

If I paid $300 for a class and the professor just nonchalently agreed with my arguments no matter how bad they were, I'd be wanting my money back.

Agreed, that should be his intention. What to note is that he specifically led the conversation toward Christianity, not another religion. Also, if you take a look at the please convince me site, it's pretty bad.

His not accepting standard definitions of faith, and his refusal to acknowledge its reliance on the existence of a god, lead me to believe that he aligns with those arguments. There is more to the conversation, I just posted the more unbelievable bits.

Also, I went directly from a B to an F after this conversation. My step-father taught this course at a different local college. I read the kind of work students submit, it's pretty rough. In all my other assignments, he has never raised a stink like this, including my reluctance to do the "feminist" philosophy supplement.

This is PHI101.

The defensiveness he displays gives him away. At the end of the conversation, he basically left me stonewalled.

Also, note that we are to take a stance and support it. I did, albeit from a laymans point of view. He retorted with a familiar Christian apologetic defense.

Edited August 6, 2005 by dtalton

dtalton · August 6, 2005

Ah, you were editing while I was too! I agree, somewhat. I did come across militantly, although that was not my original intention. Keep in mind we were to pick a stance and argue for it. I did. He didn't return to me a grade with comments pointing out flaws in my arguments like the other assignments I submitted.

Note that he references DC Talk.

I was hoping for a classical introduction, not a liberal politically correct centric one.

If you saw the course materials you would understand more clearly.

Anyway, I made the post just to share some of the inanity permeating our schools, not looking for validation.

:thumbsup:

Hal · August 6, 2005

Agreed, that should be his intention. What to note is that he specifically led the conversation toward Christianity, not another religion. Also, if you take a look at the please convince me site, it's pretty bad.

This is true, and its fairly common. In a way, I think this is unfortunate because the Christian conception of God makes far less sense than the gods of other religions. It would probably be easier to argue for the existence of Zeus or Apollo than to defend notions like the Trinity or transubstantiation. But philosophy classes normally center on the Christian god because most students have more familiarity with this, and its seen to be more relevant - most people would find a discussion of whether the Christian God exists more interesting than debating the existence of Athene. But yeah, the fact he did move there does suggest that he's Christian, not that this really matters.

On a sidenote, I'm curious about your 'energy can be made from nothing' argument, because this is simply false. I think theres something _vaguely_ similar in quantum field theory regarding the creation of virtual particles, but I'm not sure how you could have reasonably defended your statement (even at 101 level). If any one principle from physics had to be taken as absolute, the conservation of energy would be a pretty strong candidate.

dtalton · August 6, 2005

This is true, and its fairly common. In a way, I think this is unfortunate because the Christian conception of God makes far less sense than the gods of other religions. It would probably be easier to argue for the existence of Zeus or Apollo than to defend notions like the Trinity or transubstantiation. But philosophy classes normally center on the Christian god because most students have more familiarity with this, and its seen to be more relevant - most people would find a discussion of whether the Christian God exists more interesting than debating the existence of Athene. But yeah, the fact he did move there does suggest that he's Christian, not that this really matters.
On a sidenote, I'm curious about your 'energy can be made from nothing' argument, because this is simply false. I think theres something _vaguely_ similar in quantum field theory regarding the creation of virtual particles, but I'm not sure how you could have reasonably defended your statement (even at 101 level). If any one principle from physics had to be taken as absolute, the conservation of energy would be a pretty strong candidate.

That is a valid point. For an introductory, using the Christian god would make sense over other gods.

It does matter, at least to me. I had my hopes up for an unbiased view, and I was let down. Needless to say I was upset by this. I have an overly optimistic worldview, and I forget that colleges are not necessary havens for rational people. That, and I was hoping for a little more Aristotle and a lot less Marx, Hume, and Nietziche. My biggest problem, and on some levels the point of my post, was to be a beware sign. I believe my "failure" of the course was directly related to some views I expressed in the course of the class. Once this issue came up, my grades dropped considerably, even though my work got better.

About the energy argument, it was a generalization I made referencing a article I had read about particle acceleration. I may have misread it, I cannot find it now either. I cannot reasonably defend it yet. I basically chose it as a cheesy example of the fallacy of creation. The virtual particles may be what I saw, I cannot remember offhand, this was from a month ago. My memory has gotten very poor over the last two years, I work way too much. :thumbsup:

Ultimately my stance was very poor, I realize this. I could have argued it much better, but I am rusty, and I did not spend too much time on it. Out of context, his responses could be deemed valid, and actually are in some cases. I just didn't expect apologetic links and statements like "Why is it that Christians have founded all the great schools, hospitals, orphanages, etc.?"

JMeganSnow · August 6, 2005

It is silly to expect anyone not to have personal involvement with their ideas. I.e. to be "unbiased". Since reason is man's means of survival, anyone who claims to be indifferent to ideas is a death-worshipper in any case. (Not necessarily intentionally, but still.)

Most of the college professors I have met are generally fairly good on grading the quality of your work as opposed to its content. Some will also grade you on matters such as: have you improved over the length of the course? have you incorporated ideas expressed in the course into your work? And so forth.

Don't worry about what grades other students got; comparing yourself to others is a road to misery. Instead, ask yourself: did I produce high-quality work by an objective standard? (You said yourself, no) Did I make my case? (no) Did I put the necessary effort into it? (no) So by what standard do you deserve a passing grade?

In some courses the final may be up to 80% of your total grade. (I took one class with a lazy professor where the final was 100% of your grade!) So, if you do poorly on it, your entire grade may suffer terribly.

softwareNerd · August 6, 2005

I cannot read the whole exchange right now. However, reading from the top, I'd say many of your professor's retorts are just fine. In fact, many are no different from what I would ask if I were playing devil's advocate. This does not mean I think you deserves an F. That would require much more information. Also, I wouldn't be particularly surprised if a statistical analysis showed that believers generally scored better in this class than non-believers.

Anyhow, take the following, with which you start the exchange.

Belief of god requires mystical thinking. At no time has it ever appeared, except “through” man. The existence of god is based on faith in the unseen. This is a similar tactic employed by snake-oil salesmen and hack parlor tricks. People want to be tricked.

You say belief in God requires "mystical thinking" (a.k.a. mysticism). You then substantiate this by the following:

1) "At no time has it ever appeared, except “through” man".

2) God is unseen

However, many things are unseen -- like atoms, wind, backs of objects. How about "things" like love and thoughts. Indeed, given that they are unseen one would expect that it would take a rational-being like man to discover these things.

As for "snake oil" and "parlor tricks", these would be true only if your basic argument of "unseen implies mystical" were to be true. I suggest you prove your point first.

From my rudrimentary knowledge, I think Thomas Aquinas tried to present the "Case against God" to himself, and then convinced himself that he did have rational reasons to believe in God. If you have another Christian prof., I'd suggest you think of it as a polite argument where you convince Aquinas that he has made a mistake in his reasoning.

Another point I'd make is this: using "churches and swamis" and using "people's willingness to believe" will never work with a good Christian. The reason is that such a person already does not like those aspects of religion anyway. Such arguments do not really attack the position at all. They are akin to the folks who use "those hippie libertarian anarchists" or "people want firm convictions and absolutism" as ways to attack Objectivism.

Michero · August 6, 2005

What I have come to learn in my many many arguments with faithful people is that you cannot prove that god does NOT exist, when they have not given even a satisfactory definition of what god is. Most will say: he can't be known, his ways are mysterious. There isn't one shred of physical evidence -not sight taste sound touch or even effects of his presence that cannot be explained by science. It isn't your job to prove he doesn't exists, it's there's to prove he is since they are asserting he does exist.

DavidOdden · August 6, 2005

Don't take this the wrong way, but your argument is bad. Argumentation is not just about whether you make reference to certain ideas, it's also about how you structure the presentation. You need to make your argument vastly more explicit. For example, you don't really believe that you have to directly see an object in order to hold that it exists (if you did, you could not believe in radio waves). Your "external intervention" claim is simply false (indeed, it's part of the foundation of the Reformation). And just to pick on a small bit of your text:

People need something to aspire to, similar to the concept of forms. Something to hold them is awe. Most need to feel their lives have meaning through something greater than themselves. An average person typically isn’t comfortable thinking they are one-hundred percent responsible for their life, actions, and disposition. Fortunate or not. The belief in god lends this to the believer. Give me your tired, your poor. Give me your sins and transgressions and be forgiven. Very Freudian. Not believing in god requires strength and solid fiber of character.

this is a stream of words, not an argument. Too many sentence fragments. Don't.

I don't see how time has anything to do with it.

Start by considering other existential arguments, such as whether Santa Claus, dragons, Homer, Attila the Hun, or Harry Truman exists or existed. You should conclude "no" for the first two, "I don't know" for the third, and "probably yes" for the fourth, and "yes" for the last. Why should the standards of evidence be lower for god than for Santa Claus? The moral arguments that you point to are off target. God is an evil bastard: deal with it.

There are two and only two arguments against the existence of god. First, given what god is presumed to be, god entails a contradiction. Second, there is the epistemological argument, that asserting the existence of god is entirely arbitrary and unworthy of rational discussion. (However, in the context of this kind of course, you will have been presented with specific evidence, which you are obliged to directly address).

In other words, getting the correct conclusion isn't the point, the point is getting there using a particular method. You need to work on focusing your argument, cutting out the irrelevancies.

dtalton · August 6, 2005

Looks like alot of you are not alarmed at the things I am. Do you not see his denial of what faith even is? Do you see the very poor example of trust in his father as a standard of faith?

He denies my definitions, but does not challenge them, nor clearly argues against them, nor challenges me to expand on them.

Let me make this big so I may nip this in the bud. I've already said it a few different ways a few different time.

Let me clarify, it seems like some are missing the point of why I even posted this:

To these people:

Ultimately my stance was very poor, I realize this. I could have argued it much better, but I am rusty, and I did not spend too much time on it. Out of context, his responses could be deemed valid, and actually are in some cases. I just didn't expect apologetic links and statements like "Why is it that Christians have founded all the great schools, hospitals, orphanages, etc.?"

I get Aristotle, I get Plato, I get Socrates, I get Rand. I don't really "get" anything else. I could care less about arguing it in this thread.

This conversation is taken out of context. There is alot more to it.

Note people: How many of you took PHI101 and were targeted after the fact by a Christian apologetic because of a stance you were allowed to take?

Now, I took the stance of an athiest, which is very hard to argue to begin with, especially to a layman.

Some of you are missing the point, read it again, only this time give me the benefit of the doubt.

Edited August 6, 2005 by dtalton

dtalton · August 6, 2005

By the way, I directly alluded to my instructor that I believe I "may" have been treated differently for whatever reason.

I received a reply back that of the 10 finals he had graded so far 10 people had failed the course.

This is Phi101 at a community college. Keep that in mind.

I have no background in philosophy other than objectivism. I am reading others now, especially Aristotle.

Edited August 6, 2005 by dtalton

Sign In

My Discourse With A Christian Apologetic...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members

Topics