RFayette, let's argue about that ridiculous quote in your signature

[Alcon]

Hi RFayette,

I don't normally get on people's cases individually, but this quote (from your signature) is particularly epic in its missing-the-pointness, so I'd like to discuss it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This quote sounds really cool, but does any part of your brain seriously think it makes any sense?  Think about it.  The central contention of the quote is that atheism is "strange," because "devils" aren't atheists -- they recognize and willfully reject the existence of God.  Therefore, atheism is somehow worse than being a devil ("beyond their father in sin"), because at least devils recognize the existence of God, and atheists don't.

This is some hot, incoherent bulls**t.

I shouldn't have to explain why, but here: this entire quote is basically saying it's "strange" to not believe something, when some people believe that thing and yet operate as if it weren't true.  How is that strange?  You don't believe in other religions, and yet do you think that somehow morally incriminates you because you operate under the assumption the beliefs aren't true?  Does the fact that some people believe in Islam, and yet fail to follow Islamic teachings, somehow make your non-belief in Islam "strange"?  Of course not.  THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

Also in the category of making no damn sense whatsoever, how does it somehow make it morally worse to fail morally because you fail to see moral truth, versus see moral truth and act immorally anyway?  Here an analogy:  If I accidentally hit a guy with my car because my eyesight is poor, but I'm unaware of that fact, does that somehow make me morally worse than someone with good eyesight who knowingly hit the guy?  No.  And is it "strange" that someone with unknowingly poor eyesight would not see the guy?  No!

I recognize that this analogy is a little different, because you can argue that unknowingly lacking accurate moral belief is a moral failure, while not believing that unknowingly lacking accurate eyesight isn't.  But why?  If I'm acquitted from moral responsibility because I didn't know I had bad eyesight, how am I not acquitted from moral responsibility because I didn't know my moral reasoning was off?  This quote seems to weasel around that question by calling atheism even more "strange" than devilhood, which I guess the quote thinks means it's inherently unreasonable or something.  But, again, the logic behind the statement that atheism is "strange" is incoherent, and would equally indict your non-belief in other religions.  So, either this quote is hypocritical or it says basically nothing of meaning.

To be clear, my objection to your quote is not that it assumes atheists are obviously wrong.  That assumption is annoying, but whatever -- for whatever reason, it's what you believe.  It's that, even under that assumption, it's spectacularly nonsensical.  This is the fundamentalist Christian version of feel-good New Agey nonsense, the type of pseudo-profundity that requires a really poor bullsh**t detector to find any substantive meaning in.  It feels good to the brain, never mind that it means basically nothing.

It's this...



...but for Jesus.

Thoughts?

[Antonio the Sixth]

RFayette thinks that Dick Cheney is a "massive FF" (the thread in question was accidentally deleted, but he said that).

At this point, BRTD is a better Christian than he is.

[Alcon]

RFayette thinks that Dick Cheney is a "massive FF" (the thread in question was accidentally deleted, but he said that).

At this point, BRTD is a better Christian than he is.

I don't want to turn this thread into 'let's dismiss RFayette by calling him a bad person."  That isn't any better than the other thread, where he was avoiding engaging arguments on gay marriage by implying that gay marriage support was secretly based on a clandestine hatred of God.  RFayette could be the world's worst Christian or human being, and it would have absolutely no bearing on whether the arguments he makes are valid or not.

[Crumpets]

That's a fantastic article you linked to, by the way.

[Alcon]

To be honest, I put the quote in my signature not thinking about the last sentence:  I had just googled "Spurgeon quote even the devils" and copied/pasted it.  I hadn't really pondered the last sentence much.  As for the first two sentences, the premise is fairly simple:  Satan believed in God and Jesus (though he trembled).  The Bible teaches that the devil is the spiritual father of the unsaved (John 8:37-47, 1 John 3:10, etc.).  Spurgeon is simply pointing out that it is odd that the spiritual father believes in God yet some of his sons surpass the father's unrighteousness in that regard by asserting that they don't believe in God at all.

Yes, I fully understand what the quote is saying.  I just explained why it makes no sense.  Do you have any response to any of that?

I understand your claim is that it's better to not believe in God than to believe in him and act contrary to his will. But Spurgeon (I believe) is trying to convey that people who call themselves atheists do not take their position in good faith but rather choose to suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).  That being said, the atheist could become sincere in their convictions because their sin and rebellion had gotten to a point where God gave them over and hardened their hearts (Romans 1:21).   This is what constitutes the additional moral incrimination, in a sense.

Please, dude, stop rotely quoting things and start thinking rigorously about what you're arguing.  This isn't a high school essay, where you string together some declarative sentences, cite them, and get a passing grade.  This is logic, where you're not only required to string together coherent sentences, but actually establish that your ideas are more compelling than other ideas.

You seem to be arguing that atheists never arrive at their beliefs through logic, but instead basically rationalize into their beliefs while ignoring, or intentionally avoiding, exposing themselves to contradictory evidence.  Is that what are you are arguing?  You think that's true of everyone who holds a mutually exclusive view from you (atheist, Hindu, etc.) -- you have taken a fair-minded, flexible evaluation of the evidence, but everyone else is knowingly or recklessly deluding themselves?  If so, on what basis do you believe that?

Please keep in mind that my question above still applies either way.  The "atheism is a strange thing" line, which you said wasn't part of the part you said you hadn't considered, is a totally incoherent pseudo-profundity.

[Alcon]

That's a fantastic article you linked to, by the way.

Isn't it awesome?!

[DavidB.]

This is about to become just as amusing as the discussion on vegetarianism. *grabs popcorn* Although that discussion made me decide I want to become a vegetarian, whereas I doubt this one will make me decide to become an atheist...

[DavidB.]

However, their ultimate decision not to believe (and die in their unbelief) is a result of the fact that they are spiritually a child of the devil and were not predestined to come to a saving faith that would save them from foolish thinking (man's responsibility, God's sovereignty).  So I do believe that atheists are recklessly deluding themselves (and to a greater extent than other religions, because atheism dogmatically asserts no need for a creator) because they are under the dominion of Satan himself.

These two sentences seem contradictory to me. Are they not predestined to believe, or are they recklessly deluding themselves? If it's the former, it seems you cannot blame them for not believing and they are not really "deluding themselves"; instead, forces exogeneous to them have simply decided they will not become believers. If it's the latter option, doesn't this imply that they do, actually, have the possibility to "start believing"?

Btw, respect for engaging in this discussion, I like it when people stand up for what they think is right even if it is unpopular.

[Alcon]

I also appreciate your replies.  My response is exactly the same as David's.

Also, again, regardless of your position on this sub-conversation, do you understand why the "atheism is strange" part makes no sense at all?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My prediction as to how this thread will turn out?

[Alcon]

This is the dual nature of Calvinism, which asserts both man's responsibility and God's sovereignty, and like the trinity, I can understand how people can find it paradoxical, and my response is that there are certain things we can't comprehend with our finite reasoning capability, but are extremely clear to God, who knows all things.  For instance, God said that he loved Jacob and hated Esau before they were even conceived, yet he held both of them fully responsible for their actions despite him knowing.

Here's what one of my favorite preachers, John MacArthur, said about the subject.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't the only tenet of Biblical Christianity that can appear paradoxical.  Coming up with a theologically valid analogy for the trinity is almost impossible, as this Lutheran Satire video points out.  Certain truths cannot be ascertained by man's reason alone and may even appear to run counter to it.  Why did God have it this way?  I'm not sure, but he's God, he's sovereign, and he's great.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

OK, was that a really elaborate way of saying "I'm not bothered by the logical inconsistency here, because my belief in my religion is not affected by neutral logical analysis of attributes of my religion"?  Well, OK.  

But that prompts the question: why do you find this quote interesting or inspiring if, at best, it's based on a holding that you don't understand logically, and that involves declaring that apparently reasonable, well-intentioned people deserve damnation?  You may believe that's true, even if you don't understand why that's true, but why the heck do you find it worth quoting?  

I'm really having trouble believing you found this quote inspirational for any of the reasons you're using to defend it.  I suspect you basically quoted it because it sounded cool, said something negative about atheists, and came from someone you agree with theologically.  The defenses you're giving don't really add up to "quotable" so much as "poorly-phrased but defensibly consistent with my theological views."

I also appreciate your replies.  My response is exactly the same as David's.

Also, again, regardless of your position on this sub-conversation, do you understand why the "atheism is strange" part makes no sense at all?

I think Spurgeon is saying that from his human perspective, it is odd that someone who is spiritually descendant from atheist (the devil) and does his bidding chooses to reject theism.  From God's perspective, it is not "strange" because he knew they would believe that way.  

So, it's not "strange" to God, and it's not "strange" based on logic (as I explained), and it's not odd to your theology, and it doesn't even matter if it's "strange" because you're willing to accept logically incoherent beliefs into your theology...so remind me again why this isn't just a meaningless pile of vague pseudo-profundity?

[Antonio the Sixth]

RFayette thinks that Dick Cheney is a "massive FF" (the thread in question was accidentally deleted, but he said that).

At this point, BRTD is a better Christian than he is.

I don't want to turn this thread into 'let's dismiss RFayette by calling him a bad person."  That isn't any better than the other thread, where he was avoiding engaging arguments on gay marriage by implying that gay marriage support was secretly based on a clandestine hatred of God.  RFayette could be the world's worst Christian or human being, and it would have absolutely no bearing on whether the arguments he makes are valid or not.

I'm just saying that, if you're so defensive and assertive about your religious beliefs, you should first make sure you're following the spirit of your faith beyond just opposing SSM or supporting school prayer.

I know it's just me, but hypocrisy bothers me a lot more than fanaticism.

[Alcon]

Look, I thought the quote was witty

Right, which is irritating.  It's a mean-spirited quote toward others.  You didn't even take more than 10 seconds to think through whether it made sense, because you found it appealing -- in part because it's mean-spirited.  That's really self-indulgent, and it's at the expense of others.  What you're doing is basically like the textual equivalent of masturbating in public.

and liked the fact that it said something negative about atheism, a belief system I (along with the Bible) am strongly against.  I probably thought for about 10 seconds before putting the quote on as my signature and perhaps it's not "incredibly profound"; I'm more than willing to cede that.

It's not only "not 'incredibly profound'," one of its central elements is completely incoherent.

You do raise some valid points about some of the paradoxes in Christian/Calvinist theology, but it seems your grounds for calling it "ridiculous" comes from a worldview in which manmade logical systems are the highest authority; this premise is explicitly rejected by Biblical Christianity with respect to these worldview issues.

Calling them "manmade logical systems" is a little weird, since you mean "perception and induction."  Do you completely reject perception and induction as arbitrary (we're having the same discussion in the other thread)?  If so, why do you keep making arguments on other topics based on perception and induction, including ones to justify your religious views?  And if so, how did you decide your religious views or do you hold that they're completely arbitrary?

[Alcon]

Perception and induction are extremely important, but they are not always infallible, especially with extremely complex theological truths.

You defend pretty glaring logical contradictions in your arguments with "perception and induction aren't fallible."  Exactly how do you determine when to use perception/induction and went to totally ignore it?

[RINO Tom]

First, I believe that  God predestined those who would believe the truth (Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:5 & 11).   With that in mind, keep in mind that those of other religious beliefs can deceive themselves through a variety of means.  And yes, logic is one of them.  I believe that an atheist can 100% believe that they came to their conclusion using logic and considering opposing opinions.  However, their ultimate decision not to believe (and die in their unbelief) is a result of the fact that they are spiritually a child of the devil and were not predestined to come to a saving faith that would save them from foolish thinking (man's responsibility, God's sovereignty).  So I do believe that atheists are recklessly deluding themselves (and to a greater extent than other religions, because atheism dogmatically asserts no need for a creator) because they are under the dominion of Satan himself.  And logic itself is a tool, not an end.  Certain truths cannot be derived by logic, but by spirit (though I believe the existence of God is logically obvious as per Romans 1, saving faith is only a supernatural work).  The end is God himself.  And like any tool, how it is used depends on the character of the person using it.

What?!  Okay, 1) you believe the devil can create life/souls, too?  If not, then how do you possibly describe someone as being "spiritually a child of the devil"?!  And 2) assuming you don't hold that insane belief and believe that only God can create life from nothing, then why would He create people - people who at birth have done nothing wrong - as "children of the devil" just so they could go through life not believing in Him and be sent to Hell?!  Sorry, but the God I believe in simply wouldn't do that ... way kinder and, more importantly, more perfectly logical.

[Alcon]

Perception and induction are extremely important, but they are not always infallible, especially with extremely complex theological truths.

You defend pretty glaring logical contradictions in your arguments with "perception and induction aren't fallible."  Exactly how do you determine when to use perception/induction and went to totally ignore it?

When perceptions/inductions contradict scripture, we go with scripture.  If it confirms scripture, then it's valid.  Scripture is the standard here.  If the issue has nothing to do with the Bible, those rational systems usually work extremely well (common grace).

and...you believe scripture is true because scripture says scripture is true?  and other scriptures aren't true, because...?  and you apply logical standards to other (non-)belief systems but not your own because...?

also, why do you trust your perception in reading scripture but not your perception in the basic tenets of logic?

[Alcon]

and...you believe scripture is true because scripture says scripture is true?  and other scriptures aren't true, because...?  and you apply logical standards to other (non-)belief systems but not your own because...?

also, why do you trust your perception in reading scripture but not your perception in the basic tenets of logic?

There is a personal, transformative, regenerating power that comes from the scriptures that affirms its salvific capability and spiritual depth and truth.  

A lot of people experience personal, transformative, regenerative power from religions that are completely mutually exclusive to yours.  Why do you assume your perception and interpretation is accurate and theirs isn't?

My point is that I have multiple lines of reasoning, and yes, I do consider outside evidence for the Bible strongly pointing in its favor (as well as Jesus's strong affinity for scripture and the miracles of the Apostles, who also spoke the word of God with authority).  But ultimately, the book's capacity for an individual to experience saving faith and grace, as well as its innate, self-attesting authority, clinches it for me.  

In other words, it causes you strong feelings which you believe must be divine, and therefore you believe what it says?  I doubt you're saying that you think "self-attesting authority" or "speaking...with authority" are inherently strong pieces of evidence, considering you disbelieve plenty of books and people who behave the same way.

My video about circular reasoning that I shared is simply to show that everyone has some degree of circularity.  You trust your own logical thinking processes (as do I), because they work, and they work because our own process of logical thinking tells us they do (and it can be corroborated by external sources as well).  This is similar to my circularity with respect to scripture:  God inspired the Bible and thus we know it's the word of God, and we know it's inspired because the Bible says so.  But it is not my sole argument, and the external evidence (both personal and historical) also bolster my former reason.

Think about how accepting perception/induction is different from accepting a set of doctrinal beliefs about a religion, though.  Perception/induction is the only "methodology" we have, since it's simply the act of parsing our senses, observing cause and effect, that sort of thing.  Presuming perception/induction are true isn't really arbitrary the way it is to presume a given set of religious teachings are.  With specific religious views, there are plenty of counterfactuals, many of them mutually exclusive.  For instance, if you hold that it's reasonable to have strong faith in perceptions based on emotional response and transcendent feelings, you're saying it's reasonable for people to knowingly come to mutually exclusive conclusions, in a way you don't simply by endorsing "perception" (which includes perception of others' experiences).

I doubt you disagree with me on this, actually.  After all, how do you differentiate a reasonable belief from an unreasonable one?  If I said that I believe my neighbor is attacking me with electricity, would you consider that as reasonable of a belief as assuming perception is true?

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/the-study-of-god/how-do-we-know-the-bible-is-true/how-do-we-know-bible-is-true

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're pointing to here?  This article is written way below the level of this conversation, and most of it is kinda simple, and not really in the good way.

[Alcon]

First off, sorry if I've seemed aggressive.  It's totally play-aggression.  I like being competitive, but sometimes I go overboard and seem like I'm actually mad. 

Your posts have been quite good and insightful, and I admit it's starting to give me some doubts, particularly in regard to my presuppositionalist approach.  A lot of the apologetics material I have looked at does not account for the level of inquiry that you are reaching toward.

Yeah, true.  Apologetics materials are well-intentioned but they're a little like political communications.  They're made to persuade the maximum number of people, not make the maximum substantively compelling case.

I think we can all agree that perception and induction are incredibly useful to the human experience and usually, but not always, accurate.

Agreed, although I want to put in a major caveat: when I say "it's reasonable to assume our own perception is accurate," a lot of people assume I'm saying it's reasonable to trust your own perception even when you're aware that other people perceive differently.  I think perceiving other people's perceptions is part of perception, and should be incorporated.  For instance, if I feel like there's someone behind me, but someone else tells me they were looking that way and say no one, obviously I perceive (and should) consider their reported perception.  That's especially important when it comes to arguments about religious experience.

We believe logic works in part by circular reasoning (because our logical thinking processes tell us so), but it is also verified by external evidence.

Well, I mean, logic is basically just rules we've noticed happen consistently in our perception.  It's not like logic is a set of rules that says "logic is true" we just decide to arbitrary believe.  It's the description we give to the patterns of things we observe.  "Logic" is just the logical extension of presuming that our perceptions are accurate.  It only involves faith insofar as we have "faith" that observations we've consistently made will continue to hold.  It's "faith" in the same way that I have "faith" when I assume that, if I step into my bathroom, I won't suddenly fall through the solid floor.

The outside bounds for when other modes of thinking could eclipse the standard perception/induction methodology appears to be the contention, and specifically how the Bible is able to better bridge it than other religious texts (which, as you pointed out, can produce salvific/regenerative "feelings" or could also be self-attesting).  So it ultimately comes down to how much authority one gives to scripture. 

I'm not 100% sure I follow your thinking here, but I think I do.  It's true that it comes down to how much authority you give scripture.  But you seem to be arguing that authority can come from perception, and elsewhere, and that it doesn't matter if you doubt the authority of Christian Scripture from perception, because it somehow has authority that transcends that.  I guess I'm trying to understand how one can establish authority without engaging perception, without doing it totally arbitrarily.  (Way more arbitrary than it is to presume our perception is true, that is...)

Your arguments definitely are pretty solid against the pre-suppositionalist framework to which I have been exposed both at my church and in the online ministries from which I derive my theology.

I'm actually surprised to see how many apologists seem to use that model, since it ignores that if someone isn't Christian, they're presumably see the presuppositions as totally arbitrary.  It honestly took me a while to realize it was apologism.  I always assumed people just really, really liked to talk about their religious beliefs while citing Scripture...like it was an autistic kind of thing or something   But the authoritative tone might be effective, I guess.

Perhaps an alternative approach could be to look at "Cold Case Christianity" (the website, though there's also a book).  I've perused some of it, and it appears to give a lot of external evidence in favor of Christianity.  Based on your very solid argumentation, I admit that this approach is needed to supplement (or perhaps to some extent supplant) the presuppositional apologetic framework.

By all means, read a lot of stuff (including stuff that's critical of the other stuff you're reading!).  One question, though...if this might need to supplant the argument you're currently using, why are you only considering works that agree with the conclusion of your current argument?  Why not look at other religions' historical apologists, or works that criticize Christian historical apologism?  Basically, in absence of a really strong argument for this, why do you remain certain it's true?

I'm going to need to sort this one out...very interesting discussion.

That's totally fair.  I know this is a fairly recent belief for you, and you seem to devote a lot of energy to reading about the subject, so I trust you'll follow-up on this

[afleitch]

To expand a little on what Alcon has discussed (and he is much better and much more succinct than I can ever be), there's a very base way to look at perception.

Let's start off with this statement. There are males and females in this world. Which of these is a valid expression and which isn’t? There are people with white skin and dark skin. Which of these expressions are valid? Both is the balanced answer. You may ascribe different responsibilities or demands on one or all of these expressions, but it doesn’t mean that they are invalid by themselves. There are people who have perfect vision and those who have to have their vision corrected? Which of these is valid? One may be more beneficial than the other, one may be considered a disadvantage, but neither are invalid.

What about how people think, with respect to religion; belief, or unbelief? I’m not asking whether or not you consider them right or wrong, but whether or not they are valid expressions. It doesn’t even matter who you define them; in reference to your signature, your definition of unbelief includes a whole range of beliefs and lack thereof where as I would place all those belief systems (and yours too) under the category of ‘belief’.

Empiricism and intuition. Which of these are valid expressions? Can both positions not merely be neutral in respect to one another?

Let us assume that there is a god and that this god is of a ‘Christian’ nature. If a person’s tendency towards non-belief is simply a neutral trait, then the person who does not believe in god is not in error. Again. I’m not talking about ‘right or wrong’, I’m talking about validity. They are ‘in accordance’ with their nature. You cannot force belief on people who cannot see it no more or no less than you can chastise and condemn someone who has impaired vision for not being able to see. Or for a woman not being a man.

Is a non-believer or empiricist in ‘error’ for not postulating matters of a divine or intuitive nature at any point in their existence? If they were supposed to, why are they not a believer in the first instance? What about the believer, or the person who relies on their intuition. Is that person viewed more positively by god simply for also being in accordance with their nature? Why would it put them in extra favour or extra grace?

With respect to belief in god, the unbeliever in not believing is not making an error. But a believer might be. They could believe things or do things contrary to god. The pursuit of god by the believer could be set with potential pitfalls despite the believers being endowed with the potential to ‘taste’ the divine. To see it, or touch it no matter how clouded it appears.

For the non-believer passivity towards god is a neutral position. Should the non-believer seek knowledge of the world; of the empiric and measurable, then if these are also defined by god then a non-believer who is observing the definable (as opposed to the believer observing the indefinable, at least empirically) is more likely to pursue the ‘correct’ path.

How can a non-believer be ‘wilfully’ standing against something, as you initially suggested and therefore be in error if they do not have that something (god) as a point of reference? Brahma is not a point of reference in your life. ‘Why do you hate, not believe in Brahma’ would therefore not be valid accusation to make towards you. The idea that myself, or a Hindu are wilfully doing the same to the Christian god is an absurdity. If you disagree, then you must agree that you are a Christian or an ‘unbeliever in Brahma’ in part because you know it to be true and have chosen to reject it.

It could be argued that because belief in god is a conscious expression at all, then it must stand to reason that there has to be an element of ‘truth’ in it, otherwise it wouldn’t present itself as an option. The problem with that argument is that it in practice, it is not as selective as people would like. For the Christian it may affirm their belief, but it can also affirm the belief of someone who believes in Zeus, Xenu, or elves. So it may leave open the possibility that belief in something is true, but it does not define any further what that may be and still leaves the believer open to the pitfalls of pursuing the ‘wrong belief’ as expressed earlier. Furthermore such an argument by extension can be applied to any facet of human thought, physicality and ability; labelling one or more as ‘true’ merely because they are presented options.

The reason why religious people require that the options of belief v unbelief are not neutral is not to satisfy the command of god, but to ‘make space’ for themselves. By setting people ‘aside’ the it may be seen as pre-requisite in securing or maximising their own salvation. In order to be theologically consistent, Christianity requires belief v non-belief to be at odds.  So the idea of both positions being neutral is contrary to that person’s belief and therefore cannot be allowed to be true. However the issue here is not the premise of neutrality being wrong, but a person’s belief dictating to them that it has to be wrong in order to confirm their own belief.

(This bit is from an earlier discussion is on the ‘science’ behind it. On what basis can the argument for tendencies to belief and non-belief to be merely neutral positions be made? Belief in god is interlinked with social cognition; our ability and our propensity to think about minds other than our own. The study that piqued my interest was published in 2011 by Boston University on those who scored highly on the AQ, a standard test designed to measure people against the autistic spectrum which suggested those that scored higher on the spectrum tended to have both higher levels of atheist/agnostic levels of belief, but also higher levels of ‘internal’ belief systems; systems of morality based on an individuals perception of the world without recourse to other methods of perception. Jesse Bering in 2002 noted that in autobiographical accounts written by people with high functioning autism (such as Asperger’s Syndrome), god is seen more as a principle; a notion, rather than as a person. Given that he is a notion, then any discussion of god trends towards the deistic on the basis that the concept of ‘god the person’ is not tangible (i.e a god possessing human characteristics and concerned with human affairs) Those who are religious with high functioning autism (see Simon Baron Cohen) tend to be religious because of the order, system and sense of ritual that it brings rather than any form of anthropomorphising by the believer.

People on the autistic spectrum often lack the ability to see the purpose in objects or events. As mentioned earlier this is not necessarily disadvantageous except on an immediate level (the snake in the grass) as humans have a tendency to over see, or over think purpose in events that are natural or explainable. Humans have an inbuilt bias towards intuition and seeking a teleological connection in all events. Bering and Bethany Heywood found that while even atheists tend to say that some things happened to them ‘for a reason’, subjects with Aspergers gave ‘fewer teleological responses than the control group.’ Indeed, some even expressed confusion over why teleological responses to some questions could ever be given by anyone at all. A 2012 study from the University of British Columbia also concluded that those who scored more highly on the AQ had a weaker belief in a personal god. The same was true of people who scored lowly on the AQ but highly on the EQ (Empathy Quotient). The third conclusion was that men were much less likely than women to say they strongly believed in a personal god even controlling for autism (which has higher incidences of diagnoses in men

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Bible says that God hated Esau before he was even created and that he sovereignly chooses those whom he has mercy on (Malachi 1, Romans 9).  That's just how God is.  If he saved even one sinner from condemnation, it would be an act of ultimate forebearance.  It's his universe, his rules.

That passage in Romans 9 is an excellent example of why we should remember that Paul was a fallible human. He splices together two quotes to say something the originals do not say. The quote from Genesis 25 says only that God determined before their birth that Esau would serve Jacob. The quote from Malachi says only that at the time of Malachi God hated Esau rather than for all time. Yet it is clear from both the Old Testament and the Gospels that in God's eyes being a servant is far from being a hateful thing. Moreover, in the context of Malachi it is clear that God's hate of Esau was because of that nation's failure to do what God expected of them.

Furthermore, the sort of rigid predestination you're embracing here isn't the theme of Romans 9-11. Rather it is that membership in spiritual Israel is not dependent upon descent from a particular physical forefather, and that no matter what our ancestry may seemingly have predestined us to be, God can still prune us from the vine of Israel if we fail to bear the fruit of faith or graft us into Israel if we bear such fruit despite our ancestry.

[Antonio the Sixth]

FYI, I am no longer a fundamentalist Christian and consider my beliefs now to be more along the lines of the liberal Protestantism that I grew up.  I would like to thank Alcon for helping to prod me away from that dangerous belief system, though I am still working on sorting out the consequences of this change and the best path forward.

Well, that was quite a whiplash.

I must say I have a lot of trouble understanding how people can so quickly fall into and get out of such absolutist belief systems - some even jump from one absolutist belief system to another (eg, all these Libertarians-turned Communists)! It's really weird.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Many people continue to rationalize these discrepancies even after they have been exposed to it. I think it's still impressive that you had the intellectual honesty to acknowledge them and change your mind as a result. I honestly had little hope that you would, and I'm glad I was wrong.

Also, I've had my differences with Alcon, but I must say kudos to him for this. He is definitely a brilliant dialectician.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What amazes me is the number of phD biologists and chemists and chemists who attend the church and are staunch creationists.  I remember when I first started attending the church and was unsure on the issue (leaning toward old-Earth), I figured, "well, if those scientists believed in a young Earth, surely it's a position with some validity."  However, some independent research on it really was damning.  But cognitive dissonance is absolutely possible on those issues, I agree.

Both chemistry and many branches of biology don't depend at all upon what the age of the universe is. So I wouldn't consider a chemist to be an expert on either cosmology or peace.

[Alcon]

Wow.  I've never been in the "no one ever changes their mind online" camp, but I'm a little surprised our discussion had this much effect!  I'm extremely impressed by the level of thought you put into this.  Very few people would give that level of attention and critical analysis to information that's pitched to their preexisting beliefs.

I think a lot of smart people can buy into unreasonable doctrines because of how damn immersive they can be, if that makes sense.  There's a lot of room to be learned and even intellectual in strict religion without being particularly critical.  They provide a stable, reassuring framework that fences away discomforting epistemic questions, but then give plenty of stimulating discussions and fields of study and opportunities for belief advocacy.  It's inculcating without feeling oppressive.  It's a lot like the social environment, I guess -- a really appealing mix of boundaries and guidance, but also a whole new world of exciting people and ideas to delve into, so you don't grow to resent or question the strictures.  That's my theory, at least.

Anyway, especially considering all of that, it's really impressive to me that you were so intellectually rigorous about this.  Not a lot of people get to the "religious doctrine over all deductive logic" point, and are able to retain their intellectual rigor enough to realize it's crazy.  I think you should be really proud of yourself for that.

[RFayette]

What amazes me is the number of phD biologists and chemists and chemists who attend the church and are staunch creationists.  I remember when I first started attending the church and was unsure on the issue (leaning toward old-Earth), I figured, "well, if those scientists believed in a young Earth, surely it's a position with some validity."  However, some independent research on it really was damning.  But cognitive dissonance is absolutely possible on those issues, I agree.

Both chemistry and many branches of biology don't depend at all upon what the age of the universe is. So I wouldn't consider a chemist to be an expert on either cosmology or peace.

Fair enough.  My thought was simply that someone with a phD in either subjects would likely have been exposed to either extensive evidence in favor of evolution (convergence in phylogenetic trees and similarity in endogenous retrovirus placement) in the case of a biology phD or the age of the Earth for a chemistry phD (especially concerning radioactive clocks and the implausibility of changing decay rates), given the extensive number of courses in the subject area they have to take to earn a doctorate.  Bashing creationists was also a hobby of a number of high school science teachers I had, so I thought it would continue in college if one were majoring in a 'hard science' (bio, chem, physics) field.