Aren't both 2016 presidential candidates immoral?

Well, to an extent, yes. But there are definitely varying degrees of immorality. Like, take their Politifact ratings, for example. Hillary Clinton has 6 "Pants on Fire" ratings (which accounts for 2% of her statements that have been rated on that website). Having earned that rating six times probably does indicate that she's occasionally willing to say stuff that she knows is not true, if she thinks she won't get caught. I'm proud to say that Bernie Sanders, the candidate I voted for, has zero Pants on Fire ratings.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has forty-nine Pants on Fire statements (17% of all the statements that have been rated). He actually has more Pants on Fire statements than "True" and "Mostly True" combined. There was even someone who went through and did an analysis of some of his speeches, and calculated that he tells a lie (or makes a false statement) an average of every three-and-a-half minutes.

So, in a simplistic sense, you could say that Hillary Clinton is a liar, and Donald Trump is a liar, but that doesn't make them equally dishonest. Also, as I mentioned in a much more heated discussion yesterday, Donald Trump has said that his strategy for dealing with terrorists will be to "take out" their families. Most people consider an attack against non-combatants to be a heinous and despicable war-crime; Donald Trump makes it a campaign promise. That's how far removed from basic human decency he is.

There's a famous quote from Isaac Asimov referring to the fact that the earth is an "oblate spheroid," not a perfect sphere. He said, "when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

I feel like it's kinda the same deal with Hillary's and Trump's immorality. If you say Hillary is an honest and moral person, I think you'd be wrong. If you say Trump is an honest and moral person, I think you'd be wrong. But if you think that Hillary is just as immoral as Trump, then I think your view is wronger than both of them put together.

Faith vs. evidence, abstracted

This was a Facebook post I wrote as a response to this article and this reddit discussion.

---

I read AronRa's article, and I agree with the criticism that he cherry-picked only those meanings of faith which fit the point he was trying to make, and shame on him for doing that. As someone who actively opposes creationists so much, he should be making a much more deliberate effort to avoid justified accusations of quote-mining.

But, personally, I think there might be a little too much focus from both sides on what a specific word means. At the end of the day, I think what it really comes down to is that any belief or position you hold falls into one of two sets: "beliefs based on evidence" (call that Set X) and "beliefs not based on evidence" (call that Set Y). People like AronRa use the word "faith" to describe Set Y, and people like you take offense at that; you call it drivel and claim that it undermines his entire argument. But to me, you and he are both getting too hung up on a simple word choice. What's more important is whether a belief falls into Set Y, not what word we use to describe Set Y.

What I think might be more effective is this: 
1) Which set does your belief (about God, in this case) fall into? 
2) If it's Set X, what is the evidence it's based on?
3) If it's Set Y, why do you think that's a good way to believe true things?

In that way, I think there can be a productive discussion about the issues AronRa raised, without ever needing to worry about what the word "faith" really means.

The “What Would It Take" Challenge Discussion Format

This is a concept I’m experimenting with, where people pose me questions like, “what would it take to convince you…” or “what it would take to change your mind about…” and I attempt to lay out as clearly as possible what data or evidence would be required (or what else I would need to be convinced of) for my belief to change. I want to believe true things, but I recognize that the human mind has a tendency to stubbornly hold on to its current beliefs, so I’m trying out this format as a way to sort of make myself accountable to the claim that my beliefs can be changed, if a sufficient standard of evidence is met.

Of course, this isn’t just unilateral; the idea is that after I answer one such challenge question, I then turn around and ask the person who gave me that question a challenge of my own. The long-term potential is for people to be endlessly tossing these challenge questions back and forth, as long as both parties are willing to put the time in. In doing so, they should each gradually get a much clearer sense of the premises that inform the other person’s beliefs, and what standards of evidence it would take to convince them.

Eventually, after some “playtesting” of this concept, I’ll probably want to draw up a full-scale rulebook, but for now, I’m just gonna state a couple crucial ground rules. The main one is that answers can’t be vague or abstract. “I dunno, I’ll know it when I see it” is exactly the opposite of what this challenge is all about. The answers should be as precise and objective as possible. I’m not saying that will be easy; I have trouble with it too, and I’m the one who came up with this. It takes practice, but I think it’s a goal worth aiming for. You should feel free to probe the challenger for greater specificity or clarity to their challenge before providing your answer, so that it can be as clear as possible.

Answers should also move the discussion forward. The purpose of this is to foster a different sort of environment for people to have discussions about subjects they disagree on, so an answer that doesn’t provide any way to move ahead with the discussion wouldn’t serve that purpose. For instance, let’s say your challenge was, “what would it take to convince you that leprechauns exist,” and your answer was “If I was sitting at my computer, minding my own business, and a leprechaun appeared out of thin air and handed me a pot of gold.” That answer follows the first rule, because it is very specific and objective, but it shuts down the discussion, because all you can do at that point is just go on with your life and wait to see if that ever happens. That’s not the intention for this challenge.

Now, one thing that is acceptable is saying that nothing will convince you or make you change your mind, provided that you can clearly articulate why. If you do, this still follows the spirit of that second rule, because it allows the discussion to move forward. If you say “nothing will convince me that leprechauns exist because I don’t believe that any mythical creatures exist at all,” then that opens the door for you to be asked, “what would it take to change your mind that mythical creatures could possibly exist?” The discussion can progress forward from there.

There may come a point when you’re not able to give an explanation for why nothing will change your mind. If you do get to that point, that seems like a really good opportunity to consider whether you have underlying foundations for your beliefs that are just based on assumptions or unfounded presuppositions. If you value believing things that are true, that would be a good opportunity to get rid of those unsupported foundations and reanalyze your worldview from there. On the other hand, if you’re perfectly happy to believe things based on assumptions, and refuse to change your beliefs no matter what evidence is presented, then this challenge is probably not for you.

I’m also gonna test out doing these challenges in a more spontaneous fashion through voice discussion, but in terms of answering through the written word, my current feeling is that responses should be between 500 and 1000 words. That makes it long enough that you can’t just give a lazy answer devoid of detail, but short enough that you’re not just drowning your discussion partner in a whole overlong dissertation that they’d never have time to respond to. 

The religious right's theological views on climate change

The right of free speech is a great right that we have in this country, very few times we use it to espouse our theological/religious beliefs, but we do have members of the clergy here as members of the panel, so I want to start with Genesis 8, verse 21 and 22, "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood, and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done. As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease." I believe that's the infallible word of God and that's the way it's gonna be for his creation.

The second verse comes from Matthew 24, "and he will send his angel with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." The earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth, this earth will not be destroyed by a flood. And I appreciate having panelists here who are men of faith, and we can get into the theological discourse of that position. But I do believe God's Word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.[i]

--Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL 15^th District), from a hearing on climate change by the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment

Many times during my global warming fight, I turned to Day 36 of “Promises” which features one of my favorite Bible verses, Genesis 8:22:

"As long as the earth remains

There will be springtime and harvest,

Cold and heat, winter and summer,

Day and night."

And this is what a lot of alarmists forget: God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons and that cold and heat would never cease as long as the earth remains.[ii]

--Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), from his book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future

The earth is a lot more resilient than people think. You know, and, he said, “look, I’m never going to destroy the earth again by a flood.” How many people have been out there wringing their hands, and trying to stir up all this agitation and fear, because the oceans are gonna rise, Manhattan’s gonna be under 20 feet of water, Hawaii’s gonna disappear under the waves, I saw a story about that. Hawaii’s gonna sink beneath the waves. God says, “look, I am not gonna destroy the earth with the waters of a flood ever again. You’ve got my promise.” Every time you see a rainbow in the sky, that’s what it’s all about.[iii]

--Nationally-syndicated radio talk show host Brian Fischer.

Those are some examples of people on the religious right denying the very possibility of climate change for Biblical reason. Others, however, acknowledge the existence of climate change, but have a very different opinion about where it came from and what should be done in light of it, based on purely religious reasons:

It doesn’t just happen. A door has been opened, and we have said “you know, we embrace a wicked policy,” okay, then I'll take my hand of protection off your nation, and whap, here comes storms like we've never seen before, and here comes floods like we've-- and here comes climate stuff that we can't explain, all the hot times and all the cold times. Too much rain, and not enough rain, and we're flooding over here, and we've got droughts over here.

And you know, back in the early America days, when something like that happened, first thing they did was issue a call for national prayer, day of repentance, humiliation, fasting and prayer. We have screwed up somewhere, we gotta get God's help to get blessings back on this nation, and they would humble themselves before God. And today, we're saying, oh no, it's global warming. That's what, no, we opened the door that lost God's protection over our environment, and that's our choice.[iv]

--David Barton, in a discussion with televangelist Kenneth Copeland.

The Bible says that whenever we approach the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strange weather patterns. Jesus said this in Matthew, the twenty-fifth chapter. So we have a decision to make. Do we believe what an environmentalist group says and choose to live in a world where we're attempting to make everything as clean in the air as possible, or do we believe what the Bible says, that these things were going to happen and that rather than try to clean up all of the air and solve all of the problems of the world by eliminating factories, we should start to tell people about Jesus Christ who is to return?[v]

--Matthew Hagee, son of influential pastor John Hagee.

Addendum, May 31, 2017: This is another example of someone appealing to religious belief to justify not caring about climate change...

“I believe there’s climate change,” Walberg said, according to a video of the exchange obtained by HuffPost. “I believe there’s been climate change since the beginning of time. I believe there are cycles. Do I think man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No.”
“Why do I believe that?” he went on. “Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, he can take care of it.” 

-- Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.)

Edit (1/19/2018): Found another one.

“See, in my humble opinion, folks, if you believe in God then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming. You must be either agnostic or atheist to believe that man controls something he can’t create.  
--Rush Limbaugh

---

[i] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E

[ii] http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Greatest_Hoax_Old_Testament.htm

[iii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2b7LQlujWs

[iv] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGR6ezl0-Dw&feature=youtu.be&t=1m20s

[v] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKBC4O5aNR0

Aren’t people just atheists because they don’t want to obey God? (Extended Edition)

This is another one of those accusations that atheists kinda just get tired of hearing, because of how commonly it’s used to redirect attention from the many rational and intellectual reasons atheists have for not believing in God. In his very first book, A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism, Ravi Zacharias wrote: 

A man or woman rejects God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the paucity of evidence. One rejects God because of a moral resistance that refuses to admit one’s need for God.

Another prominent apologist, William Lane Craig, said something similar. I’ve already used the quote in a previous post, but it bears repeating:

Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ, it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God’s Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God.

In a 2008 debate with Christopher Hitchens, apologist Dinesh D’Souza finished his remarks with a rant about how Hitchens only hated Mother Teresa because he recognized that she was so much more selfless than him (which, if you know anything about Hitchens’ views on Mother Teresa, is an absolutely ludicrous claim). He ended this diatribe with the following self-satisfied pronouncement:

The atheist, I want to suggest, is chafing under the moral rules of Christianity; that's the concentration camp he's talking about. Ultimately he realizes that a life lived according to the Ten Commandments is a life in which we are accountable. We all live in a world where bad guys sometimes make off with the money, where good guys come to grief. It's not fair, what goes around doesn't come around. But religion says that at the end of the day, what goes around does come around. There is a last judgment, there is an ultimate accountability. I would suggest that as human beings, we chafe under that. We hate the idea that our actions are ultimately accountable, that even the things we do in private and in the dark are under scrutiny and are being recorded. Atheism is a massive rebellion against that, but it disguises itself as moving along the strict pathways of reason. It's not an intellectual revolt, it's a moral revolt.

So those are three major Christian apologists making this point, and I’m sure I could find plenty more if I just wanted to clog up this post with nothing but examples of apologists making this accusation. Of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that the Bible itself also has been interpreted as making this claim. Romans 1:18-21, John 3:19, and Ephesians 4:18, for example, seem to suggest pretty strongly that people just refuse to believe in God because they don’t want him to be real.

And you know, honestly, I would probably not have much problem with statements like these if they were just a bit more measured in who they were talking about. If it said “some atheists,” then I think I’d have to say they’re probably right, because I never have and never would claim that all atheists lack belief in God for completely rational, intellectual reasons. To do so would be a gross over-generalization, which is exactly the fallacy that statements like these fall into.

Zacharias’ statement is somewhat vague; I suppose it has some wiggle room to interpret it as not really talking about every atheist (though it doesn’t seem like any are excluded in his remark), but Craig’s statement is far more explicit in the universality of who it’s talking about. He says “it is never just because of lack of evidence” and “no one fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments.” In William Lane Craig’s mind (at least, as indicated by this quote), there is not a single non-Christian in the entire history of the world who ever didn’t believe in Christ for any other reason than “because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God.” What an absurd, ridiculous, and unsupportable generalization.

I think the egregiousness of the generalization is enough to sink this line of attack all by itself, but there are more good reasons than that to not give it any merit. When you really consider the Cost-Benefit Analysis of someone who actually does believe that God is real, but chooses to behave as if he’s not, it becomes pretty obvious that the numbers just don’t line up.

Granted, I think one thing that needs to be clarified is that it matters a great deal which conception or variation of God we’re talking about. Christopher Hitchens often said that he was very happy that the evidence is against the reality of God and heaven, but he also thought of heaven as a “celestial North Korea” and God as a totalitarian dictator. I think even most devout Christians would be a lot less enthusiastic about heaven if they really thought about it in those terms. Conversely, if Hitchens became convinced that a more accurate picture of heaven was one where he would be truly happy, then I doubt he would be particularly relieved to find that the evidence is in favor of its nonexistence.

So, for this discussion, I want to strip away all the ancillary considerations of whether heaven might be some kind of Twilight Zone style reversal, where it’s actually quite an unpleasant place to spend eternity. For the sake of this analysis, let’s just stick to the most basic, essential claim about heaven; that it is a perfect paradise, where you will be for all eternity. Don’t worry about what kind of specific things “perfect” might mean, or how hard it will be to reach your quota of hours spent worshiping God; let’s just assume for now that each individual will find heaven to be completely perfect and they will be completely happy once they get there.

Now, given that conception of heaven without the distraction of Hitchens’ “celestial North Korea,” does it really make sense that the average atheist would deny God simply out of “moral resistance?” Does it really make sense that an atheist would think to themselves, “if I accepted the drawing of God’s Spirit on my heart, then I could live in a perfect paradise for all eternity, but nah, I’d rather just believe that I can do whatever I want for maybe eighty years at best, and then I just completely cease to exist.” Does that really sound like something that the average atheist would see as a better option?

And that’s just considering this nebulous concept of the “average atheist,” who might be pretty happy with what they’ve got going on in this life. Even for those people, who could possibly have the means to give full rein to their basest lust and hedonistic desires, I still don’t think it would be a reasonable trade to exchange an eternity of ultimate pleasure for excruciating torture, just so they can indulge themselves for maybe eighty years if they're lucky. But that’s other people who might be considered average, whereas I would consider myself to be far below average, in terms of having the capability to “drink deep the cup of life.”

I’m over thirty now, and I have to say that (other than a few brief teases of a version of myself who was more capable) my twenties were pretty much a complete waste in terms of having exciting and memorable life experiences. So while this argument might carry a little weight for some wildly famous rock star with an endless supply of cocaine and groupies, the idea that I would gladly give up an eternity in heaven just for the sake of avoiding the accountability of sin is nothing short of laughable to me, given just how little “sin” I have the opportunity to indulge in. I wonder if Ravi Zacharias would be so quick to accuse someone like me of moral resistance, if he knew that the typical flashpoint of this supposed resistance is just sitting at home jerking off to distract myself from how lonely I am. Yippie.

That is why I cannot take this type of argument seriously (when it is used as a blanket statement for atheists in general, which would then include me), because the tacit implication of it is that atheists are denying God so they can have free rein to do whatever they want. But I don't have free rein to do whatever I want whether I believe in God or not. In this life, I am severely limited by genetic and social and developmental factors, so why would I want to casually discard an eternity (I can’t stress that highly enough) in a perfect paradise filled with love and community, and yes, intimacy (because there are plenty of other deeply-satisfying types of intimacy besides sex), in exchange for not getting to do whatever I want anyway?

Furthermore, this argument seems like a gross double-standard, when you consider how common it is for religious people to use religious ideas about repentance and forgiveness as a tactic to dodge moral accountability. In some situations, it almost seems easier to avoid the accountability of “sinful” behavior if you are professing faith in God. Here are some examples of religious people in the public eye who have either advocated or benefited from this stance:

In America, probably the most famous case of this is Josh Duggar, who molested more than one of his sisters and cheated on his wife, and was just a general all-around hypocrite. So how did presidential candidate and staunch “family values” advocate Mike Huckabee respond to this news? He said that Josh’s actions were “inexcusable” but not “unforgivable,” and went on to say, “No one needs to defend Josh’s actions as a teenager, but the fact that he confessed his sins to those he harmed, sought help, and has gone forward to live a responsible and circumspect life as an adult is testament to his family’s authenticity and humility.” Also, “It is precisely because we are all sinners that we need His grace and His forgiveness.”

Do you see the double-standard here? If Josh Duggar had been an avowed atheist, people like the apologists I quoted at the beginning would’ve happily used that as an example of how “atheists aren’t really denying God for intellectual reasons, they just want an excuse to sin.” But then, when people profess belief in God, but sin anyway, then it’s “we’re all sinners that need God’s forgiveness, so leave this kid alone.”

Consider also the example of Bristol Palin, who received national attention after becoming a single mother despite her own mother (politician Sarah Palin) having a strong abstinence-only stance. From this exposure, Bristol Palin became a “teen ambassador,” spreading the message of the importance of staying abstinent with statements like, “Regardless of what I did personally, I just think that abstinence is the only way that you can effectively 100% fool-proof way to prevent pregnancy.” Maybe it is, but it only works if you do it (which is exactly the problem that comprehensive sex-ed advocates have with abstinence-only education).

Despite such statements and a “guarantee” that she would keep an abstinence pledge until she was married, she now has a second child (while still unmarried). When Sarah Palin was asked about this in an interview, she said, “Well, the cool thing about putting your faith in God, is he certainly is a God of second chances and third and fourth and fifth chances. I screw up all the time!” Well, if that’s the case, then why would we atheists even need to deny the existence of God if we just wanted to “screw up” without being morally accountable to him?

Perhaps an even more serious example is that of Dennis Hastert. A former speaker of the house and outspoken opponent of LGBT rights, he was caught making structured bank withdrawals for the purpose of paying hush money to a man who Hastert had molested when the man was in high school. It turned out that Hastert had done this to multiple teenage boys. And yet, when it came time for sentencing (only for the structuring, since the statute of limitations had worn out on the molestation), Tom DeLay (a former House Majority Leader who was also very anti-gay) had this to say:

He is a man of strong faith that guides him. He is a man of great integrity. He loves and respects his fellow man. I have never witnessed a time when he was unkind to anyone. He is always giving to others and helping anyone including me so many times.

When Speaker Hastert became Speaker of the house and I became Majority Leader, he started a bible [sic] study every Wednesday at lunch. It was just me and him and Charlie Wright (a pastor). It was a very personal time for the three of us. We held each other accountable and we studied God's word and applied it to where we were at that moment. Nothing could have been more intimate between us. So I know his heart and have seen it up close and personal. We all have our flaws, but Dennis Hastert has very few. He is a good man that loves the Lord. He gets his integrity and values from Him. He doesn't deserve what he is going through. I ask that you consider the man that is before you and give him leniency where you can.

Now, remember; the accusation is that atheists only deny the existence of God because they want to avoid moral accountability, they want to be free to do whatever they want. But in the case of Dennis Hastert, it seems like he went ahead and did whatever he wanted even while believing in God, and Tom DeLay used that belief to argue for leniency. So in this case, Hastert’s belief in God was actually an advantage in avoiding moral accountability. If that was seriously the goal of everyone who professes to be atheists, I don’t know if denying the existence of God would really be the way to get the best result.

(Update: another great example of this trend is here.)

There are even some parts of the Bible which seem to suggest that staying religious is actually the easiest way to avoid moral accountability. Twice in 1^st Corinthians (6:12 and 10:23), it says, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable.” New Testament theology seems to suggest that all a sinner has to do is repent of their sin and they will not only be forgiven, but all their sins will be washed away, “as far as the east is from the west.” And throughout the Christian world, there seem to be a great many examples of people who are perfectly happy to do whatever they want while continuing to at least claim to be believers, then ask for forgiveness when they’re done so their sin can be washed away.

You can disagree with that behavior, or the interpretation of those verses, but you’d be hard-pressed to disagree that some people do engage in this type of behavior. But, again, if people have no problem sinning while continuing to profess belief, then why would we need to bother pretending to not believe, just so we could sin? It reminds me of something actress Keira Knightley once said: “If only I wasn't an atheist, I could get away with anything. You'd just ask for forgiveness and then you'd be forgiven. It sounds much better than having to live with guilt.”

Ultimately, that’s the real flaw in this argument. Atheists don’t avoid moral accountability. If the atheist is a sociopath, maybe, but sociopaths can believe in God just as much as anyone else. However, if the atheist is not a sociopath, then we do have moral accountability – to ourselves. We may not have exactly the same stances on moral issues as the more conservative evangelical varieties of Christianity (which a lot of these apologists may belong to), but that doesn’t mean we don’t have morals. As long as we’re capable of feeling empathy (and again, if you don’t, then you’re a psychopath, and that has nothing to do with atheism), then that is the true moral accountability that denying God does absolutely nothing to abate.

If I do something without thinking, and then realize that what I did hurt someone, I feel bad about it. I don’t like to hurt people, I don’t want to hurt people. At the end of the day, that is the true moral accountability. I don’t need God for that, so it’s ludicrous to claim that I would deny God just to avoid it, because that feeling of empathy is not gonna go away (nor would I want it to). The accusation that atheists only deny God out of moral resistance is yet another claim of Christian apologetics that is utterly baseless.

Return Salvo: You Don't Gotta Believe (Extended Stream-of-Consciousness Edition)

Some months ago, my dad (a very conservative Christian) told me about an article he saw in Salvo (a very conservative Christian magazine). The title is, “You Gotta Believe: Atheist or Not, You Already Have More Faith Than You Realize,” by James S. Spiegel. Based on the title and his description, the article sounded like yet another variation on an argument which atheists hear ad nauseam, that atheists have just as much faith as religious people (which almost seems like an acknowledgement that there would be an imbalance if their beliefs were based on faith and ours were not). Since this is such a common line of argument, I thought it might be worthwhile to go through the article and address the points it makes individually. At the time, I only had my dad’s physical copy to work with, so I decided to wait until Salvo posted the full article online.

The article begins with a story of a man who considers himself an “extreme nihilist,” who believed “that even the physical world is an illusion.” He visits theologian Francis Schaeffer, who challenges him to really live according to that belief. A few hours later, the man comes back and says he’s abandoned his nihilism, because “There are too many bumps on my head.” Ha ha ha, aren’t atheists dumb?

Spiegel explains the point of this story is that worldviews have implications in the real world and they affect how we live. Okay, fine, with you so far. He adds that “the story also reminds us that it is wise to affirm some truths, even though we cannot prove them,” and in the next paragraph explains that all sane people believe in the general reliability of our senses, even though there’s no way to prove that, because “there is no way even to make the attempt without relying upon your senses to do so.” I don’t entirely accept this, because you can use one of your senses to confirm another. The article’s own story illustrates this; the nihilist didn’t believe his sense of sight, but his sense of touch (through the bumps on his head) confirmed that there was really something to what he saw.

Someone might object, “but that’s still using your senses to confirm your senses!” Maybe I’m just missing some basic philosophical implication that’s obvious to everyone else, but I don’t see why the senses should all be bundled together in the consideration of their reliability. The sense of touch is not the same as the sense of sight; why must our judgment of their reliability be all-or-nothing? If I took off my eyeglasses, I will have good reason to distrust the reliability of my sense of sight; but that doesn’t give me any reason at all to think that my other four senses have become deficient as well. On the contrary, studies have shown that a brain which lacks the reliability of one sense (i.e. being blind or deaf) will rewire itself so that the other senses are more heightened.[1] Thus, I see no basis for the mindset that we must judge the reliability of “our senses” as an all-or-nothing packaged deal. I contend that it’s perfectly reasonable to validate the reliability of one of our senses using another one of our senses.

And lest you argue that this just moves the issue back a step (because I would then need to justify what validates that other sense), I see no reason why the senses can’t mutually validate each other. Let’s say I’m not sure whether I should trust the reliability of my sense of sight, so I use my sense of touch to validate it. In doing so, I’m not assuming (or taking on faith) the reliability of my sense of touch; if the sensory data of my sight and touch didn’t match, I wouldn’t just assume one was correct and the other was wrong, so there’s no faith in anything’s reliability there. Rather, it is the fact that they agree which validates both of them. Think of it like scientific experiments. When one scientist conducts an experiment, the accepted scientific method is for someone else to go along and reproduce the experiment to double-check the first scientist’s findings. If the findings of the two experiments don’t agree, the accepted scientific method is not just arbitrarily decide, “well, the first one was done right, so the second one must have some mistake,” or vice versa. They don’t just assume that either one was correct. Even so, if both experiments turn out the same way, then it is taken as good evidence that there is something to the results of that experiment (while always leaving the door open for additional data to be added). So I don’t think there’s anything circular or irrational about using two sources of data to validate each other.

I would go even further and say that this is a perfectly common practice. If there are two witnesses to a crime (or perhaps two suspects who are pleading innocence), then investigators will question them for details separately, and then see how well the two stories align. If they don’t match up, the detectives may not treat either testimony as reliable, but if they do (especially if the police are sure they didn’t have an opportunity to discuss and plan out their cover story together), then that will give them both some validation as being reliable, even though neither of them had been validated individually beforehand. Now, I will grant that it’s even better if the investigators have some external way of verifying their stories. I’m not saying that this type of mutual validation is the best warrant for a belief we could ever possibly have. But in the case of judging the reliability of our senses, I think it’s more than adequate.

And you know, I might even take it a step further, and say that we do have an external source of verification; our continued survival. Think about the story of the “extreme nihilist” again; if he decided to persist in his belief that the whole world was an illusion, then it wouldn’t have taken very long before the bumps on his head would’ve reached a fatal level. Unless we all have unreliable senses in an unperceived world that is completely safe and docile, then I can see no way that our senses being completely unreliable wouldn’t get us killed very quickly.

As such, I don’t agree with Spiegel when he says “You must assume from the outset the very thing you are trying to prove.” We can uncouple the senses from being a packaged deal and allow them to validate each other. If I’m trying to prove the reliability of my eyesight, then I might use my sense of touch or hearing, over maybe even smell, to confirm that. I do not need to assume that my vision is accurate to give myself evidence (I don’t agree with the use of the word “prove” here) that my vision is accurate. We can also recognize that the very fact we’re still alive is evidence that our senses are getting the job done well enough. None of that requires us to assume from the outset the very thing we are trying to prove.

---

And so, this is the first place where I find a strong disagreement with Spiegel’s line of argument, and this is really where his argument takes off running, because he follows that statement about assumption by saying, “you might say that your belief in the reliability of your senses is an article of faith. After all, it is something that you hold to be true without conclusive proof.” Then, at the end of the paragraph, he adds, “In short, you devoutly trust your senses.” I’ll probably spend some time later on the crucial differences between “faith” and “trust” (and how religious people so commonly conflate them for arguments like this), but for now I think it’s more important to focus on the way Spiegel has just conflated “faith” with simply not having conclusive proof.

This is exactly where this type of argument always breaks down, in my experience. The reason non-believers attack the idea of faith-based thinking, is because the whole idea of faith is belief without evidence. Of course, I absolutely grant that there are multiple meanings for the word “faith,” and most of them really aren’t that problematic. The one that atheists take issue with is the usage of “faith” where it basically means believing things without evidence, which can more specifically be labeled “blind faith.” Religious people are more than happy to apply that term to atheists[2], but sure don’t seem interested in accepting that label for themselves, even though they also say that belief in God is “properly basic,” which is to assert that such a belief can be rationally held without any evidence.[3]

The problem with the type of argument that Spiegel is making here is that it equivocates between different usages of the word “faith.” He says that believing in the reliability of our senses is by faith, because we don’t have conclusive proof, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have very good evidence for it. The whole underlying implication of this article seems to be, “we all have faith anyway, so you might as well have faith in God.” If the volume and quality of evidence I had to support the existence of God was as good as the evidence I have for the reliability of my senses, then I would believe in God. I don’t demand that the evidence for God be at the level of conclusive proof, because when you get right down to it, nothing ever really is. Thus, I find it a bit of a bait-and-switch to say that we’re just believing in our senses by faith, simply because the proof isn’t conclusive, therefore, theists and atheists are on an exactly even playing field (but that’s skipping a bit).

---

In the next section (What is Faith?), Spiegel distances himself from the association with blind faith, invoking the definition of faith that is much more popular with believers, saying “the essence of faith is trust.” I often wonder, when hearing this from religious people, if “faith” and “trust” just mean the same thing, why do we have two different words for it? Now, I am being a bit glib, I’m not really arguing that the existence of synonyms must mean that two words have more divergent meanings than is being claimed. But I do think that using the word “faith” simply becomes unhelpful and confusing if all you’re gonna do is just strip away any of its meaning that isn’t effectively the same as “trust.”

Spiegel offers various examples of things we might have faith in through the course of our daily lives. Your spouse, your doctor, your car. Of course, in all these cases, he’s working from the less challenging usage of faith, which is essentially where you do have a lot of good reason to believe in something, but just not complete certainty. I say again that if I had that much evidence for God, I would be a believer. I’m certainly not gonna say that’s true of every atheist, but it would by definition be true of everyone who embraces the philosophy of believing things that have good evidentiary support (which is a mindset that a lot of atheists, in my experience, seem to hold). Maybe this is just me depending on anecdotal evidence too much, but I don’t think that the problem for rational-minded atheists is that they have this level of evidence for God, but they just don’t think it’s enough because they don’t have conclusive proof.

In that sense, I don’t understand the value of these examples Speigel is giving. He’s extolling the virtues of “faith” with examples that, to me, are more effective in extolling the virtues of evidence. Later on, though, he does draw a distinction between blind faith and justified faith, saying, “In order to have a justified faith in a person or thing, your trust must be grounded in some objectively good reasons.” Sure, fine, I have no problem with that. It’s not the label I would’ve chosen, but if you want to call it “justified faith” to believe in something when it’s grounded in a sufficient volume and quality of good reasons, then I have no problem with justified faith. But my question is, who does? Are there really atheists out there ranting like, “those dang Christians have some objectively good reasons for believing in God, and that kind of faith is dangerous!” I’m certainly not aware of anyone like that. In my exposure to “activist atheists,” the thing they have a problem with is people who believe things without evidence, not this justified faith that Spiegel is describing.

So, to summarize what we’ve covered up to this point (before delving into the next section, Reasonable Religious Faith), it seems that Spiegel is essentially identifying three strata for how much grounding we can have for a belief. The highest is “conclusive proof,” the middle is “justified faith,” and the lowest is “blind faith.” My assertion is that very few (if any) rational atheists would have any problem with “justified faith” (though they might prefer to call it by a label other than faith), but would disagree with what I expect Spiegel will be arguing next, that religious faith is justified.

---

The next section actually does start out rather reasonable, with Spiegel acknowledging that the authority of Scripture can’t be proved, and that “one may have reasonable or unreasonable faith in God, depending on whether one has good grounds for trusting him.” I don’t disagree with that at all. But then he takes a leap:

But even those who have plenty of grounds for trusting God cannot prove that he will act in certain predictable ways in the future. So the need to trust God is unavoidable.

The main point here is that trust in God is really just one instance of faith among many kinds of faith that all of us display on a daily basis.

I say he’s making a leap here because he’s skipping ahead to claiming that faith in God is on an equal footing with those other examples of justified faith he previously offered. The problem is, he didn’t first establish that faith in God actually is justified, or that anyone does have good grounds for trusting him. At this point, he seems to just be taking it for granted that some people do have good justification for believing in God, and therefore, the type of faith those people have is “justified faith.” That’s not an argument, that’s just an assertion.

Playing devil’s advocate, Spiegel says, “some will object that there is a big difference between faith in God and faith in other people and things, since we can see and otherwise experience the latter, but not the former.” He rebuts this objection by pointing out that “millions of people all over the world have reported experiences of God.” But remember what he said earlier; “In order to have a justified faith in a person or thing, your trust must be grounded in some objectively good reasons.” Personal experiences of a non-material being, which generally aren’t shared by anyone else, are about as far away from objective as we can get. So by Spiegel’s own definition, subjective personal experiences of God cannot be a sufficient grounding for justified faith.

His second rebuttal to this objection is that there are things like gravity and quarks that we can’t directly see, but we know they exist because we can see the effects of them. As with the claim that faith in God is reasonable, he skips a step here, saying “these are no less matters of faith than belief in God,” even though he doesn’t bother to provide any examples of how we can see the effects of God’s existence (unless you count the personal religious experiences, which is by no means the same type of evidence that we have for gravity or quarks). If we can see the effects of those things in an objective and measurable way, then yes, they are less matters of faith than belief in God. If, on the other hand, Spiegel does have examples of objective and measurable ways we see the effects of God’s existence, then why isn’t he talking about those instead of something so utterly subjective as personal experience?

This whole section basically just seems to me like, “here are some examples of justified faith, so faith in God is justified too.” If you recognize a distinction between “justified faith” and “blind faith,” then it’s not enough to show that faith in some things is justified. You need to also show specifically that God is one of those things. In this section, Spiegel has utterly failed to do that.

---

In the next section (Philosophical Faith Commitments), Spiegel seems to already be done with the discussion of whether faith in God is justified. Now, he’s back to reminding us that believing in the reliability of our senses is nothing more than an article of faith, and offers more examples of “philosophical articles of faith to which any sane person is committed.” I’m pretty confident that I could go through his examples and show that they needn’t be as much a matter of faith as he’s asserting (for instance, you can live and go on about your daily life as if the external world we perceive is real, without just assuming that it’s definitely true), but perhaps I’ll save that for some other time. For now, I find these examples to be wholly irrelevant, because the ultimate point he’s making is that theists and atheists are on equal footing (“if not in the same boat, at least in the same waters”) in terms of how much faith they exercise to get through their daily lives. But all of these issues are not in dispute between atheists and theists. So if it takes faith to believe in God, but it doesn’t take faith to not believe in God, then stating a bunch of things that theists and atheists both have faith in has no bearing on the point of whether theists and atheists employ faith in the same way.

Allow me to try an analogy. If two people have the same food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and then one of them eats a bag of candy, it wouldn’t make sense for them to say, “we’re pretty much the same in terms of nutrition, since we both eat all the same meals.” That doesn’t make sense because the candy is exactly what makes that person’s eating habits less nutritious, so having the same meals doesn’t put them on equal footing, if they’re taking such a significant extra step.

---

Skipping over Sane Faith Commitments, since it’s basically just a summary of the previous section, we come to The Atheist's Ultimate Faith Commitment, where Spiegel really starts going for the gusto. Again, it starts out pretty reasonable (actually acknowledging some of the objections I just raised), but then takes a hard left turn:

This is not to say that religious people don't exhibit certain forms of faith that non-religious people do not. Clearly, we theists trust in God, while atheists do not. And Christians consciously trust in the person of Christ, while non-Christians do not. But we should not conclude from this that atheists exhibit less faith overall than religious folks. In fact, there are some faith commitments that an atheist must make precisely because of his rejection of God and all things supernatural. (Here I assume, for simplicity's sake, that atheists are also naturalists.)

Something tells me I know exactly where this is going, but I’ll keep reading anyway. Spiegel asserts that something he calls the “naturalist explainability thesis” (which appears to be a phrase he just coined himself) is a major article of faith for atheists:

Atheists often complain that theists constantly fall back on God as the ultimate explanation for everything. Though they present their rejection of this as a point of intellectual scrupulousness, they overlook the fact that their own belief—that all the fundamental facts of the universe have a materialist explanation—is left completely without foundation.

Spiegel seems to be ignoring the fact that naturalists do have plenty of foundation for natural explanations of a lot of specific things in the universe. The formation of stars and planets, or the complexity of living organisms, for example. For some things like that, there are very well-evidenced natural explanations which do provide a more than sufficient foundation for what Spiegel would label as “justified faith.” And for other things that may not have as solid a foundation, many naturalists have no problem saying, “we don’t know, and that’s okay.” As Michael Shermer put it, in response to a claim that something could be not be explained through existing scientific knowledge:

So what? The fact that we cannot fully explain a mystery with natural means does not mean it requires a supernatural explanation. It just means that we don’t know everything. Such uncertainty is at the very heart of science and is what makes it such a challenging enterprise.[4]

(To be very forthright, this isn’t the quote I would’ve preferred to use, because it’s less direct, and thus leaves room open for less charitable interpretations. I’ve seen a number of debates with Michael Shermer, and my recollection is that it’s not uncommon for him to say that we just don’t know some things, and that’s okay. But of course, audio/video is much harder to search than text, so I opted for this quote instead of re-watching all the Shermer debates I’ve seen, just to find that one sound-byte.)

Let me clarify what I think he’s saying here, because I suspect someone who is less sympathetic towards naturalism may well read this quote and see it as some kind of admission that naturalists are completely closed to any supernatural explanation no matter what. But notice, the issue at play is that there’s no existing natural explanation for something. There’s not even a claim being made that there’s actual evidence for a supernatural explanation, just the lack of evidence for a natural one. What Shermer’s saying here is that if there’s no evidence for a natural explanation, and no evidence for a supernatural explanation, then it’s better to just accept that we don’t know, instead of assuming a supernatural explanation so we can feel like we’ve closed the gap in our knowledge.

In other words, contrary to Spiegel’s assertion that the naturalist’s explanations are completely without foundation, Shermer’s position (which I believe is shared by many rationally-minded atheists) is that it’s better to accept ignorance than have any belief which is completely without foundation. The mistake Spiegel’s making here (with the examples he gives of fine-tuning, and the emergence of life and consciousness) is that just because naturalists may not have an airtight natural explanation for those things, they’re just assuming a natural explanation because this so-called “naturalist explainability thesis” is an article of faith. On the contrary, I contend that it’s perfectly reasonable, and demands no faith at all, to say “we don’t know what caused life to emerge, but until you give me any actual evidence that it was God, I’m not gonna believe that.” Because, if I did just assume it was God without any positive evidence (as opposed to the “evidence” of simply not having any other explanation), then I would be left completely without foundation as a theist, not an atheist.

---

Ironically, the next section is called “The Bigger Leap,” and Spiegel starts it out by making a big leap. Referencing those examples he gave in the previous section, he refers to them as “these inexplicable facts of the cosmos.” The big leap he’s making is determining that just because something doesn’t currently have an explanation, apparently means to him that no explanation can ever be found (isn’t that what “inexplicable” means?). That’s exactly what Shermer was saying. Just because something doesn’t currently have an explanation, doesn’t mean we should give up and assume they’re inexplicable without invoking God. The only reason we should accept God as the explanation is if there’s actual evidence that God is the correct explanation, and not because we’re frustrated by how inexplicable it seems to be.

And then in the second paragraph, Spiegel goes on and makes a second big leap:

Now it is true that the theist also believes by faith that divine intelligence created life, consciousness, and the laws of nature. But considering the attributes of an almighty, all-wise God and his infinite capacity for creativity, this actually seems much less of a leap of faith than the atheist makes in holding to the naturalist explainability thesis. It is for this reason that some have claimed that it is not the theist but the atheist who exhibits more faith.

While there are doubtless some believers who are cheering at his deft use of the classic “I am rubber, you are glue” defense, we shouldn’t ignore the fact that there’s yet another unsupported assertion in that statement. What is the reason he gives for saying that theists aren’t making a leap of faith? “The attributes of an almighty, all-wise God and his infinite capacity for creativity.” How does he know God has these attributes? He’s already acknowledged that the authority of Scripture can’t be proved, so it can’t be just from the Bible. He’s certainly made no arguments in this article for how it would be justified faith that God has any of those attributes, much less all. In short, he’s defending the assertion that theists aren’t making a leap of faith by making a different leap of faith.

In the final section, Spiegel makes what seems to me a pretty big shift in the point he was making. He says, “regardless of your worldview, you must make a number of belief commitments that cannot be evidentially justified,” and then he lists those “Philosophical Faith Commitments” like the Law of Causality and the Uniformity of Nature. Now, I’ll grant you that the label of “justified faith” is something he only used once, that I’ve kinda picked up as a way streamlined way of describing what he was talking about. He never actually referred to any of these beliefs as justified, so it’s not a direct contradiction to say they cannot be evidentially justified. But what he did say is that these are beliefs “to which all sane people are committed.” What I don’t understand is, why would holding these beliefs be a mark of sanity, if they cannot be evidentially justified? If it’s purely a matter of assumption, then I don’t see how a person would be insane to not share those assumptions. But if it’s a mark of sanity to hold these beliefs because there actually is good grounding to believe them, then it would be shifting the goal posts to say that they cannot be evidentially justified.

And that is, in general, what this type of argument usually comes down to; an equivocation fallacy where the theist begins by showing that everyone has “faith” (in the sense of having faith that the sun will come up tomorrow, because it has every previous day without fail for our entire lives), and then subtly transitioning to a conception of “faith” that they use to justify faith in the existence of God, while being unfettered from the need to provide any evidence that this faith is warranted (in the same way that the sun rising tomorrow clearly is).

I don’t know (and won’t assume either position as an article of faith) whether the people who make this type of argument are doing it as a willful deception or are themselves victims of self-deception, but in either case, the pattern of equivocation seems to hold true with notable consistency. In this instance, Spiegel may have delved into more details and provided more examples of one point or another, but ultimately, he still succumbed to the same fallacies of equivocation and unsupported assertions. Believing in the reliability of one’s own senses does not put theists and atheists on equal footing. If you have to make a leap of faith to defend the point that you’re not making some other leap of faith, then it might be time to think a lot harder about how much faith you actually have.

---

[1] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/superpowers-for-the-blind-and-deaf/

[2] Ironically, most atheists are disgusted with Christianity because atheists claim Christianity requires “blind faith” or “blind trust.” But by the very definition of the name they carry, atheists in fact are the ones who have based their beliefs on the absence of evidence.
http://applygodsword.com/the-blind-faith-of-atheism/
Kirk Cameron [from his appearance on Nightline with Ray Comfort]: ….I want to quote Richard Dawkins who wrote The God Delusion. He said, “Even if there was no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.” Did you hear that? He said even if there is no actual evidence, we should still believe it over the other theories. Even in light of what can be presented to justify those theories. That is unreasonable and it’s unscientific. That is the definition of blind faith: “I believe something even though there is not evidence to support it.”

http://planetandepoch.com/?p=993

[3] Fifth, belief in God can be properly basic, without needing further evidence to be rational. Alvin Plantinga has argued that belief in God is just like belief that the universe is more than 15 minutes old or belief that other minds exist. That is, we can rationally believe all of these things without evidence. If we are designed to know and love God, then belief in God would be properly basic and rational. For example, I may come to believe in God because I have an overwhelming sense of God’s presence or of God’s forgiveness and grace. These beliefs arise from my own experience, and I have no reason to deny them — or think these are inadequate without supporting evidence.
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201304/201304_028_believe_evid.cfm
And in fact, Plantinga maintains, following Calvin, that belief in God is properly basic. Man has an innate, natural capacity to apprehend God's existence even as he has a natural capacity to accept truths of perception (like "I see a tree"). Given the appropriate circumstances- such as moments of guilt, gratitude, or a sense of God's handiwork in nature-man naturally apprehends God's existence. Hence, Plantinga insists that his epistemology is not fideistic, since there are circumstances that make belief in God a properly basic belief. In fact, it may be more correct, he admits, to say that the proposition "God exists" is not itself properly basic but is entailed by other beliefs that are truly basic, such as "God is convicting me of sin" or "God is speaking to me." Hence, one is perfectly rational to believe in God wholly apart from evidence.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/introduction-the-resurrection-of-theism

[4] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/surviving-death-on-larry-king-live-2010-03/

As much of the nonsensical debate with Tim Stratton as I could recover from archive.org

1. This discussion was originally conducted in the comments section of this article.
2. TBJUL 13, 2015

   I think the problem with your argument is in statements 3 and 4. In the clarification of statement 4, you said: “Moreover, for the atheistic “freethinker” to disagree with this premise would be to admit irrationality. If that’s the case, why should anyone bother to listen to his irrational ideas? The atheist would lose all rights to argue against Christianity on intellectual grounds.”

   This doesn’t make any sense, because if rationality and knowledge do not exist, then they don’t exist for anybody. It’s not like the atheist becomes irrational by admitting that rationality (as you define it) does not truly exist, but the Christian continues to be rational (even though rationality doesn’t exist) simply by force of will. If rationality does not exist, then it doesn’t exist for anyone, which means we’re all equally irrational, which in turn means we’re all equally rational. So I think this causes a bit of a feedback effect to statement 3; it seems like you’re misusing or misunderstanding the idea of rationality and knowledge in that statement.

   What is rationality, really? You made a lot of claims about it, but you never really defined it. So how can you say whether it does or does not exist if we haven’t even established what it is? If I say that rationality is simply a willingness and ability to ascribe to the *conventional* rules of logic, then rationality can indeed exist whether we have libertarian free will or not (thus making statement 3 false, and the whole things breaks down). But what it seems like you’re doing is asserting that rationality is some transcendent thing, that even if there was only one sentient being left in the universe, what they were thinking would either be rational or not, independent of any human convention. But that’s unsubstantiated, and it’s begging the question, because it requires the existence of a transcendent arbiter of rationality (i.e., God, which is what you’re trying to prove in your conclusion) for that premise to make any sense.

   A syllogism isn’t much good if the premises aren’t agreed on by all parties, so I think it would make a lot more sense to start by establishing your definition of rationality (which, as you use it here, appears to be “transcendent rationality,” which I highly doubt is supportable), and then if you can support that foundation, then you can build an argument from there. But when you do, I think what we’ll find is that the definition of rationality you’re using in statement 3 is not the same one that atheists would agree with, which causes problems for statement 4. Let me express it syllogistically:

   1. Atheists agree that something labelled “rationality” exists.

   2. The way you used the term in your statement 3 does not follow from the way atheists use the term.

   3. If you were using the term in statement 4 in the same way you used it in statement 3, then it’s not a valid premise, because your opposition does not agree with that definition of the term, and therefore would not agree that rationality, *as you defined it*, does exist.

   4. If you were not using the term in statement 4 in the same way you used it in statement 3, then you committed an equivocation fallacy.

   –

   So, anyway, that’s the way I see it. By the way, I see you have a podcast, and I love doing podcasts, so if you ever want to have a fairly articulate atheist provide an opposition viewpoint on your show, then I’d be happy to oblige.
3. Tim StrattonJUL 13, 2015

   Hi TB, thank you for your interaction! You said:

   “In the clarification of statement 4, you said: “Moreover, for the atheistic “freethinker” to disagree with this premise would be to admit irrationality. If that’s the case, why should anyone bother to listen to his irrational ideas? The atheist would lose all rights to argue against Christianity on intellectual grounds.”

   This is because to admit rationality and knowledge do not exist, would be synonymous with stating “I don’t have knowledge of what I’m talking about!”

   You said, “What is rationality, really? You made a lot of claims about it, but you never really defined it.”

   That’s not true, TB! I certainly did. Here is exactly what I wrote:

   “The process of rationality leading to *justified* true belief (knowledge) entails the properties of being able to think of and about competing hypotheses, deliberate between them, and the ability to infer and affirm the best explanation via the laws of logic. Therefore, a rational entity must also possess at least two other attributes: intentionality and libertarian free will.[9]”

   You said, “If I say that rationality is simply a willingness and ability to ascribe to the *conventional* rules of logic, then rationality can indeed exist whether we have libertarian free will or not (thus making statement 3 false, and the whole things breaks down).”

   That’s the point, TB. I offered a defeater to the so-called “ability” you are referring to. All the naturalist can do is presuppose they have this ability when there doesn’t seem to be a way to explain it on naturalism. What makes your determined beliefs in atheism better than the determined beliefs of the theist (let alone true)? All you can do is presuppose (a logical fallacy) and any argument based on a logical fallacy is no argument at all.

   You said, “But what it seems like you’re doing is asserting that rationality is some transcendent thing, that even if there was only one sentient being left in the universe, what they were thinking would either be rational or not, independent of any human convention. But that’s unsubstantiated, and it’s begging the question, because it requires the existence of a transcendent arbiter of rationality (i.e., God, which is what you’re trying to prove in your conclusion) for that premise to make any sense.”

   I conclude (and I offered atheistic scientists and philosophers who agree with me) that if all is determined by nature (including our thoughts), then all is determined via nature and the big bang. If this is the case, then we are in no position to rationally affirm our thoughts like naturalism is true or theism is true as these beliefs would likewise be causally determined. All the determinist can do is be a presupper (and that does not count as an argument).

   Moreover, TB, I am not begging the question by assuming God. I did use my libertarian free will to abductively conclude that God was the inference to the BEST explanation of the immaterial aspect of humanity, but some atheists actually believe in a “soul” kind of thing and still reject the existence of God. All naturalists are atheists, but not all atheists are naturalists! To confuse this, is to not understand the argument.

   You said, “A syllogism isn’t much good if the premises aren’t agreed on by all parties, so I think it would make a lot more sense to start by establishing your definition of rationality (which, as you use it here, appears to be “transcendent rationality,” which I highly doubt is supportable), and then if you can support that foundation, then you can build an argument from there.”

   Again, I explained what the process of rationality entails in my article. You can reject each of those properties if you’d like, but then, why should anyone take you seriously? Again, I made a case and supported it with the words of respected atheists!

   You said, “But when you do, I think what we’ll find is that the definition of rationality you’re using in statement 3 is not the same one that atheists would agree with, which causes problems for statement 4.”

   My thesis work demonstrates that the “atheistic view” fails miserably. I have soon to be released articles on this topic in the works.

   You offered an argument:

   1. Atheists agree that something labelled “rationality” exists.
   2. The way you used the term in your statement 3 does not follow from the way atheists use the term.
   3. If you were using the term in statement 4 in the same way you used it in statement 3, then it’s not a valid premise, because your opposition does not agree with that definition of the term, and therefore would not agree that rationality, *as you defined it*, does exist.
   4. If you were not using the term in statement 4 in the same way you used it in statement 3, then you committed an equivocation fallacy.

   Atheists are either inconsistent and inadvertently assume libertarian free will to argue that they can be rational and possess justified beliefs in a causally determined universe or they attempt to affirm compatibilism which I can easily demonstrate is “determinism covered in frosting” as the atheistic biological evolutionist, Jerry Coyne, would say.

   Reply
• TBJUL 13, 2015

  I don’t see anything in that description you gave of rationality which really demands libertarian free will for its viability. It kinda seems like it’s just a presupposition, even though you later agree that’s a logical fallacy. I think maybe the disconnect is that you’re talking about using rationality “leading to *justified* true belief (knowledge).” I don’t think rationality is about finding truth, I think it’s about looking for truth. Or to phrase it another way, I don’t think rational people are the ones who have the right answers, I think they’re the ones who are asking the right questions. The fact is, someone could stumble upon the right answer purely by happenstance, or through a wholly irrational process; that doesn’t make the answer any less right. For example, take someone back in the day, when people believed the earth was flat. Let’s say the person really liked oranges, and so they believed the earth was round, because oranges are so great, the earth must have a similar shape, right? Is that person rational just because they happen to have true belief that they think is justified?

  I wouldn’t say so, and I would take it further to say it’s kinda pointless to try to make value judgments about whether people are rational in general. Most people are gonna make some arguments that are rational and some that aren’t. I don’t think this argument you made was rational (for reasons I described in my first post), but that doesn’t mean I automatically think you’re irrational just because of that. So, you talking about “a rational entity” tells me that you’re already pretty far afield of how I would characterize rationality, and therefore your premise that rationality (by your definition) exists, is not something I can agree with.

  > “That’s the point, TB. I offered a defeater to the so-called “ability” you are referring to. All the naturalist can do is presuppose they have this ability when there doesn’t seem to be a way to explain it on naturalism.”

  No, you didn’t offer a defeater of that ability. The ability to ascribe to the rules of logic is not some mystical, nebulous thing that we have to guess about. It’s knowable. We know what the conventional (man-made) rules of logic are; if we’re following them, then it’s self-evident that we have the ability to follow them. There’s no presupposition required.

  > “What makes your determined beliefs in atheism better than the determined beliefs of the theist (let alone true)?”

  I think you just answered your own question. Whatever is true is a better belief than whatever is false. Now, that doesn’t mean *I* am better than you if I happened to believe in something that is true deterministically. In that sense, I just got lucky if it is true (though I’m sure you’re more lucky than me in many other ways). So how do we know if it’s true? Again, it’s not about knowing, it’s about the search for knowledge. We can only draw the best conclusion from the data and evidence we have available, and always keep looking for more. We never have perfect knowledge of things, but you know what? Neither do you, if you’re right (or else why are there 30,000 denominations of Christianity, never mind all the other theistic religions?). You have a source of information that is perfectly true, IF all your presuppositions about it are correct, but how can you know if they are correct, if you’re already presupposing them? You can’t ever really KNOW, you can just believe, so how is your claim to knowledge any stronger or less arbitrary than mine?

  You said it yourself; all you can do is presuppose (a logical fallacy) and any argument based on a logical fallacy is no argument at all.

  > “I conclude (and I offered atheistic scientists and philosophers who agree with me) that if all is determined by nature (including our thoughts), then all is determined via nature and the big bang. ”

  And I agree with that…

  > “If this is the case, then we are in no position to rationally affirm our thoughts like naturalism is true or theism is true as these beliefs would likewise be causally determined. All the determinist can do is be a presupper (and that does not count as an argument).”

  …But this does not logically follow from that. It still sounds like you’re committing a genetic fallacy, saying that the arguments can’t be valid because of where they came from. The fact that thoughts are causally determined does not automatically make them false, any more than a person believing the earth is round because they like oranges makes the earth flat. It’s the approach that matters, and approaches can be rational or not, no matter what’s causing the thoughts to pop into our heads. And indeed, the very existence of human conventions of rationality can be the stimuli which cause the physics and chemistry in our brains to respond more rationally.

  It kinda seems like you’re saying “deterministic” as if our thoughts and decisions are gonna be the same no matter what external stimuli comes our way, but that’s not what atheists mean when they talk about lack of free will. The external stimuli are part of the determining factors that affect or thoughts and decisions, and agreed-upon rules of rationality can very much be a part of that.

  > “Moreover, TB, I am not begging the question by assuming God. I did use my libertarian free will to abductively conclude that God was the inference to the BEST explanation of the immaterial aspect of humanity…”

  What I was said was that you’re assuming the existence of “transcendent rationality,” which was part of your argument for the existence of God. But transcendent rationality requires the existence of some type of deity, so yes, that is begging the question.

  > “…but some atheists actually believe in a “soul” kind of thing and still reject the existence of God. All naturalists are atheists, but not all atheists are naturalists! To confuse this, is to not understand the argument.”

  Well, I don’t believe in the soul, so you don’t have to put me in that group.

  > “Again, I explained what the process of rationality entails in my article. You can reject each of those properties if you’d like, but then, why should anyone take you seriously?”

  Because you never showed why those entailments actually require libertarian free will, you just asserted it as a brute fact.

  Also, describing what something entails is not the same as defining it.

  > “My thesis work demonstrates that the “atheistic view” fails miserably. I have soon to be released articles on this topic in the works.”

  I fail to see how that’s relevant to this discussion.

  > “You offered an argument:
  1. Atheists agree that something labelled “rationality” exists.
  2. The way you used the term in your statement 3 does not follow from the way atheists use the term.
  3. If you were using the term in statement 4 in the same way you used it in statement 3, then it’s not a valid premise, because your opposition does not agree with that definition of the term, and therefore would not agree that rationality, *as you defined it*, does exist.
  4. If you were not using the term in statement 4 in the same way you used it in statement 3, then you committed an equivocation fallacy.”

  > “Atheists are either inconsistent and inadvertently assume libertarian free will to argue that they can be rational and possess justified beliefs in a causally determined universe or they attempt to affirm compatibilism which I can easily demonstrate is “determinism covered in frosting” as the atheistic biological evolutionist, Jerry Coyne, would say.”

  Okay, so, you restated my syllogism, and then said something that, as far as I can see, had nothing to do with my syllogism, and certainly didn’t show how any of the individual points are false. If you don’t agree with the syllogism, please explain which points you specifically disagree with, don’t just continue to make unsubstantiated assertions about how atheists assume things. I addressed individual points of your syllogism and showed where I disagreed with them; if you don’t do the same for mine, then I’m just gonna continue operating under the framework that it is sound, which would render yours unsound.

  Reply
• Tim StrattonJUL 14, 2015

  TB, you said, “I don’t see anything in that description you gave of rationality which really demands libertarian free will for its viability.”

  I’m sorry you can’t understand this, TB. I would encourage you to really think about what those different properties entail. I’ll try to clear some things up for you.

  You said, “It kinda seems like it’s just a presupposition, even though you later agree that’s a logical fallacy.”

  So, what step of my argument are you disagreeing with, TB? If you don’t like any of the deductive conclusions, you must reject at least one of the first four premises. It seems you are trying to reject (4) by saying that the process of rationality which leads to knowledge is false, a presupposition, or some sort of logical fallacy. Are you really going to assert that you are rational and that you possess knowledge about things that you have never thought of or about? Are you really going to claim that you do not deliberate between competing hypotheses and infer the best explanation via the laws of logic?

  Think about what it means to deliberate, TB. Let’s consider a supportive argument:
  1- Rationality requires deliberation.
  2- Deliberation requires libertarian free will.
  3- Therefore, rationality requires libertarian free will.

  This mini-argument hinges on the word “deliberation.” According to Webster’s 1828 dictionary, deliberation means:

  “To weigh in the mind; to consider and examine the reasons for and against a measure to estimate the weight of force of arguments, or the probable consequences of a measure, in order to a choice or decision; to pause and consider.”

  Therefore, one cannot truly deliberate without libertarian free will. WHY? If the non-rational laws of nature and past events determine one’s considerations, examinations, and estimations, then one cannot rationally affirm, justify, or provide any warrant that their beliefs are true (including a person’s belief that naturalism is true). Libertarian free will is required to be able to deliberate in the truest sense. If deliberation is impossible, then so is rationality. If rational affirmation is gone, then so is KNOWLEDGE!

  If deliberation is the process of considering various reasons for and against certain actions, and if this process implies libertarian free will, then this means that we are free to choose what we ultimately believe (at least with most things).
  TB, you said, “I think maybe the disconnect is that you’re talking about using rationality “leading to *justified* true belief (knowledge).” I don’t think rationality is about finding truth, I think it’s about looking for truth.”

  Hmmm… is that TRUE? How do you KNOW that, TB? DO you have any justifications for your beliefs or is this merely a presupposed baseless assertion? Moreover, if your “working definition” is TRUE, then you could never gain TRUTH. However, you are begging the question again because you presuppose to know this TRUTH.

  You continue with this ludicrous poppycock: “Or to phrase it another way, I don’t think rational people are the ones who have the right answers, I think they’re the ones who are asking the right questions.”

  WOW! So, according to you, TB, a rational person never gains justified true belief of anything. They can ask the right answers that would lead them to justified true belief, but they will never attain it. Moreover, TB, you are begging the question again (or worse) by assuming one can freely ask the right questions! In a determined cause and effect universe, one could never rationally affirm the questions he is causally determined to ask are the “right questions.” All he can do is presuppose he is asking the right questions. This is question-begging.

  You said, “The fact is, someone could stumble upon the right answer purely by happenstance, or through a wholly irrational process; that doesn’t make the answer any less right.”

  I agree, and that’s why in my article I clearly stated: “Determinism could be true, but it could never be rationally affirmed.” Thus, if a determinist happens to luckily be right about determinism, it does not count as a knowledge claim as it is an arational belief. One can beg the question and happen to have correct presuppositions, but this does not count as an argument. There are Christian presuppers who just start with the presupposition that the Bible is God’s Word. They could possibly be right about that, just like your presupposition could possibly be correct. However, when one begins with a presupposition, to conclude their presupposition, they lose all rights to claim that they have any justification for their beliefs. Therefore, their assertions do not count as knowledge claims. Therefore, even if the presupper happens to right (atheist or Christian), they still don’t KNOW what they are talking about. All you are left with is question-begging assumptions that your determined presuppositions are right, and the determined presupposition of the one who disagrees with you is wrong.

  You said, “for example, take someone back in the day, when people believed the earth was flat. Let’s say the person really liked oranges, and so they believed the earth was round, because oranges are so great, the earth must have a similar shape, right? Is that person rational just because they happen to have true belief that they think is justified?”

  This is a great example, TB! Thank you for sharing it. To answer your question: NO! This person happens to have correct beliefs about the shape of the earth but for irrational reasons. Clearly this argument is invalid even though the conclusion is true:

  1- Oranges are my favorite fruit.
  2- Oranges are spherical.
  3- Therefore, the earth is spherical.

  One can be the most irrational person in the world and still happen to hold some true beliefs (after all, conclusion (3) is true), but KNOWLEDGE is defined as JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEFS. Without proper justification, even if an irrational person happens to possess a true belief about something, it still does not count as a knowledge claim.

  TB, you said, “So, you talking about “a rational entity” tells me that you’re already pretty far afield of how I would characterize rationality, and therefore your premise that rationality (by your definition) exists, is not something I can agree with.”

  Well, TB, feel free (if you have free will) to choose not to agree with the definition of rationality that I am defending. But by doing so, you are tacitly admitting that you do not really think of or about competing hypothesis, nor do you genuinely deliberate between them, nor do you infer the BEST explanation based on the laws of logic. Why should anyone be persuaded by any of your comments if this is the case?

  I said, “That’s the point, TB. I offered a defeater to the so-called “ability” you are referring to. All the naturalist can do is presuppose they have this ability when there doesn’t seem to be a way to explain it on naturalism.”

  You replied: “No, you didn’t offer a defeater of that ability. The ability to ascribe to the rules of logic is not some mystical, nebulous thing that we have to guess about. It’s knowable.”

  Okay, TB, so now we can KNOW things? Here’s the bigger point that you are missing: The laws of logic and the rules of reason are things that we can freely choose to not just know, but to follow. Moreover, we can make mistakes in the formulation of logical arguments (like the orange & earth argument you offered above). If one has no libertarian freedom to genuinely reflect upon the argument (as their very reflections would be determined too), one is determined to think they are logical and reasonable even if they are not.

  TB, you continue to dig a deeper hole for yourself the more you write. You said:

  “We know what the conventional (man-made) rules of logic are; if we’re following them, then it’s self-evident that we have the ability to follow them. There’s no presupposition required.”

  1- If man was determined by the non-thinking laws of nature and the initial conditions of the big bang it invent the laws of logic and the rules of reason, how would we know they are right (when even the thoughts about justifying the laws of logic would be forced upon us against our will)?

  2- Where do the laws of logic come from? Many claim that logical laws are man-made or that they are based on observations we have made of the physical world; therefore, logic is based on the empirically observable and scientifically testable natural universe. However, logical laws seem to be more than observations of nature; in fact, they govern nature.

  This claim is *justifiable* (necessary for knowledge) by conducting thought experiments regarding non-physical types of things (if they exist or not). For instance, it’s possible (i.e. logically possible; conceivable) that unembodied minds (like angels) exist. We then can consider the possibility of immaterial angelic beings in relationships with other angels (perhaps they exist in a non-material Matrix). If this is the case and only immaterial and unembodied minds existed, is it logically possible for an angel to be a “married bachelor?” By no means! It would be logically impossible for an angel to be a married bachelor whether matter and the physical universe existed or not (many theoretical physicists today believe the physical universe does not exist).

  Moreover, I’m sure you would admit that it is at least logically possible that God exists (although you really do not think He does). With this possibility in place, if God exists and created time and space, then he logically transcended time and space causally before creating time and space. As William Lane Craig would say, “God is timeless sans creation.” Furthermore, if God exists in a spaceless and timeless state but then begins thinking successive thoughts (one after another), then time would be in existence without the material universe.

  These conclusions are reached not by observing the physical world but by reasoning according to the laws of logic which would still be true if humans existed or not. Therefore, the laws of logic are not merely based on our observations of the material universe; rather, they transcend the material universe. If this is true, then what is the best explanation of these mysterious laws that impose themselves on the physical world?

  Logical laws are not material substances. We don’t discover them by digging them up or viewing them under a microscope. We cannot employ the scientific method to discover the laws of logic; rather, a scientist must assume the laws of logic before engaging in the scientific method. These laws are the bedrock of reason and rationality.

  Here is what strikes me: the laws of logic are immaterial. If a person (or computer) is rational, this means these material things are thinking correctly according to the immaterial laws of logic. A question must then be raised: why do the immaterial laws of logic impose themselves on the material world? If a computer program is a purely physical system that is made of entirely physical components, and there exists some combination of purely physical components (metal, ions, etc.) in some arrangement that yields the ability to function rationally, why does this purely material entity correspond with immaterial laws of logic to function properly in this material world?
  The committed naturalist has a difficult – if not impossible – time answering these questions regarding the laws of logic. Theists have a ready explanation: logic is grounded in the essence of the immaterial God as concepts in his immaterial mind. At least theists have an explanation that makes sense. The naturalist presupper is left with zero explanation! I will be blogging on this topic soon. In the meantime, here is another blog of mine:

  https://apologers.wordpress.com/2015/05/04/what-is-logic/

  This seems to be the best explanation of why logic imposes itself on the material world. Therefore, it makes perfect sense as to why purely physical computers must be programmed by logical, intentional, volitional, and rational programmers to obey the laws of logic and function properly.

  I asked you, “What makes your determined beliefs in atheism better than the determined beliefs of the theist (let alone true)?”

  TB, you said, “I think you just answered your own question. Whatever is true is a better belief than whatever is false.”

  TB, you just begged the question BIG TIME! I am asking you what makes your determined beliefs better than my determined belief. I am asking you what grounds or justification you have for thinking that your determined thoughts and beliefs are true and that my determined thoughts and beliefs are false. You basically reply with “because my determined thoughts are true, and whatever is true is a better belief than what is false.”

  TB, please don’t fail to misunderstand this again! What justification do you have to KNOW that your determined beliefs that the laws of nature and the big bang has forced upon you are true, and that my determined beliefs are false? What about your determined thoughts and beliefs about those thoughts and beliefs? Please don’t beg the question in your response. All you are is a presupper!

  TB, you said, “So how do we know if it’s true? Again, it’s not about knowing, it’s about the search for knowledge.”

  How do you *KNOW* that, TB? Where did you gain that KNOWLEDGE from?

  You said, “We can only draw the best conclusion from the data and evidence we have available, and always keep looking for more.”

  How would you do that in a determined universe? If your reflections upon all the data is determined, and your reflections upon your reflections are likewise determined, you are never in a position to have justification for your beliefs. All you are left with is circular reasoning. Moreover, what are you going to do regarding metaphysical assertions like: “atheism is true,” or “naturalism is true.” What kind of data are you going to use for that? Science is the wrong field, you are left with logic, and I am the one using logic to to prove naturalism and atheism are probably false. Therefore, I have justified true belief (knowledge) of God.

  You said, “We never have perfect knowledge of things…”

  Do you have perfect knowledge of that, TB?

  You said, “Neither do you, if you’re right (or else why are there 30,000 denominations of Christianity, never mind all the other theistic religions?). You have a source of information that is perfectly true, IF all your presuppositions about it are correct, but how can you know if they are correct, if you’re already presupposing them? You can’t ever really KNOW, you can just believe, so how is your claim to knowledge any stronger or less arbitrary than mine?”

  TB, I start with logic, and logically conclude that God exists via arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Contingency Argument, the Moral Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Ontological Argument, my FreeThinking Argument, and many more. From that point, I examine the historical evidence of the Resurrection. It is very strong. If the statement, “God raised Jesus from the dead,” is plausibly true, then all other worldviews are plausible false. Dave Hume said, “Wise men choose probabilities.” I couldn’t agree more, and that is why I put my trust is what I KNOW is probably true. Call this “faith” if you’d like, but it is a “Reasonable Faith,” with justification. What justification do you have for naturalism or atheism?

  Regarding the many denominations of Christianity, as long as we all believe the statement, “God raised Jesus from the dead,” then we believe mere Christianity is true. As far as other points of doctrine are concerned, read my past blogs. I don’t hold any theological view that is illogical.

  I said, “I conclude (and I offered atheistic scientists and philosophers who agree with me) that if all is determined by nature (including our thoughts), then all is determined via nature and the big bang. ”

  You replied: “And I agree with that…” (Thank you very much)!
  I continued: “If this is the case, then we are in no position to rationally affirm our thoughts like naturalism is true or theism is true as these beliefs would likewise be causally determined. All the determinist can do is be a presupper (and that does not count as an argument).”

  You replied: “…But this does not logically follow from that. It still sounds like you’re committing a genetic fallacy, saying that the arguments can’t be valid because of where they came from.”

  That has nothing to do with the genetic fallacy, TB. It has everything to do with justification for your beliefs! If I said the only reason you are an atheist is because you live in a time where atheism has become popular, then I would be committing the genetic fallacy. If you said, the only reason that I was a Christian is because my parents are Christians, you would be committing the genetic fallacy. I have offered logic-based REASONS to conclude that atheistic naturalism is false, so even if I am a Christian because of my parents, that does not invalidate the REASONS I have for thinking Christian theism is probably true!

  Therefore, you need to stick to my argument! My point was, that if all of your thoughts are determined (including your thoughts and beliefs about your thoughts and beliefs, then you cannot rationally affirm any of your thoughts and beliefs. All you can do is presuppose and beg the question!

  You said, “The fact that thoughts are causally determined does not automatically make them false…”

  TB, you are missing the point! I’ve made it clear that your determined beliefs could happen to be true (by sheer luck), but my determined beliefs could also be true on your view. So what JUSTIFICATION do you have for thinking your determined beliefs are true, and that my determined beliefs are false? Are you just presupposing your determined beliefs are true? This does not count as a knowledge claim, TB! It is nothing but a logical fallacy.

  I said, “Moreover, TB, I am not begging the question by assuming God. I did use my libertarian free will to abductively conclude that God was the inference to the BEST explanation of the immaterial aspect of humanity…” (that’s a much different thing!)

  You replied, “What I was said was that you’re assuming the existence of “transcendent rationality,” which was part of your argument for the existence of God. But transcendent rationality requires the existence of some type of deity, so yes, that is begging the question.”

  I’m sorry you don’t comprehend logic, TB, but I deductively concluded that some “transcendent” thing exists (a deductive conclusion is not a presupposition)! I happen to call this transcendent thing a “soul,” but as I said, feel free (if you can do such a thing) to call it whatever you’d like. Moreover, you make a huge mistake of claiming that only a deity can make sense of immaterial or supernatural souls. That is plain and simply false! You don’t *know* what you are talking about as there are plenty of atheists who reject naturalism. It logically follows that all atheists must be atheists, but not all atheists have to be naturalists. Since you do not understand this logical truth, you make logical errors (but I guess you think you are determined to make logical errors and determined to think you are right anyway)!

  I said, “I explained what the process of rationality entails in my article. You can reject each of those properties if you’d like, but then, why should anyone take you seriously?”
  You replied: “Because you never showed why those entailments actually require libertarian free will, you just asserted it as a brute fact.”

  Above, I have explained what it means to deliberate, TB. The definition of deliberation is this: “To WEIGH in the mind; to CONSIDER and examine the REASONS for and against a measure to ESTIMATE the weight of force of arguments, or the probable consequences of a measure, in order to a choice or decision; to pause and CONSIDER.

  Here’s an argument for you, TB: How can one truly deliberate without libertarian free will? If the non-rational laws of nature and past events force and causally determine one’s considerations, examinations, and estimations, then one cannot rationally affirm, justify, or provide any warrant that their beliefs are true (including a person’s belief that naturalism is true). Libertarian free will is required to be able to deliberate in the truest sense. If deliberation is impossible, then so is rationality.

  If you disagree, please do so without begging the question!

  TB, you attempted your hand at logic with the following:

  “1. Atheists agree that something labelled “rationality” exists.
  2. The way you used the term in your statement 3 does not follow from the way atheists use the term.
  3. If you were using the term in statement 4 in the same way you used it in statement 3, then it’s not a valid premise, because your opposition does not agree with that definition of the term, and therefore would not agree that rationality, *as you defined it*, does exist.
  4. If you were not using the term in statement 4 in the same way you used it in statement 3, then you committed an equivocation fallacy.”

  That was a complete mess. Let me help you out, TB, this is what P(1) should say:

  1- Naturalists *presuppose* their determined beliefs are true (even if they aren’t) and call it “rationality.”
  2- The Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism provides a defeater to the naturalists determined beliefs in naturalism (not to mention atheism).

  *Feel free (if you can do such a thing) to finish the rest of this argument for me, TB!

  I have been clear about what I mean by the process of rationality which leads to justified true belief (knowledge), you can say you have a different definition all you want, but they you are denying the very process I’m arguing for. If that’t the case, all you can do is assume and presuppose your illogical beliefs are good and true. That is no reason to listen to you as you are not making an argument at all!

  I said, “Atheists are either inconsistent and inadvertently assume libertarian free will to argue that they can be rational and possess justified beliefs in a causally determined universe or they attempt to affirm compatibilism which I can easily demonstrate is “determinism covered in frosting” as the atheistic biological evolutionist, Jerry Coyne, would say.”

  You said, “… you restated my syllogism, and then said something that, as far as I can see, had nothing to do with my syllogism, and certainly didn’t show how any of the individual points are false.”

  It’s because I never restated your fallacious syllogism, TB (I utterly rejected it and fixed the first two premises for you!

  You said, “If you don’t agree with the syllogism, please explain which points you specifically disagree with, don’t just continue to make unsubstantiated assertions about how atheists assume things.”

  I’ve made that abundantly clear throughout this response (and it’s pretty clear in the original article too)! If ALL that exists is nature, then ALL things (including your thoughts and beliefs, and even those thoughts regarding your thoughts and beliefs), are forced upon you if they are true or not. All YOU are left with, my friend, is question-begging presuppositions (logical fallacy alert!), and any argument based on a logical fallacy is no argument at all!

  You are nothing but a presupper!

  With all of that said, if you are determined to reject the deductive conclusions of my logic-based argument, please specifically tell me what premise you reject, and why it fails. Until you can do that, you are only left presupposing your determined beliefs that logical deduction is false.

  And atheists claim that Christians are irrational?!?!

  Reply
• TBJUL 14, 2015

  >”I’m sorry you can’t understand this, TB.”

  I’m sorry you can’t discuss this without being pretentious and condescending.

  >”Think about what it means to deliberate, TB. Let’s consider a supportive argument:
  1- Rationality requires deliberation.
  2- Deliberation requires libertarian free will.
  3- Therefore, rationality requires libertarian free will.”

  Okay, I’m just gonna be frank, since you already have been. What’s abundantly clear to me, from the semantic word games you’re playing here, is that you didn’t start with 1 and 2 and logically infer 3 from them. It seems pretty likely to me that you started with 3, and then semantically reframed whatever it would take for it to be justified in your mind. I consider arguing semantics to be a colossal waste of time, so I’m not gonna engage with that. I see no reason that deliberation requires libertarian free will, without simply changing the meaning of the term to suit your purposes.

  >”If deliberation is the process of considering various reasons for and against certain actions, and if this process implies libertarian free will, then this means that we are free to choose what we ultimately believe (at least with most things).”

  But where do the various reasons for and against certain actions come from? Our experiences and our genetics. Could you direct me to any point in your article or responses where you provided evidence that anything besides experiences and genetics affect our actions? (And I don’t mean by showing how this or that wouldn’t be possible without it, because those arguments are question-begging. I’m talking about actual empirical evidence that something besides genetics and experiences affect our decisions, independent of any implications if there isn’t.) If not, then that claim is just a presupposition, and we both know how you feel about that.

  >”TB, you said, “I think maybe the disconnect is that you’re talking about using rationality “leading to *justified* true belief (knowledge).” I don’t think rationality is about finding truth, I think it’s about looking for truth.”
  Hmmm… is that TRUE? How do you KNOW that, TB?”

  Notice how I used the word “think,” not “know.” I’ve done this dance before (it was equally pointless as this is turning out to be; I should’ve learned my lesson the first time).

  > “One can be the most irrational person in the world and still happen to hold some true beliefs (after all, conclusion (3) is true), but KNOWLEDGE is defined as JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEFS. Without proper justification, even if an irrational person happens to possess a true belief about something, it still does not count as a knowledge claim.”

  But how do we know if a true belief is justified? We can judge that (as you yourself just did) by seeing whether they follow the agreed-upon HUMAN CONVENTIONS of logic and rationality. It’s still just a way to imperfectly gauge whether someone’s on the right track, not actually to KNOW that something is true or justified.

  >”Okay, TB, so now we can KNOW things? Here’s the bigger point that you are missing: The laws of logic and the rules of reason are things that we can freely choose to not just know, but to follow.”

  And those are things that humans made up as an agreed-upon conventions so they could have ways of “knowing” things without waiting around for divine revelation. We can know when somebody wins a game of Monopoly, because we’re all playing by the same rules, and we can know when somebody wins at rationality, because, for the most part, we’ve agreed on the rules to that as well.

  >”1- If man was determined by the non-thinking laws of nature and the initial conditions of the big bang it invent the laws of logic and the rules of reason, how would we know they are right (when even the thoughts about justifying the laws of logic would be forced upon us against our will)?”

  We don’t KNOW, we AGREE. That’s all, period. Even if God does exist, he’s not reaching down from heaven and giving people a gold star when they properly frame a rational argument. So even if truth was knowable because God is its ultimate arbiter, rationality still would only be a game of human convention. Whether God exists or not has absolutely no effect on that.

  >”2- Where do the laws of logic come from? Many claim that logical laws are man-made or that they are based on observations we have made of the physical world; therefore, logic is based on the empirically observable and scientifically testable natural universe.”

  Yep.

  >”However, logical laws seem to be more than observations of nature; in fact, they govern nature.”

  The earth seems to be flat, and the sun seems to be floating through the sky, but they’re not.

  >”This claim is *justifiable* (necessary for knowledge) by conducting thought experiments regarding non-physical types of things (if they exist or not). For instance, it’s possible (i.e. logically possible; conceivable) that unembodied minds (like angels) exist. We then can consider the possibility of immaterial angelic beings in relationships with other angels (perhaps they exist in a non-material Matrix). If this is the case and only immaterial and unembodied minds existed, is it logically possible for an angel to be a “married bachelor?” By no means! It would be logically impossible for an angel to be a married bachelor whether matter and the physical universe existed or not (many theoretical physicists today believe the physical universe does not exist).”

  If only immaterial and disembodied minds existed, there would be no such thing as marriage or bachelors (which is supported by Matthew 22:30), so the answer to your question would not be “yes” or “no,” it would be “null set.”

  I could just as easily ask, “if aliens didn’t exist, would skizel be gliknorg?” But, as I’m sure you’ll agree, that question is completely valueless without someone to give those words meaning. We material humans of Earth are the ones who give the terms “married” and “bachelor” meaning in the first place, so if none of us existed anymore, the question would have no more meaning than the illustrative nonsense question I posed above.

  Reply
• TBJUL 14, 2015

  >”Logical laws are not material substances. We don’t discover them by digging them up or viewing them under a microscope. We cannot employ the scientific method to discover the laws of logic; rather, a scientist must assume the laws of logic before engaging in the scientific method. These laws are the bedrock of reason and rationality.”

  And the alphabet is the bedrock of language and literature, but that doesn’t mean those weren’t man-made, now does it?

  >”Theists have a ready explanation: logic is grounded in the essence of the immaterial God as concepts in his immaterial mind.”

  Okay, so, the laws of logic (for instance, the law of non-contradiction) are grounded in the essence of God. Since something like an entity being his own father and his own son at the same time (John 10:30), or an entity knowing something and not knowing it at the same time (Matthew 24:36), or an entity being greater than itself (John 14:28), violate the laws of non-contradiction, then those must not be true of God, huh?

  >”At least theists have an explanation that makes sense.”

  Not from where I’m standing.

  >”You said, “We never have perfect knowledge of things…”
  Do you have perfect knowledge of that, TB?”

  Gee, ya got me, guess I gotta go to church now.

  No, I don’t have perfect knowledge of it; that’s the whole point. You don’t either. What do you have perfect knowledge of, the Bible? I hope you can read all the ancient languages it was written in, or you’re screwed. But even if you can, you still don’t have perfect knowledge that it was given to us by God, unless you were there when he was dictating it. So, hey, I don’t have perfect knowledge of anything, which just about makes us even. But at least I know that I don’t know, as opposed to you claiming to have such perfect knowledge, when your foundations aren’t any more perfect than mine.

  >”TB, you are missing the point! I’ve made it clear that your determined beliefs could happen to be true (by sheer luck), but my determined beliefs could also be true on your view. So what JUSTIFICATION do you have for thinking your determined beliefs are true, and that my determined beliefs are false?”

  The agreed-upon human convention of rationality. See, the ultimate bottom line of rational argument is, nothing we can say here will change what is actual. If you or Dr. Craig, or Plantinga, or anyone else constructs an airtight, impenetrable syllogism to “prove” the existence of God, that doesn’t mean he’s just gonna pop into existence if he didn’t exist already. The only benefit of rationality is trying to figure out what is actual, not to justify the things you already believed before you had rational reasons to…

  >”TB, I start with logic, and logically conclude that God exists via arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Contingency Argument, the Moral Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Ontological Argument, my FreeThinking Argument, and many more.”

  Oh yeah, did you really START with logic? Remember the ninth commandment before you answer. Based on that video you posted in May, it sounds to me like you only started looking into the logic of the faith you already had (and were already spreading), AFTER that atheist schooled you in logic and left your youth group.

  >”Moreover, you make a huge mistake of claiming that only a deity can make sense of immaterial or supernatural souls. That is plain and simply false!”

  Oh, brother. By your own words shall ye be judged. YOU were the one who said, “8- The best explanation for the existence of the soul is God.” Are you now admitting that was a flawed conclusion?

  >”If the non-rational laws of nature and past events force and causally determine one’s considerations, examinations, and estimations, then one cannot rationally affirm, justify, or provide any warrant that their beliefs are true (including a person’s belief that naturalism is true).”

  But as even you have admitted by this point, being rational and having true beliefs are not the same, so not being able to provide any warrant that your beliefs are true does not mean they can’t be rational. Being rational just means followed the agreed-upon human convention of the rules of rationality, just like being grammatical means following the agreed upon human convention of grammar.

  >”That was a complete mess. Let me help you out, TB”

  Ah yes, that classic Christian charity. Christ commands us to lift people up, but we can’t do that unless we knock ’em down first, right?

  >”1- Naturalists *presuppose* their determined beliefs are true (even if they aren’t) and call it “rationality.”
  2- The Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism provides a defeater to the naturalists determined beliefs in naturalism (not to mention atheism).
  *Feel free (if you can do such a thing) to finish the rest of this argument for me, TB!”

  Why would I want to finish an argument that starts with two false premises?

  This is getting rather lengthy, and your uncivil tone fails to amuse me, so let me try to boil it down to brass tacks:

  1. All of your arguments are based on the idea that people can’t have justified knowledge without libertarian free will.

  2. Libertarian free will means something beyond our genetics and experiences influences our choices.

  3. You have provided no evidence to support the idea that something beyond our genetics and experiences influences our choices, except arguments which are themselves based on the idea that people can’t have justified knowledge without libertarian free will.

  4. Therefore, your arguments are unsubstantiated (i.e., built on the very presupposition that you constantly mock) and/or circular.

  Since you agree that presupposition and question-begging are not indicative of a sound argument, I have no impetus to take your arguments seriously. Provide some actual data, not ungrounded assertions, to support your claim (that something beyond our genetics and experiences influencing our choices), and I’ll examine them on that basis.

  Until then, I have no interest in engaging in the meaningless semantic word-games and psychological projection you seem to require to justify your belief system.

  One more thing, though…

  >”What justification do you have for naturalism or atheism?”

  Lots. This Google Drive folder (https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7fJFAWbzkK1flNfdzkxbUFBYXIzZXBkSTFNMDN5bkk3N05sWEdpYmNnOV9zR1NMUjdiUjg&usp=sharing) has a bunch of it, especially the document called “Reasons,” but perhaps more relevant to you would be the document called “The Annotated Craig,” which exposes the intellectually-dishonest sophistry and circularity of your idol, Dr. Craig.

  I DO NOT give you (or anyone else who sees this) permission to use any of this content (presumably for the purposes of trying to refute it) on your website without my prior permission.

  I would, however, be happy to discuss any of it, on one condition. Let’s drop the awkward formatting of this comment section and switch to email if it’s gonna continue to be this lengthy, okay?

  Reply
  • Tim StrattonJUL 15, 2015

    TB, I offered a supporting argument for a premise in my original argument:

    1- Rationality requires deliberation.
    2- Deliberation requires libertarian free will.
    3- Therefore, rationality requires libertarian free will.

    Your response was this: “Okay, I’m just gonna be frank, since you already have been. What’s abundantly clear to me, from the semantic word games you’re playing here…”

    Let me stop you right there, TB. I am using the laws of logic, the rules of reason, and clear definitions to make my case. If that is what you call “semantic word games,” then please count me guilty!

    You continued, “… you didn’t start with 1 and 2 and logically infer 3 from them. It seems pretty likely to me that you started with 3, and then semantically reframed whatever it would take for it to be justified in your mind.”

    You can jump to ungrounded assumptions all you want, but as I’ve already made clear (3) is a deductive conclusion not a presupposition. I have used clear definitions to make my case, so if you’d like to reject the process of rationality (which includes deliberation) go ahead, but you will simultaneously be shooting yourself in the foot (if not the head) by admitting that you do not genuinely deliberate and that you are not rational and that you do not possess knowledge gained via the process of rationality.

    My arguments are structurally (“mathematically”) valid, and supported via clear definitions. So you can either reject Webster’s definition of deliberation or you can try to explain how one of my premises is false. Good luck with either task!

    You said, “I consider arguing semantics to be a colossal waste of time, so I’m not gonna engage with that.”

    Again, you seem to equate “semantics” with the laws of logic, the rules of reason, and clear definitions. It is obvious by your comments that you do have revulsion to engaging in this type of conversation.

    You said, “I see no reason that deliberation requires libertarian free will, without simply changing the meaning of the term to suit your purposes.”

    How many times do I have to spell it out for you, TB? If all of your thoughts and beliefs are determined, including your thoughts and beliefs about your thoughts and beliefs, then your determined deliberating is forced upon you via the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the big bang. How can you KNOW that your determined beliefs that have been forced upon you after the illusion of deliberation are any better than my beliefs that were determined upon me? We disagree with each other, and if nature determines us to disagree and hold mutually exclusive views, then we can know that nature forces at least one of us to be wrong. How could you rationally affirm your determined beliefs are true, when even your thoughts and beliefs regarding your beliefs are forced upon you? All you can do is offer question-begging assumptions (logical fallacy) and any argument based on a logical fallacy is no argument at all. All you are is a presupper and you are making that more clear with every sentence you write.

    I said, “If deliberation is the process of considering various reasons for and against certain actions, and if this process implies libertarian free will, then this means that we are free to choose what we ultimately believe (at least with most things).”

    You replied: “But where do the various reasons for and against certain actions come from? Our experiences and our genetics.”

    You offer a false dichotomy (another logical fallacy) as there are more options to choose from. How about the laws of logic? Logic is what every other knowledge discipline is based on! The scientific method, historical method, philosophy, computer science, and even mathematics is all based on (and assumes) the laws of logic. In fact, when talking our thoughts captive to obey the laws of logic, we can actually choose to change our brain structure (see the work coming out of the psychology dept. at UCLA) and we can realize if we should trust our experiences or not. Logic is bedrock; experience can be illusory.

    TB, I find it amazing that you commit the fallacy of question begging in the very same breath that you falsely accuse me of it! You said:

    “Could you direct me to any point in your article or responses where you provided evidence that anything besides experiences and genetics affect our actions? (And I don’t mean by showing how this or that wouldn’t be possible without it, because those arguments are question-begging. I’m talking about actual empirical evidence that something besides genetics and experiences affect our decisions, independent of any implications if there isn’t.) If not, then that claim is just a presupposition, and we both know how you feel about that.”

    Let me help you out, TB. I believe in our conversation above, I offered thought experiments that demonstrated the laws of logic would still be valid apart from the physical world. Even theoretical physicists will tell you that much, TB. I offered a thought experiment (what philosophers do) to demonstrate that if God exists and began counting down, “3…2…1… Let there be light, BOOM!”, then, time would exist apart from the space-time universe. I DID NOT offer this as an argument for God’s existence!!! That would be question-begging, TB, but that is NOT what I did. You need to go take a logic course before ignorantly and fallaciously accusing a guy with training in logic where he has erred! You are making yourself look more foolish with every accusation you make.

    Moreover, to make matters worse for yourself, you said: “And I don’t mean by showing how this or that wouldn’t be possible without it, because those arguments are question-begging. I’m talking about actual empirical evidence that something besides genetics and experiences affect our decisions…”

    Talk about question-begging, TB! You are assuming that there is only the empirically verifiable to discount the unempirically verifiable (like the laws of logic, the soul, and God). Again, with every paragraph you write, you further cement yourself as the epitome of a presuppositionalist!

    TB, you said, “I think maybe the disconnect is that you’re talking about using rationality “leading to *justified* true belief (knowledge).” I don’t think rationality is about finding truth, I think it’s about looking for truth.”

    I responded: “Hmmm… is that TRUE? How do you KNOW that, TB?”

    Your response: “Notice how I used the word “think,” not “know.” I’ve done this dance before…”

    Ohhh… so you do not have justified *reasons* to think your thoughts are any good. Thank you for admitting that and making my point!

    I said, “One can be the most irrational person in the world and still happen to hold some true beliefs (after all, conclusion (3) is true), but KNOWLEDGE is defined as JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEFS. Without proper justification, even if an irrational person happens to possess a true belief about something, it still does not count as a knowledge claim.”

    You replied: “But how do we know if a true belief is justified?”

    Easy, TB, we compare our thoughts to the laws of LOGIC and the rules of reason (science, philosophy, math, and the historical method all do this)!

    You said, “We can judge that (as you yourself just did) by seeing whether they follow the agreed-upon HUMAN CONVENTIONS of logic and rationality. It’s still just a way to imperfectly gauge whether someone’s on the right track, not actually to KNOW that something is true or justified.”

    TB, you are making knowledge claims while demanding we do not have the essential ingredients to make these claims. I didn’t see the word “think” anywhere in your above paragraph. Moreover, I used LOGIC to prove the laws of logic would still be valid apart from nature (again, I can provide quotes from theoretical physicists if you don’t believe me)! I logically proved that logic is NOT a human convention. Can you prove otherwise without begging the question?

    I said, “Here’s the bigger point that you are missing: The laws of logic and the rules of reason are things that we can freely choose to not just know, but to follow.”

    You said, “And those are things that humans made up as an agreed-upon conventions so they could have ways of “knowing” things without waiting around for divine revelation.”

    TB, then why don’t you agree with my deductive conclusions that are based on the very laws that you claim “all humans have agreed upon”? Obviously, you choose to reject logical argumentation. Tell me this, TB: Was the law of the excluded middle true before the big bang? Was it false before primates existed? Was it true or false before the first human brain could think about the excluded middle? What about math (based on logic)? Was the universe not mathematically structured before humans could think about 2+2 =4? Again, I offered a philosophical thought experiment that proved nature depends on logic and not the other way around. You need to logically demonstrate how my thought experiments fail or simply concede the point .

    TB, you said, “We can know when somebody wins a game of Monopoly, because we’re all playing by the same rules, and we can know when somebody wins at rationality, because, for the most part, we’ve agreed on the rules to that as well.”

    That is why I am enjoying this conversation under my article. Everyone following along can see that I am winning this argument because I am employing the laws of logic and the rules of reason, while you try to avoid them. Most humans do agree to logic, but that doesn’t mean humans invented logic. When you think about it, that is logically incoherent, TB!

    I said, “1- If man was determined by the non-thinking laws of nature and the initial conditions of the big bang to invent the laws of logic and the rules of reason, how would we know they are right (when even the thoughts about justifying the laws of logic would be forced upon us against our will)?”

    Your response: “We don’t KNOW, we AGREE. That’s all, period.”

    WOW! So, you really don’t have any grounds to argue about anything then! Moreover, you consistently demonstrate that you DO NOT agree with the laws of logic and the rules of reason. You reject the deductive conclusions in a structurally valid argument for no reason (emotional reasons do not count in intellectual arguments).

    You said, “Even if God does exist, he’s not reaching down from heaven and giving people a gold star when they properly frame a rational argument. So even if truth was knowable because God is its ultimate arbiter, rationality still would only be a game of human convention. Whether God exists or not has absolutely no effect on that.”

    Another false assertion (logical fallacy alert)! It seems you need to do some more research and thinking before making these bold claims. If God exists he is a maximally great being (by definition). If God is maximally great (and not mostly great), then he knows the truth-value to any and all propositions logically prior and sans creation. If God knows the truth-value to any and all propositions, then he is perfectly intelligent. If God is perfectly intelligent and all-knowing, then he simply KNOWS these things and does not have to think them through like non-omniscient beings would have to. Therefore, the process of rationality (including deliberation) is something that humans do to approximate to God’s perfect knowledge. Being logical is equivalent with being Godly! We approximate to his perfectly intelligent nature.

    I asked: “2- Where do the laws of logic come from? Many claim that logical laws are man-made or that they are based on observations we have made of the physical world; therefore, logic is based on the empirically observable and scientifically testable natural universe… However, logical laws seem to be more than observations of nature; in fact, they govern nature.”

    Your response: “The earth seems to be flat, and the sun seems to be floating through the sky, but they’re not.”

    Gosh, TB, I don’t think they seem that way at all! Using science (which assumes and is based on logic as opposed to the other way around), we can tell that the earth is not flat and that the sun is stationary. If you deny logic, you will deny science in the process!

    I said, “This claim is *justifiable* (necessary for knowledge) by conducting thought experiments regarding non-physical types of things (if they exist or not). For instance, it’s possible (i.e. logically possible; conceivable) that unembodied minds (like angels) exist. We then can consider the possibility of immaterial angelic beings in relationships with other angels (perhaps they exist in a non-material Matrix). If this is the case and only immaterial and unembodied minds existed, is it logically possible for an angel to be a “married bachelor?” By no means! It would be logically impossible for an angel to be a married bachelor whether matter and the physical universe existed or not (many theoretical physicists today believe the physical universe does not exist).”

    You failed to respond to my logic-based experiments and offered a red-herring (yet again another logical fallacy)! You said: “If only immaterial and disembodied minds existed, there would be no such thing as marriage or bachelors (which is supported by Matthew 22:30), so the answer to your question would not be “yes” or “no,” it would be “null set.””

    Geesh! Put on your logician hat and do a logic-based thought experiment, TB. Think a little bit before running scared from my response! Moreover, your red-herring counter (do you get tired of all these logical fallacies?) only questions the meaning of Matt 22:30 which is irrelevant to our conversation here. Maybe the Bible is not inerrant (that is a DIFFERENT conversation), but this is irrelevant here. I demonstrated that even if God created angels to exist in the Matrix, like Neo & Trinity (even if the physical/material universe never existed), it would still be logically impossible for Neo to be a married bachelor! It logically follows that logic is valid even if matter doesn’t exist. Like I said above, many theoretical physicists today argue that matter does not exist, and they come to these conclusions based on LOGIC.

    Game, Set, Match!

    You continued: “We material humans of Earth are the ones who give the terms “married” and “bachelor” meaning in the first place, so if none of us existed anymore, the question would have no more meaning than the illustrative nonsense question I posed above.”

    That again is revealing your prior commitment to atheism (a question-begging assumption). After all, if God is the ultimate mind behind the universe (as the Kalam Cosmological Argument demonstrates via logic and science), then the laws of logic would still exist eternally and independent from human existence. We have logical reasons to conclude that God exists and that logic is eternally true, and you have only presupper assumptions that God does not exist and that logic is arbitrary. Why even engage in argumentation at all if that is the case?

    I said, “Logical laws are not material substances. We don’t discover them by digging them up or viewing them under a microscope. We cannot employ the scientific method to discover the laws of logic; rather, a scientist must assume the laws of logic before engaging in the scientific method. These laws are the bedrock of reason and rationality.”

    You ignore my challenge and offer another red-herring! You said: And the alphabet is the bedrock of language and literature, but that doesn’t mean those weren’t man-made, now does it?”

    Language is actually based on the laws of logic too, TB! There are logic-based rules that language is constructed on. There is no discipline you can offer which does not presuppose and assume logic. Let me repeat myself: “Logical laws are not material substances. We don’t discover them by digging them up or viewing them under a microscope. We cannot employ the scientific method to discover the laws of logic; rather, a scientist must assume the laws of logic before engaging in the scientific method. These laws are the bedrock of reason and rationality.” If you are going to presuppose that logic is arbitrary (and not objectively true independent of human opinion) than science does not discover objective truth either! Is that really the position you want to take? You do want to be considered an intellectual don’t you?

    I said, “Theists have a ready explanation: logic is grounded in the essence of the immaterial God as concepts in his immaterial mind.”

    Your response: “Okay, so, the laws of logic (for instance, the law of non-contradiction) are grounded in the essence of God. Since something like an entity being his own father and his own son at the same time (John 10:30), or an entity knowing something and not knowing it at the same time (Matthew 24:36), or an entity being greater than itself (John 14:28), violate the laws of non-contradiction, then those must not be true of God, huh?”

    RED HERRING ALERT! First: I am making a case about logic being grounded in the nature of the creator of the universe, TB. I am not trying to argue that the Bible is inerrant! Stay on topic, TB! The worst that can come from your argument is that perhaps there is an error in the Bible, not that my argument about “God creating the universe according to the logical laws he had in mind” is false.

    Second: I encourage you to do a little reading (it is very academic), of a book entitled: “Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview.” Craig and Moreland demonstrate how these things are not logically incoherent at all. In fact, I have ten future blogs already typed out and ready to go that I will be releasing in the upcoming year. I will demonstrate how there is absolutely nothing about concepts like the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ that violate the laws of logic once one has a proper understanding of the philosophy of substances and properties.

    ”You said, “We never have perfect knowledge of things…”

    I asdked, “Do you have perfect knowledge of that, TB?”

    You are finally starting to see your inconsistency and replied: “Gee, ya got me, guess I gotta go to church now.”

    You continued, “No, I don’t have perfect knowledge of it; that’s the whole point.”

    Hmmm… TB, do you have perfect knowledge that you don’t have perfect knowledge?

    You continued: “You don’t either. What do you have perfect knowledge of, the Bible?”

    Nope! I do not have 100% certainty that God exists or that the Bible is true. However, I do have good reasons (i.e., JUSTIFCATION) to think God probably does exist and has raised Jesus from the dead. I do not know this with certainty; however, I do know this with high degrees of certainty based on logic, science, and the historical method. Therefore, given my justification, I can make knowledge claims about God and Jesus.

    You said, “But at least I *know* that I don’t know, as opposed to you claiming to have such perfect knowledge, when your foundations aren’t any more perfect than mine.”

    I just said that I don’t claim to possess “perfect knowledge,” TB. I claim to have JUSTIFICATION for my beliefs. This justification is based in science, logic, and the historical method. All you have is presupper assumptions! Any worldview based on logical incoherence is no worldview an intellectual should espouse!

    I said, “TB, I start with logic, and logically conclude that God exists via arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Contingency Argument, the Moral Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Ontological Argument, my FreeThinking Argument, and many more.”

    You replied: “Oh yeah, did you really START with logic? Remember the ninth commandment before you answer. Based on that video you posted in May, it sounds to me like you only started looking into the logic of the faith you already had…”

    I do start with logic to make my case for Christian theism, TB. Please demonstrate one argument where I don’t do otherwise. I did think Christianity was true at the time; however, I made a commitment to study and see if there was evidence to JUSTIFY my beliefs at the time. I made a commitment to be more committed to the TRUTH than I was to religion. I made a commitment to follow the logical, scientific, and historical evidence wherever it lead. During that journey I changed my mind about many things. I used to be a die-hard young earth, Calvinistic, presupper. Now I adamantly reject all three of those positions because of the evidence that is based upon logic. With that said, I realized that God probably does exist and that “Mere Christianity” is probably true. After examining all the data, I could never have enough blind faith to be an atheist!

    I said, “Moreover, you make a huge mistake of claiming that only a deity can make sense of immaterial or supernatural souls. That is plain and simply false!”

    You didn’t even try to answer that objection and simply said, “Oh, brother. By your own words shall ye be judged.”

    Okay…?

    TB, you said: “YOU were the one who said, “8- The best explanation for the existence of the soul is God.” Are you now admitting that was a flawed conclusion?”

    Go do a quick study on the difference between a deductive conclusion and a logical inference (abductive or inductive conclusions), TB, and then get back to me so we can have an academic discussion.

    I said, “If the non-rational laws of nature and past events force and causally determine one’s considerations, examinations, and estimations, then one cannot rationally affirm, justify, or provide any warrant that their beliefs are true (including a person’s belief that naturalism is true).”

    You replied: “But as even you have admitted by this point, being rational and having true beliefs are not the same, so not being able to provide any warrant that your beliefs are true does not mean they can’t be rational.”

    Geesh! You can happen to hold true beliefs for irrational reasons, TB, but this is not knowledge. Moreover, all you can do is presuppose and beg questions if this is the case. The process of rationality (which requires libertarian free will) leads to justification for your beliefs so they count as knowledge claims. If you don’t have that, TB, you are nothing but a PRESUPPER!!!

    Regarding your attempt to craft a syllogism, I said, “That was a complete mess. Let me help you out, TB”

    Your response: “Ah yes, that classic Christian charity. Christ commands us to lift people up, but we can’t do that unless we knock ’em down first, right?”

    Do you want me to lie to you and tell you it was an intelligent argument? Now you are engaged in another logical fallacy of ad hominem attack. You are attacking my character instead of engaging with my argument. Deal with my argument please. Even if I was the most evil person on the planet, that has nothing to do with the truth-value of my premises.

    I offered two premises for you to consider:

    1- Naturalists *presuppose* their determined beliefs are true (even if they aren’t) and call it “rationality.”
    2- The Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism provides a defeater to the naturalists determined beliefs in naturalism (not to mention atheism).

    I said, “Feel free (if you can do such a thing) to finish the rest of this argument for me, TB!”

    You replied: “Why would I want to finish an argument that starts with two false premises?”

    Let me provide justification for these two statements that demonstrate they are not false as you presuppose, TB.

    *1- If all beliefs are determined (and beliefs about beliefs are determined), then all justification is lost and all one can do is *presuppose* his beliefs are true and the [person that was determined to disagree with him is false. If you disagree, please provide some justification for your beliefs that does not beg any questions or reason in circles!

    *2- The Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism provides a defeater to the naturalists determined beliefs in naturalism (not to mention atheism). See premise (2) & (3).

    You said, “1. All of your arguments are based on the idea that people can’t have justified knowledge without libertarian free will.”

    EXACTLY!

    You said, “2. Libertarian free will means something beyond our genetics and experiences influences our choices.”

    Not quite, TB! LFW can only be grounded in something that is not a product of the falling dominoes of a cause and effect material universe. My point is that there must be something about humanity that allows us to choose to approximate to the laws of logic instead of being forced by the laws of nature.

    You said, “3. You have provided no evidence to support the idea that something beyond our genetics and experiences influences our choices, except arguments which are themselves based on the idea that people can’t have justified knowledge without libertarian free will.”

    TB, I started with premises that the vast majority of naturalists agree to such as “If naturalism is true the soul does not exist,” and, “if everything that exists is nature, then everything is determined by the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the big bang.” The rest of the steps of the argument follow from there once definitions are articulated clearly, TB. Go read the article a few more times and let it sink in a bit. I provided DEDUCTIVE proof that naturalism is false! All you can do is PRESUPPOSE and ASSUME otherwise! Don’t you see that all you are is a presupper?

    You said, “Provide some actual data, not ungrounded assertions, to support your claim…”

    I did provide logical data, TB! It’s the same laws of logic that science is based on. Do you simply presuppose that logical data won’t work? What justification do you have for that belief?

    I asked you: “What justification do you have for naturalism or atheism?”

    You said, “Lots,” and provided a link. TB, should I start posting links refuting all of those links, or do you want to make your case. Pick your favorite argument and post it here. What argument do you have that deductively concludes “Thereofre, atheism is true,” that you believe is sound and that I will not be able to refute? I love looking at these!

    You said, “I DO NOT give you (or anyone else who sees this) permission to use any of this content (presumably for the purposes of trying to refute it) on your website without my prior permission.”

    Well, if you don’t want to be on the website, don’t jump on in the first place! If you write incoherence attached to my articles, I will always respond!

    You asked to go to private email to have this conversation. I must decline your offer as the only people I talk to privately are the ones who actually make good points. You have denied the use of reason and have continually proven to be nothing but a presupper. The only reason I am continuing this dialogue with you right now is so that all of those following along can see how incoherent naturalism is.

    Thanks for your help!

    PS: As Thomas Paine said, “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”
• TBJUL 15, 2015

  > “After examining all the data, I could never have enough blind faith to be an atheist!”

  Me neither. I examined a whole lot of data (as revealed in that link I sent you), and so now I am a proud and confident atheist, not through blind faith, but because of the overwhelming weight of evidence on the side of the atheistic position. I was not an atheist before I studied the evidence, therefore there was never a point when I was an atheist through blind faith. You admitted in that video that you were a theist before you studied the evidence, which means there was a point when you were a theist by blind faith. So saying you don’t have enough blind faith to be an atheist sounds like more psychological projection to me.

  > “You asked to go to private email to have this conversation. I must decline your offer as the only people I talk to privately are the ones who actually make good points.”

  Fortunately, I don’t have that limitation, or else I never would’ve invited you to have an email discussion with me in the first place. It amazes me how you’ve built up this wall of arrogant pretentiousness and intellectual snobbery, misunderstanding and misrepresenting and missing the point of EVERY SINGLE THING I SAY, while claiming that your position is so self-evidently obvious, and I’m the one who’s abandoned reason. You seem like someone who’s desperately struggling to hold on to a worldview that some part of you knows is deeply, pathetically false, and it’s really just kinda depressing to see how far down into irrationality your stubborn dependence on that flawed worldview has taken you.

  I see no reason to continue being depressed by how much dogma has blinded you, nor to continue being insulted by your deeply condescending and un-Christlike tone, nor do I think it’s worth the effort to take the exorbitant amount of time it would require to explain to you all the many and varied ways that your last post hideously missed the point (all the points, really). I think I’ve taken my side of this conversation as far as it can go, and if I had realized that your argument was just a slight variation of the patently nonsensical Transcendental Argument, I would’ve never wasting my time trying to use rationality to refute something so purely illogical in the first place.

  I think the Thomas Paine quote is spot on, and I’m sure that we can all agree that one of us has “renounced the use of reason.” Of course, neither one of us will ever be able to convince the other that they were the one who did so. So I’m done, but it’s okay, I understand how the internet works. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back that your superior God-given logic bested my blind atheistic dogma. I’m quite comfortable about that not being what really happened, but it appears that you’re far too willfully ignorant about far too many things for me to ever convince you of that, no matter how much time and effort I waste on this fruitless discussion.

  But I would like to leave you with one thought. If your goal for this “ministry” is to convince people who are already believers that their belief is rational, you’re probably doing okay. I believe that William Lane Craig is an absolute master at making fundamentally irrational arguments sound much better and more rational than they actually are (as shown in the document I’ve already mentioned), and you seem like you’re following in his deceptive footsteps quite capably.

  But if your goal is to show people who are not believers how rational belief is, then boy, your methodology just STINKS. Do you really think you can condescend people into faith? Do you really think using such a wildly insulting and demeaning tone is the way to get people to realize they were wrong about non-belief? Do you really think acting like this discussion is some kind of recreational contest to be won or lost for the sake of your ego (“Game, Set, Match!”) is really the best way to apprehend truth? Do you think any of that is what Jesus would want you to do?

  In short, do you really think ANYTHING you’ve said to me in the course of this discussion was actually the best way to convince me that the God of the Bible is real, and living in your heart? Because if you do honestly believe that, you are deeply, woefully mistaken. And frankly, if you do sincerely believe that, then I would say it’s proof-positive to me that the Holy Spirit did not guide your thoughts and actions.

  So, that’s a little something to think about (and pray about, if you must), and I’ll leave you alone with those thoughts, since I see no reason to carry this conversation forward with someone like you. If you know any intelligent Christians who aren’t insulting, condescending, pretentious, and arrogant, then feel free to send them my way. I’d be happy to have any sort of discussion they’d like to have, on any subject. I’ve had many good, thought-provoking discussions with intellectual Christians in the past, and hope to have many more in the future. You, on the other hand, and your excessively douchey tone, just make me a little more glad that I’m not a Christian.

  Even if naturalism was as irrational as your fallacy-ridden arguments claim, it would be still orders of magnitude better than the smug sense of self-righteousness that you’re selling.
• 
  
• Tim Stratton commented on Freethinking Atheists are Oxymorons.
  in response to TB:

  > “After examining all the data, I could never have enough blind faith to be an atheist!” Me neither. I examined a whole lot of data (as revealed in that link I sent you), and so now I am a proud and confident atheist, not through blind faith, but because of the overwhelming weight of […]

  TB, let me start with your last statement. You said, “Even if naturalism was as irrational as your fallacy-ridden arguments claim, it would be still orders of magnitude better than the smug sense of self-righteousness that you’re selling.”
  TB, I may be a little sarcastic at times (I’m sorry about that), but specifically pointing out one’s logical errors is not an attack on his character. Do you call your math teacher, “self-righteous,” when they correct your math? When I am corrected, I thank the person who specifically pointed out my mistake. I do not call them “self righteous.” I felt you were being a little sarcastic with me, and I do love good sarcasm. I felt that you wouldn’t mind a little back. I’m sorry for crossing the line.
  I said, “After examining all the data, I could never have enough blind faith to be an atheist!”
  You replied: Me neither. I examined a whole lot of data (as revealed in that link I sent you), and so now I am a proud and confident atheist, not through blind faith, but because of the overwhelming weight of evidence on the side of the atheistic position.”
  Okay, TB, (in all humility) here is some inconsistency on your part. You have already agreed that on your presupposed view of naturalism (there is no proof you have that nature is all that exists), everything is determined including your thoughts and beliefs. This means that your thoughts and beliefs that these arguments for atheism are good were forced upon you even if these arguments are logically incoherent (and they are). You disagree, but you can only presuppose that your determined beliefs that atheism is true is good. Thus, you deny the use of genuine reason. I appeal to reasoning process (i.e., the process of rationality) which mandates libertarian free will, to come to my conclusion. You reject the process of reason, and that is why I shared the Paine quote with you.
  I am not trying to be mean, snarky, or sarcastic here, TB, but all you are doing is reasoning in circles and that is not reasoning at all! You can disagree, but you admit that your disagreement is determined and forced upon you if it is valid or not. You are in no position to KNOW until you freely choose to reject naturalistic determinism. Until then, you will continue to beg the question (a logical fallacy). Any argument based on a logical fallacy is no argument at all.
  You said, “I was not an atheist before I studied the evidence, therefore there was never a point when I was an atheist through blind faith.”
  TB, unless you give me a strong argument committing no fallacies leading to the deductive conclusion: “Therefore, atheism is true,” I don’t see how you can say that? Especially when there are so many arguments based on logic, science, and the historical method that demonstrate atheism and naturalism are false.
  TB, you said, “You admitted in that video that you were a theist before you studied the evidence, which means there was a point when you were a theist by blind faith. So saying you don’t have enough blind faith to be an atheist sounds like more psychological projection to me.”
  I realized (back in the day) that I did not have good *reason* to show Christianity was true. I did not have reason to reject it at that point either (until the young man offered me some objections). I decided to follow the evidence wherever it lead. I even stood on the stage at church and told everyone that I was going on a journey and if I were to be convinced that atheism is true (or even that Christianity was false) then I would immediately quit my job and use my education degree. I decided that if the evidence lead to Islam, I’d become a Muslim, if it lead to Buddhism, I’d become a Buddhist, and if it lead to atheism, then I would become an outspoken atheist. The evidence definitely changed many of my views regarding Christianity; however, I have come to see that Christian theism (“mere Christianity”) is by far the inference to the BEST explanation. Atheism isn’t even on the table as a plausible hypothesis of reality after considering ALL of the data. If you disagree, please convince me with your own argument! Let’s examine the soundness of these arguments.
  You said, “It amazes me how you’ve built up this wall of arrogant pretentiousness and intellectual snobbery, misunderstanding and misrepresenting and missing the point of EVERY SINGLE THING I SAY, while claiming that your position is so self-evidently obvious, and I’m the one who’s abandoned reason.”
  TB, I copy and paste your own words and interact directly with them. I also offered a logically valid (structurally sound) deductive argument which leads to the conclusions that 1- Libertarian Free Will exists, 2- The soul exists, and 3- Naturalism is false! You have done NOTHING to disprove or even offer a reason to doubt any of the four premises which leads to those three deductive conclusions! NOTHING! In fact, you have inadvertently supported them.
  Moreover, how does pointing that out make me arrogant,” or “pretentions,” of an “intellectual snob?” Again, do you accuse your mathematics teacher of this when they correct your mathematics errors? Maybe you did, but I doubt it. If that’s the case, it seems like you might have double standards when it comes to logic (the very foundation of math). I know it is humbling when anyone points out exactly why one is making an error in reasoning, but pride is not a good reason to reject logic.
  TB, you said, “You seem like someone who’s desperately struggling to hold on to a worldview that some part of you knows is deeply, pathetically false, and it’s really just kinda depressing to see how far down into irrationality your stubborn dependence on that flawed worldview has taken you.”
  Well, TB, maybe that is the pot calling the kettle black? I encourage you to apply your own words to yourself. After all, I am the one constantly referring to logical argumentation as objectively true, and you are the one that claims logic is subjective (man-made) and holds to presuppositions instead of conclusions. Again, I’m not trying to me mean, I’m just pointing out facts.
  TB, you said, “I would’ve never wasting my time trying to use rationality to refute something so purely illogical in the first place.”
  TB, I sincerely desire for you to use the process of rationality (which requires libertarian free will) to specifically point out what premise of my argument you freely think is wrong, and exactly WHY it is wrong. To this point, you have only presupposed your determined beliefs are true. That does not count as a rational argument. I actually want to see good reasons to reject my argument (I don’t want to waste years of doctoral research on it if it is faulty).
  TB, you said, “I think the Thomas Paine quote is spot on, and I’m sure that we can all agree that one of us has “renounced the use of reason.” Of course, neither one of us will ever be able to convince the other that they were the one who did so.”
  Well, if determinism is true, then you would be determined to think you have not renounced the use of reason, even though you had. Your thoughts about that very statement would also be determined (and even your thoughts about that prior thought). None of your thoughts are your own, TB; they are forced upon you if they are any good or not. Your very own worldview provides a defeater to your own worldview. This is why the famous atheist neuroscientist and philosopher says that if naturalism is true, then, “Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control.”
  You assume libertarian free will in all of your statements that reject libertarian free will.
  You said, “If your goal for this “ministry” is to convince people who are already believers that their belief is rational, you’re probably doing okay.”
  Thank you, TB. That is one of my “goals.” With that said, I am also seeing many atheists, agnostics, and skeptics come to see that atheistic naturalism is logically incoherent. Most of the time they come to the realization that mere Christianity is probably true and choose to put their justified reasons for faith in Christ. I see two types of atheists: 1- People that just think God does not exist. 2- People that are committed to their presupposed faith that God does not exist. I’ve never changed the mind of the latter, but the former comes to Christ quite often. It seems to me that you might belong to the latter, but I do not know for sure.
  You said, “Do you really think using such a wildly insulting and demeaning tone is the way to get people to realize they were wrong about non-belief? Do you really think acting like this discussion is some kind of recreational contest to be won or lost for the sake of your ego (“Game, Set, Match!”) is really the best way to apprehend truth? Do you think any of that is what Jesus would want you to do?”
  First of all, TB, as I said above, merely pointing out the logical fallacies one holds to is not a personal attack. I admit that I can be rather sarcastic at times and I do apologize. I think Jesus was quite sarcastic too because sarcasm is a great way to make points. With that said, I admit that I may have crossed the line with you. For that, I do apologize and sincerely ask for your forgiveness.
  One thing I humbly ask you to think about is this: Even if you think I am the rudest and most condescending person you have ever met, is that a good reason to reject my logically deductive argument?
  Again, I am sorry for my tone. I guess I might have been put on the defensive with the other guy’s comments under my article. After all, he went by the moniker, “Someone with more education than you obviously.” That is what I am used to, and I like to play around and be sarcastic back. I don’t take these kinds of remarks personally. I just don’t mind having a little bit of fun while having conversations about how logic works.
  Again, I humbly and sincerely apologize by crossing the line. I just encourage you think about these logical conclusions and the incoherence of naturalism… even if you don’t like me.
4. 
   
5. That last reply from Stratton didn't come from archive.org; I recovered it by copying it from my email notification that my comment had been replied to (fortunately, the email notifications from this website contained the entire body of the replies).  This was his last comment before the whole conversation was deleted, and I honestly can't remember whether I replied to it or not.  It wouldn't matter even if I did, because there'd be no way for me to recover it, since this is beyond the point that the first archive captured (and the second was after the whole thread was deleted).  I think it's more likely, however, that I probably would've let it go at his apology, because it does seem like it was genuine to me (even if the genuineness may have only been a product of not wanting to present a bad witness, but I won't assume that).  At that point, I think he had managed to repair most of the ill-will I felt for him; it was only after Richard Eng dropped the tactical nuke on the entire discussion that I got pissed off about the whole thing all over again...

1. Richard EngJUL 16, 2015
   I have removed all of the comments up to this point because, though some good objections were raised, it became an unhelpful conversation. Any further comments will be screened before being allowed. For the record, I love disagreement. I think the internet can be a great place to have this kind of deep discussion. But I also believe that these conversations must happen in the right way in order to be productive.
   If you have questions and would like to pursue a fruitful dialogue, please contact the author directly.
   -Richard Eng, owner of FreakEng Ministries

(The following is a reply to the original article, posted after the entire above conversation had been removed...)

1. Grant BresettAUG 30, 2015

   Brilliant!

   Reply
• TBAUG 30, 2015

  Yeah! Especially the part where all the comments that disagreed with it were deleted!

  Reply
• Tim StrattonAUG 30, 2015

  TB, the owner of Freakeng Ministries explained why he deleted *both* of our comments (he doesn’t play favorites). Now, of course you disagreed with the logical and deductive conclusions of my argument because of your presupposition of naturalism. I constantly pointed out how your objections were based on question-begging assumptions and other logical fallacies. You became emotional, I got sucked in and had some fun at your expense, and it became “unhelpful” as Richard Eng explained above. That is why our conversation was deleted, not because you “disagreed!”
  If you would like to engage in an intellectual conversation free from logical fallacy I would be happy to interact with you. However, if your arguments continue to be based upon logical fallacies, I will point them out again. I am not trying to be mean or a jerk by pointing out logical errors. This is not an attack on you, but rather, a demonstration as to why a specific argument (not you) is faulty.

  Reply
• TBAUG 30, 2015

  > TB, the owner of Freakeng Ministries explained why he deleted *both* of our comments (he doesn’t play favorites).

  The fact that he deleted both of our comments doesn’t mean he doesn’t play favorites. It might mean he didn’t want everybody to see how arrogant and derisive you were being.
  

  > Now, of course you disagreed with the logical and deductive conclusions of my argument because of your presupposition of naturalism.

  I have no presupposition of naturalism; this is still just as false as the first time you said it. I only “converted” from Christianity to naturalism after much thought and consideration and examination of evidence. No matter how many times you claim it’s only presupposition, it still won’t be true.
  

  > I constantly pointed out how your objections were based on question-begging assumptions and other logical fallacies.

  Ditto.
  

  > You became emotional,

  I remember it differently. Too bad the archive isn’t here so other people could judge for themselves, huh?
  

  > I got sucked in and had some fun at your expense, and it became “unhelpful” as Richard Eng explained above. That is why our conversation was deleted, not because you “disagreed!”

  So, the fact that YOU were having fun at my expense makes MY posts unhelpful? But more importantly, if that were the only reason, then why did my reply to Mark’s comment above never get through moderation at all, even though it wasn’t emotional? The only thing my comment to Mark had in common with my comments to you were that they disagreed with the Christian “party line.” Does that indicate a pattern? It just might. I guess we’ll have to wait and see whether this comment ever gets posted, or gets removed later on.
  

  > If you would like to engage in an intellectual conversation free from logical fallacy I would be happy to interact with you.

  How can I engage in conversation free from what you consider a logical fallacy, given that your standard for logical fallacy seems to be anything that doesn’t agree with your dogmatic position? You claiming something is a logical fallacy doesn’t make it so.
  Your supporting arguments for why libertarian free will must exist were full of unsupported premises and circular logic. At least, that’s my recollection. Too bad those posts aren’t here anymore to refresh my memory about all the logical fallacies you committed.
  But, I guess there’s no point in me continuing, because the more time and effort I spend to explain specifically why I think your arguments are full of holes and fallacies, the more likely it will be that these posts will also be removed, or never posted. Have fun living in your echo chamber, patting yourself on the back about how right you are while remaining blissfully sealed off from any disagreement. Or, if you don’t want to do that, give me your word that my comments won’t be removed (for anything less than clear, objective R-rated content), and then I’ll be happy to engage with you at any length you desire.

  Reply
• Tim StrattonAUG 31, 2015

  TB, you said, “The fact that he deleted both of our comments doesn’t mean he doesn’t play favorites. It might mean he didn’t want everybody to see how arrogant and derisive you were being.”
  If by “arrogant and derisive” you mean that I was having fun specifically pointing out and explaining why your objections to my argument were based on question-begging assumptions, then I guess I am guilty. I did repeatedly call you a “presupper” to make a point (that I hoped you would see), but I can see how that crossed the line and seemed condescending. For that I apologize.
  I said, “Now, of course you disagreed with the logical and deductive conclusions of my argument because of your presupposition of naturalism.”
  TB, you replied: “I have no presupposition of naturalism; this is still just as false as the first time you said it. I only “converted” from Christianity to naturalism after much thought and consideration and examination of evidence. No matter how many times you claim it’s only presupposition, it still won’t be true.”
  Okay, TB, please please share what evidence you examined that led you to logically conclude: “Therefore, nature is all that exists!”
  Do you have natural evidence that proves nature is all that exists? Why can’t there be things that are not discoverable by science or not discoverable at all? Do you have good reasons to come to these conclusions, or are they simply your presuppositions? You may have converted from one presupposition to another, but it doesn’t logically follow that your current belief is not a question-begging assumption.
  Moreover, TB, my argument demonstrates that if naturalism is true, your beliefs are not up to you. According to the worldview that you presuppose, the big bang and the laws of nature causally determine your beliefs and behaviors. Therefore, your belief in naturalism is forced upon you whether it’s true or not. Therefore, you can only presuppose that your causally determined beliefs are better than mine.
  I said, “If you would like to engage in an intellectual conversation free from logical fallacy I would be happy to interact with you.”
  TB, you replied: “How can I engage in conversation free from what you consider a logical fallacy, given that your standard for logical fallacy seems to be anything that doesn’t agree with your dogmatic position? You claiming something is a logical fallacy doesn’t make it so.”
  See, TB, this is why our conversations are not “helpful” as Richard said. I specifically explain (as I just did here) exactly WHY your arguments are logically fallacious. I point out your circular reasoning and self-defeating statements, and all you counter with are comments like: “you call a logical fallacy anything that doesn’t agree with your dogmatic position!” I’ve never just claimed you committed several logical errors, every time you have, I explained what error you fell prey to, and exactly why it is fallacious. You always ignored these and the conversation went south in a hurry.
  You said, “Your supporting arguments for why libertarian free will must exist were full of unsupported premises and circular logic. At least, that’s my recollection. Too bad those posts aren’t here anymore to refresh my memory about all the logical fallacies you committed.”
  Okay, TB, please tell me exactly how the deductive conclusion of “Therefore, libertarian free will exists” in my Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism is “unsupported” or guilty of circular reasoning. I made the case that the process of rationality which leads to knowledge is impossible on any deterministic worldview, and then I made the case that rationality and knowledge exist. For you to reject libertarian free will you also have to reject rationality and knowledge. If you reject rationality and knowledge, why should anyone be persuaded by your arguments, TB? Moreover, please make your case without assuming that your determined beliefs are better than my beliefs that you think are also determined. If you do that again, you will commit another question-begging assumption.
  TB, you said, “But, I guess there’s no point in me continuing, because the more time and effort I spend to explain specifically why I think your arguments are full of holes and fallacies, the more likely it will be that these posts will also be removed, or never posted. Have fun living in your echo chamber, patting yourself on the back about how right you are while remaining blissfully sealed off from any disagreement. Or, if you don’t want to do that, give me your word that my comments won’t be removed (for anything less than clear, objective R-rated content), and then I’ll be happy to engage with you at any length you desire.”
  Make your case, TB. I hope it’s different than the last one you made. I do not have time to waste with those unwilling to be persuaded by logic and reason. If your next response has ONE logical fallacy in it. I will point it out, and will not allow you to continue to be a troll on my posts wasting my time. Choose your argument carefully.
• TBAUG 31, 2015

  > Okay, TB, please please share what evidence you examined that led you to logically conclude: “Therefore, nature is all that exists!” Do you have natural evidence that proves nature is all that exists?

  Okay, you want to talk about logical fallacies? How about shifting the burden of proof? The problem with your argument is that we all know nature and the natural exist. So, believing in the natural is a default setting; believing in the supernatural is not (though many people still treat it as default because of cultural conditioning or indoctrination). It’s not really an accurate summation of my beliefs to say that I believe nature is all that exists, and so I need to provide proof of it. Rather, it’s more accurate to say I don’t believe in the supernatural, because you don’t have proof of it (I know you think you do, but I’ve examined the proof and I don’t find it compelling).
  It’s like if somebody doesn’t believe that aliens exist. Do you demand that they provide proof that aliens don’t exist, and call them a “presupper” if they don’t have any? You don’t need proof to NOT believe in something. Non-belief is the default we all begin with until we’re given sufficient evidence for belief.
  

  > Why can’t there be things that are not discoverable by science or not discoverable at all?

  The only way something can not be discoverable at all is if it has absolutely no effect on the natural/physical/knowable world. If we’re talking about a deist-style god, that could be possible. But the Christian God is supposed to have significant effects on people and things and the world in general, so there’s no way such a being would be not discoverable at all if it were real.
  

  > Moreover, TB, my argument demonstrates that if naturalism is true, your beliefs are not up to you.

  As I’m pretty sure I said in the previous discussion, that doesn’t matter. A belief not being up to you doesn’t mean it’s not true. You believe that Christianity is true, so let me ask you this. If a person only believes in Christianity because their parents and environment and cultural pressures indoctrinated them into believing, does that mean Christianity is not true just because they didn’t truly have any sort of free choice in the matter? Of course not, truth is truth. Something doesn’t become less true based on how somebody came to believe it was true.
  I think we talked about this the last time too (such a shame we don’t have the archive), but remind me again how this isn’t a genetic fallacy?
  

  > I specifically explain (as I just did here) exactly WHY your arguments are logically fallacious.

  Just because you give an explanation of why you think something is a logical fallacy doesn’t automatically mean it is. My contention (which I think I’ve shown a little of in this very post) is that your explanations and reasoning for why my arguments were fallacies were just as fallacious as you were accusing me of. Well, we each think the other is engaging in fallacies; so who wins? I guess it’s the person who has the moderator on their side. It’s not like there’s an independent arbiter of logic making rulings on who is or is not committing fallacies (oh, if only).
  

  > I’ve never just claimed you committed several logical errors, every time you have, I explained what error you fell prey to, and exactly why it is fallacious. You always ignored these and the conversation went south in a hurry.

  No, I didn’t ignore them, as you can see in this post. I addressed each of your points in turn, and explained why I didn’t think it was a valid criticism.
  Let’s be honest here; since you’re trying to pin the blame on me for the “unhelpful” nature of the last discussion, I have to ask. If you were winning the argument so soundly as you characterize it here, then why wouldn’t the owner have left the whole discussion up as an example of how much more logical Christians are than atheists? If you were really running logical circles around me, wouldn’t that actually be very “helpful?”
  

  > I made the case that the process of rationality which leads to knowledge is impossible on any deterministic worldview, and then I made the case that rationality and knowledge exist.

  Ah yes, I remember now. It was circular because you made that case by redefining the word “rationality” to only include logical conclusions drawn with the involvement of a free will choice. That is question-begging, because the premise (that “rationality” according to your definition does exist) necessitates the conclusion (that free will exists) for the premise to be true in the first place.
  At least, that’s how I remember it; I usually go back and check to verify whether my memory’s accurate, but it’s kinda hard to do that with this one.
  

  > For you to reject libertarian free will you also have to reject rationality and knowledge.

  Or, I could just reject your definitions of rationality and knowledge, since you just changed the meanings of the words to suit your purposes (if I recall correctly).
  

  > If your next response has ONE logical fallacy in it. I will point it out, and will not allow you to continue to be a troll on my posts wasting my time.

  And who decides what constitutes a logical fallacy? Let me guess…
• 
  
• Tim StrattonAUG 31, 2015

  I asked, “TB, please please share what evidence you examined that led you to logically conclude: “Therefore, nature is all that exists!” Do you have natural evidence that proves nature is all that exists?”
  You replied: “Okay, you want to talk about logical fallacies? How about shifting the burden of proof?”
  TB, reasonable Christians are happy to accept the “burden of proof.” It’s quite light actually. We have a plethora of data — a cumulative case of evidence — that demonstrates not only that naturalism is probably false, but that God probably exists! I’ve written on many of these arguments utilizing logic, science, and the historical method which demonstrate theism with high degrees of probability (feel free to read my other articles). David Hume said “wise men choose probabilities.” I couldn’t agree more!
  So, TB, the burden is now back on your shoulders. What evidence do you have that nature is all that exists? What logic-based arguments do you possess that conclude: “Therefore, naturalism is true?” Do you have any evidence or do you simply assume naturalism and then argue naturalism is true because you assume it’s true? If you do that, you are GUILTY of begging the question. That, my friend, is a logical fallacy. Moreover, any argument based on a logical fallacy is no argument at all!
  TB, you said, “The problem with your argument is that we all know nature and the natural exist. So, believing in the natural is a default setting.”
  TB, you are making two grave errors here. Let’s take the second mistake first. What do you mean by “default setting?” Why even have a “default setting?” Why not start with pure neutrality and an open mind to avoid bias? Moreover, I have never asked you to reject the existence of nature, TB. The question is this: Is there more to reality than simply what can be experienced via the five sense or discovered scientifically? You are assuming that nature is all that exists, to argue that nature is all that exists. TB, that is a logical fallacy.
  Second, did you know that many physicists today are questioning the existence of space and matter. Even the well-known atheistic theoretical physicist, Sean Carroll, has recently written on the issue. In fact, Scientific American recently wrote on the topic. Here’s the info: Michael Moyer, Is Space Digital?, Scientific American (Special Collector’s Edition), Fall 2014, 104-111. Much recent high-end theoretical physics has lent weight towards the possibility that the fabric of space is emergent. The consensus among quantum gravity researchers is converging on the view that space is not fundamental but, in fact, emerges from underlying information (information is not a material kind of thing). Take the world-renowned theoretical physicist, Dr. Fotini Markopoulou, for example. She makes the following statements: “ I’m not so sure you could describe a world without a time, but describing a world without space is an easier job.” She goes on to say, “If there is no time, then things do not happen… space is a bit easier to do away with.”
  Here’s the thing, TB: If space does not exist, neither does matter!
  Now, TB, let me make it clear that I am not arguing for idealism here. I think matter probably exists; I just think the immaterial *also* exists and we have good reason to think it does. However, I am pointing out that your biased and so-called “default position” is rejected by many scientists today!
  So, I have a cumulative case of evidence that demonstrates the immaterial/supernatural probably exists, and there are many scientists today that have reason to believe that space and matter do not exist at all. Moreover, you have no evidence that the supernatural does not exist. All you have is your precious presuppositions. Remember, to argue your worldview is true because you presuppose it’s true is a logical fallacy.
  You said, “It’s not really an accurate summation of my beliefs to say that I believe nature is all that exists, and so I need to provide proof of it. Rather, it’s more accurate to say I don’t believe in the supernatural, because you don’t have proof of it (I know you think you do, but I’ve examined the proof and I don’t find it compelling).”
  It’s not my fault that you don’t find the evidence “compelling,” TB. There are many young earth creationists out there today that don’t find the evidence for evolution over billions of years compelling, but don’t ya think they probably should? The jury that examined the evidence in the O.J. Simpson trial didn’t find the DNA evidence “compelling” either, but they should have. I know many scientists at secular universities that have found the evidence compelling and now reject naturalism. In fact, over half of scientists in America today don’t just reject naturalism, they believe in God or a “Higher Power.”
  http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
  I’m not appealing to the majority to argue the majority is correct (that would be a fallacy), I’m simply pointing out that your biased “default position” does not seem to be shared with most scientists, let alone the rest of the world. What reasons do you have to think your biased default position is better than theirs?
  With that said, at least the cumulative case of evidence against naturalism doesn’t commit logical fallacies, and you have to resort to fallacious reasoning to hold on to your presupposed beliefs. Given all the arguments based on logic, science, and the historical method that naturalism is probably false, and the scientific data to at the very least question the existence of space and matter, your presuppositions and biased “default position,” is on very thin ice. In fact, the ice has broken!
  You said, “It’s like if somebody doesn’t believe that aliens exist. Do you demand that they provide proof that aliens don’t exist, and call them a “presupper” if they don’t have any?”
  I would ask what reason they don’t believe in aliens! I doubt the existence of aliens (intelligent E.T. life) based on the mathematical improbabilities of life evolving in the relatively young and expanding 14 billion year old universe twice. But it is definitely not impossible and I’m willing to be proven wrong. So, I have reason to doubt alien life, but I’m open to examine new evidence and change my mind. If there were a cumulative case of arguments using logic and science that concluded: “Therefore, aliens probably exist,” I would definitely put my faith – a reasonable faith – that aliens probably do exist.
  I think it would be downright foolish if there were a cumulative case of evidence utilizing logic, science, and the historical method all pointing to the probably existence of aliens, to emotionally exclaim: “Well, humanity is the default position! We know humans exist!” I think you know that’s foolish too, TB.
  TB, you said: “You don’t need proof to NOT believe in something.”
  Sure, TB, but without justification your belief, one way or the other, does not count as a knowledge claim. If you do not have justification, evidence, warrant, or proof, then arguing for your beliefs is begging the question – a logical fallacy – even if it happens to luckily be right.
  I asked, “Why can’t there be things that are not discoverable by science or not discoverable at all?”
  And here we have the coup de grace of all logical fallacies with your reply, TB! You said, “The only way something can not be discoverable at all is if it has absolutely no effect on the natural/physical/knowable world.”
  Can we know things logically, TB? You are presupposing that science is the only way to KNOW. But here’s the question: How do you KNOW that? Did you test the natural/physical/material world and discover that this is the only way to discover things? NO, TB, YOU ASSUMED & REASONED IN A CIRCLE!
  TB, to dig a deeper hole for your worldview, you said, “If we’re talking about a deist-style god, that could be possible. But the Christian God is supposed to have significant effects on people and things and the world in general, so there’s no way such a being would be not discoverable at all if it were real.”
  Okay,TB, now you are making theological assumptions too. At this point, at least you are open to the idea of Deism (God’s existence); however, your assumption seems to assume that God is the type of thing that behave as material/non-persons behave. Your theological assumptions about God are not the views I have of God.
  I said, “Moreover, TB, my argument demonstrates that if naturalism is true, your beliefs are not up to you.”
  TB, you replied: “As I’m pretty sure I said in the previous discussion, that doesn’t matter. A belief not being up to you doesn’t mean it’s not true.”
  Oh my goodness! TB, did you know that missing the point is actually considered a logical fallacy? That’s what you are doing here. In fact, I already explained above that beliefs without warrant can still happen to be true; however, you could never *know* it! Knowledge is defined as JUSTIFIED true belief. On your deterministic view, TB, you have no warrant that naturalism or atheism is true as you claim the big bang and the laws of nature determine all things, and then ASSUME that your determined views are true and my determined views are false. How do you know your determined views are any good – let alone true? All you can do as reason in circles, presuppose, and beg the question! I’m sorry you cannot understand this, TB, but you are guilty of committing logical fallacies!
  TB, you continued: “You believe that Christianity is true, so let me ask you this. If a person only believes in Christianity because their parents and environment and cultural pressures indoctrinated them into believing, does that mean Christianity is not true just because they didn’t truly have any sort of free choice in the matter?”
  No, this would not mean that Christianity is false. HOWEVER, it does mean that this person in question does not have good reasons to be a Christian. Again, TB, you are missing the point because I have offered many reasons to think God exists and that Christianity is probably true. The example you offered is not even close to what I am offering. This is dangerously close to attacking a straw man. By the way, when you use the term “free choice” above, you inappropriately equate “lack of choices” with scientific causal determinism. This is not the same thing, and to equivocate these two concepts would be, yet again, another logical fallacy.
  You said, “Something doesn’t become less true based on how somebody came to believe it was true.”
  I agree, TB, but again, you miss the point. If atheism were true, and the only reason your kids become atheists is because they were raised by atheist parents, then this is not a good or warranted reason to be an atheist, even if atheism happens to be true – they need good reasons! Now, if God exists, and someone is a theist just because they live in the Bible Belt, this is not a good reason to be a theist even if theism is true. However, this is also not a good reason to conclude that since they are theists for bad reasons – because of their environment and upbringing – then atheism must be true. This would be committing the genetic fallacy.
  I pointed out the following: “I specifically explain (as I just did here) exactly WHY your arguments are logically fallacious . . .”
  You interrupted me and said, “Just because you give an explanation of why you think something is a logical fallacy doesn’t automatically mean it is.”
  Wow! So now you are the one that never provides explanations but only presupposed assumptions, and moreover, now it is you who claims that logical explanations of things are no good. I think our conversation is over, TB.
  TB, you said, “My contention (which I think I’ve shown a little of in this very post) is that your explanations and reasoning for why my arguments were fallacies were just as fallacious as you were accusing me of. Well, we each think the other is engaging in fallacies; so who wins?”
  The guy who can explain exactly why the other is committing logical fallacies and has the evidence on his side. That’s me by the way. You can disagree all you want, but that’s not my problem. I appreciate you making the case for theism for all rational readers following along.
  I said, “I’ve never just claimed you committed several logical errors, every time you have, I explained what error you fell prey to, and exactly why it is fallacious. You always ignored these. . .”
  Your response: “No, I didn’t ignore them, as you can see in this post. I addressed each of your points in turn, and explained why I didn’t think it was a valid criticism.”
  You did? If you count defending logical incoherence with more logical fallacies, then I guess you did do that, TB.
  TB, you asked: “Let’s be honest here; since you’re trying to pin the blame on me for the “unhelpful” nature of the last discussion, I have to ask. If you were winning the argument so soundly as you characterize it here, then why wouldn’t the owner have left the whole discussion up as an example of how much more logical Christians are than atheists? If you were really running logical circles around me, wouldn’t that actually be very “helpful?””
  Richard Eng excoriated me for being ungracious to you despite destroying your arguments (he has high standards). That is something I am trying to work on and I am being careful to not attack you, but only your arguments now. Although I am sure I am not perfect, I’m positive that if I keep this tone, Richard will be more than happy to leave this “helpful” interaction on his website.
  I said, “I made the case that the process of rationality which leads to knowledge is impossible on any deterministic worldview, and then I made the case that rationality and knowledge exist.”
  You amazingly retorted that it was I that is now the one guilty of begging the question! You said, “It was circular because you made that case by redefining the word “rationality” to only include logical conclusions drawn with the involvement of a free will choice. That is question-begging, because the premise (that “rationality” according to your definition does exist) necessitates the conclusion (that free will exists) for the premise to be true in the first place.”
  You can deny the process of rationality that I argued for and explained, TB. Feel free to reject that you do not think of or about competing options, and that you do not really deliberate between them, and that it is impossible for you to *freely* choose (requires free will) the BEST explanation. Feel free to reject that detailed explanation, TB, but if you admit that you do not freely choose the best explanation, then you are right back where you started, ASSUMING that your determined beliefs are the BEST ones (let alone the true ones). TB, this is the epitome of BEGGING THE QUESTION!
  TB, your question-begging beliefs do not count as justification for your beliefs; therefore, your worldview demonstrates that you do not possess knowledge, as knowledge is JUSTIFIED true belief. Therefore, TB, based on your own unwarranted beliefs, you don’t know what you are talking about.
  *Please note: I am not attacking your character! I am simply pointing out the logical implications of your own worldview! You ought to get a new one!
  I reminded you that “to reject libertarian free will you also have to reject rationality and knowledge.”
  You replied: “Or, I could just reject your definitions of rationality and knowledge!”
  Feel free, TB! Feel free to carry that heavy burden all you want! Feel free (if free will exists) to state that knowledge does not require justification, or that rational beliefs are those that we are forced to believe and assumed to be the best without justification that they are the best. Feel free, TB.
  TB, in my last response to you, I made the following comment: “If your next response has ONE logical fallacy in it. I will point it out, and will not allow you to continue to be a troll on my posts wasting my time.”
  TB, you have tried to defend your logical fallacies with even more logical fallacies. As I mentioned, I have more important things to do than argue with people that reject the standard definition of knowledge so that they can cling to their precious presuppositions and incoherent worldview.
  Our conversation is over.

(You can find my reply to this post and further backstory about the whole pointless conversation here.  What follows is a different reply to the original article that started up the argument between me and Stratton one last time.)

1. Nate JohnsonSEP 2, 2015

   Tim, I am a theist who happens to think your logic isn’t quite straight here. One quite simply doesn’t need to assert a soul into the premise to allow for human rationality; or at least, your argument needs buttressing here. You have to show how the rational self in dependent upon the idea of an immaterial soul and I don’t think your argument does enough to clearly ground this premise. As the above post shows, there are plenty of sound arguments against mind-body dualism, the fact that the whole idea of substance-dualism not being a popular idea within classic biblical scholarship notwithstanding, one has to climb a higher intellectual hike to stake the claim that you are making–that free-thinking atheists are oxymorons. Besides all of this, what practical positivity can be gained by stating this? I mean, I happen to disagree with most “free-thinking” atheists, but I don’t feel the need to show that their entire metaphysical scaffolding is a myth. I think the discussions about their unique, individual claims about various points of faith and ideology are far more interesting and important. Is someone supposed to say ‘wow Tim, you’re right, I believe!? I think there are better ways to serve the sincere and important nuanced doubts of atheist thinkers than this… But I suppose I am not fond of classic protestant apologetics in the first place. So I am not good company in this realm, sorry.

   Reply
   • Tim StrattonSEP 4, 2015

     Thank you for raising this question, Nate. The problem with trying to summarize an entire three years of thesis work in a pop-level blog article is that there will always be good questions raised that I will need to clarify. Your question happens to fit into that category and I will happily answer it.
     You said that it is unnecessary to “assert a soul into the premise to allow for human rationality,” and that I need “show how the rational self in dependent upon the idea of an immaterial soul and I don’t think your argument does enough to clearly ground this premise.”
     Nate, I argue that in order to be rational, an agent must not only possess intentional states of consciousness (which seems unlikely – if not impossible on materialism) but specifically they must be able to genuinely think of and about competing hypotheses. Moreover, and more importantly, they also must possess the ability to *freely* deliberate and genuinely make an inference to the BEST explanation via the laws of logic instead of being causally determined by the laws of nature (or anything else). It seems obvious that if all that exists is nature, then all things would be bound and determined by the laws of nature. If all really means all, then it would logically follow that even our thoughts, beliefs, and actions are all causally determined via the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the big bang.
     Therefore, libertarian free will does not exist if naturalism is true. This is my case, and it happens to be shared by virtually all naturalists. I am not appealing to authority, I am simply pointing out that there is no reason to think determinism is not implied by naturalism. In fact, it seems to follow.
     Here’s the logical kicker: If free will does not exist, free thinking does not exist. If free thinking does not exist, then all one can do is *assume* his determined thoughts and beliefs are better than the guy who was determined to disagree with him. Assuming one is correct to argue they are correct is a logical fallacy, and any argument based on a logical fallacy is no argument at all. They may happen to be forced to hold a true belief, but it is void of any rational affirmation, warrant, or justification. Therefore, even if one happened to hold a true belief, they could never KNOW it. All they can do is assume. Therefore, if determinism is true, knowledge is impossible.
     Since determinism follows from naturalism, the naturalist cannot know what he is talking about. If naturalism happens to be true, atheistic naturalists do not know anything – no one does.
     Now, obviously some of us possess justified true beliefs and we know things. To argue against that proposition would confirm it. Moreover, if someone rejects this premise, why should anyone listen to him or her? Humans possess knowledge; therefore, there is more to reality than simply the falling dominos of this cause and effect determined universe. When it comes to the human thought process leading to knowledge, there must be something immaterial “in the mix!”
     I call this immaterial aspect to the human thought process a “soul” but one is free to call it whatever they’d like. Whatever it’s called, naturalism is false. We can summarize this via deductive syllogism:
     1- If naturalism is true, the entire human thought process is determined.
     2- Therefore, if the human thought process is not entirely determined, then there is an aspect of human reasoning that is other than nature.
     a) This supernatural aspect of the human thought process is what I call the “soul.”
     Here it is in other words:
     1- If naturalism is true, no one freely thinks & knowledge is an illusion.
     2- Freethinking exists & knowledge is not an illusion.
     3- Therefore, naturalism is false.
     Here it is symbolically:
     1- N –> ¬ FT v K
     2- FT & K
     3- ∴ ¬ N
     Nate, you said, “As the above post shows, there are plenty of sound arguments against mind-body dualism, the fact that the whole idea of substance-dualism not being a popular idea within classic biblical scholarship notwithstanding, one has to climb a higher intellectual hike to stake the claim that you are making–that free-thinking atheists are oxymorons.”
     That’s far from obvious, Nate. I specifically pointed out exactly why the above objections are fallacious and question begging. They were not “sound arguments” as you assert. I offered defeaters to the defeaters. If you think they are good arguments, my defeaters need to be defeated without begging more questions in the process. Otherwise one is left with nothing more than baseless assertions; those don’t prove anything.
     Moreover, Nate, there were no high “intellectual hikes” made to “stake any claims” that those who affirm naturalism flush justified true beliefs (knowledge) down the toilet. This is why those who affirm naturalism (most atheists in America) cannot consistently claim to be free thinkers. If free will does not exist, freethinking does not exist.
     It follows that the terms naturalistic determinism and “free thinking” are oxymoronic. They do not belong together. That is the main reason for my title (plus the headline is attention getting)! Moreover, if one equates “morons” with those who do not possess knowledge, then I suppose one could make that inference from the title as well. I am not trying to belittle the naturalist; however, I do hope to demonstrate the heavy burden they have to carry by affirming an incoherent worldview. I invite them to carry a logically coherent and extremely light burden (Matt 11:30).
     You said, “Besides all of this, what practical positivity can be gained by stating this? I mean, I happen to disagree with most “free-thinking” atheists, but I don’t feel the need to show that their entire metaphysical scaffolding is a myth.”
     That’s fine, Nate. I don’t argue that everyone needs to take this approach. However, I believe God has called me to point this out and I know it has been effective. I have seen many atheists become former atheists after dwelling upon this and the rest of the cumulative case of data. Just yesterday I met with a young man in his 20s who I have been respectfully arguing with for years. He wanted to tell me that God has used these arguments to finally convince him that Christian Theism is true.
     I’ve even had one scientist tell me that the Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism was the first thing that caused reconsideration and ultimate transformation in Christ.
     You said, “I think the discussions about their unique, individual claims about various points of faith and ideology are far more interesting and important.”
     Well, if you read all of my articles you will see that I love to talk about these issues as well. I think they are very important, but it does not logically follow that since discussing “various points of faith” is important; therefore, rational argumentation is not important (2 Cor 10:5; Phil 4:5 ESV; Col 4:3-6; 1 Pet 3:15).
     You asked, “Is someone supposed to say ‘wow Tim, you’re right, I believe!?”
     I don’t know if they are “supposed to,” but many do! It’s never happened on the spot, but I’ve seen it over the course of nine days before. I’ve seen atheists become former atheists over the course of days, weeks, months, and some after several years of arguing. I know this approach is highly effective and those who assert that atheists cannot be “argued into the Kingdom,” are simply wrong. I do not put the Holy Spirit in a box. Sometimes He uses arguments based on reason to get people’s attention. I think that is why Paul took this approach.
     You said, “I think there are better ways to serve the sincere and important nuanced doubts of atheist thinkers than this… But I suppose I am not fond of classic protestant apologetics in the first place. So I am not good company in this realm, sorry.”
     There is nothing to be sorry for, Nate. God has wired us all differently and I definitely do not think all are called into the deep waters of apologetics. Be that as it may, some are called to swim in those waters. We all have different roles to play in the Kingdom. I am honored to be standing side-by-side with those who are assigned different roles than mine. I am honored to stand by your side, Nate.
     Your brother in Christ,
     Tim

     Reply
     • TBSEP 5, 2015

       > Nate, I argue that in order to be rational, an agent must not only possess intentional states of consciousness (which seems unlikely – if not impossible on materialism) but specifically they must be able to genuinely think of and about competing hypotheses. Moreover, and more importantly, they also must possess the ability to *freely* deliberate and genuinely make an inference to the BEST explanation via the laws of logic instead of being causally determined by the laws of nature (or anything else).

       This is exactly why I said you were question-begging before. Your definition of rationality contains the stipulation that free will must exist, even though free will is the thing you’re trying to conclude. Please don’t respond by reiterating once again why you think free will is required for rationality, you’ve already made your case for that. Instead, please explain how it’s not question-begging to involve the conclusion as a necessary element of the premise.
       

       > Therefore, even if one happened to hold a true belief, they could never KNOW it. All they can do is assume.

       This is a false dichotomy. There’s a whole spectrum of possibilities in between knowing (with all caps) and simply assuming…
       

       > Since determinism follows from naturalism, the naturalist cannot know what he is talking about. If naturalism happens to be true, atheistic naturalists do not know anything – no one does.

       And that can be a very scary thought at first, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. However, there are many diverse shades of knowing, and just because under naturalism, no one “knows” anything in an absolute sense, does not mean we can’t have reasonable levels of justification for beliefs (or non-beliefs). All that really says is that people can’t be 100% of things, but 99.99% is still more than sufficient justification.
       

       > Now, obviously some of us possess justified true beliefs and we know things.

       How is this not an assumption? Saying something is obvious doesn’t nullify your need to support the premise.
       

       > Moreover, if someone rejects this premise, why should anyone listen to him or her?

       The best reason anyone should listen to anyone is because of the data and evidence they have to back it up. If someone simply says “it’s obvious,” you would be right to reject their unsupported claim, just like I’m doing with yours in this case.
       

       > 2- Therefore, if the human thought process is not entirely determined, then there is an aspect of human reasoning that is other than nature.

       But you haven’t supported the “if” statement; you only assumed it’s true, just like you criticize other people for doing.
       

       > 2- Freethinking exists & knowledge is not an illusion.

       How do you know? How is this not an assumption? If it was just an illusion and not truly justified, how would you be able to tell the difference?
       

       > This is why those who affirm naturalism (most atheists in America) cannot consistently claim to be free thinkers. If free will does not exist, freethinking does not exist.

       This is an equivocation fallacy. “Freethinking” does not mean “thinking with libertarian free will;” it means people who form their opinions and beliefs independently of authority, tradition or dogma. It’s a completely different meaning of the word “free” than the way you’re using it.
       

       > I know this approach is highly effective and those who assert that atheists cannot be “argued into the Kingdom,” are simply wrong.

       And yet, I’ve expressed an eager willingness to dialogue with you at any length you desire, and all you did was end the conversation. I’m not a troll just because I disagree with you (and I would even go so far as to say that I’ve been disagreeing a lot more respectfully than you have). On the contrary, I’m a man with a desire for TRUTH, and when I came here trying to engage in civil discourse with somebody who has an opposing viewpoint, all you did was treat me with condescension and intellectual snobbishness. Why is that? Do you not want me to be a part of the Kingdom?
       I hereby declare to you that I truly am open to being convinced (of your or any other worldview), but bludgeoning me with a smug sense of superiority is not gonna be the thing that does it, and it’s not ever going to convince me that you are a vessel for God’s message when you do so.

       Reply
       • Tim StrattonSEP 7, 2015

         Hi TB. We have had several exchanges in the past few weeks. Our discussion started out cordial and you were asking good questions. I answered all of them. I found it odd that although I would provide logically deductive and structurally valid syllogisms reaching sound conclusions, you would never accept these answers and you would try to find a way to object to them. It became clear to me that every time I specifically explained exactly why your objection committed a logical fallacy you seemed to take that as a personal attack.
         At one point, I thought I would use the tactic of helping you see how heavy your burden of a worldview was and I called you a “presupper” a few times as you were admitting that all of your thoughts and beliefs were determined and forced upon you and assuming they were correct without anyway of rationally affirming if your determined thoughts and beliefs are better than my determined thoughts and beliefs. All you did was assume and presuppose you are right. I pointed out that this is the epitome of begging the question – a logical fallacy – and any argument based on a logical fallacy is no argument at all.
         My hope was that you would see that it is not good to be a “presupper,” and that you would abandon your worldview. This approach has worked wonders with sincere truth-seekers I have interacted with. You clearly did not like my tactic and our conversation devolved into what Richard Eng described as “unhelpful.”
         My purpose for writing my blog articles is to think intellectually and logically regarding worldview. TB, you continually dismissed the laws of logic and the rules of reason and emotion entered the conversation. This is why Richard deleted our initial comments.
         You recently jumped back in and wanted to keep objecting to my argument. I have already demonstrated that my argument is structurally valid and my premises are probably true. My argument has been graded by a Bayes Theorem expert and given high marks for each premise. It’s been debated and stood the test of fire by PhD philosophers and scientists. In fact, it’s grown stronger after each debate. I am currently debating a PhD on this and other issues right now in another venue, and since I don’t want to waste my time arguing with an emotional atheist who has rejected the ability to reason, I told you that if you posted one more argument committing a logical fallacy that you would be banned from commenting on my articles any further.
         TB, not only did you commit more errors in reason, you committed several of these informal fallacies in your response. I specifically explained exactly why each of your objections were committing these logical errors, and being true to my word, I told you that our conversation was over.
         This did not seem to have any effect on you as you continued to post more fallacious objections. Your erroneous comments were deleted, but it became clear that you were committed to incessantly continue to post and repost your incoherent and emotional blather until I responded once again.
         So, it seems I must take a break from my conversation with a PhD (and my family) to continue to show you the errors of your ways. I hope this is the last time.
         Let’s start with your emotional harangue at the end of your last response. You said: “I’ve expressed an eager willingness to dialogue with you at any length you desire, and all you did was end the conversation.”
         No, TB, I demonstrated your countless logical fallacies. You ignored them and you continued to commit them. If that’s what you call “dialogue at any length,” then I do not have time for that. I desire to discuss these things with those who are committed to the laws of logic and the rules of reason. I will discuss these things at all lengths with people who are truly willing to follow the logical evidence wherever it leads. I will “end the conversation” with those opposed to logical data and reject the ability to reason who merely want to waste my time.
         You said, “I’m not a troll just because I disagree with you.”
         I never said that you were a troll for disagreeing with me. I think you are a “troll” because you want to keep arguing when you have no logical ground to stand on to disagree with me. I don’t have time for that.
         You said, “I’m a man with a desire for TRUTH, and when I came here trying to engage in civil discourse with somebody who has an opposing viewpoint, all you did was treat me with condescension and intellectual snobbishness.”
         TB, I explained above how this conversation went south. It started great, but when it became clear that you were not willing to follow logical deduction from sound arguments, it also became clear that you did not have a desire for “TRUTH” at all. That’s when I thought I’d try the tactic of the heavy burden and refer to you as a “presupper.” That obviously backfired and now you are upset. I am sorry, but it is not “intellectual snobbishness” when someone points out a logical error in one’s reasoning. If anything, a reasonable person would thank the guy.
         I suppose you think that is intellectual snobbery as well, and this is why our conversations are simply “unhelpful,” TB.
         You asked, “Do you not want me to be a part of the Kingdom?”
         Yes I do, TB! I would love that, but I cannot force you into the Kingdom; that’s a choice you have to make.
         I know you think I am an intellectual snob, but even if that were true, does that mean you should reject logical deduction (a.k.a., TRUTH)? Even if your math teacher was the biggest jerk in the world, does that mean you should reject basic arithmetic? Of course not.
         You said, “… bludgeoning me with a smug sense of superiority is not gonna be the thing that does it, and it’s not ever going to convince me that you are a vessel for God’s message when you do so.”
         TB, pointing out logical mistakes is not the same thing as “bludgeoning with smug superiority.” I do not think I am superior to you in any way, shape, or form. I see you as a man created in the image of God and who therefore has the capacity for logical reasoning. You also possess libertarian free will and can thereby freely choose to not follow logical deduction for perhaps emotional reasons. All humans struggle with this (God knows I have) and I do not look down on you because of this. I was hoping to have an “iron sharpening” discussion, but until you are willing to be logical, I must spend my time engaging with those who do not reject the ability to reason. As Thomas Paine said:
         “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead!”
         To further make my case, I will point out even more of these errors in your last response. You don’t seem to understand Modus Ponens & Modus Tollens argumentation. If you did you would not have made your next objection:
         “This is exactly why I said you were question-begging before. Your definition of rationality contains the stipulation that free will must exist, even though free will is the thing you’re trying to conclude. Please don’t respond by reiterating once again why you think free will is required for rationality, you’ve already made your case for that. Instead, please explain how it’s not question-begging to involve the conclusion as a necessary element of the premise.”
         Okay, TB, you asked me not to respond by demonstrating why the process of rationality leading to logical deduction and knowledge claims does not require free will because I am “trying” to prove free will. Why assume that I am “trying” to prove anything? I’m simply doing logical deduction as a mathematician does arithmetic. Are you “trying” to prove 4 when you add 2+2, or are you just doing the math to see what reality is? If the answer happens to be “4” then if one was “trying” to prove 4 or not is irrelevant.
         The reason why my argument is not question begging is because no where in my premises do I start by assuming libertarian free will exists. I simply state that if all that exists is nature, then all things are bound and determined via the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the big bang. I also add that virtually the entire academic community of atheistic naturalists agrees with me and argues this for me. I am not misrepresenting the intellectual leaders of the atheist community. If they did not hold this position I would argue for it myself, but they do hold the same position as I do and I let them make my case for me.
         Here is an example of begging the question or circular reasoning that many Christians make:
         1- If the Bible says it is the word of God, then it is the Word of God.
         2- The Bible says that it is the Word of God.
         3- Therefore, the Bible is the Word of God.
         This argument is fallacious because of its assumption in premise (1). It does not logically follow from this error that the Bible is not the Word of God; however, we cannot use this argument to prove the Bible is the Word of God because any argument based on a logical fallacy is no argument at all. Now, TB, my argument has no such question-begging statements in any of its premises. Let’s look at them again:
         1- If naturalism is true, the immaterial human soul does not exist.
         2- If the soul does not exist, libertarian free will does not exist.
         3- If libertarian free will does not exist, rationality and knowledge do not exist.
         4- Rationality and knowledge exist.
         5- Therefore, libertarian free will exists.
         6- Therefore, the soul exists.
         7- Therefore, naturalism is false.
         This can be further clarified in the following manner:
         1- If naturalism is true, the immaterial human soul does not exist.
         2- If the soul does not exist, libertarian free will does not exist.
         3- Rationality leading to the inference to the best explanation and knowledge implies libertarian free will (I defended and specifically explain this premise).
         4- Therefore, if libertarian free will does not exist, rationality and knowledge do not exist.
         5- Rationality and knowledge exist.
         6- Therefore, libertarian free will exists.
         7- Therefore, the soul exists.
         8- Therefore, naturalism is false.
         Let’s “check our math”:
         1. N → ¬ S
         2. ¬ S → ¬ LFW
         3. R&K → LFW
         4. ∴ ¬ LFW → ¬ R & ¬ K
         5. R & K
         6. ∴ LFW
         7. LFW → S
         8. S → ¬ N
         9. ∴ ¬ N
         There ya go, TB. There is no circular reasoning in this argument. Libertarian free will was not assumed, but it was *proven* via logical deduction. The only way to reject this is to reject the idea that knowledge gained through the inference to the best explanation does not exist and that your determined beliefs just so happen to be the ones that are correct. Again, if you assume your beliefs are the correct ones to argue they are correct, that is the epitome of begging the question and is no better than fallacious arguments like the one used to argue that the Bible is the Word of God.
         Remember, an argument based on a logical fallacy is no argument at all.
         I made the point that one’s determined beliefs could happen to luckily be correct; however, since all of our thoughts and beliefs about our thoughts and beliefs would be determined, one could never be in an epistemic position to provide justification leading to a knowledge based conclusion. I specifically stated: “Therefore, even if one happened to hold a true belief, they could never KNOW it. All they can do is assume” (which is circular reasoning).
         You responded: “This is a false dichotomy. There’s a whole spectrum of possibilities in between knowing (with all caps) and simply assuming.”
         TB, it’s interesting that given “all sorts of possibilities” you mentioned, that you didn’t even list one of them which would have destroyed my argument. All you did was offer an assertion, but those don’t get us anywhere. To clarify, I am specifically talking about the knowledge gained via the process of rationality which involves genuinely making an inference to the BEST explanation based on reasoning according to the laws of logic and not just assuming your determined thoughts and beliefs based on the laws of nature are the best (let alone the true) explanation.
         I said, “Since determinism follows from naturalism, the naturalist cannot know what he is talking about [unless he is wrong about naturalism]. If naturalism happens to be true, atheistic naturalists do not know anything – no one does.”
         You said, “… there are many diverse shades of knowing, and just because under naturalism, no one “knows” anything in an absolute sense, does not mean we can’t have reasonable levels of justification for beliefs (or non-beliefs).”
         Think about this, TB. Since you affirm determinism, it logically follows that if you happen to be right about determinism, then all of your thoughts and beliefs about everything are determined if they are true or not – including your beliefs about determinism. Therefore, your belief in naturalism is forced upon you even if there really is more to reality than just nature. After all, why can’t there be things not discoverable by science or not discoverable at all? Be careful not to beg more questions when answering, TB!
         Moreover, if determinism is true, you are determined to be an atheist even if God does exist (maybe Calvinistic determinism is true). In fact, although there are so many logically deductive arguments proving that God exists, as an advocate of determinism, according to your worldview, you are determined via the laws of nature to reject all of the logic based arguments proving atheism is false, when one who *would* have libertarian freedom *could* actually examine the evidence, freely deliberate between competing hypotheses, and actually make a genuine inference to the best explanation – a reasonable faith – in theism.
         You said, “All that really says is that people can’t be 100% of things, but 99.99% is still more than sufficient justification.”
         You are still missing the point of my argument, TB. That is NOT what the argument demonstrates at all nor what I am arguing for. Knowledge does not entail knowing things with 100 percent certainty, it is not even happening to hold true beliefs either. Knowledge is JUSTIFIED true belief. Without warrant or rational affirmation one who merely assumes his thoughts and beliefs are true (even if they happen to be true) without reason to think his thoughts and beliefs are true, is simply irrational.
         Inference to the BEST explanation (a reasonable faith) never assumes 100 percent certainty, but requires an ability to KNOW why the inference is actually the BEST hypothesis to choose from as opposed to merely assuming the thought they have no control over is the best. Again, assuming one’s determined thoughts are the best is question begging.
         How can you gain any degree of certainty on naturalistic determinism, TB? If all of your thoughts are forced upon you via the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the big bang, then how can you have any degree of certainty that atheism is true? Your very thoughts about your determined atheistic beliefs are also determined. There is no degree of certainty you can have when you realize that even your thoughts at this very moment are forced upon you. Those thoughts are either true or false, but you could not provide rational affirmation of the validity of your determined thoughts because even those thoughts are forced upon you. You lose all grounds to hold on to your worldview. You cannot KNOW or possess KNOWLEDGE if you happen to be right (by sheer luck) regarding determinism (Calvinists & B-theorists fall into the same boat).
         I said, “Now, obviously some of us possess justified true beliefs and we know things.”
         You complained: “How is this not an assumption? Saying something is obvious doesn’t nullify your need to support the premise.”
         Read my article again as I did support the premise there! It’s simple, TB. If one argues that no one possesses knowledge, then that is an affirmation that at least one person (the objector) does possess knowledge and is offering it via his objection to the premise. It’s a self-defeating objection and therefore, it is obvious – some of us do possess knowledge.
         It’s akin to the atheist who once told me, “There is no such thing as objective truth!” I asked him if that were objectively true. He realized that objective truth exists and there is no way around it. By the way, he is a Christian now.
         TB, this is a logical inference; not an assumption as you assume.
         I went on to state: “Moreover, if someone rejects this premise, why should anyone listen to him or her?”
         You said, “The best reason anyone should listen to anyone is because of the data and evidence they have to back it up. If someone simply says, “it’s obvious,” you would be right to reject their unsupported claim, just like I’m doing with yours in this case.”
         Well, TB, I just supported my claim above (and I already did this in the original article). If you really think people *should* listen to arguments backed up by data and evidence, then why don’t you follow the logical conclusions that follow from my case? I have offered evidence and logical proof that your worldview is false, yet you seem determined to hold to irrational views and commit even more fallacies in your continued objections.
         Come to think of it, TB, you just refuted yourself again by arguing for a “should.” Should and “ought” imply “can.” On naturalistic determinism, there are no “cans” or “shoulds.” There is only what IS the case. You cannot logically derive an ought from an is. If naturalism is true, there are no objective or ontological oughts as far as beliefs or behaviors go. If you think I ought not have the attitude I have with you, then you need to reject your worldview (at least if you want to be an intellectually consistent atheist).
         I said, “Therefore, if the human thought process is not entirely determined, then there is an aspect of human reasoning that is other than nature.”
         You retorted: “But you haven’t supported the “if” statement; you only assumed it’s true, just like you criticize other people for doing.”
         The only way this premise fails if you would like to make the case that no one (including yourself) is rational, makes inferences to the best explanation via logical deduction, or possesses justification for their beliefs. Do you want to make this case, if you do, as I demonstrated above, you will actually affirm it. That’s why this is not an assumption, but via logic, we can state that it is OBVIOUS that at least some people possess knowledge.
         You continued to question the reality of knowledge when I stated: “Freethinking exists & knowledge is not an illusion.”
         You exclaimed: “How do you know? How is this not an assumption? If it was just an illusion and not truly justified, how would you be able to tell the difference?”
         Do you see your self-refutation here, TB? You are offering a knowledge claim; namely, that we cannot tell the difference between knowledge and illusion of knowledge. Therefore, you are assuming that you possess knowledge to engage in argumentation. Moreover, by arguing with me, you affirm that I possess the faculties sufficient to engage in the process of rationality to derive propositional knowledge.
         I said, “This is why those who affirm naturalism (most atheists in America) cannot consistently claim to be free thinkers. If free will does not exist, freethinking does not exist.”
         You said, “This is an equivocation fallacy. “Freethinking” does not mean “thinking with libertarian free will;” it means people who form their opinions and beliefs independently of authority, tradition or dogma. It’s a completely different meaning of the word “free” than the way you’re using it.”
         This does nothing to get you off of any “hooks,” TB. If everyone’s thoughts and beliefs were determined via natural law and the big bang, then those who are determined to believe via theistic authority are just as determined as the one who is determined to believe via atheistic authority. There is nothing anyone can do about it. Even if you felt like complaining, it would be the big bang that forced you to complain.
         Moreover, I have made my case clear regarding exactly what I mean by “free thinking.” If free will does not exist, freethinking does not exist. All of your thoughts and beliefs, including the thoughts and beliefs about how much you despise me are forced upon you by the big bang. You have no control over the matter – unless you are wrong about your worldview.
         All the evidence demonstrates that your assumption of naturalism is wrong. I encourage you to freely follow the evidence wherever it leads (if you like me or not).

         Reply
         • TBSEP 7, 2015

           I’m gonna try to step away from my usual point-by-point reply. You have finally succeeded in convincing me of one thing; not that freethinking atheists are oxymorons, or that naturalism is illogical. Rather, the thing you’ve convinced me of is that this conversation has reached its effective conclusion. I truly wish that wasn’t the case; I sincerely do deeply desire an ongoing dialogue with someone, anyone, who has an opposing viewpoint from me on theological/philosophical issues.
           And yet, you’ve exemplified one of the biggest problems I’ve come across in attempting to find this. When I tell people that I’m a seeker of truth and am interested in being exposed to the alternate perspectives of people who have opposing viewpoints from mine, they seem to sometimes take that as an invitation to a one-sided sort of “witnessing session.” Their expectation seems to be that they’ll have a free chance to give me all the logical reasons they have that I should be a believer, and if I make any criticisms or attempt any refutations of their logic, they take that as evidence that I’m really not open-minded at all.
           Perhaps it might help to explain that I have Aspergers Syndrome. I’m not “playing the autism card” so you’ll have sympathy or give me special treatment. I say that only to explain that the ways you and I handle social (and intellectual) interaction are probably quite different. To me, when I’m having a dialogue with someone who I disagree with, criticism (as respectful and constructive as I can manage) is crucial to moving the conversation forward. If someone says something that I disagree with, and I believe I have good reasons for disagreeing with it, then I feel that the only way to move the conversation forward is to explain why I disagree. If I don’t explain why I disagree, so that you can explain why you disagree with my disagreement (and so forth), then what else is there to say? If we explain why we disagree with each other, then we can clarify the points of disagreement, and we’ll each have a better chance of getting closer to understanding truth (or, at the very least, understanding the relative strengths and weaknesses of our current positions.) Would it have been better if I had just said, “I don’t think your arguments are logical, but I don’t want to look like a troll, so I won’t say why?” Who does that help?
           But I don’t think that’s what you wanted anyway. What it seems like you wanted was for me to recognize the brilliance and the logical irrefutability of your arguments, and immediately abandon my worldview. But the problem is, with all due respect, I still don’t think your arguments are very logical. I attempted to show exactly why I don’t think so, but it seems pretty clear that I failed in my attempt, failed in communicating my objections clearly, because most of the questions you asked me in this last post are questions I’ve already answered. That’s why I’m now agreeing with you that this discussion is at its logical end; not because you’ve bowled me over with your bulletproof logic, but because we’ve clearly reached a point where we’re just talking around in circles. I could go through and make a lot of scathing comments about a lot of things you said in your last post that I think I have very good, rational reasons to disagree with, but why bother? It wouldn’t really be anything that hasn’t been said already, for all the good it’s done.
           One thing I did think was interesting, though, was how you acknowledged that the beginning of our dialogue was more worthwhile. I only wish we could go back to that, but it would require a pretty serious tonal shift. You say “it is not ‘intellectual snobbishness’ when someone points out a logical error in one’s reasoning.” With that much, I agree. But elsewhere in the same post, you talk about how your argument has been graded by a Bayes Theorem expert, and how you’re debating this with a PhD, but you deigned to tear yourself away from that [implicitly more important] discussion to continue to show me the error of my ways.” THAT is exactly the intellectual snobbery I was talking about, not the pointing out of alleged logical errors.
           You said, “I do not think I am superior to you in any way, shape, or form,” and yet you talk down to me like I’m some schoolchild who hasn’t learned to think yet. Maybe this is just the Aspergers talking, but I don’t think “it seems I must take a break from my conversation with a PhD to continue to show you the errors of your ways” is how people talk to others when they don’t consider themselves superior. If you don’t think you’re superior to me, you have a very strange way of showing it. I agree with you that it’s possible to point out logical error without being intellectually snobbish, I just don’t agree that you’re doing it (and, frankly, it doesn’t even seem like you’re trying to).
           On top of all that, you’ve made a host of assumptions about me and my level of desire for truth. Don’t you agree that it’s possible for two people to be on different sides of an issue, and have mutually-exclusive rational arguments, but still both have a desire for truth? If so, then you can’t assume that I don’t have a desire for truth just because you personally disagree with the rationality of my arguments. Here are a few examples, just from this post alone, where you impugn my character based on those assumptions:
           “TB, you continually dismissed the laws of logic and the rules of reason and emotion entered the conversation.”
           “I don’t want to waste my time arguing with an emotional atheist who has rejected the ability to reason…”
           “…your incoherent and emotional blather…”
           “…you seem determined to hold to irrational views…”
           “I will ‘end the conversation’ with those opposed to logical data and reject the ability to reason who merely want to waste my time.”
           “It started great, but when it became clear that you were not willing to follow logical deduction from sound arguments, it also became clear that you did not have a desire for ‘TRUTH’ at all.”
           You say I was not willing to follow logical deduction from sound arguments; I say I was explaining why the arguments were not sound. I’ll ask again: don’t you agree that it’s possible for two people to be on different sides of an issue, and have mutually-exclusive rational arguments, but still both have a desire for truth? So why then does my disagreeing with your version of rationality automatically mean that I’m determined to hold irrational views, I’ve rejected the ability to reason, I’m blathering incoherently, and I don’t have a desire for truth? Let me tell you how this looks from my perspective. It really, honestly looks like you’re saying, “the only people who are truly rational and really have a desire for truth are the ones who agree with me.” If that’s not what you’re saying, then how can you draw all those conclusions about me and my motivations without relying on assumption?
           I understand that you think your arguments are logical, so it’s hard for you to think my arguments are logical when they disagree with yours, but just because that’s the case doesn’t automatically mean that I’m willfully rejecting rationality or truth. It is possible for two people to disagree about what is rational, and yet still have a desire for truth. If you don’t accept that anyone who disagrees with you can still do so from the standpoint of seeking truth, then you’re essentially committing the intellectual version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Notice how, even while I’ve tried to show that you also are committing logical fallacies, I’ve never claimed that you’re being willfully irrational, or that you don’t have an earnest desire for truth. I haven’t done that because I don’t claim to be able to look into people’s hearts or minds and see what they’re really thinking and feeling below the surface.
           So, in closing, I agree with you that this conversation is over. But that doesn’t mean we can’t start another one. To do that, we’d both have to let go of the opinions we’ve formed about the other person’s intellect and character, but if you really do think the conversation had a great start, then I think that’s worth trying to reclaim. You can just delete this post and pretend you got the last word if you must, but I think that would be a missed opportunity. If we can both step back and treat each other like rational human beings for a change, I think we could have a lot more discussions that are as fruitful as the beginning of this one.