Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Objectivity: the illusion of Technique


 photo theoryandmodel_zpsdabbd46c.jpg






This is the culmination of a dialogue between an atheist poster on Cadre blog, named "Gary" and myself.[1] There are two major issues in this discussion, the need for "objective evidence" for a creator and historical evidence for the Resurrection. Running through both issues one assumption, the atheist assertion that science gives them the objective evidence and that religion has none because it does not have the kind of scientific backing their lauding scene is suppose to give them. The illusion is created that science is supporting atheism when in reality they are merely juxtaposing (unjustly) scientific data as a whole vs. belief in God, the pretense is that these  are competing views. They are not.,What allows them to complete the illusion is that their view is established by science as fact, That is accomplished by pretending that science and God compete for believers,

All of that is based upon the dichotomy between subjectivity and objectivity, This dichotomy is greatly misused,They assert anything not subjects to quantitative analysis is "subjective" and any doubt in God is "objective." The renegade sociologist C. Wright Mills called objectivity: the cloak of objectivity.[2]"Why? Because one uses the objective nature of quantitative analysis to hind biased assumptions,This is all the atheists are doing when they try to impose this illusion that their use of techie affords them a factual basis for their doubt,


Gary said...
Again, I am perfectly willing to accept the existence of evidence for a Creator, I just don't see good evidence for your god, Yahweh. 


Joe:
I believe in Jesus because of the things person I know told me that Jesus did in her life. I did not just believer her but since she was very intelligent it got my attention and I began searching. I was. I was therefore, disposed to call for Jesus aid when I needed it and he answered. I can;t make that happen in your life. All I can do is tell you it worked in mine.
I understand how the OT would be off putting. Really I see the OT as just a cultural artifact that is there to make the mission of Messiah meaningful. Please read my page on Biblical inspiration because I am not an inerrantist I don;t accept all of the OT.
Jesus is the revelation the Bible is just the record of some people's encounters with the Divine.
Gary
Is it possible that the THEORIES otherwise referred to as "Natural Laws" are sometimes violated? Sure. But if they are, the evidence for such violations is poor. 


Joe:
you are still thinking in terms of violating laws, they are not laws, they are only descriptions of how the universe behave since not 100% there's room for other descriptions.
Lourdes evidence is good, people who haven't studied it act like they know all aout it most of what they say about it is Bullshit.

Gary
I believe that Yahweh is an ancient myth.


Joe:
J is the place holder they used because they could not speak his name. They wrote a lot of stuff using their tribal religion to radicalize the political situation. But When J sought to show us first hand what "he" really is like and want "he" became Jesus to do it,

Gary
To me the evidence suggests that the Creator, whoever he (or she) is, is a brilliant scientist, tucked away in his laboratory somewhere, madly concocting this and that invention, without any care in the world for the end result of his inventions, as long as he finds the process entertaining.


Joe:
you are deifying science because you think is accessible to you and God is not, Science is not the mediator between us and God. I can see why you would use science because it reveals 'God;s work, in that way some of god';s mind, but Jesus isGod's mind.Loogos =ratoojal, Logos is is the rational of God.
In this second phase of exchange the immediate issue is his assertion that without guards on the tomb of Jesus the body must have been stolen. That would be the more parsimonious way to account f or the empty tomb,He removes the guards on the premise that Matthew being the sole source for them they have no historical basis. He quotes William Lane Craig saying that the majority of scholars would not accept the historicity of the guards.[3] My response was varied but the basic argument I made,that he never one single time responded to, is that there is a second ancient source for the guards that puts them on  apart with or even pre dates Matthew and is not derivative of Matthew,That is from the Passion narrative as seen in Gpete (apocryphal gospel of peter). That is established by Raymond Brown.[4] Both Crosson and Koster put the Passion narrative at mid first century pre dating Matthew by about 30 years.[5]

After never answering my argument about the second source he continues to assert the lack of historicity for the guards based upon the assertion (now disproved) that there is only one source for them. It's true both sources get their info from the passion narratives in a sense there is only one source, But that source is a lot closer to the original in time and more firmly embedded in the milieu of eye witnesses than is Matthew.  After ignoring my argumet he comes out with this:


Gary
No amount of objective evidence is EVER going to overturn the subjective evidence in your "heart", will it, Joe? The "spirit" that speaks to you and gives you comfort within is all the evidence you need to believe.
Joe:

You are still working in that mistaken dichotomy between subject.object. There is no objectivity, an objective standard is merely less subjective, There is no perfect objectivity and cultivation of that illusion is merely something to hide behind.
personal experience is true compromise. The scientific data of my studies prove the assertions of my subjective experiences,200 studies you have none, none at all,I have 200 backing my world view. Backing my experiences of God.
Learn this term. Inter=subjective, Not merely subjective but INTER-subjective. Objectivity is a sham but inter-subjectivity means it's confirmed and validated even though subjective.

Gary
There is another word for that concept, Joe. It's called: an imaginary friend. Imaginary friends provide very REAL comfort and a very real sense of security but the friend itself is NOT real, Joe. It is an illusion.
Joe:
that is a mockery of the God hater club,an attempt to disvalue and degrade personal experiences and the reality of God, But you have nothing like the vast body of confining data I have backing my views,you have not one single study reproving your view.
science does not offer you a body of conferring data, it's an excavate you are not scientific, there is no scientific basis for disbelief in God,
when you say we've reached an impasse you really mean you want to quite before you have e comnfronted with more reality that blows your ideology out of the water,,


In speaking of vast body of confirming data I not only include Brown on the guards gut also the studies on religious experience in my book The Trace of God. At every step the atheist apologist uses objectivity as a smoke screen to hide his ideological assumption, and all the while using the subjective basis of experience as an accusation of falsehood, even though totally groundless given the inter-subjective basis for belief.


Soures


[1] Atheist in comment section, "Do You say this of Your Own Accord," Cadre Comments blog, comment Section (Apil 26, 2017)
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6363362&postID=6054220452243446998&isPopup=true


[2 ] C.Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination

[3] William Lane Craig quoted by "Vinny" in "Matthews Guards and The  Evolution of William Lane Craig." Do you Ever Think about The Things you Think about? (SATURDAY, JUNE 150), 2013, blog URL  accessed5/10/17
http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2013/06/matthews-guards-and-evolution-of.html

[4] Ray Brown Death of the Messsiah, New York, NY: Doubleday, 1994 1322

see also my article on "Have Guards Will Argue, " Religious a priori accessed 5/10/17
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/

[5] Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, London. Oxford, New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark; 2nd prt. edition, 1992, 218-220.

24 comments:

Hugo Pelland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hugo Pelland said...

~~Disclaimer~~ I have not, and will not, go through the entire conversation you had with Gary. I saw the link and it's just way too long. What I am looking for are answers, should they ever come, to my questions about why I should care about your religion. In other words, I am making this personal given some of the comments you made to me directly. If you are not interested in that, let me know, or just ignore I guess, as my question is essentially about 'why' I should continue to engage in these conversation when they have absolutely no impact on my life.

"There are two major issues in this discussion, the need for "objective evidence" for a creator and historical evidence for the Resurrection. "

Objective evidence sounds like a fair request for both of these things, yes.

"science gives them the objective evidence and that religion has none"

Science does gibe objective evidence, yes. Religion can too, but our interpretations vary greatly.

" The illusion is created that science is supporting atheism when in reality they are merely juxtaposing (unjustly) scientific data as a whole vs. belief in God, the pretense is that these are competing views. They are not."

I agree with that.

"accomplished by pretending that science and God compete for believers,"

Science is what it is, it does not change because of people's opinion and does not seek believers.
God, in theory, also does not compete for believers, but the believers, the apologists, are on a mission to make others believe. That's what I am always curious about. Why do they want to do that?

"They assert anything not subjects to quantitative analysis is "subjective" and any doubt in God is "objective." [...]This is all the atheists are doing when they try to impose this illusion that their use of techie affords them a factual basis for their doubt,"

Doubt is, by definition, something subjective. It's an opinion... So I would not agree with 'they' here.

"I believe in Jesus because of [...]
Jesus is the revelation the Bible is just the record of some people's encounters with the Divine.
"

All of these reasons (removed for brevity) make sense to you, personally. I think you were mistaken, but it's not surprising that your personal experience led you to believe; there are countless stories like yours. But you concede right away that this is not something you can use to convince someone. Great, but do you have something that would actually convince anyone?

That's where having objective evidence becomes useful, though not essential, should the person you are trying to convince also end up having the same kind of life-changing subjective experiment. But my subjective opinion right now is that I don't see such divine intervention, anywhere. Every single story I hear is fantastic to the person who lived it, but completely benign from my subjective point of view. So how could I possibly be convinced?

Hugo Pelland said...

"There is no objectivity, an objective standard is merely less subjective, There is no perfect objectivity and cultivation of that illusion is merely something to hide behind. personal experience is true compromise. "

That is really interesting! I assume there is such a thing as objectivity, because I cannot possibly prove it, but I also cannot see how we cannot assume there is no objectivity. Even if we think of the possibility that God created the Universe, what he created is what it is, regardless of our opinion and regardless of God's opinion. If I create a painting, the painting is what it is, objectively, even if it was my subjective decision to paint whatever I wanted to paint.

Another way to put it is that reality is objective and thus facts about reality are independent of anyone's opinion.

Why do you disagree with that? Why do you say that "personal experience is true compromise"?

"But you have nothing like the vast body of confining data I have backing my views,you have not one single study reproving your view."

You started this post by saying that you could not possibly present data to back your personal views of the Divine, of a personal Creator. Now you claim that you do? I must be confusing 2 different positions of yours... can you clarify?

Regarding my own views (not what you were talking about obviously, but it might come up), they are in fact based on evidence, studies, and a lot of other things. Just like you, for instance, I am strongly against Trump and appreciate any groups fighting for some form of resistance. Or, in a broader sense, I base my views on the origin of the universe and our place in it purely on evidence, and not much on what people say about it. That's where I think religions differ, because they are a lot more about what people claim, feel and talk about, than what they actually demonstrate.

Joe Hinman said...

Hugo Pelland said...
~~Disclaimer~~ I have not, and will not, go through the entire conversation you had with Gary. I saw the link and it's just way too long. What I am looking for are answers, should they ever come, to my questions about why I should care about your religion. In other words, I am making this personal given some of the comments you made to me directly. If you are not interested in that, let me know, or just ignore I guess, as my question is essentially about 'why' I should continue to engage in these conversation when they have absolutely no impact on my life.

"There are two major issues in this discussion, the need for "objective evidence" for a creator and historical evidence for the Resurrection. "

Objective evidence sounds like a fair request for both of these things, yes.

"science gives them the objective evidence and that religion has none"

Science does gibe objective evidence, yes. Religion can too, but our interpretations vary greatly.

sure. I have problems with the term objective evidence but it's possible I'm just doimg semantics.

" The illusion is created that science is supporting atheism when in reality they are merely juxtaposing (unjustly) scientific data as a whole vs. belief in God, the pretense is that these are competing views. They are not."

I agree with that.

"accomplished by pretending that science and God compete for believers,"

Science is what it is, it does not change because of people's opinion and does not seek believers.
God, in theory, also does not compete for believers, but the believers, the apologists, are on a mission to make others believe. That's what I am always curious about. Why do they want to do that?

Because they are enthralled by an ideology which I label "scietism." They put science in place of God as protection against he possibility of an angry God.

"They assert anything not subjects to quantitative analysis is "subjective" and any doubt in God is "objective." [...]This is all the atheists are doing when they try to impose this illusion that their use of techie affords them a factual basis for their doubt,"

Doubt is, by definition, something subjective. It's an opinion... So I would not agree with 'they' here.

check

"I believe in Jesus because of [...]
Jesus is the revelation the Bible is just the record of some people's encounters with the Divine."

All of these reasons (removed for brevity) make sense to you, personally. I think you were mistaken, but it's not surprising that your personal experience led you to believe; there are countless stories like yours. But you concede right away that this is not something you can use to convince someone. Great, but do you have something that would actually convince anyone?


weather or not truth can be used as an apologetic tool it is still true,

That's where having objective evidence becomes useful, though not essential, should the person you are trying to convince also end up having the same kind of life-changing subjective experiment. But my subjective opinion right now is that I don't see such divine intervention, anywhere. Every single story I hear is fantastic to the person who lived it, but completely benign from my subjective point of view. So how could I possibly be convinced?
2:52 PM


all you can do is be open and seek, all I can do is give you reason to think you should do that, I can give it if you are open, see my book the Trace of God, 200 studies peer reviewed journals and I discuss their ethologies,l they validate my God arguments,

here




Joe Hinman said...

Hugo Pelland said...
"There is no objectivity, an objective standard is merely less subjective, There is no perfect objectivity and cultivation of that illusion is merely something to hide behind. personal experience is true compromise. "

That is really interesting! I assume there is such a thing as objectivity, because I cannot possibly prove it, but I also cannot see how we cannot assume there is no objectivity. Even if we think of the possibility that God created the Universe, what he created is what it is, regardless of our opinion and regardless of God's opinion. If I create a painting, the painting is what it is, objectively, even if it was my subjective decision to paint whatever I wanted to paint.

that is a version of the correspondence theory of truth which I accept. But when we are said to be subjective our subjectivity belongs to our perspective disposition. as sentient. The facts are truth ,they are not objective they have no perspective. We are either objective or subjective but we can't be truly objective. There is only more or
less subjective,


Another way to put it is that reality is objective and thus facts about reality are independent of anyone's opinion.

Why do you disagree with that? Why do you say that "personal experience is true compromise"?

Like I said it's abot C Wright Mills, and also Heidegger. It's a phenomenological thing.

Joe Hinman said...

You started this post by saying that you could not possibly present data to back your personal views of the Divine, of a personal Creator. Now you claim that you do? I must be confusing 2 different positions of yours... can you clarify?

There is no way to prove the existence of God, In fact it;s pretty hard to actually prove anything. We can warrant belief, i do have "objective evidence" (so to speak) that does offer the possibility of warranting belief. see my link about about my book,

Regarding my own views (not what you were talking about obviously, but it might come up), they are in fact based on evidence, studies, and a lot of other things. Just like you, for instance, I am strongly against Trump and appreciate any groups fighting for some form of resistance.

right on man so do I,I do most of my resistance stuff around face book. I also have a website, a blog,Resistance is not futile I'm taking a break right now.

Or, in a broader sense, I base my views on the origin of the universe and our place in it purely on evidence, and not much on what people say about it. That's where I think religions differ, because they are a lot more about what people claim, feel and talk about, than what they actually demonstrate.

religion is a very old impulse it pre dates science, it grew up with humanity from the trees so to speak,

Hugo Pelland said...

Hi Joe,

" They put science in place of God as protection against he possibility of an angry God."
This is confusing; you mentioned that science and God are not competing for believers. I mention that I think this is correct, but yet we see God believers trying to compete, with each other and with non-believers, to make their religion the mainstream one. So I ask, why do they do that? Now, your answer is that science is, in fact, competing with God, because some people put science where God should be, in your opinion. But then, it means that you are the one who claims that you cannot have both... no?

Basically, it puts you in the position of claiming that people who don't currently believe in God would replace some of their scientific beliefs with God, should they start believing. This means that one cannot keep the exact same scientific views, and embrace God on top of them. And I would disagree with that. I think it's possible to add God after having the best scientific understanding of the world one possibly can get. I would go further actually; I think this is the only rational way to get to God, in theory, as one should not have to reject what reality teaches us to believe something else. My opinion, however, is that there is not much room left for God though, but it's not impossible, and God would not replace/compete for anything scientific, as it should be. But I did say 'in theory' as I am not sure that's feasible 'in practice' anymore, but I am still looking...

"all you can do is be open and seek, all I can do is give you reason to think you should do that, I can give it if you are open, see my book the Trace of God, 200 studies peer reviewed journals and I discuss their ethologies,l they validate my God arguments,"

Yes, definitely, that's the way to go. But to be frank, after over 10 years of reading/researching this, I find little value with reading yet another book on the topic. The main problem is always that, from the very beginning of the book, there are assumptions or premises or opinions that I disagree with, and then the entire book, or arguments, are based on these. Therefore, it's not useful to go through an entire thought process that starts with something I cannot agree with. That's why I prefer conversations, every now and then, like we are having now :)

Hugo Pelland said...

"that is a version of the correspondence theory of truth which I accept. But when we are said to be subjective our subjectivity belongs to our perspective disposition. as sentient. The facts are truth ,they are not objective they have no perspective. We are either objective or subjective but we can't be truly objective. There is only more or
less subjective,
"

Right, that makes sense, so like you said, it might be more about semantics sometimes. I do see truth as objective because it does not depend on anyone's opinion, but it's also equivalent to what you just said, where truth is neither objective nor subjective as there is no perspective. I can get that. And it does make sense to say that we can never be truly objective, just like we can never truly know what is Truth I would argue, as we can only try to be as accurate as possible, as close to Truth as possible, but without ever being 100% sure, in a philosophical kind of absolute sense, as we cannot reject some possible scenarios where we think we know, yet are completely mistaken. That's why we need to 'assume' certain things to make claims that are 'like' truth claims.


"There is no way to prove the existence of God, In fact it;s pretty hard to actually prove anything. We can warrant belief, i do have "objective evidence" (so to speak) that does offer the possibility of warranting belief. see my link about about my book,"

Yes, that's a good way to put it.

"right on man so do I,I do most of my resistance stuff around face book. I also have a website, a blog,Resistance is not futile I'm taking a break right now."

Yes I saw that already. That's why I was commenting on it. Very useful stuff, keep doing the good work!

"religion is a very old impulse it pre dates science, it grew up with humanity from the trees so to speak,"

And that is actually the reason #1 on my list of why I don't believe. This is not an exaggeration, this is literally the most relevant point in my opinion. Because religion is so intrinsic to human nature, because it changed so much over time, because it has been around for so long 'before' we knew much about the world, it explains why it is so difficult to drop it, yet so likely to be wrong. It's the main reason why religions should be questioned, and when we get to do so, a lot of us just realized that it's not needed to explain anything at all. We could be wrong, and that's why I did not give up on that quest completely, yet.

Joe Hinman said...

" They put science in place of God as protection against he possibility of an angry God."

This is confusing; you mentioned that science and God are not competing for believers. I mention that I think this is correct, but yet we see God believers trying to compete, with each other and with non-believers, to make their religion the mainstream one.

that's just the fundamentalist camp. what are going to do with them? Trumpies.


So I ask, why do they do that? Now, your answer is that science is, in fact, competing with God, because some people put science where God should be, in your opinion. But then, it means that you are the one who claims that you cannot have both... no?

Science isn't doing it. Science is not just an ideal for methodology it's a process in which people do things. The people who do science are not competing with religion, the God haters who hate religion are using science wrongly, it's not science doing it.

Basically, it puts you in the position of claiming that people who don't currently believe in God would replace some of their scientific beliefs with God, should they start believing.

There is one ultimate point of conflict with final cause. But you can do science for a lifetime and never run into that conflict. It only comes up if people want to push the issue of belief or not believing.

This means that one cannot keep the exact same scientific views, and embrace God on top of them. And I would disagree with that. I think it's possible to add God after having the best scientific understanding of the world one possibly can get.


The problem with that is God is not merely adding another thing to the universe, God ordained universe is not merely the same as an atheist universe but with one more being in it.God is the basis of reality the ground of being,so those are tow totally different universes but they might look exactly the same. It would not necessarily change any scientific facts but it would change the meaning of the world in which those facts are housed, Fro example moral axioms would have divine mandate, life would have ultimate meaning with relation to God not merely relative localized meaning and God's presence might be palpable at some point.


Joe Hinman said...

I would go further actually; I think this is the only rational way to get to God, in theory, as one should not have to reject what reality teaches us to believe something else. My opinion, however, is that there is not much room left for God though, but it's not impossible, and God would not replace/compete for anything scientific, as it should be. But I did say 'in theory' as I am not sure that's feasible 'in practice' anymore, but I am still looking...

sorry that's nonsense you are just closing off a world of knowledge
because you can't control it. Belief in God opens up several vistas you have not thought about.



"all you can do is be open and seek, all I can do is give you reason to think you should do that, I can give it if you are open, see my book the Trace of God, 200 studies peer reviewed journals and I discuss their methodologies,l they validate my God arguments,"

Yes, definitely, that's the way to go. But to be frank, after over 10 years of reading/researching this, I find little value with reading yet another book on the topic. The main problem is always that, from the very beginning of the book, there are assumptions or premises or opinions that I disagree with, and then the entire book, or arguments, are based on these. Therefore, it's not useful to go through an entire thought process that starts with something I cannot agree with. That's why I prefer conversations, every now and then, like we are having now :)

my book is the only collection of that material into a set of God arguments, It;s the only popularized collection of the materiel and thyme analysis of all of the types of studies, it;s one of the few expositions of the M scale outside of academic literature

don't use excises admit your afraid to find the truth, you studied 10 year big fucking deal I;'ve studied 50 years, there is only one other attempt to use this body of research in apologetic that was in the 80s she did not have half the studies I have,

Joe Hinman said...

Hugo Pelland said...
"that is a version of the correspondence theory of truth which I accept. But when we are said to be subjective our subjectivity belongs to our perspective disposition. as sentient. The facts are truth ,they are not objective they have no perspective. We are either objective or subjective but we can't be truly objective. There is only more or
less subjective,"

Right, that makes sense, so like you said, it might be more about semantics sometimes. I do see truth as objective because it does not depend on anyone's opinion, but it's also equivalent to what you just said, where truth is neither objective nor subjective as there is no perspective. I can get that. And it does make sense to say that we can never be truly objective, just like we can never truly know what is Truth I would argue, as we can only try to be as accurate as possible, as close to Truth as possible, but without ever being 100% sure, in a philosophical kind of absolute sense, as we cannot reject some possible scenarios where we think we know, yet are completely mistaken. That's why we need to 'assume' certain things to make claims that are 'like' truth claims.

I agree

"There is no way to prove the existence of God, In fact it;s pretty hard to actually prove anything. We can warrant belief, i do have "objective evidence" (so to speak) that does offer the possibility of warranting belief. see my link about about my book,"

Yes, that's a good way to put it.

"right on man so do I,I do most of my resistance stuff around face book. I also have a website, a blog,Resistance is not futile I'm taking a break right now."

Yes I saw that already. That's why I was commenting on it. Very useful stuff, keep doing the good work!

"religion is a very old impulse it pre dates science, it grew up with humanity from the trees so to speak,"

And that is actually the reason #1 on my list of why I don't believe. This is not an exaggeration, this is literally the most relevant point in my opinion. Because religion is so intrinsic to human nature, because it changed so much over time, because it has been around for so long 'before' we knew much about the world, it explains why it is so difficult to drop it, yet so likely to be wrong. It's the main reason why religions should be questioned, and when we get to do so, a lot of us just realized that it's not needed to explain anything at all. We could be wrong, and that's why I did not give up on that quest completely, yet.


It hasn't stayed the same,It;s grown up with humanity. It hasn't changed we just disocvered more truth aboutit as we sent along.

Kristen said...

I agree with you, Joe. To the other responders I might note that there are objective facts, but our interpretation of them is always subjective. So the idea that people can look only at the objective facts and come to an objective conclusion about them-- and especially that that objective conclusion can objectively deny there's a God-- is entirely erroneous. There are certainly objective facts that can be used to support the belief that there's a God, just as there are objective facts that can be used to support the belief that there isn't. The idea that the belief that there isn't is somehow "objective" while the belief that there is, is somehow irrational and not based on any objective evidence, is also erroneous.

Joe Hinman said...

thanks Kristen I appreciate your comments, True they always seem to use subjective as an epithet and objective as a lionizing term of approval.

JBsptfn said...

Wow! We have a Hugo Pelland sighting.

Stan used to battle it out with this guy on Atheism-Analyzed. Also, Martin used to have arguments with him on his site:

Rocket Philosophy: A Close Look at a Cosmological argument-Aquinas

Hugo Pelland said...

JB,
We already know that you do nothing but link to posts from blog to blog for your amusement, so what is your point?

JBsptfn said...

Well, Hugo, you seem to do nothing but troll theist websites. For example, Martin told me that you would pull the "pigeon playing chess" routine. He said that you would agree with the ontological argument and it's conclusion, but then you wouldn't agree with the conclusion (that "God is imaginary" is a contradictory statement).

Hugo Pelland said...

Do you know when I had this conversation on the ontological argument with Martin? End of 2012, almost 5 years ago! Time to get over it I think... and I already explained what really happened, including Martin's "rage quit", where he erased all my comments... but you knew that already, and don't care obviously.

Since then, I have writte on precisely 4 blogs:
Stan's Atheism Analyzed,
Victor's Dangerous Idea,
unklee's Is There A God,
and Joe's blog for the first time, a few days ago, and I have yet to continue on this thread following his interesting responses.

In every case, I thought it led to interesting discussions, on topics I like to discuss, in my leisure time. In only 1 case, with Stan, did it get ugly, because, well, it's Stan... you can ask Joe about that too.

So if you want to call that nothing but trolling, well, that is just bizarre honestly.

Joe Hinman said...

and Joe's blog for the first time, a few days ago, and I have yet to continue on this thread following his interesting responses.


>>>thanks let's get to the discussion

Hugo Pelland said...

Hi Joe,

">>>thanks let's get to the discussion"

Sorry it took me a while. And I thought about what I would write as I want to swtich gears a bit, because of what you said:

"don't use excises admit your afraid to find the truth, you studied 10 year big fucking deal I;'ve studied 50 years"

This is interesting for 2 reasons:

1) I had no idea that you were that much older to me. Because doing a PHD came up, (or I misunderstood that?) I assumed that you were someone who stayed in school longer, to continue in grad school, and were thus somewhere in your 30s... I was completely wrong.

2) You completely misunderstood what my point was, when I said that: "after over 10 years of reading/researching this, I find little value with reading yet another book on the topic. The main problem is always that, from the very beginning of the book, there are assumptions or premises or opinions that I disagree with, and then the entire book, or arguments, are based on these. Therefore, it's not useful to go through an entire thought process that starts with something I cannot agree with. That's why I prefer conversations, every now and then, like we are having now".

The point is not that I am an expert after so many year, it doesn't mean that I pretend to know that much about Christianity or Theism is general, it doesn't mean that I pretend to have the answers to everything, nor that I am right on everything.

This was actually a reference to something I can best describe in a question: why should I care about Christianity, or belief in God?

That's why your comment regarding years of experience was not relevant to my comment of 10 years. It's actually about the fact that I have devoted way enough time on this thing already. Why should I care? I don't find anything convincing and I feel like I just hear the same things over and over again. It doesn't mean that it's false, but it does not compel me.

You claimed that you have one of the best resources, or blog, on the internet, to defend your beliefs, your religion. (Or please specify what you think is the best label to describe the worldview you defend.) Therefore, I thought of asking you, if you are interested, to pretend that I know nothing about these beliefs you care deeply about. Where would we start?

And let's add a little twist to make it more interesting. I have never done that before so hopefully this will make me see something new, a refresher. What if you are also trying to tell my wife about your beliefs? She is a good example because she is Hindu and never really learned about Christianity. So what starting points would you use to start describing what you believe and why. Or more specifically, what are the things you know we all agree on, from which you can build a case for why your religion is both relevant and correct.

Let me know if you find that interesting to start a discussion!

Thanks

Joe Hinman said...

ugo Pelland said...
Hi Joe,

">>>thanks let's get to the discussion"

Sorry it took me a while. And I thought about what I would write as I want to swtich gears a bit, because of what you said:

"don't use excises admit your afraid to find the truth, you studied 10 year big fucking deal I;'ve studied 50 years"

This is interesting for 2 reasons:

1) I had no idea that you were that much older to me. Because doing a PHD came up, (or I misunderstood that?) I assumed that you were someone who stayed in school longer, to continue in grad school, and were thus somewhere in your 30s... I was completely wrong.


I did Ph.D work I was ABD. I put a lot of time between my BA and Masters, I had career market research then went back to grad school in theology. I was an atheist from high school OT end of college got saved at the my undergrad days. Then after a few years in working world went back to grad school with aim of being theologian. I did doctoral work for about ten years and worked as TA. I finished qualifying examines and was working on dissertation when tragedy struck in my family and I had to suspend my studies. Then I figured out I was burned out, someone convinced to write a book,I spent seven years researching that. I wrote two other books during that period.

In 2014 my twin brother died.I took care of him so that was shattering. Then I got sick and cam real close to dying. I was in a coma for two months. I have not fully recovered from all the ramifications of that.My Ph.D. work took up the 90s. I also worked as teaching assistant.



Joe Hinman said...


2) You completely misunderstood what my point was, when I said that: "after over 10 years of reading/researching this, I find little value with reading yet another book on the topic. The main problem is always that, from the very beginning of the book, there are assumptions or premises or opinions that I disagree with, and then the entire book, or arguments, are based on these. Therefore, it's not useful to go through an entire thought process that starts with something I cannot agree with. That's why I prefer conversations, every now and then, like we are having now".

It would help if i knew what you are talking about what penises bother you and what have you heard. kind of crucial to know that so we don't waste time.

The point is not that I am an expert after so many year, it doesn't mean that I pretend to know that much about Christianity or Theism is general, it doesn't mean that I pretend to have the answers to everything, nor that I am right on everything.

This was actually a reference to something I can best describe in a question: why should I care about Christianity, or belief in God?

That's why your comment regarding years of experience was not relevant to my comment of 10 years. It's actually about the fact that I have devoted way enough time on this thing already. Why should I care? I don't find anything convincing and I feel like I just hear the same things over and over again. It doesn't mean that it's false, but it does not compel me.

ok i will put up a new post on Wednesday, laying out my own unique take on answering your question: "why should I care about Christianity, or belief in God?" We can begin the discussion imn that thread.Just don't bail out right away because I'm starting without knowing what you are talking about.

You claimed that you have one of the best resources, or blog, on the internet, to defend your beliefs, your religion. (Or please specify what you think is the best label to describe the worldview you defend.) Therefore, I thought of asking you, if you are interested, to pretend that I know nothing about these beliefs you care deeply about. Where would we start?


my book is really the main thing I'll point you to links. But is is not a primer on why be a Christian. But it does have unique ground breaking research that is not known to the apologetic community.The website is well researched and better backed than most but it's not all that unique as the book is. You can fimnd allof theseimn tehsdie bar om this blog,

And let's add a little twist to make it more interesting. I have never done that before so hopefully this will make me see something new, a refresher. What if you are also trying to tell my wife about your beliefs? She is a good example because she is Hindu and never really learned about Christianity. So what starting points would you use to start describing what you believe and why. Or more specifically, what are the things you know we all agree on, from which you can build a case for why your religion is both relevant and correct.

that would just complicate mattes, might have to pt that on the back burner,

Let me know if you find that interesting to start a discussion!

Thanks

sure but just thinking of the venue. Perhaps the message board would be more conducive to dialogue. Also, I don't know how simple you want it to be.I can see me giving very basic info about Jesus died on the cross to save us from sin and you would say I've heard that forget it,I would be giving over that because you said you want me to assume you know nothing.that's kind of a precipie for contradistinction.

Hugo Pelland said...

Hi Joe,

" ok i will put up a new post on Wednesday, laying out my own unique take on answering your question: "why should I care about Christianity, or belief in God?" We can begin the discussion imn that thread.Just don't bail out right away because I'm starting without knowing what you are talking about."

This is great, I will wait for that post and see what could be a good starting point. I can also clarify that my goal is to pretend that I know nothing about Christianity, or very little like my wife does, so that's why I think it is in fact important to keep it very simple. Or, in other words, I think having common grounds is essential.

Therefore, starting with something like 'Jesus died on the cross to save us' is not going to work. This would be the same as me starting with 'Sita survived trial by fire to save women' honour' to explain why Hinduism matters. You would not accept that as some common ground to start with, I suppose...

And, I hope you'll read back on this and laugh as much as I did at this typo:
"...what penises bother you..."
¦¬D

Joe Hinman said...

I guess what bothers me about this is that it should be obvious why knowing God is the most important thing,I don;t belie hell but I;m sure you get that:so you wont go to hell,:why doesn;t that seem important to you? unassuming that;s the point of being Christian why is not important?

there's more to it in my book but I don't see why that doesn;t seem important to you?>

Hugo Pelland said...

I am not interested in explaining why I don't care because there are hundreds of things, including other religions, I don't care about. You're the one who has spend a considerable amount of time of his life to this topic, and I am wondering why you think I should care about that specifically. Maybe you don't, maybe it's a personal thing I need to figure out on my own and that's fine, but it's absurd to ask me why I should care about something that YOU care about.