15 ms·

I think the more important question is, "How would I know if I were wrong?" As a thinking Christian, and I've thought very carefully on what kind of evidence c

by gwd 3y ago

I think the more important question is, "How would I know if I were wrong?" As a thinking Christian, and I've thought very carefully on what kind of evidence could be presented to me to show that Christianity was wrong; I'd be interested in what kind of evidence Dennet would accept to show him that his atheism was wrong.

viscountchocula 3y ago
Out of curiosity, what might that evidence Christianity is wrong be?
kgwxd 3y ago
You have 0 evidence that Christianity is "right", whatever that even means. Provide just a tiny shred of evidence, and Dennet, along with the rest of us, will reconsider the position.
cksquare 3y ago
This is the tired kind of equivocating that's used by lazy Christians to claim atheism is a discrete and well-formed ideology. Atheism is just that, a-theism, a rejection of the notion of a supernatural dimension occupied by 'personal' god(s). What evidence (or counter-evidence) do you suggest I present to show that my disbelief in Thor or Odin is wrong?
- gwd 3y ago
  "Unicorns exist" and "unicorns don't exist" are both factual statements of which one can have a belief. Right now you probably hold one or the other. Sure, if you'd never heard of unicorns, such a thing wouldn't enter your head; but you have heard of unicorns, and thus you do have an opinion on their existence. Similarly, if one lived all one's life in a rationalist bubble, and never even heard the mention of God or gods or religion or the supernatural, then perhaps one could not have an opinion on whether God exists. But that applies neither to you nor to Dennet. How would I know that my disbelief in Thor is wrong? At a first cut, I'd need to have someone propose a more concrete proposition to evaluate; then I could try to evaluate it. But whatever that proposition is, it would need to be able to accommodate all that we've learned about the world and about science; it would need to be falsifiable; and it would need to explain the world in a more satisfactory manner than the alternative worldviews.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    When you read a fantasy story you don't really think about whether it is true or not, if someone asked you then you would say it isn't true, but you never thought about it before prompted. So for me the first time I really thought about whether god existed was in internet discussions. When I learned about the religions in school it was just a bunch of cool stories and cultural things, there was no need to think whether any of that was real or not. And when I got into internet discussions and first encountered religious people I wondered why they thought a fantasy story was real, but apparently you can't ask them that.
    - knightoffaith 3y ago
      Maybe there are some people you can't ask that, but of course, many are happy to deal with the question. And indeed, historically, theists have long engaged with questions about why their religion is true. Anyway, unlike fantasy stories, religious people are led into belief due to things like people insisting that a religion is true, arguments that suggest that God exist, and spiritual experiences. Maybe this isn't convincing to you, but it's markedly different from a fairy tale.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        > people insisting that a religion is true, arguments that suggest that God exist, and spiritual experiences I just never met such people irl so I have no idea what that is like. Like, having a bunch of people trying to gaslight you into believing in these stories feels like a nightmare to me, I can see why you would say you believe just to make the nightmare end. The only very religious person I talked to about these things irl said that belief is a very personal thing and he didn't care about what others thinks or doesn't think. I think that is much healthier, and with such an approach you get almost no believers since there is no longer any pressure to believe things we wouldn't naturally believe in.
        knightoffaith 3y ago
        I don't know what in my comment provoked such a negative reaction from you - maybe the word "insisting" came off as too strong? I really just meant to say that there are many people who seriously believe in religion, and you can't say the same for fantasy stories. If you're not interested, that's fine. Anyway, they're not really "gaslight[ing] you into believing in these stories" any more than a climate change activist is doing that. They believe their stories are true and that it would have a positive effect on you and the world if you too were to believe in it.
- geye1234 3y ago
  > What evidence (or counter-evidence) do you suggest I present to show that my disbelief in Thor or Odin is wrong? There are no attempts at proof (that I'm aware of) for the existence of these mythical deities. There are several for the existence of the God of monotheism, which I believe to be sound, but will struggle to fit into a combox. Further, the thing we imagine them to be is different in kind from the God of monotheism. There are sound explanations of why this is so, but (again) they won't fit into a combox. See Edward Feser's Five Proofs for the Existence of God, and some of his other works, if you care to explore this further. Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and the like ignore, or grossly straw-man, these arguments.
Scubabear68 3y ago
I think the very definition of Christianity is that you are accepting the creed on faith. There really aren’t any claims you can verify or falsify until after you die (or during the special time of the Rapture).
- felipefar 3y ago
  That's not the definition of Christianity. Catholicism has a long philosophical tradition discussing the existence of God, and that tradition is far from refuted.
  - Ensorceled 3y ago
    It is literally impossible to prove that god does not exist. It is not a disprovable statement. I also can't prove Ra, Zeus, Thor, Unicorns, Ghosts, or Superman don't exist.
    - knightoffaith 3y ago
      Well, there are some atheists that argue that God's omnibenevolence is incompatible with the evils in the world, meaning God cannot exist (or at least, is either not omnibenevolent or not omnipotent, and if these are part of the definition of God, then God insofar as the term refers to something with at least these two properties, does not exist). Theists have responses to this argument, but the point is that the subject matter is something that can be rationally discussed.
      - Ensorceled 3y ago
        Sure, I've engaged in similar discussions in philosophy classes, but this was always about whether a specific definition of "god" could exist and lead to discussion like "can God make a rock so heavy even they can't lift it". It never has lead to a point that proves God exists or not. Unless philosophy has moved way beyond my readings and I missed it.
  - Scubabear68 3y ago
Jensson 3y ago
> I'd be interested in what kind of evidence Dennet would accept to show him that his atheism was wrong. Not sure what you mean, any clear sign from a god would apply here. You seem to believe that such a thing isn't possible making their position irrational, but then I wonder how you can still say you believe in a god? Do you believe that God can't intervene in this world? But for example, if God manifested giant talking heads all over the world I am pretty sure atheism would disappear very quickly.
Ensorceled 3y ago
> I've thought very carefully on what kind of evidence could be presented to me to show that Christianity was wrong This is inside out. What evidence was presented to you that made you believe Christianity was right? I became an Atheist in large part because I took Latin my first year in high school and realized that the Roman's actually believed in their gods the same way that I believed in the Christian god. And I gradually realized that they had the same reason to believe that I did ... they were told from a young age that this was real and just kept believing as they grew up. > I'd be interested in what kind of evidence Dennet would accept to show him that his atheism was wrong. I can't speak for Dennet, but for me it would just be ANY evidence: a verifiable miracle, proof of life after death, or meeting an angel/demon.
- knightoffaith 3y ago
  >This is inside out. What evidence was presented to you that made you believe Christianity was right? I don't think this is really the right way to think about Christianity for many believers. C.S. Lewis says, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." It's not so much that Christianity is just another fact lying out there that we just happened to stumble upon, and now we use scientific tools to investigate whether it's true or false. No - it's a belief that shapes the very way we understand the world. It's a worldview. That's not to say that it's necessarily correct, but just that it's not a belief that we necessarily acquire in the same way we might acquire a belief about what 1+1 is or how many planets orbit the sun. It's much like how someone born and raised atheist doesn't hold their belief in atheism because of some evidence for that view. We can still argue about Christianity, atheism, or other religions, of course, that's fine - but it's not obvious that there's some inherent irrationality in asking "what could show Christianity to be false" instead of "what convinced me Christianity is true". >they were told from a young age that this was real and just kept believing as they grew up. This is true, but if the implication is that belief in Roman paganism is on just as firm intellectual ground as belief in Christianity, that seems unfair given the rich intellectual history spanning millennia of the latter to which the former isn't really comparable at all.
  - 3y ago
epiccoleman 3y ago
I would be genuinely interested to hear what conclusions you came to - and I don't say that as a typical internet atheist waiting to pounce on some flaw in your logic. I've come at this from the other side many times and, though there's certainly a part of me that would like to, I just cannot find it within myself to believe that the human condition is explained in any way by Christian theology. I've found a good deal of resonance in the mystical traditions of various religions - I'm especially a fan of some of the Jewish mystical stuff (e.g. Kabbalah and other portions of the long tradition of debate and interpretation of scripture). But in spite of a lot of examination I've still wound up with, at most, a kind of "spiritual but not religious" attitude, which usually translates to, frankly, not much. I've found myself somewhat jealous of people of faith, who can find some system of belief that seems resonant enough to provide comfort and a framework for living a good life - but also, frankly somewhat nonplussed that people can buy into these various theologies and not run up against the same "...really, that's supposed to explain all this?" that I do.
- knightoffaith 3y ago
  Why is it that you think the human condition is not explained by Christian theology? To be sure, you don't mean "I think Christianity is false", right? It can be false but still explain the human condition.
  - epiccoleman 3y ago
    > It can be false but still explain the human condition. Sure - and as a matter of fact, this is largely the angle I approach religion from these days - i.e. that we collected a series of parables, rules, and traditions that, when combined, lead to a "good life" (or, more cynically, provide competitive advantages to societies who adopt them in a sort of "memetic natural selection" paradigm). But when I look at the mythology of Christianity, especially the parts of it that are mainstream and not parts of mystical or esoteric traditions, I don't find it to be a compelling enough story to base my life around (or at least, not enough to go and declare my faith in it every Sunday). The central "myth" of Christianity is that humans are born into a state of sin and cannot reach salvation (Heaven, eternal life, or maybe more "mystically" a state of oneness with the Divine). And the myth goes on to state that God essentially allowed/caused humans to sacrifice his son to Him so that this original sin could be washed away and allow humans to be "saved." It seems to me that this has very little explanatory power for the sorts of existential questions like "why are we here," "why are we conscious," "why is there so damn much other stuff in the universe". As a story, there's a lot of appeal to me. Jesus as a role model, as an example of how we ought to try to be, has some good features (some bad ones too, but that's OK with me since I'm not taking the story as the literal word of God). I just don't know how people go from "this story has some nice features worth meditating on in a secular way" to "this story explains why things are the way they are and what we're supposed to do about it." This is one of the things I find more appealing about Judaism, because there appears (to an outsider) to be much more of a tradition of grappling with faith, of trying to unpack the meaning of the "words of God" and relate them to the human condition. I'm sure there's some of that in Christian traditions too, but it was never a mainstream feature of the Catholicism that I grew up with.
bglazer 3y ago
Personally, if there was an easily verifiable, continuous example of a phenomena that violated basic physics and it was arranged in such a way that it sent a clear message confirming the existence of a deity, then I’m easily done with atheism. Like if the gases of a nebula got rearranged to spell out “God is real”, then sure yeah I guess they are real.
- palata 3y ago
  I used to define myself as "agnostic", as in "well I don't know, right now I don't have any reason to believe in <choose your God here>, but if you could prove it I would obviously change my mind". But then I changed my mind: now I believe that agnosticism is just a "shy" way of being atheist, somehow trying to say "I don't believe in a particular deity, but I can't commit to saying that I believe there is no deity". But that's the whole point of a belief: I could be wrong, and it would be okay to change my mind. A belief is not a proven fact. So I am an atheist: I don't believe in any particular deity, and in fact I do believe that there is no such thing. But obviously if you proved my belief wrong, then I would change my belief :-).
a_wild_dandan 3y ago
The same evidence that you'd need for belief in other gods. He just goes one god further than you.
Vecr 3y ago
I'm not sure what Daniel Dennett's current position is on action without free will, but assuming it's something reasonable, I'd consider it plausibly wrong if gassing hell and nuking heaven failed to produce the desired effect in a way that's almost impossible to fake.
jibalt 3y ago
"I've thought very carefully on what kind of evidence could be presented to me to show that Christianity was wrong" I don't believe this. "I'd be interested in what kind of evidence Dennet would accept to show him that his atheism was wrong." Perhaps the reason you aren't aware that he has addressed this at length is that you don't have have his name right. Also, as Chris Hitchens noted, religion poisons everything, including this thread.
- edanm 3y ago
  You're being unnecessarily mean and confrontational, that isn't a good fit for HN. You can take parent at their word that he's thought about it and engage, or you can choose not to engage. No reason to disparage them.
  - jibalt 3y ago
    No, you. I was neither mean nor confrontational, I merely expressed my personal skepticism. I could have gone into detail as to why his statement is implausible, but that would have been mean. So as to minimize confrontation, I won't respond to any further provocation. I will also note that religion is off-topic at HN, for obvious reasons.
bettercaust 3y ago
Christianity is faith, not a model of reality, so it can't be "wrong" but nor does it purport to be "right". It comes down to whether or not you continue to believe in its tenets.

by gwd 3y ago

viscountchocula 3y ago

Out of curiosity, what might that evidence Christianity is wrong be?

kgwxd 3y ago

You have 0 evidence that Christianity is "right", whatever that even means. Provide just a tiny shred of evidence, and Dennet, along with the rest of us, will reconsider the position.

cksquare 3y ago

This is the tired kind of equivocating that's used by lazy Christians to claim atheism is a discrete and well-formed ideology. Atheism is just that, a-theism, a rejection of the notion of a supernatural dimension occupied by 'personal' god(s). What evidence (or counter-evidence) do you suggest I present to show that my disbelief in Thor or Odin is wrong?

gwd 3y ago
"Unicorns exist" and "unicorns don't exist" are both factual statements of which one can have a belief. Right now you probably hold one or the other. Sure, if you'd never heard of unicorns, such a thing wouldn't enter your head; but you have heard of unicorns, and thus you do have an opinion on their existence. Similarly, if one lived all one's life in a rationalist bubble, and never even heard the mention of God or gods or religion or the supernatural, then perhaps one could not have an opinion on whether God exists. But that applies neither to you nor to Dennet. How would I know that my disbelief in Thor is wrong? At a first cut, I'd need to have someone propose a more concrete proposition to evaluate; then I could try to evaluate it. But whatever that proposition is, it would need to be able to accommodate all that we've learned about the world and about science; it would need to be falsifiable; and it would need to explain the world in a more satisfactory manner than the alternative worldviews.
- Jensson 3y ago
  When you read a fantasy story you don't really think about whether it is true or not, if someone asked you then you would say it isn't true, but you never thought about it before prompted. So for me the first time I really thought about whether god existed was in internet discussions. When I learned about the religions in school it was just a bunch of cool stories and cultural things, there was no need to think whether any of that was real or not. And when I got into internet discussions and first encountered religious people I wondered why they thought a fantasy story was real, but apparently you can't ask them that.
  - knightoffaith 3y ago
    Maybe there are some people you can't ask that, but of course, many are happy to deal with the question. And indeed, historically, theists have long engaged with questions about why their religion is true. Anyway, unlike fantasy stories, religious people are led into belief due to things like people insisting that a religion is true, arguments that suggest that God exist, and spiritual experiences. Maybe this isn't convincing to you, but it's markedly different from a fairy tale.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      > people insisting that a religion is true, arguments that suggest that God exist, and spiritual experiences I just never met such people irl so I have no idea what that is like. Like, having a bunch of people trying to gaslight you into believing in these stories feels like a nightmare to me, I can see why you would say you believe just to make the nightmare end. The only very religious person I talked to about these things irl said that belief is a very personal thing and he didn't care about what others thinks or doesn't think. I think that is much healthier, and with such an approach you get almost no believers since there is no longer any pressure to believe things we wouldn't naturally believe in.
      - knightoffaith 3y ago
        I don't know what in my comment provoked such a negative reaction from you - maybe the word "insisting" came off as too strong? I really just meant to say that there are many people who seriously believe in religion, and you can't say the same for fantasy stories. If you're not interested, that's fine. Anyway, they're not really "gaslight[ing] you into believing in these stories" any more than a climate change activist is doing that. They believe their stories are true and that it would have a positive effect on you and the world if you too were to believe in it.
geye1234 3y ago
> What evidence (or counter-evidence) do you suggest I present to show that my disbelief in Thor or Odin is wrong? There are no attempts at proof (that I'm aware of) for the existence of these mythical deities. There are several for the existence of the God of monotheism, which I believe to be sound, but will struggle to fit into a combox. Further, the thing we imagine them to be is different in kind from the God of monotheism. There are sound explanations of why this is so, but (again) they won't fit into a combox. See Edward Feser's Five Proofs for the Existence of God, and some of his other works, if you care to explore this further. Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and the like ignore, or grossly straw-man, these arguments.

Scubabear68 3y ago

I think the very definition of Christianity is that you are accepting the creed on faith. There really aren’t any claims you can verify or falsify until after you die (or during the special time of the Rapture).

felipefar 3y ago
That's not the definition of Christianity. Catholicism has a long philosophical tradition discussing the existence of God, and that tradition is far from refuted.
- Ensorceled 3y ago
  It is literally impossible to prove that god does not exist. It is not a disprovable statement. I also can't prove Ra, Zeus, Thor, Unicorns, Ghosts, or Superman don't exist.
  - knightoffaith 3y ago
    Well, there are some atheists that argue that God's omnibenevolence is incompatible with the evils in the world, meaning God cannot exist (or at least, is either not omnibenevolent or not omnipotent, and if these are part of the definition of God, then God insofar as the term refers to something with at least these two properties, does not exist). Theists have responses to this argument, but the point is that the subject matter is something that can be rationally discussed.
    - Ensorceled 3y ago
      Sure, I've engaged in similar discussions in philosophy classes, but this was always about whether a specific definition of "god" could exist and lead to discussion like "can God make a rock so heavy even they can't lift it". It never has lead to a point that proves God exists or not. Unless philosophy has moved way beyond my readings and I missed it.
- Scubabear68 3y ago

Jensson 3y ago

> I'd be interested in what kind of evidence Dennet would accept to show him that his atheism was wrong. Not sure what you mean, any clear sign from a god would apply here. You seem to believe that such a thing isn't possible making their position irrational, but then I wonder how you can still say you believe in a god? Do you believe that God can't intervene in this world? But for example, if God manifested giant talking heads all over the world I am pretty sure atheism would disappear very quickly.

Ensorceled 3y ago

> I've thought very carefully on what kind of evidence could be presented to me to show that Christianity was wrong This is inside out. What evidence was presented to you that made you believe Christianity was right? I became an Atheist in large part because I took Latin my first year in high school and realized that the Roman's actually believed in their gods the same way that I believed in the Christian god. And I gradually realized that they had the same reason to believe that I did ... they were told from a young age that this was real and just kept believing as they grew up. > I'd be interested in what kind of evidence Dennet would accept to show him that his atheism was wrong. I can't speak for Dennet, but for me it would just be ANY evidence: a verifiable miracle, proof of life after death, or meeting an angel/demon.

knightoffaith 3y ago
>This is inside out. What evidence was presented to you that made you believe Christianity was right? I don't think this is really the right way to think about Christianity for many believers. C.S. Lewis says, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." It's not so much that Christianity is just another fact lying out there that we just happened to stumble upon, and now we use scientific tools to investigate whether it's true or false. No - it's a belief that shapes the very way we understand the world. It's a worldview. That's not to say that it's necessarily correct, but just that it's not a belief that we necessarily acquire in the same way we might acquire a belief about what 1+1 is or how many planets orbit the sun. It's much like how someone born and raised atheist doesn't hold their belief in atheism because of some evidence for that view. We can still argue about Christianity, atheism, or other religions, of course, that's fine - but it's not obvious that there's some inherent irrationality in asking "what could show Christianity to be false" instead of "what convinced me Christianity is true". >they were told from a young age that this was real and just kept believing as they grew up. This is true, but if the implication is that belief in Roman paganism is on just as firm intellectual ground as belief in Christianity, that seems unfair given the rich intellectual history spanning millennia of the latter to which the former isn't really comparable at all.
- 3y ago

epiccoleman 3y ago

I would be genuinely interested to hear what conclusions you came to - and I don't say that as a typical internet atheist waiting to pounce on some flaw in your logic. I've come at this from the other side many times and, though there's certainly a part of me that would like to, I just cannot find it within myself to believe that the human condition is explained in any way by Christian theology. I've found a good deal of resonance in the mystical traditions of various religions - I'm especially a fan of some of the Jewish mystical stuff (e.g. Kabbalah and other portions of the long tradition of debate and interpretation of scripture). But in spite of a lot of examination I've still wound up with, at most, a kind of "spiritual but not religious" attitude, which usually translates to, frankly, not much. I've found myself somewhat jealous of people of faith, who can find some system of belief that seems resonant enough to provide comfort and a framework for living a good life - but also, frankly somewhat nonplussed that people can buy into these various theologies and not run up against the same "...really, that's supposed to explain all this?" that I do.

knightoffaith 3y ago
Why is it that you think the human condition is not explained by Christian theology? To be sure, you don't mean "I think Christianity is false", right? It can be false but still explain the human condition.
- epiccoleman 3y ago
  > It can be false but still explain the human condition. Sure - and as a matter of fact, this is largely the angle I approach religion from these days - i.e. that we collected a series of parables, rules, and traditions that, when combined, lead to a "good life" (or, more cynically, provide competitive advantages to societies who adopt them in a sort of "memetic natural selection" paradigm). But when I look at the mythology of Christianity, especially the parts of it that are mainstream and not parts of mystical or esoteric traditions, I don't find it to be a compelling enough story to base my life around (or at least, not enough to go and declare my faith in it every Sunday). The central "myth" of Christianity is that humans are born into a state of sin and cannot reach salvation (Heaven, eternal life, or maybe more "mystically" a state of oneness with the Divine). And the myth goes on to state that God essentially allowed/caused humans to sacrifice his son to Him so that this original sin could be washed away and allow humans to be "saved." It seems to me that this has very little explanatory power for the sorts of existential questions like "why are we here," "why are we conscious," "why is there so damn much other stuff in the universe". As a story, there's a lot of appeal to me. Jesus as a role model, as an example of how we ought to try to be, has some good features (some bad ones too, but that's OK with me since I'm not taking the story as the literal word of God). I just don't know how people go from "this story has some nice features worth meditating on in a secular way" to "this story explains why things are the way they are and what we're supposed to do about it." This is one of the things I find more appealing about Judaism, because there appears (to an outsider) to be much more of a tradition of grappling with faith, of trying to unpack the meaning of the "words of God" and relate them to the human condition. I'm sure there's some of that in Christian traditions too, but it was never a mainstream feature of the Catholicism that I grew up with.

bglazer 3y ago

Personally, if there was an easily verifiable, continuous example of a phenomena that violated basic physics and it was arranged in such a way that it sent a clear message confirming the existence of a deity, then I’m easily done with atheism. Like if the gases of a nebula got rearranged to spell out “God is real”, then sure yeah I guess they are real.

palata 3y ago
I used to define myself as "agnostic", as in "well I don't know, right now I don't have any reason to believe in <choose your God here>, but if you could prove it I would obviously change my mind". But then I changed my mind: now I believe that agnosticism is just a "shy" way of being atheist, somehow trying to say "I don't believe in a particular deity, but I can't commit to saying that I believe there is no deity". But that's the whole point of a belief: I could be wrong, and it would be okay to change my mind. A belief is not a proven fact. So I am an atheist: I don't believe in any particular deity, and in fact I do believe that there is no such thing. But obviously if you proved my belief wrong, then I would change my belief :-).

a_wild_dandan 3y ago

The same evidence that you'd need for belief in other gods. He just goes one god further than you.

Vecr 3y ago

I'm not sure what Daniel Dennett's current position is on action without free will, but assuming it's something reasonable, I'd consider it plausibly wrong if gassing hell and nuking heaven failed to produce the desired effect in a way that's almost impossible to fake.

jibalt 3y ago

"I've thought very carefully on what kind of evidence could be presented to me to show that Christianity was wrong" I don't believe this. "I'd be interested in what kind of evidence Dennet would accept to show him that his atheism was wrong." Perhaps the reason you aren't aware that he has addressed this at length is that you don't have have his name right. Also, as Chris Hitchens noted, religion poisons everything, including this thread.

edanm 3y ago
You're being unnecessarily mean and confrontational, that isn't a good fit for HN. You can take parent at their word that he's thought about it and engage, or you can choose not to engage. No reason to disparage them.
- jibalt 3y ago
  No, you. I was neither mean nor confrontational, I merely expressed my personal skepticism. I could have gone into detail as to why his statement is implausible, but that would have been mean. So as to minimize confrontation, I won't respond to any further provocation. I will also note that religion is off-topic at HN, for obvious reasons.

bettercaust 3y ago

Christianity is faith, not a model of reality, so it can't be "wrong" but nor does it purport to be "right". It comes down to whether or not you continue to believe in its tenets.