Discussion from St. Eutychus

When we don't have any such desires that don't have an answer (e.g. hunger) then I think it does indicate that such an answer exists. I don't think it makes much sense otherwise. [...] Well I think it's probably very debatable whether naturalism best accounts for art / beauty and particularly, morality [...]

Human beings like finding interesting and appealing ideas because we're naturally curious. Culture is a mechanism which propogates interesting ideas around. Why does art and philosophy need anything besides this as an explanation of origins?

Morality has obvious benefits: if you can assume your neighbour will be nice and that you should be nice to him, you both benefit. More wide-ranging kinds of altruism are explainable as cultural adaptations of this drive. It's not as though every single thing we do needs to be directly traceable back to a biological origin; culture is more complicated than that, and has adapted many previously survival-oriented drives (i.e. the sex drive, protection of your offspring) to new ends (sex with contraception, adoption).

We know that culture exists, and a fair amount about how it operates (though there is much more to be discovered). The same can be said about the human mind. However, this definitely cannot be said about a creator God; to my understanding there no facts which necessitate the existence of a deity to explain, or which are best explained by a deity.

It's certainly true that you can introduce a vague, distant, or non-interventionist God without contradicting evidence, but doing so is just as arbitrary as introducing Last Thursdayism.

As I said, the poker scenario presupposes chance, which is begging the question somewhat. If I found $50 in my letter box instead of the usual junk-mail, would I suppose chance or intention?

The existence of life on Earth is only remarkable to us because it's our existence we're talking about; if we lived anywhere else, our existence there would be just as remarkable to us. To make the appearance of $50 in your mailbox a comparable situation, you'd have to first go from house to house looking for one with $50 in its mailbox, move in there, and then exclaim about the improbability of finding $50 in your mailbox.

#1 - there is a difference between believing something will happen, and believing something has happened. And indeed, believing you've experienced something. The disciples didn't die for a belief they 'hoped' was true, they died for a claim that they experienced something.

So does this make the beliefs of the Jonestown residents true as well? That situation also met all your qualifiers: people had a religious experience (faith-healings and similar activies performed by Jim Jones) which they believed in so strongly that they died and murdered for it. There have been numerous other such situations in history; are their beliefs also all true? Here is a good blog post discussing this in more detail.

And of course, if someone was reporting that the resurrection happened, then they would simply be written of as a believer too, wouldn't they? Asking for confirmation by someone who didn't believe it happened is a little absurd to my mind.

Even a disbeliever would've noticed the existence of the guy and his quickly growing following. At a minimum, I'd expect there to at least be some historical note somewhere along the lines of "This guy who claims to have been resurrected according to some Jewish prophecy is wandering around the city with a bunch of his followers", since there was documentation of a similar nature for other religious figures of the time in that area of the world. See here for more on this.

Also, sorry Andrew, the link you gave to another blog post appears to be broken.

Comments

[Andrew]

to my understanding there no facts which necessitate the existence of a deity to explain, or which are best explained by a deity.

While I understand that may be so to your mind, I think there are a number of things, such as morality which are best explained by God.

The existence of life on Earth is only remarkable to us because it's our existence we're talking about; if we lived anywhere else, our existence there would be just as remarkable to us.

Whether it's remarkable or not is not really the point -rather it is whether this 'perfect fit' just is or whether there is intention behind it. We don't know of anywhere else that where such life exists or can be sustained, so we can either conclude that our existence here in the place which appears to be set-up for our life to exist is either pure chance, or intentional. Unlike Adam's puddle, the "size and shape of the hole" makes a difference to our ability to exist.

So does this make the beliefs of the Jonestown residents true as well? That situation also met all your qualifiers: people had a religious experience (faith-healings and similar activies performed by Jim Jones) which they believed in so strongly that they died and murdered for it. There have been numerous other such situations in history; are their beliefs also all true?

Of course belief doesn't 'make it true', that's not what I was arguing. But when a whole bunch of people willingly die for a claim that they met and ate with the risen Jesus, it is absurd to think they are lying or fabricating it (and it is this distinction that your linked blogger misses). When considered with a bunch of other pieces of evidence, the best explanation, to my mind, is that they are telling the truth.

Even a disbeliever would've noticed the existence of the guy and his quickly growing following. At a minimum, I'd expect there to at least be some historical note somewhere along the lines of "This guy who claims to have been resurrected according to some Jewish prophecy is wandering around the city with a bunch of his followers", since there was documentation of a similar nature for other religious figures of the time in that area of the world.

There are non-Christian references of that kind. (your link is broken btw) Even so, that's really an argument from silence. We don't have half the ancient texts that were written, so we cannot know that none were written - not that we can speculate that there were either. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack! The point is that it is already multiply attested, and we could go on asking for 'one more' all day.

the link you gave to another blog post appears to be broken.

http://st-eutychus.com/2009/why-im-not-an-atheist-3-jesus/

[DSimon]

While I understand that may be so to your mind, I think there are a number of things, such as morality which are best explained by God.

Please elaborate and explain why morality is best explained by a deity. In particular, since we've already got a straightforward explanation for morality based entirely upon things well-demonstrated to exist (naturally-selected human nature, and society as a means of collective protection), why is it necessary to introduce additional and far more difficult-to-verify elements like deities?

Unlike Adam's puddle, the "size and shape of the hole" makes a difference to our ability to exist.

Not at all! A hole which was too shallow wouldn't collect enough water for a visible puddle. A hole which was too porous wouldn't have a puddle in it, since the rain would just wash away. A hole which was filled with dark-colored material might heat up faster from the sun's light, so that any puddle that was in it would evaporate quickly compared to light-colored holes and therefore be less puddle-suitable. And so on.

The ratio of puddle-suitable-holes to non-suitable-holes is different from the ratio of life-suitable-planets to non-life-suitable-planets, but the same principle applies: Just because we exist someplace doesn't constitute evidence that that place was created for us to exist there. If you're playing an one-chance-in-X lottery, even if X is incredibly huge you can win if you buy enough tickets.

In any case, the puddle analogy also applies in a different way: even if Earth were the only planet out of all the planets in the universe for suitable Earth-like life, that doesn't exclude other types of life existing on other, slightly different planets.

(your link is broken btw)

Here it is again, and I will also correct it in the OP: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel1.html

I encourage you to read all three pages, since Ebon addresses some of the points you bring up on page 3.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack!

But a lack of any good evidence for something is a plenty good reason for not believing in that thing.

But when a whole bunch of people willingly die for a claim that they met and ate with the risen Jesus, it is absurd to think they are lying or fabricating it (and it is this distinction that your linked blogger misses).

That they were "[l]ying or fabricating" isn't what I'm claiming (or what Greta is claiming in her blog post). Even if we assume that the Biblical text we have is direct exposition from the apostles about their experiences, I don't think it's absurd at all to consider that they might simply have been mistaken. Consider again how thoroughly Jim Jones convinced his followers of his divinity.