Comments On The "Christians; Please Answer These Questions" Post Below

Following are some of my comments on the "Christians; Please Answer These Questions" post below, after I posted this challenge on my FB page.  Several apologists from Ratio Christi commented after I, and two other atheists, spoke at their national conference in Charlotte, NC:

Regarding philosophy, it IS speculation if it does not present a falsifiable claim. In other words, how do you differentiate it from other philosophical claims on reality? Don't get me wrong, philosophy is valuable in organizing reason and logic, but, in itself has no value in determining reality.
- - - - -
My answers to my questions:



1)    Why should I accept philosophical/theological speculations and/or personal experience over objective evidence?

> I should not accept speculations or personal testimony over objective evidence because objective evidence is the best way of understanding reality. It is how we all operate in our daily lives. Theists exclude this process regarding religious claims. Objective evidence is used in scientific methods and such are justified by the ability for claims to be falsified. Philosophy, theology or personal experience cannot be tested against reality because claims under such cannot be falsified.

2)    Please answer the following:

How do you know what you believe is true?

>Through science-based thinking and methods

How would you know if you were wrong?

>Through falsification via scientific methods

How would you differentiate your belief from a delusion (A belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.)?

> I accept superior evidence no matter the claim

3)     What is more PROBABLE, and why?

>(b) Because there is insufficient evidence for me to accept the extraordinary claims of Christianity over the multiple myths during the same time period
- - - - -
Science shows that a person has to have a mind to think. I think, therefore I have a mind. Logical thinking, justified by science. Regarding being "justified in believing a great many things even if we cannot empirically verify those things:" science shows that the mind is very much vulnerable to faulty thinking, thus, the need for scientific methods to justify opinions.
- - - - -
I accept philosophical/logical conclusions if the premises are valid and the syllogism is properly structured. I do not use the term "knowledge" regarding philosophy or logic because knowledge is commonly defined as "justified true belief." There is no way to justify philosophical conclusions because they cannot be falsified against reality. If they can be falsified, they are provisional scientific conclusions.
- - - - -
When an apologist uses the lead-in "If" in a logical premise, my skeptical antenna goes up.
- - - - -
Logic is valid as the formal rules under which reason operates. One problem I see in your understanding of logic as truth is that, if the premises are false, then the conclusions would be false regardless of the syllogism's validity. Apologists tend to slip in unevidenced or refuted claims when presenting their logical syllogisms. So, yes, I see your point regard common vs philosophical use of the term "logic", however, I am referring to both or either depending on the use.
- - - - -
I am not saying that science is against logic or that logic is erroneous. I am saying that to accept a claim regarding reality based on logic ONLY is risky because of the history of science. To early humans, it was intuitive and logical to think the earth was flat and that the sum literally rose and set in the sky. Before the theory of evolution, it was intuitive and logical to think that a god specially created life, including humans. Before quantum mechanics, it was intuitive and logical that something could not arise from nothing.
- - - - -
I will always take the consensus of scientists working in the field under discussion because of the scientific methods used and the peer-review process.
- - - - -
BINGO!!! An admission, "Does scientific evidence trump philosophy/theology if there is a conflict? I would say provisionally 'Yes' but the caveat is that science has a very limited domain." Science IS provisional, but you seem to be saying that your answer here is such. That, I do not understand. Also, science has a very limited domain? Since when is reality that humanity can know a very limited domain. You are trying to sneak in the supernatural here, which has no supporting evidence.
- - - - -
I disagree that science deals in abstractions; objective evidence is not abstract.
- - - - -
History utilizing scientific methods is valid. To say science is useless in historical methods is ludicrous.
- - - - -
I agree, philosophy is used regarding meta-physical questions and science is useless with such. Question, however, how does one test one's philosophical opinion to determine its validity?
- - - - -
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when a claim is made that a god intervenes in our reality and science cannot find evidence of such. Of course, science cannot "prove" there is no god, as you know, science is based on probabilities and its conclusions are provisional.
- - - - - -
93% of elite scientists (members of the Royal Academy and the National Academies of Science) do not accept the claim of an interventionist deity.
- - - - -
Individual scientists' opinions are not science. Virtually all significant scientific findings have overturned conventional opinion that seemed logical and/or intuitive at the time. You can put lipstick on a pig, but faith is belief without evidence.
- - - - -
You are doing what EVERY other apologist has done: attack the character of the sources without addressing the issues. Yes or no, does scientific evidence trump philosophy/theology if there is a conflict? Yes or no, do you use scientific thinking and methods to determine the truth of a claim or something else and why? Yes or no, do you objectively look at the claims of Christianity in comparison to other religious claims and the findings of science, and find that evidence supports the probability that Christianity is special and true?
- - - - -
The whole point of the questions is to find out if the reader agrees that nothing surpassed science and its methods in determining the truth. If not, why not? In my Note, I have given some support for my views. You can continue to criticize the messengers instead of objectively doing your own research. It has taken me several years to break through my own cognitive dissonance regarding religion and scientific findings. I have come to the conclusion that, after in depth research, science reveals that there probably is not an interventionist deity, much less the Christian variety. Yes, for every claim I make, there are scientists who disagree. However, that is not what science is about. It is about understanding, and accepting, what the majority of scientists working in the fields of study involved with the issue at hand (and historians who use scientific methods) conclude provisionally regarding what is probably true. You are doing otherwise, thus, are a science denier.
- - - - -
Finally, if you look at the history of science, you will find it has progressed both our understanding of reality and the quality of human existence through showing that intuition and logic were erroneous. Philosophy and theology are based on intuition and logic.
- - - - -
The apologist cannot have it both ways: god is either affecting the world or not. If it is the former, such intervention is testable by science. Such a simple concept that is blocked by delusion.
- - - - -
Philosophy is intellectual masturbation.
- - - - -
Naturalism is a worldview supported by the results of science. The methods of science do not exclude the supernatural but simply operate under the process of Methodological Naturalism. Theoretically, if all natural explanations have been ruled out and there is evidence of something outside of the realm of nature effecting our reality, then science would consider such evidence. The key word here is EVIDENCE. There has never been any evidence for the supernatural. In fact, there is no room for it in our understanding of classical/Newtonian reality.
- - - - -
My answers to a commenter:

•    Our cognitive faculties are reliable to interpret/discover the external world.

I disagree because neuroscience and psychology clearly show that our perceptions of the world can be quite unreliable, thus, the need for an objective way to best understand the external (and our internal) world, which is science.

•    --- philosophical arguments and personal testimony also have their place in our epistemology.

From a dictionary, "Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion."  Knowledge, by definition is JUSTIFIED true belief.  Purely philosophical arguments cannot be falsified, thus, fail the definition of knowledge.  Of course, that is not saying that philosophy is not important.  It certainly is in organizing reason and logic. 

One reason I can give in support of science over philosophy is as follows:   As time has gone on, the different opinions regarding what is true philosophy or religion has fragmented and continues to do so.  The trend in science is the opposite.  As time goes on, there are convergences of opinions and, if the findings are strong enough there is overwhelming consensus.

•    Do you think science is not just the best way, but the only way to understand reality?  If so, why?  If not, what other means could we employ?

It is the best way, and the only way if there is a conflict in perception and/or opinion.  Please click on the link in my Note regarding this subject for further rationale, etc.

•    Are there any philosophical statements that you could justify and that you would trust?

No, if you are talking about claims on reality.  Logical syllogisms can be justified as such, but if the premises are not consistent with science, the syllogism doesn't work in understanding reality.

•    ---what would count as objective evidence (generally) for the existence of God?

Any claim that passes scientific scrutiny and natural explanations are less likely than a supernatural explanation.  I find it interesting that the followers of Jesus believed in him from EVIDENCE, not faith, and now we are suppose to believe without the same evidence.

•    If one of your presuppositions is that "Evidence does not support the claim that there probably is a god," then aren't you starting out presupposing your conclusion?  My guess is no, and that either I am misunderstanding you or you meant it a different way.  But please explain.

To clarify, my presupposition regarding this point is that, as a science-based thinker, I presuppose a naturalistic explanation for reality until evidence shows otherwise.  Presently, evidence does not support the claim that there probably is a god.  Now, you will disagree with this, however, IMHO, science is valid whether anyone agrees with it or not. 

Please think about this:  93% of the elite scientists (members of the Royal Academy and the National Academies of Science) do not accept claims that there is an interventionist god. 

•    (My questions are unfair.)

I disagree.  I think that they are reasonable and fair.  They get at the heart of our differences.
- - - - -