How NOT To Handle a Christian

I just finished a lengthy several-day email interaction with a committed Catholic. Sadly, I got sucked into his bullshit. Do not ever do what I did with him: allow him to control the conversation. Here is the lengthy conversation:

Him: I listened to your recent discussion with Trent Horn on The Counsel of Trent Podcast. During the discussion, you invited the listeners to e-mail you if they had any questions regarding your claim that science has disproved all claims made by every religion. Can you please provide a list of every claim made by Christianity and the corresponding scientific refutation?

Me: Below you will find a link to one of my blog posts (Letter to Christian Apologists). Read EVERYTHING in it, including ALL links. I believe I have covered at least the "biggies" that have been falsified.  Also, please answer the questions at the end. Thanks. https://understandrealitythroughscience.blogspot.com/2019/07/a-letter-to-christian-apologists_18.html

Him: How would you define God?

Me: God, for a Christian, is an interventionist deity that is all-omni and the creator of everything.

Him:  1) It seems that everyone engages in faith-based thinking, as it is a reasonable thing to do. I don't understand your objection to faith (trust). 2) You seem to have a "science-only" prejudice. Can you share an example where logic and science contradict one another?

Me: 1) You are equating trust with faith. Unfortunately, colloquially, the two tend to be conflated. Virtually every atheist will make a big distinction between the two: trust is a belief based on evidence, faith is a belief without evidence. For example, I trust my wife because of what objectively she has revealed to me regarding her character, it certain is not blind, non-evidence faith. 2)  If a logical syllogism has evidence-based premises, then there is no contradiction. The problem with Christian apologetics in this regard is that there is a least one unsupported assertion in every logical argument. (for example, https://understandrealitythroughscience.blogspot.com/2019/07/logical-arguments-for-christianity.html)

I find your comment stating that I seem to have a 'science-only' prejudice revealing. Many defenders of religion will state that atheists view "scientism" as their "religion." All that I am saying here is that, regarding the methods of evaluating objective reality, science is the only valid game in town. Yes, we can "know" many things subjectively, but to equate this quality of humanity with science is a category error. Why? Science has revealed extensively that subjective "knowledge" can be very unreliable in understanding reality. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_religion)

Him:  1) I invite you to see this video by Bishop Barron (then Father Barron) for clarity on what the Church believes about faith: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_4PSgFjtvI&vl=en. I agree with you that beliefs without evidence - or beliefs contrary to evidence - are silly and not worthy of being taken seriously. I also recognize that even some Catholics have a naive view of faith. 2) You said, "regarding the methods of evaluating objective reality, science is the only valid game in town." Can you provide evidence for this assertion? Perhaps we have a slightly different understanding of the word "science"? I think of science as a means of studying the physical world. Mathematics, on the other hand, would be related to but outside the domain of science, strictly speaking.

Me: I viewed the video. If you remember my response to your 1) where I said I TRUST my wife because what she objectively presented to me regarding her character: Barron's analogy breaks down fully when he equates a REAL, OBJECTIVE, tangible human being to a non-evidenced God!! He assumes not only that there is a God, but it has several qualities of goodness. How does he KNOW all of that? Think hard about that because this video truly exposes what I am trying to say. In my blog post, I outlined the FACT that ALL claims for God are falsified.

You quoted me, "regarding the methods of evaluating objective reality, science is the only valid game in town." Can you see the ONE word that you are overlooking in your 2) immediately above? It is OBJECTIVE reality. God has not revealed himself in such. Now, there MAY be a God, science only deals in probability based on evidence. Another thing: please go back and read the first few paragraphs in the blog post again but do not click on the links. In such, I really gave you the essential picture of how science looks at religion and its claims.

I have a question for you that I want you to think hard about before you answer. When you get back to me, I want to discuss in some detail whatever your response would be. The question is, "What is more important to you: knowing the truth; being comfortable?"

Him: 1.) I understand you're not going to automatically agree with the claim that God exists. My only point in sharing that video was to present to you the Catholic faith's understanding of what faith is. It is a trust based on good reasons. It is not magical thinking. Those are both caricatures.

2.) We can get to the claims/evidence for God. Obviously, this is where the conversation will naturally flow to. But I do want you to provide evidence for your claim that "regarding the methods of evaluating objective reality, science is the only valid game in town." Your answer may stem from your definition of science. I want us to share the meaning of important terms because that's the only way the conversation can get off the ground.

I'm happy to answer that question. My answer is: both. Knowing the truth is what makes me comfortable. I assume you feel the same way. However, I hesitant to go into much detail as you wish. We already have two separate conversations going above. I'm not all that interested in creating another, especially one that involves you analyzing my motives. I'd rather stick to discussions about the facts surrounding our investigation of the truth.

Me: I understand and respect your reticence to add another point of discussion here. My reason for the question is to attempt to better understand how willing are you to accept the findings of science regarding the claims of religion. Psychologically, we all have a tough time changing an opinion, let alone a worldview. I find that those who have accepted religion for comfort reasons tend to be the most resistant to change. Upfront in the post, I mentioned my journey out of being a Devout Catholic (https://understandrealitythroughscience.blogspot.com/p/about-author-tom-rafferty.html). My de-conversion took decades because of it.

You continue to support "It is a trust based on good reasons. It is not magical thinking." I respectfully disagree for all of the reasons previously mentioned by me. For some reason, you are having difficulty understanding this basic situation. Unfortunately, I don't think I can be clearer on the difference between faith and trust. Now, the term "magical thinking" is used by science-based thinkers to differentiate that way of understanding reality from any other way of looking at the world. The term faith-based thinking is a synonym for magical thinking. I think this link may help you better understand what I am talking about: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/justice-matters/201708/the-virtues-science-based-thinking-in-the-post-truth-age.

Him: 1.) I understand your distinction between faith and trust. What I am trying to get at is that you are merely asserting that "faith" is equivalent with naivete and/or superstition. You have not provided any evidence for this assertion other than to say that many atheists believe that "faith is a belief without evidence." Why should I take you or any other atheist unless I am given evidence? On the other hand, I quoted an article that you shared in your blog post which states that faith is "confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept." That is the Catholic understanding of faith. If you have a different idea, then I am curious to see the evidence in support of your claim. After all, like a good religious person, I don't take things based on blind faith ;)

2.) As I said in my previous email, "I do want you to provide evidence for your claim that 'regarding the methods of evaluating objective reality, science is the only valid game in town.' Your answer may stem from your definition of science. I want us to share meaning of important terms because that's the only way the conversation can get off the ground." I'm curious to hear your response.

Me: I am done discussing the faith/trust topic. We continue to talk past each other.

You said, "Why should I take you or any other atheist unless I am given evidence?" So, ALL the evidence I provided that science has falsified all claims from Christian apologists has not taken root? Keep in mind that Christians are the party making the claims. All I am saying is you have not provided evidence. Did you read the article I linked to on science-based thinking? Your response tells me you do not understand science and its methods. The default for a science-based thinker is the natural world that we can observe and study ONLY. It is up to you folks to provide enough evidence to overturn this default.

This link will help you to better understand where I am coming from: https://gregstevens.com/2012/12/20/magical-thinking-is-easy-and-scientific-thinking-is-hard/. 

Another question: how do you justify your beliefs? I justify mine with science.

Him: 1.) I don't think you read my first point in the previous e-mail carefully. My only claim was that you did not provide evidence for your definition of faith. I quoted an article that you shared that defined faith as "confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept." In response, you are merely asserting that faith is magical thinking. I don't think this is a case of you and I talking past one another. I think it's a case of you avoiding confronting my point. I don't say that with any intention of disrespect. It's just that I have provided evidence of a definition of faith from a source you shared. You have yet to provide evidence that faith is defined as something similar to magical thinking. After doing a quick google search, I have provided the evidence for you below:

According to google, faith is

b.) complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence;

b.) strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, persuasion, religious persuasion, religious belief, belief, code of belief, ideology, creed, teaching, dogma, doctrine

A cursory reading of The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy shows that faith is "of two kinds: evidence-sensitive and evidence-insensitive."

According to the sources I've listed above - including a source I got from your blogpost - "faith" is more nuanced and complex than mere "magical thinking" as you claim. If you disagree, then I am happy to see the evidence you bring. 

Me: Wow, I told you I was done on the faith/trust issue and you do this??? THIS is nothing but a smokescreen for avoiding my inquiry to how you are forming your beliefs and how you justify them. 

I was prepared for a reasonable discussion but it is apparent to me that NOTHING I say would make a difference. Answer my question about how YOU justify YOUR beliefs or we are done.

Him: I'm happy to answer that question when you answer my two questions first, as I asked them first. It's odd though that you can avoid answering a question and it's apparently ok. However, if I prefer that you answer a question before I answer a new one, it's called smoke-screening? That's an odd perception, Tom. You have not provided evidence for your definition of "faith" nor have you answered me when I asked you to define "science". Both of these avoidance were prior to you asking me how I justify my beliefs. Are you smokescreening?

Short is answer is that I justify my beliefs using reason and logic. Science is encompassed by those two; not the other way around. I'm happy to dive deeper into that idea should you if/when you answer at least one of my questions.

Me: Simply go back to the first time you brought up the faith/trust issue. My answer was all there, yet, you continue to act like I didn't respond:

"1) You are equating trust with faith. Unfortunately, colloquially, the two tend to be conflated. Virtually every atheist will make a big distinction between the two: trust is a belief based on evidence, faith is a belief without evidence. For example, I trust my wife because of what objectively she has revealed to me regarding her character, it certain is not blind, non-evidence faith. The first paragraph in its entirety clarified this point."

The definitions in my link DO NOT TALK ABOUT EVIDENCE!!!:

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than truth.
3. A system of religious belief.
4. A firmly held belief or theory 

Again, I am done on the subject. 

- - - - - -

You said, " I justify my beliefs using reason and logic. Science is encompassed by those two; not the other way around."

AGAIN, I asked you to read this link: https://gregstevens.com/2012/12/20/magical-thinking-is-easy-and-scientific-thinking-is-hard/.  If you did, you didn't get it. Simply, logic and reason are good for what they do, but they do not substitute for the best method of understanding reality we call science. Also, the link again from my blog post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

This is a classic regarding what apologist do in attempting to defend God without evidence:

https://understandrealitythroughscience.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-dragon-in-my-garage.html

Him: You have your definition of faith, and I have mine. The important thing is that my faith is not without evidence. Perhaps it's time to talk about the evidence since we won't agree on what "faith" means.

I read the article Magical thinking is easy and scientific thinking is hard. I agree with the general premise of the article, that magical thinking (as the author defined it) needs to be kept in check by scientific thinking. Where I disagree with the author is when he says that "logical thinking has nothing to do with the real world." He provided very little evidence for this. For instance, he didn't explain what he means by the "real" world. I imagine that he is referring to the "physical" world - gravity, matter, energy, etc. But I don't know because he didn't dive in on this point.

What are your thoughts on the "real world"? Does that only encompass the physical world?

Me:  Thanks for agreeing to drop the faith/trust thingy.

You said, "Where I disagree with the author is when he says that 'logical thinking has nothing to do with the real world.'" In this context, he is talking about the material world, the only one for which there is evidence. You have to put yourself into the mind of folks like myself. You appear to think that there is a metaphysical/supernatural world outside of the material world. Us science-based thinker do not assume that there is anything other than the material world. However, most of us are open to accepting that supernatural world IF (and it is a biggie) we perceive supporting evidence. We don't see it presently.

Logic is valuable for organizing ideas and thoughts. However, by its character, it doesn't directly address the real (material) world. Only science and its methods do that. 

Did you read the Dragon in the Garage link? It addresses the issue of the need for evidence.

Since you claim to believe via evidence, please tell me just one example of such. Thanks.

Him: Well how about we bracket the question the supernatural world? It's a bigger leap for someone who believes in the physical world only to assent to the reality of the supernatural world than it is for someone of that mindset to accept the evidence for the metaphysical world. 

Logic absolutely addresses the material world. But before I explain that. I want to ask: Why is it that you believe that the only "real" world is the physical world?

I did not read that link only because I have very limited free time and I am already familiar with the Dragon in the Garage. Before I bring what I believe is evidence for God, I want to hear your response to my question above first, if that's ok. 

Me: You said, " Why is it that you believe that the only "real" world is the physical world?"

Because it is the only reality we really "know" about.

Him: You said that the physical world is the only reality we really know about. I want to dive deeper into that. As a math teacher, I would argue that we know a LOT about the reality of numbers. Math has real interactions with the physical world, and it tells us things about the physical world that we cannot know apart from it. Yet math is not really a part of the physical world. You cannot grab the number "4" for instance.

I want to hear your thoughts on that before I go into too many details.

Me: Math and logic are "proper and basic" (are not dependent on other beliefs for their justification), but are not material or empirical. Now, please give me evidence for a God. Thanks.

Him: Just because math and logic are not empirical, it doesn’t automatically follow that they do not exist. I am trying to narrow down your argument for the physical world being the only “real” world, but I haven’t heard your argument yet. You said the material world is the only one we can “know” about. I just gave an example - math - of immaterial things that we can know about. And we can know about math with more certainty than we can with anything in the physical world. 

I am hesitating to give you a proof for God as of now because so far you are narrowing the playing field to only things that are physical/material. I am trying to press you on that because I don’t subscribe to the self-refuting hypothesis that the material world is all that exists. 

Me: I am a science-based thinker. Why? because it has proven itself to be the best way to understand reality. You continue to avoid my simple and direct challenge to your claim that you use evidence in your religious beliefs. Please answer my question directly and succinctly. Thanks.

Him: Again, you just ignored my attempt to understand why you believe that science is the "best way to understand reality." Of course, you're going to believe that it's the best way. Your definition of reality is limited to the physical/material world. Science is the tool we use to explore the physical world. My point is that you have not established that the material world is all that there is. You are merely asserting this to be the case. I gave you a simple example of the truth that we can know that is outside the purview of science; Mathematics. Instead of addressing my point, you re-asserted your position. I know that you believe science is the only tool to explore the universe. You've said that many times. What you haven't explained is how you know that the material world is all there is. Why isn't mathematics another tool that can be used to describe reality - the reality that is in addition to our physical one? You haven't given me a reason to think that the world of numbers, quantities, etc aren't as real as rocks, elements, stars, and so forth. Please explain this to me.

As far as using evidence to defend my belief in God, go ahead and look at this article https://strangenotions.com/god-exists/. As I have said, the reason I have hesitated in talking about this sooner is that you have made it clear that you will only accept purely scientific evidence. Why? Because the physical world is all we know. Why? Because science is the only tool we have. Why? Because the physical world is all that is real. Why? Because science can only investigate the physical world. Why? Because....

It's difficult for me to not assign your beliefs to circular reasoning, or at least an example of confirmation bias.

Me: You have simply missed ALL of my main points, Reubin. Science-based thinkers do NOT say the material world is all that there is. We say it is all we know about presently as there is no evidence for a supernatural/metaphysical reality. You overlook the fact that science does not accept any claim without evidence. It is the default opinion. Now, since all religions make empirical claims, science can, and does, evaluate them. All come short of acceptance. You and all other religious assume that there is a supernatural realm and go from there.

Regarding Kreeft's arguments, that's all they are, I am very familiar with him and them. There is no evidence in any of his points and there are faults in all of them regarding unsupported assertions. 

You said "my faith is not without evidence" early on in our discussion. NOW is the time to produce it. Frankly, I am having a hard time accepting that you really are interested in the truth. I can't accept that a math teacher is having such a difficult time with the basics of the scientific method, especially after multiple presentations of such by me. If you don't simply answer this question at this time, we are done.

Him: "We say it [science] is all we know about presently as there is no evidence for a supernatural/metaphysical reality." Again, I provided a mathematical argument against this. You have yet to respond. I am happy to hear your point of view in response if you have one.

"You and all other religious assume that there is a supernatural realm and go from there." You put words in my mouth. I do not merely assume that there is a supernatural realm. I provided arguments for that with the article I shared with you. Instead of evaluating any of the 20 arguments, you merely state that there is no evidence. Stating a claim is not the same as providing evidence for it. And - yet again - I used math to demonstrate the validity of truth outside the purview of science.

Now I am waiting for you to confront any of the arguments I shared. 

Me: Have a good day. I am done with you. If you ever change your mind about directly and unbiasedly engaging me, perhaps we can communicate again.

Him: The feeling is mutual. I will happily await your response to mathematics being a part of reality. Until then, take care.

Me: Look back at what I said about math and logic and show me where I said they weren’t real, SMH

Him: Ah, good. Some clarification. So you agree math is real. Yet you also said that math is not empirical. You also said that the empirical world is all we know about. This is your point of view as a syllogism.

Premise 1: The material world is all we know about

Premise 2: Math is immaterial.

Conclusion: ?

You tell me what logically follows from that. I am taking those two premises directly from your e-mails. I'm happy to listen where I have gone wrong, or where you have misspoken. Please clarify your words if I have misunderstood.

Me: Category error: math is not material. Why is this run-around so important to you? You are obviously avoiding the issue at hand. I am done. Do not contact me ever again.
- - - - - -
I recommend simply saying something like this to these folks. If they seem to be honestly curious, THEN engage them:

"Since every logical syllogism and argument for a God has at least one unsupported assertion and all claims for a God have been falsified by science, why should I be a Catholic? If you doubt the truth of what I am saying, please read the following, including all links. Thanks and peace.

https://understandrealitythroughscience.blogspot.com/2019/07/a-letter-to-christian-apologists_18.html"