Christian/Religious call-in show similar to The Atheist Experience?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

tstorm823:

Jerram Fahey:
a) He makes a statement on a certain matter.
b) He has demonstrated expertise in the field the certain matter pertains to.
c) Based on prior demonstrated expertise, they trust him to be knowledgable in the matter.
d) They believe his statement.

THIS shows a justified belief. Your steps do not.

That step has no place there because it is meaningless. Since they believe him to be more knowledgable in the matter, obviously in their minds he has demonstrated his knowledge to them. It changes nothing. It's not as though people go "Man, this elder knows NOTHING about geography, but he's supposed to be wise so we HAVE to listen to what he says." To them, he's an expert.

You're missing a key word: demonstrated. "In their minds he has demonstrated" is NOT the same as "he has demonstrated". If they believe him to have demonstrated his expertise when in fact he has not, they have made an error, as I said earlier.

You like to pretend that we can't know these things, when in fact we can. We can know that Einstein demonstrated expertise in physics because he came up with a number of hypothetical models that were later verified through experiment. We can know Kent Hovind hasn't demonstrated expertise in the history of the Earth because nothing he claims has produced anything of value, and he consistently makes claims that other experts in the field can demonstrate to be false. Just because I believe Kent Hovind is an expert doesn't make him one - the method (or purported facts) that led me to that belief in the first place is flawed.

Jerram Fahey:

You're missing a key word: demonstrated. "In their minds he has demonstrated" is NOT the same as "he has demonstrated". If they believe him to have demonstrated his expertise when in fact he has not, they have made an error, as I said earlier.

You like to pretend that we can't know these things, when in fact we can. We can know that Einstein demonstrated expertise in physics because he came up with a number of hypothetical models that were later verified through experiment. We can know Kent Hovind hasn't demonstrated expertise in the history of the Earth because nothing he claims has produced anything of value, and he consistently makes claims that other experts in the field can demonstrate to be false. Just because I believe Kent Hovind is an expert doesn't make him one - the method (or purported facts) that led me to that belief in the first place is flawed.

a)You're suggesting that everyone do a background check on someone before trusting their opinion.
b)You're getting dangerously close to discounting anyone's belief you don't agree with on principle.
c)Spiritual experts tend to be quite spiritual. Exitting the analogy for a moment, I think you'll find it pretty close to unanimous that God exists among experts in the field...

tstorm823:
SNIP

Do you genuinely belief that scientists are just... bluffing? And all the peer-review as well, the scientific publications-- they're all in on it too? What about the first-hand historical research I actually did do myself, is that evidence worth bugger all as well? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here, I'm willing to admit that might be the case. It seems to me that you're claiming that trust in a scientific claim is of the same ilk as religious faith.

Or do you genuinely think it's the same thing as when a priest or religious figure tells you X is wrong or Y is the source of all evil, on the basis of feeling it really really strongly?

tstorm823:
a)You're suggesting that everyone do a background check on someone before trusting their opinion.
b)You're getting dangerously close to discounting anyone's belief you don't agree with on principle.
c)Spiritual experts tend to be quite spiritual. Exitting the analogy for a moment, I think you'll find it pretty close to unanimous that God exists among experts in the field...

a) In order to be justified, yes. Why do you find that unreasonable? Why do you think being lazy is an equally prudent path to truth?
b) How so? Whether I like the idea or not, if they can demonstrate it I'm forced to accept it.
c) I find the term "spiritual expert" to be somewhat oxymoronic. If we take for example, crystal healing, one can be an "expert" in the sense that they know what benefits each type of crystal is purported to have, but they can't actually demonstrate these benefits exist. So they could be an expert in the folklore of crystals, but not an expert healer. So when they say "amethyst is said to improve your sex life" or whatever, you're justified in believing them. But when they say "amethyst will improve your sex life", you're not justified in believing them.

Likewise, regarding "experts" on God, it's equally oxymoronic because beside the fact nothing has actually been demonstrated, there's not even a consensus of ideas - it's everything BUT unanimous. Every "expert" is going to believe in a different God to the next (though there will be similarities within the same religion). Hindus believe one thing, Christians believe another, as did the Babylonians, Muslims, Mayans, Egyptians, Greeks, Aborigines, Jews... I think you get the picture. Even within Christianity there's Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons... it's crazy. If any of these so-called "experts" could demonstrate their claim we'd expect to see a large consensus, like we do in science. We don't have a thousand denominations of the theory of gravity, we have a small handful of competing hypotheses at best, with a single dominant one.

So again, people can be experts on religion, and even different facets of religion (pastors will have expertise in what the religion teaches, while historians will have expertise in how the religion came about and what prior influences it drew from). But to say they're experts on some literal, extant God and therefore people are justified in their theism, is incorrect.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked