IMBeggar on divine hiddenness

The previous post (by vjtorley) featured a video by a YouTube Christian apologist, IMBeggar, in which he attempts to defuse the problem of evil. It’s riddled with problems as you can see by reading the OP and the comments.

Out of curiosity, I visited IMBeggar’s YouTube channel and watched some of his other videos. One of them, titled “Why doesn’t God just show Himself?”, tackled the problem of divine hiddenness. It was even worse than the one that addressed the problem of evil. I was surprised to find that I disagreed with every major point.


The problem of divine hiddenness, in a nutshell, is this: God supposedly loves us and wants everyone to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4). Salvation requires that we accept Jesus as our Lord and savior (Romans 10:9-10). To accept Jesus, you have to know about him and believe in him. God, being infinitely wise, knows the best way to get the message out and persuade people to become believers. Being omnipotent, he’s able to do it. Why then does he seem to botch it so badly? To me, the answer is obvious. God doesn’t exist, or at the very least he doesn’t have the characteristics attributed to him by Christians.

Perhaps he doesn’t want everyone to be saved. Perhaps he’s not smart enough to do a decent job of communicating with us. Perhaps he isn’t powerful enough to pull it off. Maybe he’s being thwarted by Satan, who is more powerful. Maybe the dog ate his homework. None of those reasons will appeal to Christians, because they all clash with the Christian view of God.

Thinking Christians are thus faced with the problem of justifying, to themselves and others, the fact that the all-powerful and omniscient Christian God does so poorly at this task, plus the fact that the evidence for his existence is so scant and unpersuasive. In other words, the job is to explain why he remains hidden from so many of us (hence the term “divine hiddenness”). In his video, IMBeggar (henceforth “Beggar”) attempts to spell this out for us. I address his main points below.

Could God simply reveal himself to everyone in all his glory?

Beggar says no, because he claims that we couldn’t withstand it. It would overwhelm us. He illustrates this in the video with a dramatic scene where there’s a blinding light in the sky, with people running around dazed and confused on the ground, screaming.

But if God is omnipotent he could easily modulate his appearance so that it didn’t overwhelm us, yet was spectacular enough to convince us of his existence. Or he could design humans with the ability to withstand the sight of him in his full glory.

Beggar is underestimating his omnipotent God’s abilities, which ironically is something Christians often do when searching for excuses for their deity’s behavior.

Couldn’t God reveal himself through “cosmic signs and wonders”?

Beggar says “These would probably work for a while, but let’s be honest – people are fickle, and after the 20th or 30th cosmic wonder we’d be like ‘Oh, good. The sun disappeared again as I’m driving to work. In the dark. Again.’” Once again, he’s underestimating the power of an omnipotent God. First, God could make the “cosmic wonders” impressive enough that he wouldn’t need 20 or 30 of them in a row in order to convince people of his existence. Or, if he did want to use a long series of cosmic wonders, he could arrange for each one to be more spectacular than the previous one, so that people would be rapt and waiting to see what would happen next. The whole world would be fascinated and everyone would be talking about it. God could even limit himself to a single spectacular cosmic wonder but make it absolutely unambiguous. An example I’ve used in the past is that God could rearrange a bunch of distant galaxies so that when viewed using earthbound telescopes, they would spell out something like “I, Yahweh, am God, and Jesus Christ is my only begotten son.” It’s unlikely that any entity other than God could pull off a stunt like that. Who else would have the power to move galaxies around that are millions or billions of light years away? It would certainly make me sit up and take notice.Why couldn’t God do that or something similarly convincing?

Beggar also complains that there’s nothing personal about cosmic wonders, but so what? If he was seeking personal relationships with people, nothing would stop God from staging cosmic wonders and additionally communicating with people individually. See the next point.

Couldn’t God reveal himself to each of us individually?

Beggar scoffs, asking “Doesn’t this seem a little… door-to-door salesman?” as if there were something cheesy about it. What’s cheesy about personal encounters with God? What about all the Biblical figures who had such encounters? Should they have felt insulted? At this point in the video, Beggar has already claimed that God wants to have a personal relationship with each of us. What better way to establish such relationships than by interacting with us as individuals and having a conversation with each of us?

Beggar also asks “And when would he do it? At what age? For how long?” as if that were a problem. Does he really think that his omniscient God couldn’t figure out the right time and duration for each of his creatures? And why would he limit himself to one encounter, if multiple encounters throughout life were more effective? Beggar has once again underestimated what an omniscient, omnipotent God is capable of.

Note to Christians: If you want to claim that your God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then think about what that means. Stop underestimating him. I realize that it’s convenient to underestimate God at times because as Beggar demonstrates, that allows you to make excuses for him. But you aren’t being consistent if you do that. God is either omni or he’s not. Which is it?

Doesn’t it make more sense for God to reveal himself to everybody at once, versus to each of us individually?

No, it doesn’t. This is yet another underestimation by Beggar. It isn’t like God needs to conserve his energy. He’s omnipotent, after all. Revealing himself to each person individually is no more taxing than revealing himself to everyone all at once. Plus, he can’t reveal himself to everyone at once, because not all of us are alive at the same time. Some people are inevitably going to miss out on this one-time event.

That problem goes away if he engages us as individuals. If he does that, every person from the dawn of time until now will have a direct, persuasive, personal encounter with God at the appropriate age, in the right place, and for the appropriate duration. What’s not to like about that?

What if God revealed himself to everyone by “infusing”  knowledge of himself directly into their brains?

Beggar claims that this would deprive us of our freedom, but why? If God merely infuses knowledge of himself into our brains, that doesn’t force or obligate us to respond to him in some fixed way. We still can choose how to respond to him. Our freedom isn’t impacted.

If God interacts with us physically, he’s still infusing knowledge of himself into our brains. It’s just that he’s doing it indirectly via our senses and our thought processes. What difference does that make in terms of our freedom?

He could become one of us

Beggar says that God could “cross over into our time and space” and become “one of us”. He’s obviously thinking of Jesus here, and as you’d expect, he claims that this way of communicating with us is superior to the others he’s discussed. I’m not sure why — he doesn’t really explain it in the video.

I think it’s a terrible way for God to reveal himself, because if he becomes human, it’s very easy (and in fact sensible) to doubt that he is God. Much smarter for God to reveal himself in such a way that he appears unambiguously divine. Beggar anticipates this objection and addresses it in his next point.

As a human, he can’t just tell people that he’s God

Beggar notes that people will rightly think you’re crazy or lying if you tell people you’re God, so how does Jesus get around this problem? Beggar offers two solutions: 1) arrange a bunch of prophecies at various times and places, foretelling your arrival; and 2) perform miracles.

The problem with the supposed prophecies predicting the arrival of Jesus is that they’re not at all convincing to someone who hasn’t already drunk the Kool-Aid, but that’s a topic for another thread.

The problem with miracles is that they need to be something that can’t be faked using magician-style tricks. Also, few people will witness them firsthand, so those of us who aren’t there at the time are stuck with secondary accounts which are notoriously unreliable. There is every reason to doubt that Jesus was God, and a book written by a believer, who himself hasn’t witnessed the supposed miracles and has only heard about them secondhand, shouldn’t be convincing to anyone without a lot of corroborating evidence.

Once again, we’re talking about an omniscient God here. Does Beggar really think that an omniGod can’t come up with a better way of getting the word out? Are dubious prophecies and secondhand accounts of miracles really the best he can do?

Is showing himself once, 2000 years ago, really sufficient?

Beggar says “I know what some of you are thinking: ‘Yeah, but that was 2000 years ago. I wasn’t there.'” His response is a non-sequitur: “Do you think God is bound by space and time?” My answer: No, but we are. God, being timeless, can appear at any time or at all times, but each of us humans is only around for a lifetime, and all but a tiny fraction of us weren’t around when Jesus was. And of those who were living at the time, only a tiny fraction in one corner of the world encountered Jesus. If God really wanted to get the word out he could have done a much better job than that.

Beggar also asks “Do you think your mind and your soul is bound by space and time?” My answer: I don’t think we have souls, but our minds are certainly bound by space and time. Even if we had souls, and our minds and souls weren’t bound by space and time, so what? In order to be saved, each of us has to get the message while we are here on earth. Jesus isn’t around anymore, so we have nothing to rely on other than dubious biblical accounts (which contradict each other anyway). If that’s the best God can do, he has really dropped the ball.

Beggar wraps up the video with the assertion that God “walked on the face of this earth as a human being” in the form of Jesus. There’s more to critique, but I’ll leave that for the comments.

174 thoughts on “IMBeggar on divine hiddenness

  1. colewd: All this being said you have made an attempt to support your argument which is ahead of where Alan and Flint are at this point.

    I meant to pick up on this before but…

    Yes the logic, if A we would observe B, if not-A we would not observe B, we do not observe B, therefore not-A, works internally. As Flint says, the problem is in the choice of premise for the axiom.

    I guess I’m wondering about the certainty (considering it harmless) of belief and how it differs (if at all) from keiths’s certainty of unbelief. Seems two sides of the same coin to me.

    PS excuse subsequent corrections to niggling typos in most of my comments. I habitually use my Android phone to comment and a combination of tiny keyboard and fat fingers results in errors that I only spot after posting.

  2. keiths,

    It’s easy. Five minutes ago I knew nothing about the goddess Chinnamasta. If you had asked me then whether I believed in Chinnamasta, I would have said no. I didn’t know anything about her, and I didn’t believe in her. The Mongolians we are talking about haven’t heard about Christ and don’t believe in him, just as I hadn’t heard of Chinnamasta and didn’t believe in her.

    Once your asked you are aware. Those who have read Marks passage are aware.

    keiths,

    Mark says that they won’t be saved unless they believe and are baptized, and if they don’t believe, they will be condemned. That’s pretty clear, and whether the Mongolians have a “new spirit” in them isn’t mentioned. Belief and baptism, Bill. The Mongolians don’t qualify.

    Read Marks passage more carefully. You are forcing your own interpretation based on your conclusion on the passage.

  3. Alan Fox,

    I guess I’m wondering about the certainty (considering it harmless) of belief and how it differs (if at all) from keiths’s certainty of unbelief. Seems two sides of the same coin to me.

    I believe the evidence of our existence and the existence of a universe that can sustain life supports creation as the likely conclusion. I also think Judaism and its extension Christianity is credibly documented through the Bible. When we first met on this forum I did not have this confidence in the Judea Christian story.

    Joshua Swamidass asked me to look into Christianity and after years of study I have come to the conclusion that it is the best explanation for our origin. I have found counter arguments like Bart Erhmans to be faulty. The bible when looked at as a whole, vs skeptic cherry picking is very credible document and beyond what 44 people over thousands of years could have produced on their own.

    I think if you desire one side or the other and don’t fight this bias in yourself your reasoning will naturally become circular.

  4. keiths,

    Also, evidence for gods can be observational. Think of the fine-tuning argument. You can debate whether that argument succeeds, but it’s clear that the argument is at least strengthened by our observations of the constants of nature and their effects.

    Hi keiths
    I agree and this is well written. The explanations for the diversity of life are also becoming iffy given the new constant flow of information on genetics.

  5. I don’t make that assumption, as it would be an obvious example of circular reasoning. My atheism is a conclusion, not an assumption.

    You seem to be saying that you find no positive evidence for gods, and plenty of contradictions between reality and what (i.e.) colewd believes, and therefore your atheism is a conclusion. So I suggested a god whose existence would ratify all your observations. How would you “conclude” that such a god does not exist? In other words, you must first specify what a god would and would not entail. Your “conclusion” would then be based on this specification.

    Or to put it in yet other words, you can logically conclude that colewd’s god doesn’t exist, but not that there are no gods at all.

    Proof by contradiction not only works fine in axiomatic systems, it actually works best in them. After all, proof by contradiction is one of the most powerful tools in mathematics, and math is based on axioms, right?

    ??? But those powerful tools only work because the axioms are not themselves in dispute, they are axiomatic.

    Also, evidence for gods can be observational. Think of the fine-tuning argument. You can debate whether that argument succeeds, but it’s clear that the argument is at least strengthened by our observations of the constants of nature and their effects.

    I think we’re going in circles. Either some body of observations is consistent with some description of some god, or it isn’t. Are you refining your god, so that it can be responsible for constants of nature, but not for burning bushes? You risk arguing for the “null god” whose actions are just what we observe, nothing more or less.

    Every conceivable observation? Gas was five cents lower at the pump today, therefore the Christian God doesn’t exist?

    Only if the Christian god is, perhaps indirectly, supposed to be responsible for stable gas prices. After all, that god is omnipotent. Why not gas prices?

    I disagree with Lataster. Christians can entertain the possibility that Jesus was fictional for the sake of argument despite not believing it, just as I, an atheist, can assume the existence of the Christian God for the sake of argument despite believing that there is no such God. Which is exactly what I’ve been doing in this thread.

    No. Christians can NOT entertain the possibility that Jesus was fictional. Faith in the reality of Jesus is as central to Christian belief as faith that the 2020 election was rigged is central to trumpies. Nor could you “grant for the sake of argument” that colewd’s god might exist. An axiomatic belief is one you simply cannot suspend or discard. You can mock colewd for inconsistent beliefs, but not for insincere beliefs. Your claim to intellectual objectivity isn’t sincere for Lataster’s reason – that sincere belief cannot be honestly pretended away. Both you and colewd are rationalizing your axioms, and pretending you are “concluding” them.

    (I think my own beliefs overlap yours in several ways, but I don’t try to trick myself into thinking I “concluded” what I believe. The world I live in is consistent with my beliefs because I prefer to see it that way.)

  6. Alan:

    Yes the logic, if A we would observe B, if not-A we would not observe B, we do not observe B, therefore not-A, works internally.

    Your second premise is unnecessary. The actual logic of the argument is “If A implies B, not(B) implies not(A).”

  7. Flint: Your claim to intellectual objectivity isn’t sincere for Lataster’s reason – that sincere belief cannot be honestly pretended away.

    Precisely.

  8. Flint:

    You seem to be saying that you find no positive evidence for gods, and plenty of contradictions between reality and what (i.e.) colewd believes, and therefore your atheism is a conclusion.

    No, the argument I’m making in this thread (including in the OP) is specific to the Christian God. That’s the God that IMBeggar defends in his video, and the whole point of my OP was to challenge the reasoning in that video.

    So I suggested a god whose existence would ratify all your observations. How would you “conclude” that such a god does not exist?

    I wouldn’t. My atheism isn’t a positive assertion that no gods exist; I just don’t believe in any. As Merriam-Webster says, atheism is “a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.” I lack belief, so I qualify as an atheist.

    Or to put it in yet other words, you can logically conclude that colewd’s god doesn’t exist, but not that there are no gods at all.

    That’s precisely why I said this in the OP:

    To me, the answer is obvious. God doesn’t exist, or at the very least he doesn’t have the characteristics attributed to him by Christians.

    Both of those hypotheses are consistent with the facts. Bill’s hypothesis isn’t.

    keiths:

    Proof by contradiction not only works fine in axiomatic systems, it actually works best in them. After all, proof by contradiction is one of the most powerful tools in mathematics, and math is based on axioms, right?

    Flint:

    ??? But those powerful tools only work because the axioms are not themselves in dispute, they are axiomatic.

    Ah, I see what’s going on. I misunderstood what you wrote here:

    The common mathematical proof, of assuming a postulate to be true and then showing this leads to a contradiction, can’t work here because the evidence for gods isn’t observational, it is axiomatic.

    I thought you were saying that the logic of proof by contradiction can’t be applied to an argument based on axioms, but (if I now understand you correctly) you’re actually just saying that for the logic to be useful in settling a disagreement, the axioms can’t be in dispute. With that I agree.

    keiths:

    Also, evidence for gods can be observational. Think of the fine-tuning argument. You can debate whether that argument succeeds, but it’s clear that the argument is at least strengthened by our observations of the constants of nature and their effects.

    Flint:

    I think we’re going in circles. Either some body of observations is consistent with some description of some god, or it isn’t. Are you refining your god, so that it can be responsible for constants of nature, but not for burning bushes? You risk arguing for the “null god” whose actions are just what we observe, nothing more or less.

    The fine-tuning argument is far more sophisticated than “make a bunch of observations; postulate a god that made the world that way; conclude that your god exists”.

    Flint:

    For Keiths, every conceivable observation refutes the Christian (biblical) god…

    keiths:

    Every conceivable observation? Gas was five cents lower at the pump today, therefore the Christian God doesn’t exist?

    Flint:

    Only if the Christian god is, perhaps indirectly, supposed to be responsible for stable gas prices.

    Do you know of anyone who believes that God is obligated to keep gas prices stable? I don’t, and in any case it’s not part of Christian theology. “Gas is down five cents today” is compatible with both “the Christian God exists” and “the Christian God doesn’t exist.”

    “Gas is down five cents today” is a conceivable observation. It doesn’t refute the hypothesis that the Christian God exists. Therefore your statement that “For Keiths, every conceivable observation refutes the Christian (biblical) god…” is incorrect.

    keiths:

    I disagree with Lataster. Christians can entertain the possibility that Jesus was fictional for the sake of argument despite not believing it, just as I, an atheist, can assume the existence of the Christian God for the sake of argument despite believing that there is no such God.

    Flint:

    No. Christians can NOT entertain the possibility that Jesus was fictional. Faith in the reality of Jesus is as central to Christian belief as faith that the 2020 election was rigged is central to trumpies. Nor could you “grant for the sake of argument” that colewd’s god might exist.

    Granting something for the sake of argument is commonplace, and it doesn’t imply in the slightest that you agree with what you’re granting. Here’s an example I used with Alan recently: I am not a flat-earther. I’m convinced that the earth is round. Here’s one reason: Suppose for the sake of argument that the earth is flat. In that case, ships sailing away from us should appear smaller and smaller, but they shouldn’t gradually disappear from the bottom up. We observe that they do gradually disappear from the bottom up. Therefore the earth is not flat.

    Before typing that argument, I was firmly convinced that the earth was round. While typing that argument, I was firmly convinced that the earth was round. I am still firmly convinced that the earth is round. If you had interrupted me at any point while I was typing that to ask me whether I thought the earth was round, I would have said yes. Yet I was able to assume for the sake of argument that the earth was flat. There’s nothing contradictory about that. I simply put myself in someone else’s shoes to see what their perspective implied, all the while holding on to my prior belief that the earth is round.

    My argument in this thread is analogous.

    Your claim to intellectual objectivity isn’t sincere for Lataster’s reason – that sincere belief cannot be honestly pretended away.

    As explained above, you don’t have to deny or “pretend away” a sincere belief in order to reason from the perspective of someone who doesn’t share that belief. When I reason from the perspective of a flat-earther, I am not pretending that the earth is flat. When I reason from the perspective of a Christian, I am not pretending that the Christian God exists.

    This type of reasoning is extremely common, and there’s nothing illegitimate or intellectually dishonest about it.

    Both you and colewd are rationalizing your axioms, and pretending you are “concluding” them.

    Which axioms are you referring to? I can’t think of any way in which I’m reasoning circularly.

    I think my own beliefs overlap yours in several ways, but I don’t try to trick myself into thinking I “concluded” what I believe.

    Really? You’re claiming that none of your beliefs are conclusions you reached through a process of reasoning?

  9. colewd:

    How do you “not believe” in something you know nothing about?

    keiths:

    It’s easy. Five minutes ago I knew nothing about the goddess Chinnamasta. If you had asked me then whether I believed in Chinnamasta, I would have said no. I didn’t know anything about her, and I didn’t believe in her. The Mongolians we are talking about haven’t heard about Christ and don’t believe in him, just as I hadn’t heard of Chinnamasta and didn’t believe in her.

    colewd:

    Once your asked you are aware.

    It’s possible not to believe in something before you’re asked about it and before you’re aware of it. To not believe in something just means that you don’t believe in it (obviously), and that can happen before anyone mentions it to you or asks you about it. I didn’t believe in Chinnamasta before I googled ‘obscure gods’, and I don’t believe in her now.

    Paul recognized this:

    “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? [Emphasis added]

    Romans 10:13-14, NIV

    Paul says it right there. It’s possible for someone who has never heard of Jesus to not believe in him. Those Mongolians who have never heard of Jesus don’t believe in him. They’re screwed, if the Bible is to be believed.

  10. I can’t believe there are counter-arguments here. Trying to rationalize the obvious conclusion that keiths has offered is a lost cause.

  11. keiths,

    It’s possible not to believe in something before you’re asked about it and before you’re aware of it. To not believe in something just means that you don’t believe in it (obviously), and that can happen before anyone mentions it to you or asks you about it. I didn’t believe in Chinnamasta before I googled ‘obscure gods’, and I don’t believe in her now.

    You cannot reject or dismiss something until you know what it is. ie Keiths I have a thought in my head do you believe it as strongly as I do.

    Anyway your arguments often assume you can as a human have the perspective of the creator of the universe. There is no way for you to judge by His actions that He is not perfectly loving.

  12. aleta: Trying to rationalize the obvious conclusion that keiths has offered is a lost cause.

    Winning is only ever temporary, Jack. Entropy always wins in the end.

  13. aleta:

    I can’t believe there are counter-arguments here. Trying to rationalize the obvious conclusion that keiths has offered is a lost cause.

    By all indications, the job description for Christian apologists includes the line “Top-notch rationalization skills required”.

    One of my favorites is William Lane Craig’s rationalization of the slaughter of the Canaanites, including the children, at God’s command:

    …if these children had been allowed to live, especially in a Canaanite culture, they would have been infected with the same poison as the adults and most of them would have been lost. So their deaths would actually mean their salvation and those children once in heaven would be grateful that God had issued such a command to the Israeli armies to wipe them out. So, it seems to me that there isn’t anybody that God has wronged in this case. The adults deserve the punishment. The children are delivered from evil…

    Bill, do you agree with Craig? Should those Canaanite kids be grateful to God for their grisly deaths at the hands of the Israelites?

  14. colewd:

    You cannot reject or dismiss something until you know what it is.

    The verses don’t say anything about rejecting or dismissing — only about not believing.

    Here’s Mark 16:16 again:

    Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

    Romans 10:13-14:

    “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

    Those verses aren’t about dismissing or rejecting. They’re about not believing. Not believing gets you condemned, according to Mark.

    Anyway your arguments often assume you can as a human have the perspective of the creator of the universe.

    You don’t need a God’s-eye view in order to understand what it means to “not believe” in something. It’s a simple concept. And if it did require a God’s-eye view, that would mean that God screwed up by not making the prerequisites of salvation clear. What could possibly be more important to a Christian than knowing how to be saved?

  15. keiths:

    Granting something for the sake of argument is commonplace, and it doesn’t imply in the slightest that you agree with what you’re granting. Here’s an example I used with Alan recently: I am not a flat-earther. I’m convinced that the earth is round. Here’s one reason: Suppose for the sake of argument that the earth is flat. In that case, ships sailing away from us should appear smaller and smaller, but they shouldn’t gradually disappear from the bottom up. We observe that they do gradually disappear from the bottom up. Therefore the earth is not flat.

    Before typing that argument, I was firmly convinced that the earth was round. While typing that argument, I was firmly convinced that the earth was round. I am still firmly convinced that the earth is round. If you had interrupted me at any point while I was typing that to ask me whether I thought the earth was round, I would have said yes. Yet I was able to assume for the sake of argument that the earth was flat. There’s nothing contradictory about that. I simply put myself in someone else’s shoes to see what their perspective implied, all the while holding on to my prior belief that the earth is round.

    My argument in this thread is analogous.

    As explained above, you don’t have to deny or “pretend away” a sincere belief in order to reason from the perspective of someone who doesn’t share that belief. When I reason from the perspective of a flat-earther, I am not pretending that the earth is flat. When I reason from the perspective of a Christian, I am not pretending that the Christian God exists.

    I’ll try once more. When you take a position for the sake of argument that you know is incorrect, you are playing a parlor game. This is true because you do not respect that the belief you are disputing is in fact sincere. You CANNOT adopt the perspective a flat earther, because the flat earther KNOWS the earth is flat. This knowledge isn’t based on logic or observation, and is impervious to argument of any kind. This is deep-seated, emotional conviction usually implanted early in life. Psychologists call this “persistent”, which means trying to argue against it is like trying to use logic and reason to talk someone out of being gay. If colewd were to try “for the sake of discussion” that his god is imaginary, his effort would be ludicrous, and he might pray to his god for forgiveness for even making the effort!

    You have no clue what being in his shoes would be like. If you actually understood, you’d be genuinely worried about your own soul in making the arguments you do. This is why religious people always assume that you are denying god as an intellectual exercise, but your actual belief in god is undiminished, because how could it be otherwise? God would ensure this! To the religious person, an atheist is a believer giving insincere lip service to unbelief. And that’s as close as he can get to “putting himself in your shoes.”

  16. keiths:

    You don’t need a God’s-eye view in order to understand what it means to “not believe” in something. It’s a simple concept.

    I contend that it is far from simple, that it is in fact nuanced and difficult. I speculate that if by some magic you could remove all religious faith from colewd’s mind, you would leave behind a vegetable. His faith is embedded in, and central to, every thought he can form about anything.

    The theologians he cites are learned, intelligent, sincere and dedicated people. They don’t believe the Christian god is the one true god and author of the key scriptures because they are stupid, ignorant or stubborn. We can marvel at the circumlocutions, the careful tuning out of anything inconsistent that can’t be rationalized away, but what is their motivation for dedicating their life to doing this? Maybe if you truly understood that motivation, you could put yourself in their shoes, which means sincerely adopting their beliefs. There’s no other way.

  17. Flint:

    I’ll try once more. When you take a position for the sake of argument that you know is incorrect, you are playing a parlor game. This is true because you do not respect that the belief you are disputing is in fact sincere. You CANNOT adopt the perspective a flat earther, because the flat earther KNOWS the earth is flat.

    The flat-earther only thinks he knows that the earth is flat. He doesn’t actually know it. That’s because it’s false, and it’s impossible to know something that’s false. You say the flat-earther “KNOWS” the earth is flat, but what you really mean is that he sincerely believes it, to the point of being unpersuadable that it’s false. (I’m guessing that’s not true of all flat-earthers, but let’s assume for the sake of argument (heh) that it is.) That’s fine. Arguments aren’t required to convince everyone. They just need to be correct.

    This knowledge isn’t based on logic or observation, and is impervious to argument of any kind. This is deep-seated, emotional conviction usually implanted early in life.

    That’s what I mean by “unpersuadable” above.

    If colewd were to try “for the sake of discussion” that his god is imaginary, his effort would be ludicrous, and he might pray to his god for forgiveness for even making the effort!

    Nothing ludicrous about it, and why would he seek forgiveness? His effort would be directed at showing that his God is real, and at no point during the argument would he cease to believe that his God is real. What would his God have to complain about?

    Please imagine the following blinking in neon:

    It is possible to assume something for the sake of argument without actually believing it.

    Suppose I want to prove the proposition that there are infinitely many primes, and I want to use a proof by contradiction. I already know via a different proof that the proposition is true. I assume for the sake of argument that the proposition is false and that there are only a finite number of primes, and proceed from there. Is this a “parlor game”? Does it matter whether I have an audience? If I do have an audience, does it matter whether they believe that the number of primes is actually finite? Suppose they are unpersuadable. Does that matter to my proof? The answer to all of those questions is “no”. The proof stands or falls on its own. Are the premises correct? Is the reasoning correct? That’s what matters, not the audience.

    As with the proof, so with my argument. It stands or falls on its own, independent of colewd’s sincerity or persuadability. He just happens to be (part of) the audience, and the belief I am assuming for the sake of argument is one that he holds.

    You have no clue what being in his shoes would be like. If you actually understood, you’d be genuinely worried about your own soul in making the arguments you do.

    To take his perspective for the sake of argument doesn’t mean that I have to believe and feel everything that colewd does. It doesn’t matter what flavor of ice cream he prefers, or whether he listens to reggae. It doesn’t matter whether he believes in the Loch Ness monster. I am simply taking one of colewd’s beliefs — his belief that the Christian God exists — and reasoning as if it were true, when in fact I believe it is false. (I am also assuming for the sake of argument that the other relevant parts of Christian doctrine are true.)

    I assumed for the sake of my proof that the number of primes is finite, despite the fact that I don’t believe it. I assumed for the sake of argument that the Christian God exists, though I don’t believe it. Colewd could assume for the sake of argument that the Christian God doesn’t exist, even though he doesn’t believe it. Neither of us would actually believe the things that we assumed for the sake of argument. That’s perfectly fine. Nothing bad happens.

  18. keiths,

    Bill, do you agree with Craig? Should those Canaanite kids be grateful to God for their grisly deaths at the hands of the Israelites?

    Hi keiths
    I don’t think WLC has any more chance of understanding the perspective of the creator of the universe than you do. Bill is just giving a possible rationalisation IMO. What is interesting is Bill is showing a different perspective God has that we do not which is an understanding of the after life.

    God had the challenge of making man live by and understand His eternal plan. The initial strategy in Genesis was to initially focus on the Jewish people.

  19. keiths,

    I assumed for the sake of my proof that the number of primes is finite, despite the fact that I don’t believe it. I assumed for the sake of argument that the Christian God exists, though I don’t believe it. Colewd could assume for the sake of argument that the Christian God doesn’t exist, even though he doesn’t believe it. Neither of us would actually believe the things that we assumed for the sake of argument. That’s perfectly fine. Nothing bad happens.

    Hi keiths
    I agree with you here and think this is a good exercise for critical thinking skills. Many years ago I was on your side of the argument.

  20. keiths:
    Flint:

    The flat-earther only thinks he knows that the earth is flat. He doesn’t actually know it. That’s because it’s false, and it’s impossible to know something that’s false.You say the flat-earther “KNOWS” the earth is flat, but what you really mean is that he sincerely believes it, to the point of being unpersuadable that it’s false.

    Gotta chuckle here. By this “reasoning” nobody can actually know anything, they can only think they know. And you think you’re taking an opponent’s viewpoint, because you think you have the facts and you think the facts matter. Which makes you right, and flat earthers wrong. Indeed, as we’ve seen in great detail, when you think you’re right no argument can deter you.

    Nothing ludicrous about it, and why would he seek forgiveness? His effort would be directed at showing that his God is real, and at no point during the argument would he cease to believe that his God is real. What would his God have to complain about?

    This is a case where if you have to ask, nobody can tell you. In religious matters, honesty is a matter of conscience. Have you ever told an untruth with the intent to deceive? In such a case, many true believers would anticipate their god’s punishment.

    Please imagine the following blinking in neon:

    Suppose I want to prove the proposition that there are infinitely many primes, and I want to use a proof by contradiction. Are the premises correct? Is the reasoning correct? That’s what matters, not the audience.

    By assuming the premises are correct, you are assuming your conclusion. You can’t seem to grasp that for colewd, his god is a premise that is known to be correct. You can “reason” all day long, but when you have two people both insisting that their (contradictory) premises are correct and neither will budge, argument is a waste of time. All either of you can do is sincerely assert “you are wrong.”

  21. Flint:

    By this “reasoning” nobody can actually know anything, they can only think they know.

    Neil:

    I’ll agree with Flint here.

    You guys aren’t reading carefully enough. Take another look at what I wrote:

    The flat-earther only thinks he knows that the earth is flat. He doesn’t actually know it. That’s because it’s false, and it’s impossible to know something that’s false. You say the flat-earther “KNOWS” the earth is flat, but what you really mean is that he sincerely believes it, to the point of being unpersuadable that it’s false.

    You seem to have interpreted that as saying “if someone sincerely believes X and is unpersuadable that it’s false, that person cannot know X”. Nowhere do I say that.

    I simply say “it’s impossible to know something that’s false.” Since the proposition “the earth is flat” is false, it’s impossible for the flat-earther to know it. And since knowing is ruled out, that leaves belief. Hence my claim that the flat-earther

    sincerely believes it, to the point of being unpersuadable that it’s false. (I’m guessing that’s not true of all flat-earthers, but let’s assume for the sake of argument (heh) that it is.)

    The reason they don’t know it is because it’s false, not because they sincerely believe it and are unpersuadable.

    On the other hand, the proposition “the earth is round” is true. Therefore, my statement “it’s impossible to know something that’s false” does not rule out the possibility of knowing that the earth is round.

    To reiterate: the reason the flat-earthers can’t know that the earth is flat is because it’s false, not because they sincerely believe it and are unpersuadable.

  22. Neil:

    I read it carefully.

    Not carefully enough, evidently.

    Your attempt to attribute beliefs to me is badly wrong.

    I didn’t attribute beliefs to you. You did that yourself when you wrote this:

    I’ll agree with Flint here.

  23. Flint:

    In religious matters, honesty is a matter of conscience. Have you ever told an untruth with the intent to deceive? In such a case, many true believers would anticipate their god’s punishment.

    In assuming for the sake of argument that the Christian God doesn’t exist, Bill wouldn’t be trying to deceive anyone. He’d be using the assumption to argue for its opposite: that the Christian God does exist. Nothing dishonest about that, and an omniscient God would understand that.

    I’ll repeat the blinking neon statement:

    It is possible to assume something for the sake of argument without actually believing it.

    Do you think mathematicians are trying to deceive you when they begin a proof by contradiction by assuming the opposite of what they’re trying to prove? When I assumed for the sake of argument that the number of primes is finite, do you really think I was trying to deceive you?

  24. Flint: Indeed, as we’ve seen in great detail, when you think you’re right no argument can deter you.

    It is a character failing of mine that I cannot, even for the sake of argument, imagine a world in which this wasn’t a fact. Some facts, like the ratio of a circle to its radius, never change.

  25. Flint:

    You can’t seem to grasp that for colewd, his god is a premise that is known to be correct. You can “reason” all day long, but when you have two people both insisting that their (contradictory) premises are correct and neither will budge, argument is a waste of time. All either of you can do is sincerely assert “you are wrong.”

    You’re still not getting it. It’s not that the two of us are asserting contradictory premises. I’m actually assuming for the sake of argument that Bill is correct that the Christian God exists. He doesn’t dispute that assumption. He truly believes it, so he has no reason to disagree. I, by contrast, do not believe it, but I am assuming it for the sake of argument.

    My goal is to show that it’s false. Similarly, the mathematician’s goal is to show that the starting assumption — that the number of primes is finite — is false.

    A mathematician who wants to prove a proposition P, using a proof by contradiction, will start with the assumption that P is false. My argument against the Christian God is similar. I want to show that the Christian God doesn’t exist, and in order to show that, I start with the assumption that he does exist, and show that it leads to a contradiction or an absurdity.

    In this case, the absurdity is that the Christian God, who is supposedly perfectly loving, does something horrendously unloving by effectively punishing people eternally for the “sin” of being born in the wrong place. A perfectly loving God who isn’t perfectly loving. A contradiction.

  26. Flint: When you take a position for the sake of argument that you know is incorrect, you are playing a parlor game. This is true because you do not respect that the belief you are disputing is in fact sincere. You CANNOT adopt the perspective a flat earther, because the flat earther KNOWS the earth is flat. This knowledge isn’t based on logic or observation, and is impervious to argument of any kind. This is deep-seated, emotional conviction usually implanted early in life. Psychologists call this “persistent”, which means trying to argue against it is like trying to use logic and reason to talk someone out of being gay.

    You are kind of onto something here, but also wrong in many important ways.

    Religious convictions can be “emotional” implanted early in life, but when talking about early in life, then we are talking about childhood experience, not emotion. Childhood experience can be dear to heart or traumatic, it can also be emotional, but not only. You compare it to being gay, which is fundamentally wrong in every way. Being gay is not some common childhood experience nor is it primarily emotional. It is primarily sensory. Very wrong comparison.

    Religious convictions can be deep-seated for several reasons, but colewd is not very deep. His expressed views are what they are because he parrots his home street gang. His convictions are socially conditioned, maybe with some elements starting at childhood, but mostly acquired later. His views are what they are for different reasons than what you are attributing to him.

  27. Erik: Religious convictions can be “emotional” implanted early in life, but when talking about early in life, then we are talking about childhood experience, not emotion.

    It’s a fact that children learn a religion. Everyone starts out an unbeliever, a blank slate.

    Do people learn to be gay? Listening to first-person experience, I’m not sure.

  28. Alan Fox: It’s a fact that children learn a religion.

    It’s only a fact in half of cases. But it’s okay. It’s expected that atheists start out with half-facts and draw half-conclusions at best. More often it’s complete irrelevancies.

  29. Erik: It’s only a fact in half of cases.

    There are born believers? I can accept there may be a heritable variation in the propensity to believe what you are told, but what you start believing is overwhelmingly (I suspect totally) an accident of birth, which group, culture or system you are raised in.

  30. keiths: I didn’t attribute beliefs to you. You did that yourself when you wrote this:

    I’ll agree with Flint here.

    And, starting with that, you jumped to a bunch of false conclusions.

  31. keiths:

    It is possible to assume something for the sake of argument without actually believing it.

    I am starting to suspect a semantic problem here. I can believe the earth is flat, but too much evidence contradicts this. I can believe that the earth is a sphere, and this is closer but still wrong (earth is an oblate spheroid, bulging at the equator). In intellectual aspects of life, facts, evidence and logic matter. But not all aspects of life are purely intellectual.

    So I cannot take such intellectual positions when it comes to blind faith. I cannot know colewd’s god, I can’t even make statements about it. Any assumption I think I’m making about his god is empty verbiage, as is yours. Why you think you can just up and assume the existence of something that is meaningless unless deeply internalized, is beyond me. You can have no idea what you’re assuming for the sake of argument or for any other sake.

  32. Erik:
    Religious convictions can be “emotional” implanted early in life, but when talking about early in life, then we are talking about childhood experience, not emotion. Childhood experience can be dear to heart or traumatic, it can also be emotional, but not only. You compare it to being gay, which is fundamentally wrong in every way. Being gay is not some common childhood experience nor is it primarily emotional. It is primarily sensory. Very wrong comparison.

    The parallel between religious faith and sexual orientation is not at all exact, and I made it to emphasize one thing they have in common – that they are permanent and unalterable. There is fairly good evidence that sexual orientation is set some time before birth, and excellent evidence that religious faith is entirely a function of childhood environment – which is why most true believers share the belief of their home, their neighborhood, their culture (whereas gays are found in about the same proportion in every culture). Aristotle was (for a change) very correct when he said “give me a child until he is seven, and I will show you the man.” Lots of evidence for this – if you aren’t a believer OR an atheist by the age of seven, you never will be. And it’s well documented that people go through learning stages from birth, and for most people (for example) it’s difficult to become accent-free in a language not learned as a child, or to become an accomplished musician, or to have sincere faith in a culture’s god(s).

  33. Flint: …it’s difficult to become accent-free in a language not learned as a child

    Impossible, I’d say. Though I was flattered to be asked yesterday, in the course of a purchase of some specific electrical spare:

    Vous êtes flamand, monsieur ?

  34. Neil:

    And, starting with that, you jumped to a bunch of false conclusions.

    Those being?

    When you quoted Flint’s statement and said “I’ll agree with Flint here”, the only thing I concluded was that you agreed with Flint’s statement, which was

    By this “reasoning” nobody can actually know anything, they can only think they know.

    I explained here why that’s not correct.

  35. Flint,

    We might be making some progress here, but I want to confirm. Earlier you wrote:

    When you take a position for the sake of argument that you know is incorrect, you are playing a parlor game.

    Do you now agree that it isn’t a “parlor game” and that it’s legitimate? For instance, if I assume the primes are finite (which I know is incorrect) as a first step in a proof by contradiction, am I playing a parlor game?

  36. keiths: I explained here why that’s not correct.

    No, you did not. I understood perfectly what Neil meant, and your characterization of the conversation is entirely wrong.
    I suggest you go back and re-read what was written, bearing in mind that you might be mistaken (on two different levels, heh).

  37. Neil, quoting Flint:

    By this “reasoning” nobody can actually know anything, they can only think they know.

    keiths:

    I explained here why that’s not correct.

    Jock:

    No, you did not.

    What’s wrong with my explanation?

  38. Jock:

    I understood perfectly what Neil meant, and your characterization of the conversation is entirely wrong.

    OK. I’m willing to be corrected. Neil, what did you mean? Do you disagree with my explanation of why Flint’s statement is incorrect?

  39. keiths: Those being?

    In an earlier comment in this thread, you wrote:

    On the other hand, the proposition “the earth is round” is true.

    That’s already wrong. There are potholes down the street, which show this alleged “true proposition” is false.

    You seem to be starting with the presupposition, that only true propositions can be knowledge. On the basis of that presupposition, I can already agree with Flint’s point.

    Your presupposition is just wrong.

    The statement “the earth is round” is not a true proposition. It is pragmatic social convention. Much of what we know is knowledge of social conventions. And, at least from my perspective, social conventions are neither true nor false. We may say that they are true, but when we say that we only mean that we agree they are useful.

  40. keiths: You seem to have interpreted that as saying “if someone sincerely believes X and is unpersuadable that it’s false, that person cannot know X”.

    This is where you started to go off the rails. You appear to ALWAYS fall into this error — imposing your interpretation on what other people write, ascribing to them positions that they do not hold, and then berating them for their incalcitrent stupidity.
    Neil has told you previously that he is a fictionalist, so his meaning was obvious. (Which he has since explained to you, again.)
    I agree with Flint’s statement too, since I am apparently a fallibilist (per KN).

  41. Flint:

    I can believe the earth is flat, but too much evidence contradicts this.

    I agree, which is why I don’t believe the earth is flat. I can nevertheless assume it’s flat for the sake of argument, as I do in the ship argument:

    Suppose for the sake of argument that the earth is flat. In that case, ships sailing away from us should appear smaller and smaller, but they shouldn’t gradually disappear from the bottom up. We observe that they do gradually disappear from the bottom up. Therefore the earth is not flat.

    Do you see anything illegitimate about that argument?

    I can believe that the earth is a sphere, and this is closer but still wrong (earth is an oblate spheroid, bulging at the equator).

    Or you can simply believe that the earth is round, which is true (Neil’s objection notwithstanding — more on that in a subsequent comment).

    So I cannot take such intellectual positions when it comes to blind faith. I cannot know colewd’s god, I can’t even make statements about it.

    Sure you can. You proved it yourself when you wrote

    Only if the Christian god is, perhaps indirectly, supposed to be responsible for stable gas prices. After all, that god is omnipotent.

    “That god is omnipotent” is a statement about the Christian God, and you were easily able to make it.

    Any assumption I think I’m making about his god is empty verbiage, as is yours.

    Speak for yourself. When I say “assume for the sake of argument that the Christian God exists”, it isn’t empty verbiage. It means something. The fact that you and I don’t believe that the Christian God exists is irrelevant. The statement still has meaning, as does your statement that the Christian God is omnipotent.

    Why you think you can just up and assume the existence of something that is meaningless unless deeply internalized, is beyond me.

    You don’t have to “deeply internalize” the concept of the Christian God before you can assume for the sake of argument that he exists. You don’t have to deeply internalize the notion of a flat earth in order to assume for the sake of argument that the earth is flat. You don’t have to deeply internalize the finitude of the primes in order to assume it for the sake of argument. And whether your audience has deeply internalized those things is irrelevant to the soundness of your argument. Your argument stands or falls on its own, independent of the audience and regardless of how deeply you or they have internalized whatever it is that you’re talking about.

    Think about it. Suppose I present the ship argument to three people: one who believes the earth is flat and has deeply internalized it; one who believes the earth is flat but hasn’t really thought about it and isn’t committed to the idea; and a third who doesn’t believe the earth is flat. Do I have to use a different argument with each of the three? Of course not. The argument is sound, and its soundness is independent of the audience. In all three cases I can assume for the sake of argument that the earth is flat and then reason from there.

  42. keiths:

    On the other hand, the proposition “the earth is round” is true.

    Neil:

    That’s already wrong. There are potholes down the street, which show this alleged “true proposition” is false.

    No, because roundness doesn’t imply perfect smoothness:

    2. shaped like or approximately like a sphere.
    “a round glass ball”

    Baseballs are round, despite the stitches. Ball bearings are round, despite their imperfections. The earth is round, despite your potholes.

    You seem to be starting with the presupposition, that only true propositions can be knowledge. On the basis of that presupposition, I can already agree with Flint’s point.

    Yet he said:

    By this “reasoning” nobody can actually know anything, they can only think they know.

    You agreed with that statement. How does it follow from my reasoning?

  43. Neil:

    The statement “the earth is round” is not a true proposition. It is pragmatic social convention.

    It’s pretty obviously not merely a social convention. The meaning of the word “round” may be a social convention, but the geometry of the earth is not. It’s an aspect of reality. If everyone in Kuwait thought the earth was flat, it would still be round. Social conventions in Kuwait do not dictate physical reality.

  44. Jock:

    I agree with Flint’s statement too, since I am apparently a fallibilist (per KN).

    I’m a fallibilist too (and even did an OP on it once), but I still use words like “know” and “knowledge”. Don’t you? It’s just that I don’t conflate knowledge with absolute certainty.

    In any case, how does the statement of mine that Flint quoted…

    The flat-earther only thinks he knows that the earth is flat. He doesn’t actually know it. That’s because it’s false, and it’s impossible to know something that’s false. You say the flat-earther “KNOWS” the earth is flat, but what you really mean is that he sincerely believes it, to the point of being unpersuadable that it’s false.

    …lead to his conclusion?

    By this “reasoning” nobody can actually know anything, they can only think they know.

    It doesn’t follow.

  45. keiths: You agreed with that statement. How does it follow from my reasoning?

    It follows from your apparent requirement that only true propositions can be known. “True” is limiting requirement. What was considered to be true yesterday might not be considered to be true tomorrow. And many statements aren’t really propositions.

  46. keiths: It’s pretty obviously not merely a social convention.

    What’s obvious to you can be very different from what’s obvious to me.

    The meaning of the word “round” may be a social convention, but the geometry of the earth is not.

    Agreed. Nevertheless, the earth is not round. It has hills and valleys. It is a social convention to treat it as if round, because that works well for many questions. But the earth isn’t actually round.

Leave a Reply