Atheist Thought Experiment
Recently, we chanced upon an "Atheist Thought Experiment". The thought experiment is the following hypothetical situation:
Irrefutable evidence is finally discovered that proves, once and for all, whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was the product of a virgin birth. The only person who is privy to this evidence is a rational (but thoroughly evil) gunman who is holding your most loved family member with a gun to his or her head. The gunman asks you to provide the correct answer to whether the immaculate conception occurred or not. No equivocation is allowed - you must answer either "yes, the virgin birth happened" or "no, the virgin birth never happened". You have 60 seconds to make up your mind and give the answer. If you are wrong, the gunman shoots your loved one. If you are correct, your loved one is freed.
A couple of quick observations regarding the above hypothetical:
Use of an absolute ("Irrefutable"). It is usually a bad idea to ever use an absolute (always, all, everyone) as unless the point being argued is indeed an absolute, then an exception will be found. It only takes a single exception to disprove an absolute. Personally, I am incapable of even imagining any irrefutable proof against the virgin birth of Christ that could found in this day and age. Then again, the experiment is a hypothetical, a complete and utter work of fiction (not truth).
A possible contradiction ("rational (but thoroughly evil) gunman"). Atheists themselves seem to provide the contradiction here. Many atheists claim that man can have a moral code that is not based on religion, but based on rationality. Most of those same atheists would likely argue that rational people do not kill or assult others. So, on what basis can a "a rational (but thoroughly evil) gunman exist"? Atheists believe evil exists? Interesting. Oh, yeah. Its a hypothetical work of fiction. Fiction is neither required to be true nor rational.
Misunderstanding of "immaculate conception" ("whether the immaculate conception occurred or not", "whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was the product of a virgin birth"). This is the clear error in the hypothetical. The virgin birth of Christ is not the immaculate conception, which should be clear from the nouns to anyone having studied human reproduction. Conception is not birth. They are nine months apart in occurance. Also, most Christians believe that the immaculate conception occured to Mary, not Jesus. Different people. So, which question needs answering? Imaculate conception of Mary or virgin birth of Jesus?
Definition of terms ("correct answer"). Based on my knowledge of scripture, the testimony of early witnesses in surviving historical Christian documents, and rational thought, I would answer that both events were true. Of course our atheist friend used the term "correct answer" versus "truth". The questions don't ask which events are true or actually occured, but what is the "correct answer". While those could be one and the same, they can also be different.
In any event, based on my belief that both events are true, my "most loved family member" would have been hypothetically shot. That immediately raisies a howl from our "rational" atheist friend "...that you are in dire need of rational salvation before you actually cause some harm or enable others to do so."
First, if rational salvation involves fiction that includes absolutes, contradictions, and misunderstandings, I want no part of "rational salvation", however that is defined. (Since salvation generally involves the existence of a God and an afterlife, and most atheists deny both; rational salvation is an interesting viewpoint for any atheist to hold. Conundrum comes to mind. erhaps we can discuss rational salvation later this year.)
Second, the charge of "dire need of rational salvation" makes clear that the thought experiment has nothing to do with atheism (the existence or nonexistence of God), but is an attempt at applying psychology to discredit either the Christian religion, Christians, or both. So, the title of Atheist Thought Experiment is less than truthful.
This final difference is important for Christian apologists to remember. Due to their inability to disprove the existance of God, many atheists attempt to disprove religion. One may disprove every religion in existence and still not disprove the existence of God. That's the dilemma of atheism. As rational science is inadequate to disprove God, psychology is employed to discredit religion and/or adherents.
Related Posts:
Atheist Believes Africa Needs God
Atheist Penn Jillette Receives Bible
Source: The Atheist Missionary: A thought experiment for fundamentalist Christians
Irrefutable evidence is finally discovered that proves, once and for all, whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was the product of a virgin birth. The only person who is privy to this evidence is a rational (but thoroughly evil) gunman who is holding your most loved family member with a gun to his or her head. The gunman asks you to provide the correct answer to whether the immaculate conception occurred or not. No equivocation is allowed - you must answer either "yes, the virgin birth happened" or "no, the virgin birth never happened". You have 60 seconds to make up your mind and give the answer. If you are wrong, the gunman shoots your loved one. If you are correct, your loved one is freed.
A couple of quick observations regarding the above hypothetical:
Use of an absolute ("Irrefutable"). It is usually a bad idea to ever use an absolute (always, all, everyone) as unless the point being argued is indeed an absolute, then an exception will be found. It only takes a single exception to disprove an absolute. Personally, I am incapable of even imagining any irrefutable proof against the virgin birth of Christ that could found in this day and age. Then again, the experiment is a hypothetical, a complete and utter work of fiction (not truth).
A possible contradiction ("rational (but thoroughly evil) gunman"). Atheists themselves seem to provide the contradiction here. Many atheists claim that man can have a moral code that is not based on religion, but based on rationality. Most of those same atheists would likely argue that rational people do not kill or assult others. So, on what basis can a "a rational (but thoroughly evil) gunman exist"? Atheists believe evil exists? Interesting. Oh, yeah. Its a hypothetical work of fiction. Fiction is neither required to be true nor rational.
Misunderstanding of "immaculate conception" ("whether the immaculate conception occurred or not", "whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was the product of a virgin birth"). This is the clear error in the hypothetical. The virgin birth of Christ is not the immaculate conception, which should be clear from the nouns to anyone having studied human reproduction. Conception is not birth. They are nine months apart in occurance. Also, most Christians believe that the immaculate conception occured to Mary, not Jesus. Different people. So, which question needs answering? Imaculate conception of Mary or virgin birth of Jesus?
Definition of terms ("correct answer"). Based on my knowledge of scripture, the testimony of early witnesses in surviving historical Christian documents, and rational thought, I would answer that both events were true. Of course our atheist friend used the term "correct answer" versus "truth". The questions don't ask which events are true or actually occured, but what is the "correct answer". While those could be one and the same, they can also be different.
In any event, based on my belief that both events are true, my "most loved family member" would have been hypothetically shot. That immediately raisies a howl from our "rational" atheist friend "...that you are in dire need of rational salvation before you actually cause some harm or enable others to do so."
First, if rational salvation involves fiction that includes absolutes, contradictions, and misunderstandings, I want no part of "rational salvation", however that is defined. (Since salvation generally involves the existence of a God and an afterlife, and most atheists deny both; rational salvation is an interesting viewpoint for any atheist to hold. Conundrum comes to mind. erhaps we can discuss rational salvation later this year.)
Second, the charge of "dire need of rational salvation" makes clear that the thought experiment has nothing to do with atheism (the existence or nonexistence of God), but is an attempt at applying psychology to discredit either the Christian religion, Christians, or both. So, the title of Atheist Thought Experiment is less than truthful.
This final difference is important for Christian apologists to remember. Due to their inability to disprove the existance of God, many atheists attempt to disprove religion. One may disprove every religion in existence and still not disprove the existence of God. That's the dilemma of atheism. As rational science is inadequate to disprove God, psychology is employed to discredit religion and/or adherents.
Related Posts:
Atheist Believes Africa Needs God
Atheist Penn Jillette Receives Bible
Source: The Atheist Missionary: A thought experiment for fundamentalist Christians
Labels: Apologetics, Atheism
5 Comments:
Timothy, thanks for your thoughts and the blessing. One of my greatest criticisms of religious adherents is the fact that they are unwilling to debate their beliefs in a rational manner (i.e. "I believe because I believe because I believe"). You are obviously willing to enter the arena of reason and for this I applaud you at the outset.
I will respond to your observations in the order you have presented them:
Use of an absolute. The use of the absolute was deliberate. Christians believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary - no ifs, ands or buts. The point of the Thought Experiment is to illustrate my belief that far fewer "Christians" actually believe this fairy tale than they might profess during a Sunday morning poll even though it is a fundamental tenet of their "faith". I firmly believe that if a gun was placed to the head of the loved one of most who call themselves Christians under these circumstances they would decide to answer in the negative in 59 seconds or less. You may fall among the minority and, with all due respect, I believe that your choosing otherwise would not only be irrational but is proof positive of the danger that Christianity holds for the future of mankind. The danger is that is enables those who approve of using irrationality to further public policy.
Possible contradiction. Good point. The gunman doesn't need to be evil or rational. All the person in the Thought Experiment needs to know is that the gunman knows whether the supposed miracle occurred (with irrefutable proof) and will shoot your loved one if your answer is wrong. It may be that a loved one of the gunman (or perhaps a hundred innocent people, including his entire family) will be shot if he fails to follow his instructions.
Misunderstanding of immaculate conception. I could have used any supposed miracle from the Bible. I appreciate your point about the immaculate conception happening to Mary while it was Jesus who supposed was born of the virgin. However, I think this is a distinction without a difference. Wikipedia (not an absolute authority I concede) defines the virgin birth of Jesus as: "a religious tenet of Christianity and Islam which holds that Mary miraculously conceived Jesus while remaining a virgin." The point of the Thought Experiment remains the same regardless of whether the question relates to the virgin birth, Moses parting the Red Sea, Jesus walking on water - pick your poison.
Definition of terms. You would answer in the affirmative and, no, I am not howling because neither you or I know for certain whether or not the virgin birth occurred. I know which way I'd bet if my son or daughter's temple was on the line. However, my point is simply that, I repeat: neither you or I know for certain whether or not the virgin birth occurred. You say you rely on scripture, "early witnesses in surviving historical Christian documents" and rational thought to support your view. I'll give you the first two but not the latter.
In closing, my point is not to discredit Christians per se but rather to discredit religious delusions as a whole. I don't know what particular religious faith you espouse but I assume that it is Christianity in some form. I would be very interested to know why you feel that the tenets of your faith are right (or perhaps just more likely) than the thousands of other religions that hold beliefs which are fundamentally opposed to yours. All of these beliefs can't be right but they certainly can all be wrong.
I wish all the best to you and yours. If we were to continue this debate, I think you would be surprised at how similar our outlooks are with respect to the desirability of living a morally upstanding life. I just don't believe that living that life will earn me any salvation and I laugh at the thought that we both could lead morally identical lives and only you get into heaven.
Greetings, AM and thanks for taking time to comment. Let's get one of your closing questions answered first.
>"I don't know what particular religious faith you espouse but I assume that it is Christianity in some form."
Yep, my religious faith is ancient Christianity.
>AM: "...to illustrate my belief that far fewer "Christians" actually believe this fairy tale than they might profess during a Sunday morning poll even though it is a fundamental tenet of their "faith".
Regardless whether or not any Christians at all actually believe in the virgin birth neither changes the truth or falseness of the event. If the virgin birth occured as Christians believe, then the event is true and remains so, regardless if even no one believes it. Of course the reverse is also true. If the virgin birth did not occur, then the event is false regardless of how many people believe. Truth is absolute and unchanging.
So, illustrating "far fewer 'Christians' actually believe" does not negate the virgin birth in any manner.
>AM: "I believe that your choosing otherwise would not only be irrational but is proof positive of the danger that Christianity holds for the future of mankind."
You make two unsubstantiated claims here. First you believe my choice is irrational, but provide no proof or basis for your belief.
Second, you claim "proof positive of the danger that Christianity holds for the future of mankind" but offer no proof positive other than my belief in the truth of the virgin birth versus your personal disbelief. Hardly proof positive of any danger. This seems to be the fallacy of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief with the fallacy of Appeal to Fear added.
>AM: "I appreciate your point about the immaculate conception happening to Mary while it was Jesus who supposed was born of the virgin. However, I think this is a distinction without a difference."
No, this is NOT a distinction without a difference. The Immaculate Conception is a doctrine stating that Mary was conceived without original sin. The virgin birth is the doctrine that Mary remained a virgin before and after the birth of Christ.
Mary being conceived without original sin is both distinct and different from the virgin birth of Jesus. As Mary was believed to have been about 16-17 years of age when Jesus was born, the Immaculate Conception and virgin birth of Jesus events are separated by those same 16-17 years.
We were charitable and gave you the benefit of the doubt regarding your misunderstanding the Immaculate Conception, as many Christians themselves misunderstand the doctrine.
While you cited the Wikipedia on the virgin birth, you seemingly failed to look up the Immacualte Conception in the same source. This failure on your part to distinguish between two separate and distinct events (even if mythical in your belief)undercuts your claims of rational thought, as you offer a flawed arguement based on a lack of not understanding the underlying facts. This is problematic.
>AM: "I know which way I'd bet if my son or daughter's temple was on the line."
You've just changed the question. There is no bet. The experiment also does not ask us to agree with the gunman. The question was:
"The gunman asks you to provide the correct answer to whether the immaculate conception occurred or not."
My answer is yes, the Immaculate Conception (Mary conceived without original sin) did occur. I find sufficient scriptural and historical proof to rationally base my answer.
What bearing the gunman's proof of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was the product of a virgin birth on Mary being conceived without sin is lost on me any any other rational person. The experiment is irreparably flawed and reduced to nonsense by asking about the Immacuate Conception and not the virgin birth of Jesus.
The key point I was making at this point is that "correct answer" is not the same as "the truth". A correct answer may be false. Just because one believes something to be true and thus "correct" doesn't make it so. The use of a the ambiguous term "correct answer" versus "the truth" is another serious flaw in the experiment.
>AM: "my point is not to discredit Christians per se but rather to discredit religious delusions as a whole."
No, that's somewhat untruthfull on your part as you clearly wrote "you are in dire need of rational salvation before you actually cause some harm or enable others to do so. The personal pronoun "you" clearly means you the person, the Christian, and not Christianity.
Your offer a deeply flawed psycho-babble "experiment" which has the intent of painting anyone who answers in opposition of your preference as someone who would "cause some harm or enable others to do so."
We've pointed out:
- the flaws in your "experiment",
- your unsubstantiated claims of irrationality and positive proof
- the disparity between immaculate conception and virgin birth
- the discrediting of Christians versus Christianity
You also conceded the contradiction of the evil "rational" gunman.
Yet you hold that, as a Christian, we are irrational and you are rational. Huh. That seems to have been proven otherwise.
God bless... +Timothy
BTW, you may find the following helpful when composing future "experiments"
Fallacies
Thank-you for point out the flaws in my argument.
I can no more disprove the existence of your God than you can disprove the existence of a celestial teapot orbiting the earth. My point is that the similarity between these two propositions is that they are equally implausible.
I think it is a crying shame that you are wasting your intellectual energy on a myth. After all, you are an atheist with respect to Thor and Zeus and the thousands of other Gods aside from your Yahweh.
Whenever I come across a site like yours, I can't hesitate but wonder how you grapple with some fairly simple questions. Why do you put so much faith in a book when there are countless other holy books? Aren't you the least bit concerned about all the nastiness in the Bible and the fact that God seems to be a vain, nasty fellow? Don't you wonder why your God allows all the senseless suffering in the world? As noted above, aren't you concerned that the power of prayer is sterile, at least in experimental settings? Finally (my personal favorite), why don't I get to go to heaven if I lead a saintly life but choose not to accept Jesus as my personal saviour or, better yet, have never heard of the Bible?"
Welcome back, Atheist Missionary!
>AM: "Thank-you for point out the flaws in my argument."
You're welcome. Hopefully, you will take our comments as constructive criticism. If you are planning to continue engaging in "atheist apologetics" with Christians, I would encourage you to become familiar with fallacies. Also, you would likely find a short course or tutorial in logic to be helpful.
Personally, I enjoy these exchanges as the improve my debate, logic and philosophy skills as well. Mmmm... Mind candy.
>AM: "I can no more disprove the existence of your God than you can disprove the existence of a celestial teapot orbiting the earth. My point is that the similarity between these two propositions is that they are equally implausible."
You've just created trouble for yourself by making the positive claim that "they are equally implausible". Any time one makes a positive claim, the burden of proof rests with the person making the positive claim. Again, you have made a positive claim and offered no proof of said claim.
>AM: "I think it is a crying shame that you are wasting your intellectual energy on a myth.
Again, two more positive claims without proof: "...you are wasting your intellectual energy..." and "a myth".
>AM: "After all, you are an atheist with respect to Thor and Zeus and the thousands of other Gods aside from your Yahweh."
There seems to be several assumptions on your part. Perhaps I recognize Zeus as being one and the same meta-physical being that Christians call "God the Father"? I hardly think I would then be an atheist with respect to Zeus. Ditto for Thor and several other names given by early men with an imperfect knowledge of God. Your implied claim that I too am an atheist seems to fall short.
>AM: "Whenever I come across a site like yours, I can't hesitate but wonder how you grapple with some fairly simple questions."
Well, let's find out, shall we?
>AM: "Why do you put so much faith in a book when there are countless other holy books?"
I, and numerous fellow Christians, have examined the Bible using secular literary technique. We have determined from surviving documents that the Bible of today is a faithful translation of the original scrolls. We have determined from historical evidence that the Bible is remarkably accurate regarding places, names, culture, and events.
I have read and examined the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Tripitaka, and numerous other religious documents (most of which are in my personal library). Each time applying the same secular method of literary cristicism. While I find many truths, I also find much that is not true or contradicts truths in other sources. I find based, not on emotion, but on logic and reason that the Bible alone seems to be exactly what it claims to be.
Have you also made this examinationof religious texts? If not, why not?
>AM: "Aren't you the least bit concerned about all the nastiness in the Bible and the fact that God seems to be a vain, nasty fellow?"
Nope, but then I did read the Bible from cover to cover and discovered that God is not "vain, nasty fellow" that he seems to you.
>"Don't you wonder why your God allows all the senseless suffering in the world?"
You seem to make the unsupported assumption that "sensless suffering" exists. Just because you may not understand suffering, doesn't make suffering senseless.
Many modern Christians also wrestle with suffering as the ancient Christian apologias for suffering has been lost to their particular sect. Suffering has to do with holiness. I recommend you research Catholic and Orthodox documents on suffering.
>AM: "aren't you concerned that the power of prayer is sterile, at least in experimental settings?"
Um, no. BTW, while there may have been some studies where prayer was sterile in experimental settings, are there not also some studies that show prayer as being efficacious?
>AM: " why don't I get to go to heaven if I lead a saintly life but choose not to accept Jesus as my personal saviour or, better yet, have never heard of the Bible?"
Um, who says? That's not my belief, nor the doctrine of my form of Christianity. Invincible ignorance is a valid defense and those individuals who are invincibly ignorant are likely in no danger of not going to heaven.
However, you may not qualify under invincible ignorance as it seems from your responses that you are aware of the Bible and have been made aware to the possibility that God exists. That would seem to place you in a different status than someone who has "never heard of the Bible?"", does it not?
Again, I and others of my ancient Christian faith don't presume to know your eternal fate. We believe your judgement and your eternity is under God's dominion. You are free to acccept or reject those truths you hear from others, like ourself, at your own peril. Are you familiar with Paschal's Wager?
Feel free to drop by anytime and comment. You are always welcome.
God bless... +Timothy
I have posted my response at: http://www.atheistmissionary.com/2009/02/my-ongoing-discussion-with-christian.html
Best regards,
<< Home