![\"\"](\"https:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/-vy-1l7wPIOY\/TjLtQxiuZOI\/AAAAAAAABhg\/QQtDgMonzd8\/s1600\/tripleright.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nWhen I posted earlier on the blogfight unleashed by Jenifer Fulwiler\u2019s post \u201cFive Catholic Teachings that Make Sense to Atheists<\/a>,\u201d I focused on how to gauge the sincerity of a convert\u2019s discarded beliefs<\/a>. That was an argument about the author, and now I want to focus on the dispute over the logic of her post. Jen wasn\u2019t offering a proof of Catholicism\u2019s claims, she was trying to show that the system held together pretty well. PZ Myers wrote two<\/a> posts<\/a> rejecting the validity of this approach<\/p>\n Does she even realize that including speculation about the nature of God and heaven, especially speculation that ignores the monstrous tyranny described in the Bible, means it automatically makes no sense at all to an atheist?<\/p>\n \u2026So first, find an atheist who\u2019s willing to pretend that she believes in a god. Then, while she\u2019s pretending with all of her might, maybe her brain will be addled enough to accept the load of swill that follows. Brilliant! I have another suggestion: 1) find an atheist who is tripping balls on \u2018shrooms, 2) whack them hard enough on the head to give them a concussion, and 3) proselytize! Jesus wins!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I come down on Jen\u2019s side. It can be useful for both sides to put aside the big contentious dispute and talk about how well the rest of the theory stands up, even when you grant the cornerstone premise. This is exactly what Myers, Loftus, and other do when they ask Christians why, if god(s) exist, why they\u2019re so certain that their take on this god is accurate.<\/p>\n Don\u2019t forget that atheists and Christians don\u2019t just disagree on which way the evidence points, they disagree on what kind of evidence should be counted. Atheists think that proof for the existence of God should look like the proof for the existence of life on the moon, or an invisible dragon in the garage<\/a>. There should be observable, reproducible evidence that is convincing to pretty much any person with a grip on reality. Christians like Jen think that this kind of proposition is more like the squishy claims of \u201cmy mother loves me\u201d or \u201cpeople\u2019s actions have moral weight\u201d or \u201cthe physical world is not an illusion.\u201d These claims are not provable in any formal system and they don\u2019t lend themselves to definite empirical observation.<\/p>\n Trying to settle the standard is intensely frustrating and leads to a lot of talking past each other. But if you play the internally consistent game, it\u2019s easier to learn how your opposite number thinks (maybe even well enough to pass an ideological Turing Test<\/a>). You can see whether, even when spotted the major premise, your opponent\u2019s system makes predictions about the empirical world that are flat out wrong<\/a>. If there aren\u2019t any obvious misses, is it because your sparring partner has limited the real world implications of his position until they can\u2019t pay rent<\/a>? How do they respond to that criticism?<\/p>\n If you don\u2019t hit snags of the type described above, then maybe your opponent does have a reasonably coherent system, if you grant them a few foundational beliefs. Now it\u2019s time to go back to arguing about how you judge those base beliefs. Or maybe, if their system did make good predictions that paid rent<\/a>, you should take another look at the system that you brought to the table, test your own predictive power, and think about whether you\u2019ve gained any evidence in favor of metaphysical backsliding<\/a> (use the link if you don\u2019t know the phrase).<\/p>\n The fact that a system is self-consistent is not proof that it\u2019s true. I know the conventional example given by G.K. Chesterton in Orthodoxy<\/a><\/em>:<\/p>\n The madman\u2019s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But I like to point to the well-fleshed out (but still sadly fictional) world of Harry Potter. The fandom that surrounds Rowling\u2019s world is also a good example of how an unfinished and inconsistent world can be neatened up by scrupulous fans fixing Flints<\/a> (theological examples fall under the heading of scriptural fanfiction<\/a>).<\/p>\n On the other side of the coin, an inconsistent system isn\u2019t necessarily false. It can be better to bite the bullet, and admit that you don\u2019t know how to choose between two conflicting claims than to cling to one out of fear of looking uncertain. It\u2019s easier to fix a problem you admit is a weakness than one you\u2019ve papered over.<\/p>\n When two different philosophies manage to both look reasonably consistent, and the crucial proposition is unproveable or untestable, then you\u2019ve got a case of non-Euclidean theologies (the phrase is inspired by the non-Euclidean geometries<\/a> when you vary the definition of Euclid\u2019s Fifth Postulate<\/a>). You could conclude that these theologies are evenly balanced, but I\u2019m inclined to say that the tie goes to the atheist position, since I\u2019d expect a god to give people a bit more of a fighting chance to be converted.<\/p>\n When I posted earlier on the blogfight unleashed by Jenifer Fulwiler\u2019s post \u201cFive Catholic Teachings that Make Sense to Atheists,\u201d I focused on how to gauge the sincerity of a convert\u2019s discarded beliefs. That was an argument about the author, and now I want to focus on the dispute over the logic of her post. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":127,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,68],"tags":[56,141,115],"class_list":["post-47","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-debatetactics","category-epistemologyphilosophy","tag-metaphysical-backsliding","tag-non-euclidean-theology","tag-standards-of-evidence"],"yoast_head":"\n<\/a><\/div>\n<\/a><\/div>\n