You have accused me of not being open-minded or freethinking. I don’t think you understand what these terms mean so let’s clarify. Open-mindedness talks of our disposition towards how readily we accept or reject new ideas. Here is a short clip discussing open-mindedness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Freethought, according to Wikipedia, "is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma."
Neither of these terms has anything to do with your objection to how I ask a question.
Now back to the topic of the God of the gaps, or the God of Old Navy as you call it. I was really hoping to get a response out of you because this is really a standard argument found in the atheist’s arsenal. There are other examples that perhaps I could have given. The immune system, the eye, and the bacterial flagellum are good ones. And you brought up the example of blood clotting earlier in our discussion. These are all examples in science where people gave up looking for natural explanations and assumed it was God’s handiwork.
In my last post, I gave the example of epilepsy-- In the past, people did not understand what caused it and therefore assumed that it was God. That was my main point. I go on and show some verses in the Bible where it says that Jesus believed demons cause epilepsy. I meant this as an aside, but whatever. You say this Bible story isn’t about epilepsy but rather about faith. That’s fine. Context aside, my issue was that in the Bible, it says that Jesus believed demons cause epilepsy. I’ll accept Jennifer’s response that Jesus just didn’t understand what epilepsy was. But this is just the point I was trying to get across. When people don’t understand something, they seek out supernatural explanations. I’m arguing that this is a mistake.
After I posted last time, I came across this essay by Robert Larmer titled, “Is There Anything Wrong with ‘God of the Gaps’ Reasoning?”
http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Larmer/Gaps.htm
Larmer argues that this God of the gaps reasoning is not an error in logic like I had stated. It’s rather a modus tollens of the form:
If P, then Q
not-Q
Therefore, not-P
If there were a naturalistic explanation for some phenomena, then, given all that we know about the workings of the world and given all the attempts made to try and understand such and such phenomena, we would have found an explanation. We have not found an explanation. Therefore, there is no natural explanation for such phenomena.
I still hold that this is a mistake. The error lies in the first premise with the conditional.
We could move on. Let’s talk about believing in demons. I'll start off with some quotes.
This is what James Randi says about believing in demons from the exorcism entry in his An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural:
Christians who believe in the Holy Bible must also believe in demons, devils, and other such creatures, and they must believe that those entities cause disease and that they can be “cast out” by proper ceremonies——exorcism——simply because it's in the Book. If they deny the reality of those entities, they deny the Bible, and thus their faith. It is not a matter of choice, but dogma.
Here is a similar quote I found online by Vatican official, Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez :
The existence of the devil isn't an opinion, something to take or leave as you wish. Anyone who says he doesn't exist wouldn't have the fullness of the Catholic faith.
Pope John Paul II performed three exorcisms himself.
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2000/09/Pope-Performs-Exorcism-Over-Teenage-Italian-Girl.aspx
Here is a story about Mother Teresa and an exorcism that was performed on her. Yeah, apparently she was being possessed by demons that were causing her to have insomnia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1529093.stm
And of course we have that famous story about Anneliese Michel. This was the subject of the movie The Exorcism of Emily Rose. She died in 1973 because of malnutrition. The people involved in her exorcism were charged with her death.
So I guess my question is why should we believe that any of these instances are cases of demonic possession rather than complex physical or mental disorders?
A couple replies:
“guys like Dawkins like to attack Christianity based on the theories made/accepted by Christians looooong ago as well as the thinkers who thought these things”
I think this is the second time you asked me this. I’m not really sure what exactly you are referring to here. Perhaps you could provide me with an example. But I might reply as I did earlier that religion is a rigid belief system. It is in its methodology, eternal and unchanging. The bible remains constant. The bible said the same thing 500 years ago as it does today.
“please take my sarcasm (i.e.: haha, sucker, I win! I told you God was real) for what it is”
I realize that you were joking. I just don’t understand the purpose. I made a case out of it because this is exactly what a lot of these religious people do. They point out gaps in our understanding and use that as evidence for the existence of God.
