Discussion Grounds

Thank you for your gracious first letter, getting us off to a good start, Luke.

I want to speak to readers here first, to put our discussion here in context. I created this Discussion Grounds website a year or so ago with the intent of inviting one or more atheists or skeptics to a “disciplined discussion on religion and related matters.” I sent one invitation to a prominent naturalist, which he declined. After that I just kept this on the back burner.

A few weeks ago Luke contacted me by email, asking for an exchange of views on our blogs. I let him know about Discussion Grounds, and he agreed to try this experiment with me. I really do see it as an experiment: I don’t know of any other blogs that operate the way this one is set up, and we’re going to find out how well it works.

Anyway, speaking to you now, Luke, I appreciate the initiative you took, and the spirit with which you are approaching this. I look forward to great conversations with you!

We do indeed have much in common. I was “raised Christian” but in fact I did not have a clue what it really meant to follow Christ until I was in college. I’ll tell that story in a future post. I agree emphatically with much of what you have said about your approach to truth, knowledge, and reality. You asked if I could affirm a list of propositions (bulleted, near the end of your post), and the answer is yes, with these qualifications:

“Science is thus far our most reliable and successful means for gaining knowledge about the natural world.“ I agree with that if “the natural world” is defined properly. One such definition is, the natural world is that aspect of reality that is most reliably and successfully investigated through science. That’s not very helpful this time, though, is it? Another way of putting it is that the natural world is that aspect of reality that consists of matter, energy, and their interactions by way of necessity (natural law or lawlike interactions) and chance. There are aspects of the world that you probably consider natural, that I would not view as natural in that sense: consciousness, free will, morality, reason, and other phenomena related to human personality. I don’t think science has been at all successful in explaining these.

“The supernatural may exist, but it cannot be known to exist a priori.” I’m not sure what you mean in this case by a priori. If you mean the supernatural cannot be directly perceived, then I disagree, for God can and often does make himself known directly. If you mean it cannot be reasoned to, then I somewhat disagree. The philosophical proofs for God depend on sense perception of the universe (the ontological argument being perhaps the exception to that) and on a chain of reasoning, but they can be reasoned to and they are persuasive to many. I think we can know that there is a God through perception and through reason, in other words; though there is much we cannot grasp apart from his personal revelation.

“Some propositions are more probably true than others.” I agree with this; I would just state it more emphatically!

My views regarding Christ are summed up in the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, and in historic Protestantism. I believe in the Triune God: the Father; the Son, Jesus Christ as God’s fullest revelation, who lived, died, and rose again for the redemption of our sins; and the Holy Spirit who convicts us of sin, draws us to God through Christ, and guides and empowers believers in following Christ. I believe that God created the world and all of life, and that history is moving toward a consummation at the return of Jesus Christ. I believe that eternal life is a gift of God offered through Christ, and that to reject it is to choose instead eternity apart from God’s goodness and love.

Those are the basics of my belief. I think it might be interesting from here for each of us to describe our spiritual journeys: how we came to the positions we now hold. What do you think?

Warm regards,

Tom

Tom,

You and I have a great deal in common!

You write Thinking Christian, a blog advocating a thoughtful and ethical Christianity. I write Common Sense Atheism, a blog advocating a thoughtful and ethical atheism. We both read some of the philosophical literature concerning theism vs. atheism, but we are not professional philosophers. We both respect science but not so much postmodernism and relativism.

We were both raised Christian, and we have both experienced God in powerful, convincing ways. (At least, we have experienced what we believed to be God.)

We both want to know the truth, and we are both willing to change our minds if we are shown to be wrong.

Most disagreement between Christians and atheists begins over some specific proposition, for example: “God raised Jesus from the dead.” The Christian affirms it, the atheist denies it. Soon they find out their disagreement is more fundamental, for example over historical method or epistemology in general. And later they may discover their disagreement begins at a more fundamental level still. And so they cannot resolve their disagreement over the resurrection of Jesus because their point of divergence actually lies much further back.

Rather than “working back” in this way, I’d like to first find everything we agree on and then work our way forward to find our earliest and most fundamental disagreements. Perhaps then we can not only emphasize what we have in common, but also argue at the true origin of our divergence in beliefs.

But whatever our point of first divergence, we should each be clear about what we believe. I believe:

1. Theism is almost certainly false.
2. Christian theism is definitely false.
3. There are no good reasons to think that any supernatural gods exist.
4. Metaphysical naturalism is probably true.

Being a Christian, I suspect you have a much longer list of propositions to affirm. I don’t need you to list your position on every Christian doctrine, but a brief sketch of your concepts of God and Jesus and their interest in (and interaction with) humanity would be useful.

Next, let’s try to find some common ground. I’ll start conservatively. Can you also affirm the following?

• There is a single, objective truth value for each proposition we might discuss concerning the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. (Truth is not relative.)
• Science is thus far our most reliable and successful means for gaining knowledge about the natural world.
• Humans are plagued by many cognitive biases, which corrupt their pursuit of the truth.
• The laws of logic are true. (That is, we are speaking the same language about the universe. For example, we agree that something can’t both exist and not-exist at the same time in the same way, because that’s part of what we mean by the word “exist.”)
• Some propositions are more probably true than others.
• You and I and the external world exist.
• The supernatural may exist, but it cannot be known to exist a priori.

So there’s a start! In your first letter, I’d like to hear what you believe and whether you agree with the above propositions.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Cheers,

Luke

New visitors: see the Ground Rules to find out what’s unique about this blog and how you can participate.