tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post2340147630128101780..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Kazim to Chuck Colson: Faith and certaintyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-57585099582675858872009-04-02T14:12:00.000-05:002009-04-02T14:12:00.000-05:00I think it is possible to believe in truth (scient...I think it is possible to believe in truth (scientific and spiritual) without assuming that one's understanding of that truth is absolutely correct. I don't think that makes you post-modern, just imperfect. However, a person's misunderstanding of the item or fact does not change the reality of the misunderstood item. It was mentioned that the radical muslim believes that he will receive 72 virgins post martyrdom - and since Colson disagrees, it's all just subjective or even post-modernity. However, no matter who believes what about the muslim man's destiny, he will either receive the 72 virgins or he won't - it can't be both. That's the objective reality behind the subjective banter.<BR/><BR/>I think some of you are quick to paint all theists with the same broad brush... just as you wouldn't like to get lumped and stereotyped by the actions of a few with atheistic worldviews, I'm not convinced that Colson fits every preconceived notion...<BR/><BR/>I just appreciate getting your take on these things... thanks for letting me in on your discussion.Searchinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01535771938200502939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-74645417317124551052009-02-13T16:03:00.000-06:002009-02-13T16:03:00.000-06:00Kaz, well done for having the “patience of a saint...Kaz, well done for having the “patience of a saint” to reply to such a knob-Jockey. However I think your great mind is wasted when diverted to deal with such vaporous nonsense spouted by Colson. After all how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could Chuck Colson? ...None of it.Kerusohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00145610587274807909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-82379943919962619442009-02-13T15:07:00.000-06:002009-02-13T15:07:00.000-06:00Indeed, people in our country tend to not see Shiv...Indeed, people in our country tend to not see Shiva on pieces of toast and people in Turkey do not see Mary on trees. The more prominent the religion in a country (Mexico for example), the more likely pareidolia will set in for everyday, natural occurrences.Doom03https://www.blogger.com/profile/13290607738323035380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-74326671077371140172009-02-13T06:37:00.000-06:002009-02-13T06:37:00.000-06:00If Chuck had a similar position of authority in a ...If Chuck had a similar position of authority in a Muslim culture instead of a majority Christian one, let's just say it's highly unlikely that his transcendental driveway experience would have been interpreted as Jesus trying to talk to him.<BR/><BR/>This is totally obvious to people outside of faith, yet it almost never gives the people on the inside a moment's pause about the supposed rightness of the path they've chosen.Kingasaurushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08458810855208904790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81087914396429802912009-02-13T00:20:00.000-06:002009-02-13T00:20:00.000-06:00I didn't care to research into him, but the sentim...I didn't care to research into him, but the sentiment is still the same...maybe even worse.Doom03https://www.blogger.com/profile/13290607738323035380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-5094570151693829592009-02-12T18:43:00.000-06:002009-02-12T18:43:00.000-06:00I don't know that Colson was indoctrinated as a ch...I don't know that Colson was indoctrinated as a child - any more than the general population was at that time. I see him as one of Altemeyer's authoritarians. He was heavily invested in one authority figure - Nixon - who let him down, he experienced a crisis, invested in another authority figure - God - and protects that investment at all costs. It's a form of addiction.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-79804566390448862422009-02-12T17:14:00.000-06:002009-02-12T17:14:00.000-06:00Tracie,I agree with you 100% and I even think you ...Tracie,<BR/><BR/>I agree with you 100% and I even think you are giving Colson too much credit with his statement, which at its heart is a bunch of non-sense strung together and then tied with the bow of "see how faith presupposes everything and thus it is more important than evidence." <BR/><BR/>There is no chicken and egg of evidence and faith. To go with your baby analogy. A baby is not born with an infinite number of faith beliefs about the nature of the world, such as, "If I move to the table, I will go through it, bang into it, explode it, eat it, whatever." There is no THEORY put forward from the baby via its relationship to the table, because the baby has no conception of the table with any reference to anything else it knows. All it knows is that it sees something and it is getting bigger.<BR/><BR/>I am just reminded of the whale in Hitchhiker's Guide (writing this from memory so I apologize if the details aren't correct) that was created by the Heart of Gold, its only existence comprised of it falling from high up and splattering on the nearest planet. Much like my baby analogy, it only defines its existence through its immediate senses (which I can safely say does not need to be taken as faith 99% of the time) and pretty much has the time to define air as something whipping past it incredibly fast and the ground as what he can see getting bigger just as fast. The whale does not deify or take anything around him on faith. It is there and he does not define things until his senses interact with it in some fashion, i.e. evidence.<BR/><BR/>(Oh, and I believe the whale DID take on faith that the ground was moving toward him and NOT that he was, in fact, falling. His own isolated existence made him believe something INCORRECT based on faith. Oops!)<BR/><BR/>From the baby to the whale, everything else is a void until the information is presented to us and our brain process that information. Colson didn't CHOOSE to have faith, he was instructed to have faith by people older than him as the best and only way to live your life. It is only after people question his faith that he finds any need to defend it and give bullshit reasons for its existence. He wasn't born with faith, it was drilled into him. His attempt at likening faith to a priori is pathetic.<BR/><BR/>He pwned himself.Doom03https://www.blogger.com/profile/13290607738323035380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-58995451442431066372009-02-12T15:05:00.000-06:002009-02-12T15:05:00.000-06:00I hadn't read that quote Tracie sited above too ca...I hadn't read that quote Tracie sited above too carefully the first time through (Colson's inanity is mind numbing at times). But in reading Tracie's re-interpretation, it donned on me that Colson is actually defining himself as a <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism" REL="nofollow">Fideist</A> in this quote. Returning to your (Russell's) Postmodernism argument, perhaps one of the biggest subscribers to Fideism was Søren Kierkegaard, who is considered the 'father of existentialism' by many, and whose ideas were highly influential to the Postmodern movement itself...so here is a legitimate and concrete historical example where Colson's way of thinking leads to Postmodernism itself. You may want to ask Colson how his idea regarding faith over evidence -- which actually lead to the likes of Kierkegaard to create existentialism and others to create Postmodernism -- is somehow not going down this exact same path.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14168969281371246061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-9112908431853108642009-02-12T08:14:00.000-06:002009-02-12T08:14:00.000-06:00>"The idea that evidence is superior to fa...>"The idea that evidence is superior to faith as a root to knowledge is one of those presuppositions: it is unproven and non-provable. So it must be taken as a priori; that is, prior to experience, or in other words, on faith." (quote from Colson)<BR/><BR/>Am I reading this right? Maybe I need to check context here or something, but this sounds like utter rubbish.<BR/><BR/>From the moment an infant attempts to take its first faultering steps, and fails--it learns this is wholly untrue. Hit the ground with your head, and you find that evidence is something you not only should, but generally _must_ give credence to. There is an old saying: "He who does not answer to the rudder will answer to the rocks."<BR/><BR/>Seriously--try living your life disregarding evidence, and going on nice ideas you feel good about that are unsupported by reason and evidence. Come back in a year and let me know how that worked out for you. "Unproven and unprovable"? Any three year old can figure it out--so why can't theists?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-58695624294042383732009-02-10T19:09:00.000-06:002009-02-10T19:09:00.000-06:00What I found particularly remarkable about this cl...<I>What I found particularly remarkable about this claim was that it almost perfectly echoes claims by the very same post-modernist movement that you have so often decried.</I><BR/><BR/>Despite Kingasaurus' objection, I absolutely adored this part! I have come to this exact conclusion myself about many evangelicals. I have long thought that, despite many Evangelicals open disdain for Postmodernism, they seem to be <I>de facto</I> Postmodernist themselves. How can someone assert faith over evidence without being Postmodern? (that is almost a definition for Postmodern in a way). The 800 lb gorilla I believe is that Colson is an "objective-supernaturalist" and only a "material-Postmodernist" while most atheists are the opposite -- "supernatural-Postmodernists" while being "objective materialists." (I ask forgiveness for the buzzword blizzard there).<BR/><BR/>At any rate -- it's about time someone throw the Postmodernism label at the theists and see how they chew on that.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14168969281371246061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-60031320726034395532009-02-10T16:16:00.000-06:002009-02-10T16:16:00.000-06:00This message was sent via the contact form on the ...This message was sent via the contact form on the ACA website:<BR/><BR/>In the past years creationist organizations are pumping in a lot of<BR/>money to deceive a not so gifted intellectual American public.<BR/>www.creationiststoday.com shows the outrages stupidity of creationists<BR/>, it simply brings a mocking atmosphere to them(exactly what they<BR/>deserve).<BR/><BR/>What I'm asking is to exchange links/banners on each others website. A<BR/>permanent free ad on each others site.<BR/><BR/>example: http://creationiststoday.com/node/47<BR/><BR/>Have a delusion free day.<BR/><BR/> AlexandraAlexandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03557788996195798818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85648285737832252022009-02-10T14:01:00.000-06:002009-02-10T14:01:00.000-06:00Kazim,You're right, of course, in that there's not...Kazim,<BR/><BR/>You're right, of course, in that there's nothing you can say that's going to affect this man one way or another.<BR/><BR/>I'm against engaging in dialogue with Christian fundamentalists as a group (or making the attempt; they really don't understand the concept of dialogue). I've come to feel the only way to stop their furious efforts to appropriate reality is to marginalize them, literally to drive them back into the margins of society where they festered for decades after the Scopes trial, until their leadership got them all worked up in the seventies and eighties. To try to bring them to the table, as liberal evangelicals like Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren want to do, is to invite disaster, as they believe they have a God-given mandate to commandeer the whole process. If you offer them a cookie, they'll grab the whole jar and tell you it was God's will.<BR/><BR/>Plus, as I've made clear - for me, it's personal. I hate the bastards.<BR/><BR/>But, if you think having this exchange is useful in that it may be seen by a few theists who <I>aren't</I> total frakking assholes, and who, as a result, may come away with a more positive view of atheists - have at it. I've had my rant, and I'll shut up now.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-83430396559241998852009-02-10T13:45:00.000-06:002009-02-10T13:45:00.000-06:00First: I agree with everyone who says that Chuck w...First: I agree with everyone who says that Chuck will not be swayed, and that he will find some justification for his statements.<BR/><BR/>Second, to acknowledge Cipher's recurring theme: I wish you would explain exactly how I, personally, can "empower" Chuck Colson by chatting with him. The man has a freakin' MEDIA EMPIRE. He had meetings with the previous president. He probably gets millions in donations.<BR/><BR/>What kind of cred am I going to confer on him? I'm a software developer who's not even making six figures (yet). I'm some blogger, and I appear once a month on a cable access TV show. How is this little dialog supposed to play into some grand scheme of his?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-13941110835282151652009-02-10T13:43:00.000-06:002009-02-10T13:43:00.000-06:00Those are assumptions, but he is making a greater ...<I>Those are assumptions, but he is making a greater assumption by picking and choosing which parts of reality to acknowledge, which parts to ignore, and choosing to believe in an alternate reality (Heaven, God, etc) that is not supported by any evidence, at all.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, it really is a game of "My delusion is better than/morally superior to your delusion." Then, of course, Pascal's Wager kicks in.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62212754906755795912009-02-10T13:20:00.000-06:002009-02-10T13:20:00.000-06:00Coralbee I think this paragraph is a logic abomi...Coralbee<BR/> <I>I think this paragraph is a logic abomination. "All thoughts begin with faith"??? Where does this idea come from? "All intellectual inquiry begins with certain presuppositions."??? On what basis can he say this? The statements that follow aren't valid conclusions.</I><BR/><BR/>I think he was saying that we are constantly assuming things. We assume that we are not living in the Matrix, that the world is not a hallucination, that your senses can be trusted to relay evidence to you, and that evidence was not magically conjured up to mislead us.<BR/><BR/>Those are assumptions, but he is making a greater assumption by picking and choosing which parts of reality to acknowledge, which parts to ignore, and choosing to believe in an alternate reality (Heaven, God, etc) that is not supported by any evidence, at all.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299046445235601258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-26457829163350168572009-02-10T13:05:00.000-06:002009-02-10T13:05:00.000-06:00Double points if he claims to have "studied all th...<I>Double points if he claims to have "studied all the alternative world views and came to the conclusion that Christianity is the only one that makes rational sense."</I><BR/><BR/>This is, indeed, most likely what he'd say. Some months ago, I found an article he wrote on Zondervan's blog, in which he made the most abysmally stupid remark about Asian religions; something about their conceptualization of the self, as I recall. In any case, he demonstrated that he didn't know what he was talking about. I left a comment addressed to the Zondervan editors - something along the lines of "He's making all of you look like damn fools". The Zondervan editors asked me, condescendingly, which part of the article I disagreed with (even though I had already made it clear) - in other words, which part was I too ignorant and/or mired in sin to understand? I didn't bother to respond.<BR/><BR/>This is the man who ignores the evidence that his prison program doesn't get the results he claims it does, and labels everyone who disagrees with his methods a "God-hater". He's nothing more than an authoritarian addict who has exchanged an addiction to one authority figure - Nixon - for an addiction to another - God - and he's convinced that, as a result of this "transformation", he's somehow privy to THE TRUTH™. <BR/><BR/>And, yes, I agree with those of you who are saying he'll find some way to weasel out of the subjective vs. objective corner into which he's painted himself - if he bothers to respond at all. The constantly shifting line in the sand is the fundie's stock-in-trade. Can you say "cognitive dissonance is our friend", boys and girls?<BR/><BR/>Kazim, again - far be it from me to tell you what to do, but I'm opposed to empowering these people by so much as attempting even to engage them in dialogue. I agree with Gould; I fear it validates them by implication.<BR/><BR/>Young, progressive evangelicals keep saying that people like Colson represent the "old guard" that's passing away, to which I can only reply "WHEN?"Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-82131318363374387972009-02-10T13:03:00.000-06:002009-02-10T13:03:00.000-06:00Coralbee, I AM going to hold off on sending them t...Coralbee, I AM going to hold off on sending them to Chuck. I'm just writing them out a post at a time, but I'm not going to alert Chuck or his liaison that I'm writing replies until after I'm done with all of them, at which point I will collect all the messages into one long post.<BR/><BR/>Regarding this "logic abomination" -- we're talking about epistemological systems here. Chuck's outlined his, and I don't know if I can get anywhere useful by saying "That's not how it works." That's why I decided to go with this approach of identifying this philosophy with post-modernism, since I already know he will prefer to avoid being branded that way.<BR/><BR/>Maybe it's not a good idea to explain myself further on this post when Chuck hasn't read it yet :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50246990645370948362009-02-10T12:19:00.000-06:002009-02-10T12:19:00.000-06:00Kingasaurus,I kinda liked that last point you made...Kingasaurus,<BR/><BR/>I kinda liked that last point you made. In a court setting it would sound something like "Ok, we've already established that you are an unreliable witness, so how is the jury to reconcile this with your faith based claims of absolute certainty?"Ai Denghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12141023502945802293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-27421255334919409762009-02-10T12:11:00.000-06:002009-02-10T12:11:00.000-06:00Russell,I thought the concensus of the replies to ...Russell,<BR/><BR/>I thought the concensus of the replies to your request for whether or not you should answer Colson's posts singlely or collectively was to collect all your replies and send them all at once. Apparently, you decided to go at him a bit at a time. Anyway, I was wondering if you plan to respond to a few of the statements he made in his #2 response to you in the following paragraph:<BR/><BR/> "But the fact-value distinction is false. All thought begins with faith. All intellectual inquiry begins with certain presuppositions. These by necessity are made without evidence and have to be taken on faith. The idea that evidence is superior to faith as a root to knowledge is one of those presuppositions: it is unproven and non-provable. So it must be taken as a priori; that is, prior to experience, or in other words, on faith."<BR/><BR/>I think this paragraph is a logic abomination. "All thoughts begin with faith"??? Where does this idea come from? "All intellectual inquiry begins with certain presuppositions."??? On what basis can he say this? The statements that follow aren't valid conclusions.<BR/><BR/>To me this paragraph is only one example of his illogical reasoning that is based on false premises. I wish you luck in your future responses to him. I have a feeling you're going to need it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-47973292869491651822009-02-10T11:32:00.000-06:002009-02-10T11:32:00.000-06:00Faith in FaithSo often under the guided hand of th...<B>Faith in Faith</B><BR/><BR/>So often under the guided hand of theists the word faith is twisted, convoluted, and contorted with the end result being to either fit the arguments of the conductor or lead the audience astray. Can we not get some concensus on the definition of a word? Faith is 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof', so if Chuck Colson justifies his faith via an indication that there exists some evidence which supports it, then tell him 'Yours is not faith!' In the end, any evidence for faith is going to turn out to be evidence taken on faith in the first place, and deemed evidentiary to give it a false sense of rationality.Ai Denghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12141023502945802293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73122841665717439512009-02-10T10:45:00.000-06:002009-02-10T10:45:00.000-06:00Well, one problem with these people is that the tw...Well, one problem with these people is that the twist the idea of human fallibility for their own purposes.<BR/><BR/>They insist scientists are fallible because they don't like the conclusions. In the same breath, they consider themselves fallible because part of their dogma is that they, and everyone else, is a worthless sinner.<BR/><BR/>I'm fine so far with the idea that everyone is imperfect and can make mistakes, but they then immediately turn around and claim the subjective, emotional, so-called revelatory experience they had - including their own human interpretation of what it means - CAN'T BE WRONG. This is really messed up.<BR/><BR/>They'll always say "I'm capable of being wrong because I'm human," then turn around and say "I can't possibly be wrong about this time in my life when I was convinced a god revealed himself to me in a subjective manner."<BR/><BR/>Weird.Kingasaurushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08458810855208904790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49656869702331159672009-02-10T10:05:00.000-06:002009-02-10T10:05:00.000-06:00Russell, I don't think Chuck would ever say everyo...<I>Russell, I don't think Chuck would ever say everyone's faith is "true for them" in some postmodernist sense.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, no he doesn't. Chuck believes that CHUCK'S faith is "true for him," and everybody else's is wrong. But I think he ought to defend where this certainty comes from, because if it's just "my faith" then it's no better than believing whatever feels good. Especially if he insists on holding onto this position that there can be no proof of anything.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33054239959152947532009-02-10T06:57:00.000-06:002009-02-10T06:57:00.000-06:00Russell, I don't think Chuck would ever say everyo...Russell, I don't think Chuck would ever say everyone's faith is "true for them" in some postmodernist sense.<BR/><BR/>I'm certain he thinks the Capital-T Truth has been revealed to Christians through faith, and anyone who has similar faith in anything else is either making a fallible human error or is the victim of a Satanic deception.<BR/><BR/>Trying to pigeonhole him the way you did won't work. Best to just mention that his ideas (the way I've just described them) are just an unfalsifiable assertion that any faith-based worldview can make, no matter what their beliefs.<BR/><BR/>There's no way to tell the difference between faith in something that's real and faith in something that isn't. They look completely identical, and you therefore need to appeal to some other method independent of faith to make your decision. Chuck won't agree with that, but that's a reflection of his blinkered fundamentalism. No way around that, I'm afraid.<BR/><BR/>Anyone telling Chuck his "personal experience" in his driveway which led him to Jesus was a mistake will simply hit a brick wall. That's the way it is with these people. Once they have an emotional, "transcendent" experience of any kind, you can almost never convince them that their interpretation of that experience was faulty.<BR/><BR/>Chuck isn't a Christian because he found the Bible especially compelling. Everything followed from that experience in his driveway, and the fact that - in his own mind - he can't possibly be wrong about what it meant.Kingasaurushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08458810855208904790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1729214357438016302009-02-10T02:52:00.000-06:002009-02-10T02:52:00.000-06:00Renacier:Your comment is utterly depressing in its...Renacier:<BR/><BR/>Your comment is utterly depressing in its truthfullness. He is further evidence that theists have nothing to contribute to intelligent discussion apart from circular reasoning, bias and logical fallacies.<BR/><BR/>Doom3:<BR/><BR/>You are correct in identifying that he has nothing substantial to say. I too noticed that he honestly believes that his faith has more value than anything science has to offer.<BR/>Although I would never use it as an argument, I believe science has benefited mankind exponentially more in the last 100 years than religion.John Stablerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16040887129341211890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-5860411160251059902009-02-09T20:55:00.000-06:002009-02-09T20:55:00.000-06:00I agree with dhawk; Chuck continues to use the exc...I agree with dhawk; Chuck continues to use the excuse that when he has faith in something, it is good and justified, and then turns around and says that trust in science is a bad type of faith. He is trying to play both sides and is really saying absolutely nothing substantial.Doom03https://www.blogger.com/profile/13290607738323035380noreply@blogger.com