Farrell Till introduces a Christian to rational thought. From the Errancy Discussion List, 8-9-99:
TILL
Well, okay, Eric, let me revise the answer that I gave to your question, because I can now see that your answer is much better than mine. In order for me to believe that the Bible is the word of God, God himself would have to tell me that it is. So all he has to do is appear in a POOF here in my office, and then he'll have me on your side. When can I expect this to happen?
(DAVE 8/7)
Does this mean that for you to accept that anything exists it must appear in your office? (POOF). With that kind of criteria you: (a) don't accept that very much exists or (b) you have faith in an awful lot.
TILL
What a stupidly false analogy. I have never seen Tokyo, Japan, but I have seen countless cities and towns, and I have known people who have been to Tokyo and tell me that it is there. Hence, there is nothing irrational about thinking that Tokyo is a real city.
(DAVE 8/8)
You rely on eyewitness accounts for your beliefs and except them as fact (as well as accepting the reliability of the witnesses). Does this mean that you accept everything you are told just because you have seen a similar occurrence or phenomenon?
TILL
Certainly not. There are some people I wouldn't believe if they told me the sun rises in the east. You're simply setting up a straw man with another false analogy in which you are trying to compare the acceptance of testimony to the commonplace and ordinary with the acceptance of testimony to the extraordinary. Try to get this through your thick skull, Dave. There is a difference in accepting the report that John Doe died and in accepting the claim that he later returned from the dead. When a claim is entirely contrary to reality as one knows it to be from his lifetime of experiences, then he is being entirely reasonable to reject the claim. That is entirely different from believing Jane Doe when she tells me that she saw a car wreck on her way to Peoria this morning. I have also seen car wrecks on the way to Peoria, so it is reasonable to accept her claim as truth. If she is lying about it, so what? That wouldn't be the first time that I believed a lie that could easily have been the truth. If, however, I believe my former student, whom I think I have mentioned on this list, who claims that she is routinely visited by alien beings and has an alien living inside her body to guide and direct her in her crusade to enlighten the public about alien visitations to earth, then I will deserve every bit of ridicule that is heaped onto me for being so gullible.
DAVE
Exactly how far do you take your acceptance philosophy? Coat it as you will, Farrell, the evidence you demand for God, Jesus etc is not what you demand for more comfortable issues like the existence of Tokyo - you believe in Tokyo's existence by faith: faith in the reliability of your friends etc. I wonder how much you believe that isn't actually true or real, just because someone told you about it.
TILL
Exactly! I have said this same thing before. I have no doubt accepted as truth many ordinary claims that I have heard, but there is no disgrace in being deceived by people who make ordinary, commonplace claims. The disgrace comes with believing that which any moron should have enough sense to know is unlikely to be true, such as a man's having risen from the dead, back in a time when people thought that resurrections from the dead happened rather routinely. Anyway, it's time to put a stop to bullshit like what you have said above. Let's just see how much "faith" you have in your own line of argumentation. I'm so sure that Tokyo is a real city that I'm willing to bet money on it. You and I will buy airline tickets to Tokyo and fly there aboard the same plane. If we wind up not being able to get to Tokyo because no such place exists, then I will give you $10,000 and pay for the cost of your airline ticket. If we do arrive in a place that is supposed to be Tokyo and then we investigate and find that the place really is Tokyo, then you will give me just $2,000, and I will pay for the cost of my ticket out of the $2,000. So just how much do you believe in the crap that you keep posting on this issue?
TILL
I have never seen an aardvark, but I have seen thousands of different kinds of animals, so when someone tells me that there is an animal known as an aardvark whose habitant is in a place I have never been, I find it perfectly credible to believe in its existence.
(DAVE 8/7)
So then you must believe in the pink unicorn as long as someone says it exists in Tokyo?
TILL
Not at all, because there has been too much information published to assure me that unicorns were probably mythological creatures. If the claim that unicorns are mythological were not true, there would have been hundreds of people by now who would have come forward with unicorns to prove that they are real. If people all over the world should suddenly begin declaring that aardvarks are mythological creatures that have never existed and if decades went by and no one stepped forward with an aardvark to show that they do indeed exist exactly as they have been depicted in pictures, then I would certainly entertain doubts about their existence. Any more nonsense you want to post?
TILL
On the other hand, in all of my life, I have never seen invisible, immaterial entities like gods, demons, ghosts, devils, angels, etc., and the very premise of immaterial existence is completely contrary to the reality that I have observed.
(DAVE 8/7)
But you haven't observed an aardvark or Tokyo, yet you believe in them.
TILL
Well, if you can't understand the reasoning that I used to explain why I believe in aardvarks but not in gods, demons, angels, ghosts, etc., you are too stupid for me to try to clarify it for you, but, heck, I already knew that you were stupid from your last tenure on the list. How's that for calling a spade a spade. When you get serious about trying to debate rationally instead of posting nonsense like your comments above, then I'll try to show some politeness toward you. Until you do that, you don't deserve anything but to be called exactly what you are.
DAVE
Simply because you can better understand or accept their
existence. This is understandable, but certainly doesn't take into
consideration the fact that something CAN exist outside of your
understanding.
TILL
Oh, gee, I would never have guessed that, but the things that exist outside of my understanding are thinks like atoms and black holes for which scientific evidence exists or scientific measurement is possible. When you explain to me how that gods and angels can be scientifically measured or when you show me the scientific evidence that can be explained only by the postulation of a god, then I will believe your otherwise stupid claims about the existence of invisible, immaterial entities, for which you have no supporting evidence at all except for your pathetic determination to believe in a collection of ancient writings that are riddled with absurdities that require you to be irrational in order to accept them. I am so confident that atoms, which are outside my understanding, exist that you couldn't pay me to sit at ground zero the next time an atom bomb is exploded. On the other hand, if you claim that you have a "god-bomb," I wouldn't hesitate a moment to sit on it while you try to explode it. By the way, weren't you one of those whom I challenged to prove to us that immaterial existence is even possible? If so, you didn't accept the challenge, because nobody has done it yet.
TILL
If I had observed immaterial entities all of my life, as I have observed various kinds of animals, I would find it perfectly believable if someone told me that an immaterial entity known as the banshee exists in some places. However, when I have a lifetime of experiences in which I have never seen immaterial entities of any kind, I'm going to tell the person who claims that banshees are real that I will believe this when I see a banshee.
(DAVE 8/7)
This means that, since you have seen cities or towns, and someone tells you any town exists, you would believe in that town. Without seeing it. But because you have seen other towns. Blind faith - just the way you see it.
TILL
No, it doesn't. You're so stupid that you can't even see the point I was making, or else you are just intentionally pretending that you don't see it. I have traveled extensively on this continent and in Europe. Everywhere I went I passed through towns and cities, so I know from my personal experience that such entities as towns and cities are very commonplace. Therefore, when I constantly read about Tokyo in newspapers and see TV newscasts that mention Tokyo, then I consider it more than just reasonable to conclude that since cities exist everywhere I go, then Tokyo surely exists too; otherwise, I would be hearing about people who have stepped forward to declare that the world is being duped into believing something that isn't true, because no city named Tokyo even exists. In the case of Tokyo, I have inductively determined that the probability that a place named Tokyo exists is so great that there is no intelligent reason at all to doubt it, but in the matter of invisible entities, I have had no experiences at all that give me any reason to think that ghosts, demons, gods, and angels are real entities. So when someone urges me to believe in gods and angels, I am being asked to believe in something for which I have no basis at all for thinking that such entities are real. You are trying to make a parallel where no basis exists for one. If you can't see the difference, then as I said above, you're too stupid to warrant any more of my time trying to explain it to you. I'm trying to get through about 200 postings that remain, so I'm going to help myself through the list by deleting about ten other postings from you. When you show an ability to reason rationally, I'll extend to you the courtesy of reading what you post, but I won't waste time on you in the pressing situation I am now in.
Farrell Till
TILL
Well, okay, Eric, let me revise the answer that I gave to your question, because I can now see that your answer is much better than mine. In order for me to believe that the Bible is the word of God, God himself would have to tell me that it is. So all he has to do is appear in a POOF here in my office, and then he'll have me on your side. When can I expect this to happen?
(DAVE 8/7)
Does this mean that for you to accept that anything exists it must appear in your office? (POOF). With that kind of criteria you: (a) don't accept that very much exists or (b) you have faith in an awful lot.
TILL
What a stupidly false analogy. I have never seen Tokyo, Japan, but I have seen countless cities and towns, and I have known people who have been to Tokyo and tell me that it is there. Hence, there is nothing irrational about thinking that Tokyo is a real city.
(DAVE 8/8)
You rely on eyewitness accounts for your beliefs and except them as fact (as well as accepting the reliability of the witnesses). Does this mean that you accept everything you are told just because you have seen a similar occurrence or phenomenon?
TILL
Certainly not. There are some people I wouldn't believe if they told me the sun rises in the east. You're simply setting up a straw man with another false analogy in which you are trying to compare the acceptance of testimony to the commonplace and ordinary with the acceptance of testimony to the extraordinary. Try to get this through your thick skull, Dave. There is a difference in accepting the report that John Doe died and in accepting the claim that he later returned from the dead. When a claim is entirely contrary to reality as one knows it to be from his lifetime of experiences, then he is being entirely reasonable to reject the claim. That is entirely different from believing Jane Doe when she tells me that she saw a car wreck on her way to Peoria this morning. I have also seen car wrecks on the way to Peoria, so it is reasonable to accept her claim as truth. If she is lying about it, so what? That wouldn't be the first time that I believed a lie that could easily have been the truth. If, however, I believe my former student, whom I think I have mentioned on this list, who claims that she is routinely visited by alien beings and has an alien living inside her body to guide and direct her in her crusade to enlighten the public about alien visitations to earth, then I will deserve every bit of ridicule that is heaped onto me for being so gullible.
DAVE
Exactly how far do you take your acceptance philosophy? Coat it as you will, Farrell, the evidence you demand for God, Jesus etc is not what you demand for more comfortable issues like the existence of Tokyo - you believe in Tokyo's existence by faith: faith in the reliability of your friends etc. I wonder how much you believe that isn't actually true or real, just because someone told you about it.
TILL
Exactly! I have said this same thing before. I have no doubt accepted as truth many ordinary claims that I have heard, but there is no disgrace in being deceived by people who make ordinary, commonplace claims. The disgrace comes with believing that which any moron should have enough sense to know is unlikely to be true, such as a man's having risen from the dead, back in a time when people thought that resurrections from the dead happened rather routinely. Anyway, it's time to put a stop to bullshit like what you have said above. Let's just see how much "faith" you have in your own line of argumentation. I'm so sure that Tokyo is a real city that I'm willing to bet money on it. You and I will buy airline tickets to Tokyo and fly there aboard the same plane. If we wind up not being able to get to Tokyo because no such place exists, then I will give you $10,000 and pay for the cost of your airline ticket. If we do arrive in a place that is supposed to be Tokyo and then we investigate and find that the place really is Tokyo, then you will give me just $2,000, and I will pay for the cost of my ticket out of the $2,000. So just how much do you believe in the crap that you keep posting on this issue?
TILL
I have never seen an aardvark, but I have seen thousands of different kinds of animals, so when someone tells me that there is an animal known as an aardvark whose habitant is in a place I have never been, I find it perfectly credible to believe in its existence.
(DAVE 8/7)
So then you must believe in the pink unicorn as long as someone says it exists in Tokyo?
TILL
Not at all, because there has been too much information published to assure me that unicorns were probably mythological creatures. If the claim that unicorns are mythological were not true, there would have been hundreds of people by now who would have come forward with unicorns to prove that they are real. If people all over the world should suddenly begin declaring that aardvarks are mythological creatures that have never existed and if decades went by and no one stepped forward with an aardvark to show that they do indeed exist exactly as they have been depicted in pictures, then I would certainly entertain doubts about their existence. Any more nonsense you want to post?
TILL
On the other hand, in all of my life, I have never seen invisible, immaterial entities like gods, demons, ghosts, devils, angels, etc., and the very premise of immaterial existence is completely contrary to the reality that I have observed.
(DAVE 8/7)
But you haven't observed an aardvark or Tokyo, yet you believe in them.
TILL
Well, if you can't understand the reasoning that I used to explain why I believe in aardvarks but not in gods, demons, angels, ghosts, etc., you are too stupid for me to try to clarify it for you, but, heck, I already knew that you were stupid from your last tenure on the list. How's that for calling a spade a spade. When you get serious about trying to debate rationally instead of posting nonsense like your comments above, then I'll try to show some politeness toward you. Until you do that, you don't deserve anything but to be called exactly what you are.
DAVE
Simply because you can better understand or accept their
existence. This is understandable, but certainly doesn't take into
consideration the fact that something CAN exist outside of your
understanding.
TILL
Oh, gee, I would never have guessed that, but the things that exist outside of my understanding are thinks like atoms and black holes for which scientific evidence exists or scientific measurement is possible. When you explain to me how that gods and angels can be scientifically measured or when you show me the scientific evidence that can be explained only by the postulation of a god, then I will believe your otherwise stupid claims about the existence of invisible, immaterial entities, for which you have no supporting evidence at all except for your pathetic determination to believe in a collection of ancient writings that are riddled with absurdities that require you to be irrational in order to accept them. I am so confident that atoms, which are outside my understanding, exist that you couldn't pay me to sit at ground zero the next time an atom bomb is exploded. On the other hand, if you claim that you have a "god-bomb," I wouldn't hesitate a moment to sit on it while you try to explode it. By the way, weren't you one of those whom I challenged to prove to us that immaterial existence is even possible? If so, you didn't accept the challenge, because nobody has done it yet.
TILL
If I had observed immaterial entities all of my life, as I have observed various kinds of animals, I would find it perfectly believable if someone told me that an immaterial entity known as the banshee exists in some places. However, when I have a lifetime of experiences in which I have never seen immaterial entities of any kind, I'm going to tell the person who claims that banshees are real that I will believe this when I see a banshee.
(DAVE 8/7)
This means that, since you have seen cities or towns, and someone tells you any town exists, you would believe in that town. Without seeing it. But because you have seen other towns. Blind faith - just the way you see it.
TILL
No, it doesn't. You're so stupid that you can't even see the point I was making, or else you are just intentionally pretending that you don't see it. I have traveled extensively on this continent and in Europe. Everywhere I went I passed through towns and cities, so I know from my personal experience that such entities as towns and cities are very commonplace. Therefore, when I constantly read about Tokyo in newspapers and see TV newscasts that mention Tokyo, then I consider it more than just reasonable to conclude that since cities exist everywhere I go, then Tokyo surely exists too; otherwise, I would be hearing about people who have stepped forward to declare that the world is being duped into believing something that isn't true, because no city named Tokyo even exists. In the case of Tokyo, I have inductively determined that the probability that a place named Tokyo exists is so great that there is no intelligent reason at all to doubt it, but in the matter of invisible entities, I have had no experiences at all that give me any reason to think that ghosts, demons, gods, and angels are real entities. So when someone urges me to believe in gods and angels, I am being asked to believe in something for which I have no basis at all for thinking that such entities are real. You are trying to make a parallel where no basis exists for one. If you can't see the difference, then as I said above, you're too stupid to warrant any more of my time trying to explain it to you. I'm trying to get through about 200 postings that remain, so I'm going to help myself through the list by deleting about ten other postings from you. When you show an ability to reason rationally, I'll extend to you the courtesy of reading what you post, but I won't waste time on you in the pressing situation I am now in.
Farrell Till
No comments:
Post a Comment