Topic: Sntjohnny in the News (Read 12385 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **on:** August 11, 2007, 09:31:06 PM »

As some of you have already discovered, I recently made headlines in some parts, resulting in this Christian Post article:

CLICK HERE

As a result, I have had five or six radio interviews and seen a lot of blogger action. You can download the audio of some of the interviews off of my main page at www.sntjohnny.com and if you go there and click 'blog' you will see where I have cataloged some of the blogger action that I've found.

Comments welcome.

benjdm · « **Reply #1 on:** August 11, 2007, 11:52:53 PM »

I read the article and came here as a result of it. It reads to me like 'when you are having trouble convincing people, it must be because they misunderstand you.' In my experience, this is not the case at all. The Emperor has no clothes and the U.S. will join Europe in post-Christian status.

First of all, a whole lot more Americans actually disbelieve than are willing to admit it publicly. As more and more of us out ourselves, this will change. The growth rate is impressive.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=707

Quote

Over the last few years, several different surveys have found that more people admit to potentially embarrassing beliefs or behaviors when answering online surveys (without interviewers) than admit to these behaviors when talking to interviewers in telephone surveys. They are also three times more likely to say that their sexual orientation is gay, lesbian or bi-sexual. Researchers call this unwillingness to give honest answers to some questions in telephone surveys a "social desirability bias."

It is therefore no surprise that in this online survey, more people say they are not absolutely certain there is a God than have given similar replies in other surveys conducted by telephone...

Are believers declining?

Three years ago, in an identical survey, 79 percent of adults said they believed in God and 66 percent said they were absolutely certain that there is a God. In this new survey, those numbers have declined to 73 percent and 58 percent respectively.

From 2003 to 2006, the number of people who 'believe there is no God' grew 22% - from 9% to 11%. The number of people who are 'not sure whether or not there is a God' grew 33% - from 12% to 16%. The combined group of atheists & agnostics grew more than 28% in only 3 years, from 21% to 27%.

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=272

Quote

One of the most fascinating insights from the research is the increasing size of the no-faith segment with each successive generation...When adjusted for age and compared to 15 years ago, each generation has changed surprisingly little over the past decade and a half. Each new generation entered adulthood with a certain degree of secular fervor, which appears to stay relatively constant within that generation over time. This contradicts the popular notion that such generational differences are simply a product of people becoming more faith-oriented as they age."

adult Mosaics (current ages 18-22)
Busters (current ages 23-41)
Boomers (current ages 42-60)
Elders (current ages 61+)

The adult Mosaics group is 19% atheist and agnostic in 2007.
Busters were 16% atheist and agnostic in 1992 and are 14% atheist and agnostic in 2007.
Boomers were 8% atheist and agnostic in 1992 and 9% atheist and agnostic in 2007.
Elders were 4% atheist and agnostic in 1992 and 6% atheist and agnostic in 2007.

The Barna group obtained their data via telephone surveys and therefore are probably significanly understating the percentages of non-believers.

Finally, some personally collected data. I just started tracking worldwide atheists meetups stats about a month and a half ago.

As of June 27, there were 155 groups in 128 cities. (Total membership is iffy because they regularly take out inactive members; it was 17,915 on 6/27 and went as high as 18,286 before they did an inactive member dump and it dropped all the way to 17,267 on 7/16.)

As of August 9, there are 167 groups in 137 cities, with total membership back up to 18,244. The number of groups grew 7.7%, cities grew 7.0%, and membership grew at least 1.8% (possibly more - I'll have a better idea after the next inactive members flush.) All of this in less than two months.

Current stats available at http://atheists.meetup.com/about/

In short, I agree with you that Christianity in the U.S. is dying. As for the rest...

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #2 on:** August 12, 2007, 03:00:30 PM »

Quote

It reads to me like 'when you are having trouble convincing people, it must be because they misunderstand you.' In my experience, this is not the case at all. The Emperor has no clothes and the U.S. will join Europe in post-Christian status.

I don't at all think that difficulty in convincing people 'must' mean that they misunderstand. But I think the reasonable person will agree that the first step in convincing someone is that they should understand what it is they are evaluating. Surely you agree? When someone rejects a position based on a false view of that position, it is a logical fallacy, and it has a name. It is called rejecting a strawman.

Now, I have quite a bit of experience talking with non-Christians and a great many of them have this in common: they think they understand Christianity but they really don't.

This is very well demonstrated in the case of Richard Dawkins, especially in contrast to Francis Collins. Richard Dawkins- and every single atheist that thinks that science can even in principle speak to the existence of God- illustrate by having such a belief that they do not comprehend what is being claimed in Christian theism. Francis Collins, however- and he seems to know his science, don't you think?- understands that science cannot touch the Christian definition. It cannot by definition. This recognition drove Mr. Collins to investigate along lines of inquiry that could speak to the existence of God. And behold, he left atheism, and he is now a Christian.

This is just one example, though it surfaces a great deal. The assertion in question is that the Christian God is transcendental. This is the definition. This is the postulation. This is the axiom. It does no good to say "Well, some Christians don't think that" because all that means is that those people aren't actually representing the historic Christian position, and if that bothers you to hear that (and I see from the other thread that it does), use your highly tuned atheistic logic skills to make the translation in your mind so that you recognize that labels aside, various notions of 'Christian' in stride, you would still be left to deal with the assertion that such an entity exists. Call it position 'X' for all I care, you still have to deal with it, and Francis Collins and I share it, and Dawkins is embarrassingly ignorant of this extremely basic doctrine of the Christian church.

Now, my claim is that it is fundamentally speaking the Church's fault that Dawkins is ignorant on this point (among many, I'm afraid). Churches everywhere of numerous denominations share this view of God in common, that God is, by definition, simultaneously trancedental and immanent. And yet Dawkins and so many others think that the Christian God is in the same category as Zeus, Baal, etc. Thus the tired taunt: You are an atheist just like me, only I believe in one God less then you.

Keep in mind, I have no idea where you in particular stand on this matter. My comments are not directed at this time as I have not heard you speak to the matter.

benjdm · « **Reply #3 on:** August 12, 2007, 05:11:04 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 12, 2007, 03:00:30 PM

Surely you agree? When someone rejects a position based on a false view of that position, it is a logical fallacy, and it has a name. It is called rejecting a strawman.

I agree with that.

Quote

This is very well demonstrated in the case of Richard Dawkins, especially in contrast to Francis Collins. Richard Dawkins- and every single atheist that thinks that science can even in principle speak to the existence of God- illustrate by having such a belief that they do not comprehend what is being claimed in Christian theism.

If the God intervenes in the world, as is the case with the YEC God (which I think I recall is your position), then science can in principle speak to its existence.

Quote

Francis Collins, however- and he seems to know his science, don't you think?- understands that science cannot touch the Christian definition.

Baloney. Francis Collins wrote an entire book claiming to have scientific evidence for God.

Quote

Keep in mind, I have no idea where you in particular stand on this matter. My comments are not directed at this time as I have not heard you speak to the matter.

Well, I started a thread on my worldview to avoid all this strawman stuff.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** August 12, 2007, 06:55:56 PM »

"I agree with that."

Excellent. :)

"If the God intervenes in the world, as is the case with the YEC God (which I think I recall is your position), then science can in principle speak to its existence."

Wrong. In the case of the "YEC God" as you put it, God created our entire frame of reference. It is not like there was the universe and then God created the universe out of the universe. God created the universe, he is not the universe.

"Baloney. Francis Collins wrote an entire book claiming to have scientific evidence for God."

Did you read this book? I don't think he'd characterize it like that at all. In fact, he cites the moral argument heavily.

The only way you can have 'scientific' evidence for God is by being less stringent in one's requirement that the scientific method be 'empirical.' I'm not opposed to that, per se, but I do prefer that when our definition of science is shifting, we note it.

"Well, I started a thread on my worldview to avoid all this strawman stuff."

Good man. :)

benjdm · « **Reply #5 on:** August 24, 2007, 10:01:25 AM »

Another response to your article.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #6 on:** August 24, 2007, 10:33:24 AM »

Good ol Austin Cline.

I've been following him for a little while. Nice little bully pulpit he has there. I will look at his thing a little bit more, but my first reaction when I read it was incredulity that he felt like he could truly comment on my positions based only on what he read in the Christian Post article. The Christian Post article, of course, was compiled from an interview that they conducted with me. That means that they asked questions and I gave answers to those questions, which they in turn used to craft an article.

If Mr. Cline were to really respond to my positions with respect and integrity, he'd submit his own questions for me to respond to. He is making assertions substituting my answers for his questions, without actually giving me his questions.

Anyway, I thank you for bringing that to my attention. I find that fascinating and will definitely read it more thoroughly after I'm done with my garage sale. :)

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #7 on:** August 24, 2007, 01:19:02 PM »

Actually, come to think of it, Ben, if you wanted to contact him to invite him to ask his own questions of me to clarify my position, I would be fine with that. I've had correspondence with him before, so I think it would be better if the invite came from someone else. He might not even know that the person he's talking about is 'sntjohnny.' I'd like to give the man the opportunity to more accurately reflect my actual positions.

I'll probably end up blogging on his article, as is.

benjdm · « **Reply #8 on:** August 24, 2007, 02:18:42 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 24, 2007, 01:19:02 PM

Actually, come to think of it, Ben, if you wanted to contact him to invite him to ask his own questions of me to clarify my position, I would be fine with that. I've had correspondence with him before, so I think it would be better if the invite came from someone else. He might not even know that the person he's talking about is 'sntjohnny.' I'd like to give the man the opportunity to more accurately reflect my actual positions.

I'll probably end up blogging on his article, as is.

I have no interest in inviting him here. As it stands, I see little difference between his and my responses to your article. As he is a 'professional' blogger his is better written and more thorough, probably. He wrote an entire article covering what I covered in two sentences. <shrug>

If I want to discuss stuff with Austin Cline I can do it at his web-page. Same with many noted atheist authors - John W. Loftus has his, etc. I don't have much patience for reinforcing what I already think. I would rather talk to people who disagree with me and both challenge myself and them. (For example, my meetup group took part in the Blasphemy Challenge and won a copy of The God Who Wasn't There. I hung onto it for 3 weeks or so until the next meetup but never watched it - no interest.)

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** August 24, 2007, 02:26:08 PM »

It was just a thought. Both of your responses are inadequate, I'm afraid, and yours at leasts reinforces my assertions. Your ignorance about essential assertions about God, ie, his transcendence and his immanence assures that you are rejecting a strawman, but I can only see how it is the church's fault for not better explaining these teachings.

I'm with you on wanting to discourse with people I disagree with, however. I have too much on my plate to go around 'hunting' down 'notable' atheists, though, which is why I've followed Cline, and the Infidels (Carrier, etc) but rarely bother to correspond with them and certainly don't participate in their forums. I've been a member of Infidels for almost a year and I've never posted mainly because I have my hands plenty full here.

benjdm · « **Reply #10 on:** August 24, 2007, 03:16:02 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 24, 2007, 02:26:08 PM

It was just a thought. Both of your responses are inadequate, I'm afraid, and yours at leasts reinforces my assertions. Your ignorance about essential assertions about God, ie, his transcendence and his immanence assures that you are rejecting a strawman, but I can only see how it is the church's fault for not better explaining these teachings.

It isn't the church's fault. The only way I form my beliefs about reality, as detailed in my atheist's testimony, is by having my beliefs be the result of solid methods of investigation. There are no such methods that result in supernatural beliefs. No amount of explanation will fix this.

Quote

I'm with you on wanting to discourse with people I disagree with, however. I have too much on my plate to go around 'hunting' down 'notable' atheists, though, which is why I've followed Cline, and the Infidels (Carrier, etc) but rarely bother to correspond with them and certainly don't participate in their forums. I've been a member of Infidels for almost a year and I've never posted mainly because I have my hands plenty full here.

The outnumbering by atheists is bad enough in the regular Christian forums. In General Religious Discussions over at iidb, the ratio must be like 10:1 - I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #11 on:** August 24, 2007, 03:46:03 PM »

"There are no such methods that result in supernatural beliefs. No amount of explanation will fix this."

Nonsense.

I thought you agreed that an honest method will involve actually dealing with real positions and not caricatures. If you reject Christianity based on notions that do not take into account that the God it espouses is simultaneously transcendent and immanent, you are rejecting a strawman. Now, it is clear that you reject such a strawman. If you want to take full credit for this, fine by me. Your irrationality is your own dang fault, then. I'll know better, however. There is no way on earth that you should be ignorant of the propositions and at least have some conceptual framework for understanding those propositions. This is the church's fault. It is something that in your case I'm working to remedy.

But that's all for the other thread, isn't it?

"In General Religious Discussions over at iidb, the ratio must be like 10:1 - I wouldn't recommend it to anyone."

Well, you just can't respond to 10 people, can you? Not like one would like, anyway. But I still drop by and read their stuff on occasion.

benjdm · « **Reply #12 on:** August 24, 2007, 04:02:08 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 24, 2007, 03:46:03 PM

If you reject Christianity based on notions that do not take into account that the God it espouses is simultaneously transcendent and immanent, you are rejecting a strawman.

You are talking about the beliefs. I am talking about the methods that result in beliefs. For example:

The revelations of the prophet Bobby Henderson yield beliefs that are perfectly consistent with reality. However, I (and presumably you) both think that the divine revelations of Bobby Henderson are not a solid method of arriving at beliefs. For this reason I reject pastafarianism without having to get into the details.

Is it the fault of the pastafarian evangelists that you are an a-FSMist ?

Quote

There is no way on earth that you should be ignorant of the propositions and at least have some conceptual framework for understanding those propositions. This is the church's fault. It is something that in your case I'm working to remedy.

For all I remember, the church may have presented these things accurately.

Quote

But that's all for the other thread, isn't it?

True.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #13 on:** August 24, 2007, 04:55:25 PM »

I don't exclude methods from what I'm talking about. In both the morality thread and in our own thread, it should have been clear that I am specifically pointing to the issue of methodology. In the PN thread, I take aim specifically at your method, repudiating the idea that one would start with MN, which is de facto PN, and expressly asking you to ponder just what kind of method you would use given the Christian 'beliefs' about the God they are describing. IN the morality thread, though not directed at you, but NQ, I am pushing things towards "If there is an objective morality, the next question is how would we learn about it using an appropriate method?"

So, I disagree that I am not talking about methods. I am expressly talking about methods. ANd I'm saying that you have to use the right method for the right job, and certainly you don't use one that precludes explanations from the get go- especially if you plan on using the alleged sufficiency of one explanation as reason to reject the explanations you precluded!

benjdm · « **Reply #14 on:** August 25, 2007, 07:05:31 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 24, 2007, 04:55:25 PM

I don't exclude methods from what I'm talking about. In both the morality thread and in our own thread, it should have been clear that I am specifically pointing to the issue of methodology. In the PN thread, I take aim specifically at your method, repudiating the idea that one would start with MN

This is the umpteenth time you have misunderstood this. You don't start with MN. You start with empiricism, which gives you at least MN and historical methods, infomed by mathematics.

Quote

IN the morality thread, though not directed at you, but NQ, I am pushing things towards "If there is an objective morality, the next question is how would we learn about it using an appropriate method?"

I don't see how there can possibly be an objective morality. By my understanding of the terms, if it is objective, it ceases to be anything I would consider moral.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #15 on:** August 25, 2007, 02:04:57 PM »

"This is the umpteenth time you have misunderstood this. You don't start with MN. You start with empiricism,"

Whatever. I think this is ironic, given the Austin Cline article you posted and indicated you agreed with. Maybe I'm not understanding, you hey? Maybe a little quote to refresh your memory:

Quote

This represents a denial that anyone could read the same information and consider the same arguments but come to a different conclusion

benjdm · « **Reply #16 on:** August 25, 2007, 02:44:40 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 25, 2007, 02:04:57 PM

Quote
This represents a denial that anyone could read the same information and consider the same arguments but come to a different conclusion

Copernicus · « **Reply #17 on:** August 25, 2007, 02:47:44 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 25, 2007, 02:04:57 PM

...I think this is ironic, given the Austin Cline article you posted and indicated you agreed with. Maybe I'm not understanding, you hey? Maybe a little quote to refresh your memory:

Quote
This represents a denial that anyone could read the same information and consider the same arguments but come to a different conclusion

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #18 on:** August 25, 2007, 03:04:30 PM »

"Point out where I or Mr. Cline made a claim similar to:"

You said you summed up his sentiments in two sentences, only he did it better. That sounds to me like you ratified his positions.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #19 on:** August 25, 2007, 03:10:20 PM »

"Sntjohnny, while I winced a little at Cline's remark, I have known you to be just a tad arrogant from time to time."

I understand that and don't deny it. I think it can happen, and I think too that 'living' with people over a length of time you get to see all sides of people. My problem was not at all the accusation of arrogance. And as far as I can tell, his 'arrogant' statement, coming in the last paragraph, does not necessarily mean to speak to me. I think it might, especially if he really thinks he's accurately represented my arguments.

"Character issues aside, I thought that Cline's overall criticism was on target, even though he had based his article on an interview."

But basing his article on an interview- and one he did not conduct, and one he did not seek to find clarifications of his own for- is really the problem. His criticism is only on target if in fact he has represented me accurately. However, now that I've read (and responded) to the article, I see that he definitely has not represented me accurately, and in fact even a more careful reading of the ChristianPost article should have warned him off.

Did you read the ChristianPost article yourself?

"The point that churches are turning people into atheists for not teaching the gospels properly is sheer nonsense."

You're talking out of ignorance. Is that actually what I say? That's the key here, Cop. What do I actually say?

It may be my old fashioned sensibilities, but it has always seemed to me that it is rude to launch into personal attacks without even giving the person an opportunity to defend himself, or ensure that the attacks are warranted. Mr. Cline's article was not a generalized one, inspired by the topics I raised. It called me out by name and put arguments in my mouth based solely on an interview that he read. This is not right.

Author Topic: Sntjohnny in the News (Read 12385 times)