A Creationist (of the old earth variety) begins a discussion entitled "Evidence for God" by introducing a book by Holly Ordway, an atheist who converted to Christianity and became a professional Christian Apologist.
He states… "It was the evidence that convinced this rational skeptic that God did indeed exist."
This is exciting. Evidence for God at last! Except...
| Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by OEC on 29 Mar 2014 at 6:56PM | ||
1
|
It's funny to me how atheists/skeptics view evidence. I am currently reading "Not God's Type: A Rational Academic Finds a Radical Faith" by Holly Ordway. She's a former atheist and her's was a long road in finding belief in God and eventually becoming a believer in Jesus. Her's is a story that has been repeated many times over. From atheism to faith in God. |
|
2
|
It was the evidence that convinced this rational skeptic that God did indeed exist. But there was a time in her life where should would have uttered the same words: "no evidence for God." |
I can't wait to hear about the evidence that convinced her. I'm genuinely looking forward to this! |
3
|
Some atheists/skeptics look at the "evidence" and claim it's not there. Other atheists look at it and after years of rejecting it, they begin to examine it more closely (and honestly) and find that atheism isn't as rational as they once thought. They begin to be skeptical about their skepticism It's clear to me that the evidence isn't the problem. If it were, then people like Ordway could never come to believe in God based on the evidence and the arguments for His existence. |
Well so far I'm not convinced by the evidence because I haven't seen any. But patience is a virtue so let's wait and see... “It was the evidence that changed her." This is terrific. I can't wait to hear what the evidence was that changed her. |
4
|
Something else is at play. It's not about the evidence. It's about something else. |
It was the evidence that changed her, but it's not about the evidence. Er... |
5
|
It would be more honest to say "I'm not convinced by the evidence or arguments and here's why..." Now we can have an honest exchange of ideas. But if you rule out the evidence offered (evidence/arguments) out of hand, then it's a non starter. | Ah OK – presumably we will hear about some evidence so hat we can have an honest exchange of ideas. That sounds reasonable. |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by JimC on 29 Mar 2014 at 7:09PM | ||
6
|
But what is the evidence? Just saying "we are surrounded by evidence for God" doesn't strengthen the case. It would be interesting if you could share the strongest rational argument in Ordway's book that convinced her to become Christian. |
|
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by OEC on 29 Mar 2014 at 7:24PM | ||
7
|
I'll do some research on that later. It's a fascinating book IMO. | Can't wait! |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by JimC on 29 Mar 2014 at 7:27PM | ||
8
|
Teaser! Looking forward to it. |
|
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by An atheist on 30 Mar 2014 at 6:58PM | ||
9
|
Me too! | |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by A Pantheist on 30 Mar 2014 at 7:15PM | ||
10
|
You can read some of it here |
|
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by OEC on 30 Mar 2014 at 7:26PM | ||
11
|
Why wouldn't you consider her a former atheist? | |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by A Pantheist on 30 Mar 2014 at 7:34PM | ||
12
|
“At thirty-one years old, I was an atheist college professor–and I delighted in thinking of myself that way. I got a kick out of being an unbeliever; it was fun to consider myself superior to the unenlightened, superstitious masses, and to make snide comments about Christians.” |
|
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by OEC on 30 Mar 2014 at 7:46PM | ||
13
|
Have you read her entire book? | |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by A Pantheist on 30 Mar 2014 at 8:25PM | ||
14
|
nope! not very likely to either | |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by OEC on 30 Mar 2014 at 8:28PM | ||
15
|
without reading the entire book (particularly the beginning) you can't make an accurate assessment about her atheism. She describes it in detail in her book. There is no question she was a committed atheist. | I must admit I don't understand why it matters that she was a "committed atheist" – how is that relevant? But now that it's been brought up - it should be considered. |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by A Pantheist on 30 Mar 2014 at 8:29PM | ||
16
|
fair enough, I stand corrected then | |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by JimC on 30 Mar 2014 at 8:41PM | ||
17
|
I would argue that she was not a "committed atheist" but it depends what "committed" means. For example, she seems unaware of some of the arguments used by the Christian who befriended and converted her (such as the Kalam argument) and she doesn't seem to put much effort into challenging what her Christian befrienders tell her or exploring counter-arguments. |
The thing is, at the start of the discussion it was said that evidence that she had rejected as an atheist was exactly the same evidence that brought her to belief in God later in life. But according to the book she is given evidence that she has never seen before. |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by OEC on 30 Mar 2014 at 8:56PM | ||
18
|
I think it's far more complex than that. And without reading her entire book (not to mention her many interviews) it's not possible to get an accurate picture. I would say you're way off base, based on what I've read and heard. But I'm not putting her out there as some standard model. |
|
19
|
Her story simply illustrates the fact that there is evidence to consider when deciding on the question of God's existence. There are many other examples of atheists who have come to faith based on evidence and arguments. So the idea that has been put forth on this DB that there isn't evidence is a false one. |
Can't wait to hear what this evidence is. Really looking forward to it. |
20
|
Now this DB is attempting to question her atheism. This is a tactic that will fail as she describes herself as such in her book. Based on her accounting of her story, I have no reason to doubt her claim. She put in a great deal of effort (and resistance) in her conversion experience. It's a waste of time debating her degree of atheism. That isn't on topic anyway and it only serves (dishonestly IMO) to undermine her story. |
It does seem that her being an atheist is a big deal, it's in the book title, and her tagging as a "committed atheist" must have been included here for some reason. So what's wrong with discussing that? If it doesn't matter that she was an atheist, why mention it? |
21
|
IMO, the suggestion that she wasn't really an atheist is simply a transparent attempt at discrediting her story (and derailing the discussion). |
Actually I have it here...
Holly Ordway, PhD
Chair, Department of Apologetics
Houston Baptist University
x7502 Fondren Road
Houston, Texas 77074-3298
xPhone: (281) 649-3664
|
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by JimC on 30 Mar 2014 at 9:13PM | ||
22
|
It's true that there could be evidence for God - but without some examples for us to chew on the point remains moot. |
|
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by OEC on 30 Mar 2014 at 9:19PM | ||
23
|
This is exactly what I am not doing. | Really? |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by JimC on 30 Mar 2014 at 9:24PM | ||
24
|
You said "Her story simply illustrates the fact that there is evidence to consider when deciding on the question of God's existence. There are many other examples of atheists who have come to faith based on evidence and arguments" |
|
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by OEC on 30 Mar 2014 at 9:34PM | ||
24a
|
I see nothing inconsistent with my statement. I'm focusing on the fact there is evidence worth considering when considering the idea of God. I am not saying that because some atheist became a Christian that proves anything about that evidence as being conclusive for everyone. |
I didn’t say it was inconsistent. I’m just wondering why it matters that Ms Ordway was an atheist. It must be significant because it’s in her book title, and the fact has been mentioned in this thread many times. |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by OEC on 30 Mar 2014 at 9:30PM | ||
24b
|
Also, it needs to be clear that I am saying that evidence for God exists. The Big Bang is evidence. You can interpret it one way, another person another way, and still another has another view. But it still remains as evidence. We take that evidence and try to make sense of it. It's not evidence that settles the question of God, but an argument can be made with reason and logic that shows how the Big Bang reasonably points to God (or an intelligent mind if one prefers). This thread isn't about Ordway per se, it's about the nature of evidence. And my view is that evidence exists that points to and intelligent mind behind all of the universe (whom I call God and identify as the God of the Bible). So again, for this DB to deny that evidence (and I include arguments as part of this) for God doesn't exist is a false. It does. That is not to say that one must accept the evidence as a sort of proof. Many don't. | The Big Bang is an event – the universe appears from a singularity. That’s not evidence for God. Surely the argument is that God created the universe, so God is a hypothesis which explains how the Big Bang occurred. |
| It's false to say there is no evidence, it's correct to say that one isn't convinced by the evidence offered. | OK – but when are we going to hear about the evidence which converted Holly Ordway? The suspense is killing me! | |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by JimC on 30 Mar 2014 at 9:37PM | ||
24c
|
The Big Bang is not evidence of God. It's a fact, a thing that happened. God is one of many hypotheses for how it happened. | |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by OEC on 30 Mar 2014 at 9:43PM | ||
24d
|
I don't want this thread to get derailed into something it's not. It's not a discussion on the big bang. I disagree with you as do many scholars (science and otherwise). Read this and do with it what you will. The BB is evidence. From nothing came something. What's the best explanation for that. Best answered in a new thread. http://townhall.com/columnists/frankturek/2009/01/14/big_bang_evidence_for_god/page/full | Even if we assume that from nothing came something, that’s not evidence for God. God is the explanation. |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by JimC on 30 Mar 2014 at 10:05PM | ||
24e
|
The Big Bang is not evidence. It's a fact, an event, like a flash of lightning. There have been many explanations for lightning including gods. |
|
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by OEC on 31 Mar 2014 at 2:11AM | ||
24f
|
The big ban is more than a flash of lightening. Far more. And it's certainly is evidence of something. | ? |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by JimC on 31 Mar 2014 at 7:41AM | ||
24g
|
The Big Bang is indeed more than a flash of lightning, but that wasn't the point. The Big Bang is not evidence. It's a fact, an event, like a flash of lightning. There have been many explanations for lightning, including gods. Ditto the Big Bang. | |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by OEC on 1 Apr 2014 at 1:46AM | ||
24h
|
ok, that's what you believe Jim I and many others see it differently. | ! |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by JimC on 1 Apr 2014 at 6:39AM | ||
24i
|
I don't know what you mean. The Big Bang was an event that actually happened - I don't see how that's a matter of belief. <Puzzled Face> | |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by OEC on 1 Apr 2014 at 6:43AM | ||
24j
|
You seem to struggle following sometimes. I have no doubts the Big Bang happened. | That’s a relief! |
| Re: Evidence for God | ||
| Posted by JimC on 1 Apr 2014 at 6:51AM | ||
24k
|
Phew! | |
| Ordway the atheist | ||
| Posted by OEC on 30 Mar 2014 at 7:25PM | ||
25
|
I'm posting the following only to show where this college professor atheist was at in her atheism. I think that's an important point if only to illustrate that she was like many atheists, committed to her atheism and uncaring about matters of faith. |
I thought we agreed earlier that her atheism wasn’t the point? |
26
|
Her words best describe her position: |
Sounds like she used to be quite an unpleasant person. But I assume she's a much better person now. |
27
|
"I thought ‘faith’ was a meaningless word, that so-called believers were either hypocrites or self-deluded fools, and that it was a waste of time to consider any claim that Christians made about the truth. . . . I didn’t want to deal with that. Easier by far to read only books by atheists that told me what I wanted to hear: that I was smarter and more intellectually honest and morally superior than the poor, deluded Christians. I had built myself a fortress of atheism, secure against any attack by irrational faith.” (p.17-18) |
I wonder what books she read, given that she was eventually presented with arguments for God she'd never heard before? |
28
|
She eventually considered herself, in her words, "anti-Christian." |
Anti-Christian? Oh dear. That's bad. |
29
|
She believed however that atheism consistently lived out can only lead to despair. There can be no true meaning to life, only what we construct. It would be an illusion at best. And yet she felt that life must have real meaning. And so she set on a journey, prompted by her endless questioning of beliefs (including her own). Still she viewed Christians as, "weak and unable to face the truth." |
This is quite revealing... despair... no true meaning to life... she seems very vulnerable and sad. And I'm guessing she had low self esteem, hence the need for constant reinforcement that she is superior in some way. |
30
|
There's far more to the beginning of her story but perhaps this is enough. I only show these quotes to demonstrate though her own words just how deeply committed she was to her beliefs (or lack of if you prefer). She had no experience in the church or its teachings. One can do a google search and get a better idea from the various articles (interviews) I think. It's only important where she was at (as an atheist) when one realizes where she is now and what brought her there. |
So now it is important to know where she was as an atheist. I thought it wasn't important. But never mind. It's the evidence that I'm waiting to hear about. I think this atheism angle is a bit of a distraction. |
31
|
As I've stated, a thing cannot be evidence AND non-evidence at the same time. So it's not about the evidence offered, it's about what you do with that evidence. It's not my purpose her to convert others to faith in God, I'm only sharing one story and combating the idea that evidence for God doesn't exists. It does and it's plentiful. The many atheists / non-believers who have come to faith in God based on evidence testify to this fact. To say that yes there is evidence but not proof is to misunderstand what proof means. Proof is simply defined as: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. |
Yes kind of, but it's also about what people consider to be evidence. But again, it's a moot point because we still haven't had any examples of evidence to talk about. |
32
|
Next I'll share one "proof" that helped bring Ordway to faith. But one must keep in mind it wasn't just one thing (it never is.) It was a variety of "compelling and converging arguments." | Proof? That's ambitious! Not even high profile Religious apologists claim to have proof. Much safer to discuss evidence than proof I think. |
| Re: Ordway the atheist | ||
| Posted by JimC on 30 Mar 2014 at 7:57PM | ||
33
|
So far it seems she turned to religion because she felt her life had no meaning and she was sad and needy. That is a common reason for people turning to religion. |
|
| Re: Ordway the atheist | ||
| Posted by OEC on 30 Mar 2014 at 8:26PM | ||
34
|
I think that is but one aspect of it. And yes I'm getting to the reasons she offers. | Reasons? Is that the same as evidence? The suspense is killing me. |
| Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by OEC on 31 Mar 2014 at 4:03AM | ||
35
|
For the last time (hopefully) I want to make it clear that I'm not choosing Ordway as an example of Atheist to Christian conversion that all atheists should follow. I'm showing (successfully if you're paying attention) that there is evidence that can lead to faith (Ordway is but ONE example of many I could have choosen) and so it's not a matter of lack of evidence or lack of cogent arguments in favor of a Supreme Intelligent Mind (I call Him God of the Bible), it's a different matter altogether. Evidence is evidence and what you do with it is all that matters. For many atheists (probably all but I'll go with "many") it's simply a matter of the heart. (not the intellect) |
Well I think it's been stated that there is evidence, but I don't think it's been “shown successfully” and I don't think we've heard what that evidence is. |
36
|
One atheist is convinced God exists and the Bible is true based on arguments and the other says the arguments aren't convincing. |
I'm not sure how the concept of a “convincing argument” is going to get us anywhere. Different people become convinced of different things for different reasons. Some people are naturally intuitive, some are naturally rational. Some people will be convinced by arguments that appeal to emotion and intuition. Some people are immune to those arguments are only convinced by logic and evidence. |
37
|
The first thing Ordway did was to question her own beliefs. She's at least honest about atheism. There is no meaning without God other than what we construct. This became clear to her. So even though she felt she should have meaning in her life, she knew the logical outcome to her atheistic view on life was meaninglessness. | She felt her life had no meaning and her befrienders explained that religion would give her life some meaning. That's a good thing. However, logic doesn't appear to be her strong suit. But never mind. We must be getting close to hearing about the evidence now! |
38
|
In her early twenties, Ordway describes her view of Christianity as being "hardened into strident hostility" and "repelling." Faith was a meaningless word and Christians were "self-deluded." She wanted no part of it. |
I wonder how she became so “hardened”? |
39
|
In the beginning, life for Ordway as an atheist was good. She thought she could make sense of the world within her atheistic framework. She was the product of "blind chance working over millions of years." And even though she was well versed in the theories of literary criticism that pronounced language itself to be "self-contradictory and meaningless," she avoided dealing with it and treated art, music, and literature as if they had real meaning. She writes: "Behind all of my consciously articulated view was the same premise: there is no God, no ultimate meaning beyond ourselves." She concluded that atheism consistently lived out leads to despair. |
Good? It sounds awful! And who taught her that she was the product of “blind chance”? |
40
|
She sought meaning in activities (mainly fencing) but that didn't fill the darkness of her worldview. Nothing really satisfies she said (which is why I believe atheists on the internet spend so much time combating the belief in God - if your life has meaning apart from believing in God, why is so much of your time wasted in meaningless discussions that do nothing but take up your time? Looking for meaning by fighting against what you don't want to be true). |
Meaningless discussion? Now he tells me! |
41
|
She began to view her intellectual fortress of atheism as a terrible place to live. There had to be more to life. |
I don't blame her. She seems a very unhappy person. |
42
|
This was for her, the first piece of "evidence" (although she doesn't call it that) that something better and real had to exist. And her recognition of the despair of atheism (when you live it out consistently and don't borrow from theism as so many of you non-believers do) opened the door to believe in God. Small steps all along the way. Even through she was not looking for God and in fact believed God did not exist, she began an interest in matters of faith. More of a curiosity at first. |
At last! The first piece of evidence is that being an atheist is terrible and “something better and real had to exist.” That doesn't seem to fit the definition of the word evidence, perhaps that's why she doesn't call it evidence. |
43
|
And she started reading poetry again. Remember, she has a literary degree. She was burned out on literature for a while but now she was back reading her favorite poets. The greatest works of English literature spring from Christian roots. She she began rereading poems of explicit and profound Christian faith. She ignored the God references because the poetry was so beautiful (unless your a student of poetry you can't fully appreciate this aspect of her testimony). |
Not sure how this is relevant - there must be many people who, like me, love the same poetry and don't convert to Christianity. |
44
|
And then it happened. John Keats writes, "Beauty is truth, truth is beauty,'--that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." | “It happened”? What was “it”? |
45
|
I won't bore you with more poetry but suffice it to say that the more she read, the more she softened her view on faith and God. Don't misunderstand, poetry broke her resistance, it didn't convert her. That was going to take a few more years. |
Not sure where we are regarding evidence. Was the poetry evidence? |
46
|
Then she began taking fencing lessons. Her coach was a Christian but she wasn't to learn that for nearly a year. She really liked her coach and now her stereotype of the Christian was broken. The coach's wife was a Christian and a fencer too. The three spent a lot of time together in training. No preaching. No pamphlets. Just friendship. A strong relationship developed between the three of them. |
At last she has some friends. |
47
|
This is basically the turning point for Ordway. She's friends with a Christian couple. She likes and trusts them. |
So the turning point for Ordway is this three-way relationship with a Christian couple who befriended her. Evidence wasn't the turning point. |
48
|
After a terrible performance at a fencing tourney, she and her coach and his wife spent hours debriefing the match and then the conversation turned to literature. She was a fan of C S Lewis. They talked. Who is this Jesus and why can't one just simply follow his teachings without the religion part. Where does morality come from. What a about a First Cause of the universe. On and on. There were no Bible quote. No talk of how God was working in their lives. Just honest answers to her questions and objections. (God wasn't even mentioned - First Cause was the term they used). |
Are we to assume that the “First Cause” argument is assumed to be evidence? |
49
|
They discussed the cosmological arguments. Her coach (Josh) answered all her questions honestly. There was no attempts at scoring points in an argument. Questions were answered and new and challenging ideas presented. There was no, "take it all on faith." |
Assuming we are talking about the standard cosmological arguments, we again have to ask if they are being presented as evidence. For example there's a logical argument that a multiverse exists, but that's not evidence. Is it? |
50
|
If you want to know more, you'll have to read the book. It's not about a single argument (which some of you are likely salivating over wanting to dig your teeth into and demolish) it's about a process that started with questions about her own worldview (instead of denying atheism is a worldview) then doubting her own worldview, and once the door was opened to exploring alternative views, well, you'll have to read the book to capture the entire picture. |
|
51
|
And for us believers, we know that the work of the Holy Spirit was present all along. In fact, as Christians, we recognize that apart from the work of the Holy Spirit no one can come to faith. This is said not to diminish the importance of evidence, but to acknowledge the importance of God's Holy Spirit. This may be of some interest to a few of you: http://www.hieropraxis.com/ |
Oh well. I suppose I wll never know what the evidence was that Ordway found so compelling. Except… I did find this…
“Some atheists are convinced when studying the marvelous complexities of science. Some are convinced by historical evidence for Christ. The evidence that Holly discovered, however, was a little more exceptional. Holly explains:
“It was through reading Christian poetry and works like Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings that I got a glimpse of a richer, more meaningful world; it was through my imagination that God called me to Him, and got me interested in asking the questions that ultimately led me to discover that Christianity is true.” So there we have it. It wasn't science or historical evidence for Jesus. God called Holly to Him through her, er… imagination. After she read Lord of the Rings. |
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by A Pantheist on 4 Apr 2014 at 9:57AM | ||
| 52 | I can't relate to the reasoning, I cannot see how people being good at creating novels, music, poetry etc can possible be proof for a god. Unless I were to read the book I couldn't explain it in any more depth, but from what I've seem already I have no desire to explore her personal journey any further, it appears to be nothing new, just a slightly different starting point. |
|
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by OEC on 5 Apr 2014 at 3:03AM | ||
| 53 | nowhere was Ordway's experience being offered up as proof for God. That was never suggested by anyone. You can't relate to the reasoning because you've constructed a distorted view of what was presented to you. You're so off base that if the earth were flat, you'd fall off. |
But it was being offered as evidence of God wasn’t it? |
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by A Pantheist on 5 Apr 2014 at 7:59AM | ||
| 54 | OEC said: nowhere was Ordway's experience being offered up as proof for God. That was never suggested by anyone. Really? |
Well maybe the words proof and evidence are getting mixed up. |
| OEC said: It's funny to me how atheists/skeptics view evidence. I am currently reading "Not God's Type: A Rational Academic Finds a Radical Faith" by Holly Ordway. She's a former atheist and her's was a long road in finding belief in God and eventually becoming a believer in Jesus. Her's is a story that has been repeated many times over. From atheism to faith in God. It was the evidence that convinced this rational skeptic that God did indeed exist. But there was a time in her life where should would have uttered the same words: "no evidence for God." | ||
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by OEC on 5 Apr 2014 at 7:02PM | ||
| 55 | Yes really A Pantheist. I never said anything that her experience was proof for God. Rather I said, " It was the evidence that convinced this rational skeptic that God did indeed exist. But there was a time in her life where should would have uttered the same words: "no evidence for God." I'll make it simple for you. E V I D E N C E That was the focus. You either don't understand what you're reading or you're being dishonest. Perhaps it's just that your reading filter needs adjustment. |
Yes I think the words proof and evidence are getting mixed up. And is there some anger building? |
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by JimC on 5 Apr 2014 at 7:06PM | ||
| 56 | Could you perhaps provide an example of what she considered to be evidence? |
|
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by JimC on 4 Apr 2014 at 8:07AM | ||
| 57 | I think it's wrong to try and discredit Ordway as I think she is being honest about her conversion, and I'm sure she makes an honest living as a professional Religious Apologist - I don't think anyone is questioning her honesty. And I can understand her reasons for converting, it's something that happens to many people - as you say it's a common process. (I am slightly concerned about her credentials as a "literary analyst" because she seems to imply that Keats was a Christian but never mind.) But I think it's still unclear what she regarded to be evidence. I'm wondering if you believed Ordway's conversion was based on evidence as you started to read her book (because that's how the marketing describes it), which is when you kicked off the "Evidence for God" thread, and then about a third of the way through he book you began to realise that her conversion wasn't based on evidence, which is perhaps why you abandoned the Evidence for God thread and started two new threads. But I'm just guessing. |
|
| Anyway, I'm particularly interested in evidence for God, so all the Ordway threads are here, and each line is numbered, so i you can tell me which line numbers provide the evidence, I'd be very grateful. Or perhaps I've missed some crucial posts which did provide evidence in which case let me know. http://tinyurl.com/rgfsmcl-052 |
||
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by OEC on 5 Apr 2014 at 3:09AM | ||
| 58 | Evidence is evidence. It's either accepted or rejected. My whole point with the Ordway posts is that one cannot simply dismiss something as not evidence because you don't like it. If it's evidence, it's evidence. Calling it something else doesn't change the fact that evidence IS evidence. You can only claim you reject it. At the very least, be accurate in how you state things. |
I think “evidence is evidence” is a tautology. |
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by JimC on 5 Apr 2014 at 8:40AM | ||
| 59 | It would be helpful if you offered an example of the evidence so we can discuss why it might or might not be evidence and why it might or might not be rejected. |
|
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by OEC on 5 Apr 2014 at 7:03PM | ||
| 60 | Evidence is evidence. You don't get to decide what is or what isn't based on your prejudices. |
Er… what? |
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by JimC on 5 Apr 2014 at 7:06PM | ||
| 61 | Just one example? Please? |
|
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by OEC on 5 Apr 2014 at 7:08PM | ||
| 62 | Yes, evidence is evidence. |
|
| 63 | ev·i·dence [ev-i-duhns] noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. 3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. |
Useful. I think we all agree on this. Perhaps the argument is that anything anyone says, or anything that is written down, or anything that exists, is evidence. So the point is to test the validity of the evidence. For example, the validity of the Gospels has been challenged frequently over the centuries. |
| The Gospels are evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. Written testimony of withnesses. They are records. Documents. One can rejects said evidence on many grounds (this is done in courts every day) but you can't claim that "it's not evidence." |
||
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by JimC on 5 Apr 2014 at 7:11PM | ||
| The authors of the Gospels are anonymous and they were not present at the events described. So those stories are hearsay at best. Do you consider hearsay to be evidence? |
||
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by OEC on 5 Apr 2014 at 7:36PM | ||
| 64 | start a new thread if you want to discuss that. Now we're off topic. |
Er… what? ! |
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by JimC on 5 Apr 2014 at 7:45PM | ||
| 65 | OK - to stick to the topic - are the Gospels an example of the evidence that convinced Holly Ordway to convert to Christianity? |
|
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by OEC on 5 Apr 2014 at 8:30PM | ||
| 66 | As far as I'm aware at this moment, no. They didn't play into her conversion initially. Eventually they would have to have some influence because she'd have to be convinced they were true. But I don't remember her covering that topic in her book. She does have a blog but I haven't read every article. You can read an interview here. http://thewell.intervarsity.org/voices/holly-ordway-literary-apologist |
Hmmm I though they did… |
| 67 | In no way am I suggesting that her experience is "proof" that God exists or that she's right and nonbelievers are wrong. I'm simply showing one person's journey to belief. Rarely is there just one thing that leads to faith. It's the stone in the shoe that gets the ball rolling. For Holly, I believe it had to do with the questions surrounding morality. Also, literature played a powerful role in her conversion. Good writings can shake our philosophical foundations to the core. We are shaped by our thoughts and our thoughts are fed by ideas. For example, our understandings of science can help shape how we view our existence. The same is true of philosophy. I once heard a story of a man coming to faith in God after hearing Beethoven's music. I can't find the story but did find this quote on Motzart: "Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces. " - (Georg Solti) |
It’s that word “proof” again. I thought we were discussing evidence. The Beethoven / Mozart argument sounds more like intuition than evidence. Or is intuition evidence? |
| It's no surprise to me that literature played a role in Ordway's conversion. She is a top rated academic of literature herself and her love of poetry helped shape her thought (how could it not?). |
||
| 68 | Evidence comes in many forms. I believe that higher math is evidence for an Intelligent Agency (God for me). If you limit what you will regard as evidence, then you are simply stacking the deck according to your biases. |
Why “higher” math”? Why not all of mathematics? |
| 69 | Bing Dictionary ev·i·dence [ évvid'nss ] sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry |
|
| 70 | Ordway described many conversations that covered a wide range of subjects dealing with questions she had about God's existence. Initially it was just one or two things that got her thinking in the direction of faith, but as things went forward, more questions arose. All of the things she considered contributed in some way to her conversion. It was that way with C.S. Lewis (per wikipedia: Lewis was raised in a church-going family in the Church of Ireland. He became an atheist at 15, though he later described his young self as being paradoxically "very angry with God for not existing".) |
Yeah but… where’s the evidence? |
| 71 | A huge point in this thread is that it's of no use saying "this isn't evidence" or "that's not evidence." That is a a lazy person's way out of dealing with the issue presented. If I say higher math is evidence for God and you say, "nonsense," your just dismissing it out of hand is meaningless to the conversation. I have something particular in mind when I say it's evidence for God. It's best to accept that fact -as math can certainly be proof of something - that something being God or if you prefer an Intelligent Agency. So if Ordway presents what she considers evidence for God, it's best to deal with it AS evidence and offer objections. Saying it's not "evidence for me" is silly (A Pantheist said this). It's evidence. Deal with it head on. |
OK – Let’s agree never to say "this isn't evidence" or "that's not evidence." Sounds like a good rule. |
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by JimC on 5 Apr 2014 at 8:40PM | ||
| 72 | According to her book, she asked Josh for some "scholarly" works on the resurrection and he provided books by the Religious Apologists Gary Habermas N. T. Wright which claim that the resurrection was a real, objective historical event, She claims that this led her to believe the resurrection was a hisorical event (see pages 114-119). I think we should avoid the word "proof" altogether because there's good reason to think there's no such thing as proof (outside of mathemetics or formal logic). I think I see where you're coming from with the use of the word "evidence" but let me test my assumption. Am I right in thinking that toys in a child's bedroom on Christmas day are evidence of Santa Claus? |
|
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by OEC on 5 Apr 2014 at 9:22PM | ||
| 73 | Yes, her requests for the scholarly works came later in the process. You don't believe in Santa? A lump for you! |
Who says I don’t believe in Santa?! |
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by JimC on 5 Apr 2014 at 9:29PM | ||
| 74 | I thought you were saying evidence was evidence regardless of belief. Let's try that question again. Am I right in thinking that toys in a child's bedroom on Christmas day are evidence of Santa Claus? |
|
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by OEC on 5 Apr 2014 at 9:33PM | ||
| 75 | I never said regardless of belief. And I never brought up Santa. Nice try though. Stick to the topic at hand. |
Nice try? Am I sensing an apologist argument dissolving on contact with logic? |
| Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her. | ||
| Posted by JimC on 5 Apr 2014 at 9:41PM | ||
| 76 | You introduced the definition of evidence into the discussion so I think it's on topic. Let's try again. This is how you've explained "evidence"… "Evidence is evidence. It points to something. It's either accepted or rejected. One cannot simply dismiss something as not evidence because you don't like it. If it's evidence, it's evidence. Calling it something else doesn't change the fact that evidence IS evidence. You can only claim you reject it." noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. Surely, the toys in a child's bedroom on Christmas day are ground for belief in Santa. They end to prove to the child that Sana is real. Therefore the toys are evidence of Santa aren't they? If not - why not? |
|
Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her.
|
||
Posted by OEC on 5 Apr 2014 at 9:48PM
|
||
77
|
Yes but Santa has nothing to do with my thread (you know, the one I started). Neither does the polka-dot Easter bunny, pink unicorn, or the tooth fairy. If you want to discuss Santa, start a new thread.
|
I don’t think Santa is the topic. However, I notice the response began “yes but...” I wonder if that’s “yes” or “no”?
|
Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her.
|
||
Posted by JimC on 5 Apr 2014 at 10:00PM
|
||
78
|
I'm just using Santa as an example to explore the meaning of "evidence". I would assume the meaning of "evidence" is consistent regardless of the example being discussed.
So… I think we both agree that the toys in a child's bedroom on Christmas day are ground for belief in Santa. They tend to prove to the child that Santa is real. Therefore the toys are evidence of Santa.
(I think you said "yes" to that - just checking). |
|
Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her.
|
||
Posted by A reasonable person on 5 Apr 2014 at 10:11PM
|
||
79
|
To be fair this question needs an answer so that we can understand what is meant by evidence in the context of this thread. Saying evidence is evidence doesn't provide clarity and no examples of evidence have been provided to my knowledge. I believe the question to be entirely on topic, otherwise it seems that the thread is meaningless. If no one can understand what is meant, how can it be discussed? And if attempting to understand the topic is off topic, how can it be discussed?
|
|
Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her.
|
||
Posted by OEC on 5 Apr 2014 at 10:44PM
|
||
80
|
Jim is just trying to derail the thread. Evidence is evidence apart from my claiming is is such or apart from someone else denying it. So if I offer up the idea that fine tuning is evidence for an Intelligent Mind behind the big bang, it won't do to say, "that's not evidence." Better is to say, "Explain what you mean." The reason I've put it this way is simply because the atheists here have a habit of dismissing arguments and evidence with the wave of their hand. Here, Jim wants to equate the belief in God with the belief in Santa. It's a childish approach IMO.
Notice how insistent he is even though I've offered the suggestion he start a new thread. Jim's goal is always to dismantle the Christian position no matter the method. So IF one wants to discuss evidence for Santa, do so. But it's not a serious discussion. And we all know that from the start. |
No I’m not! I’m just responding to what’s been said. It’s no my fault if the example of Santa has demolished the argument!
|
Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her.
|
||
Posted by JimC on 5 Apr 2014 at 11:00PM
|
||
81
|
I'm just trying to understand your view of evidence which is something you've (rightly) introduced into the discussion, including copying and pasting definitions from two different dictionaries. If we can't agree what evidence is then we can't have reasonable discussions based on evidence. I am not trying to dismantle the Christian position (or the Santa position).
As far as I can tell the example of Santa supports your argument so I don't understand your hostility. |
|
Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her.
|
||
Posted by OEC on 5 Apr 2014 at 11:05PM
|
||
82
|
complete nonsense of which I'm not buying
|
Goodbye logic!
|
Re: Final thread on Ordway: What convinced her.
|
||
Posted by JimC on 5 Apr 2014 at 11:11PM
|
||
83
|
Clank!
|
|
