[Update: the “Christian” answers are now available, and voting is open.]
A few weeks ago, Paul Krugman set off a debate by claiming that liberal economists could do a very good job at explaining what conservative economists think, but the conservatives just don’t understand the liberals. Regardless of the empirical truth of that statement, the idea is an important one: when there is a respectable disagreement (as opposed to one where the other side are just obvious crackpots), and important skill is to be able to put yourself in the mind of those with whom you disagree. Conservative economist Bryan Caplan formalized the notion by invoking the idea of a Turing Test: could a liberal/conservative do such a good job at stating conservative/liberal beliefs that an outsider couldn’t tell they were the real thing? Ilya Somin, a libertarian, actually took up the challenge, and made a good-faith effort to simulate a liberal defending their core beliefs. I actually thought he did okay, but as he himself admitted, his “liberal” sometimes seemed to be more concerned with disputing libertarianism than making a positive case. Playing someone else is hard!
Obviously it would be fun to do this for religious belief, and Leah Libresco has taken up the challenge. She came up with a list of questions for atheists and Christians to explain their beliefs. She then recruited some actual atheists and Christians (they’re not hard to find) and had them answer both sets of questions. You can find the (purported) atheist answers here — I think the purported Christian answers are still forthcoming.
Now, of course, the fun begins: vote! Go here to take a short survey to judge whether you think each answer is written by a true atheist, or a Christian just fudging it. At a brief glance, it looks like there are a few answers where the respondent is clearly faking it — but it’s not always so easy. I’ll be curious to see the final results.
Evolution is change. If God didn’t evolve, man would not exist. There would only be God.
Give thanks to God, or thank your lucky stars………..
Frankly my dear, God may not give a damn.
And so when you worship the volcano….that is God. When you worship your idles …..they are God……When you worship the sun…. that is God……..You just might all be right……..even about Jesus being God…….Your guess is as good as mine……
I’ve almost always wondered why scientifically smart people spend so much time trying to rhetorically disprove an untestable hypothesis.
Hell, I’ve almost always wondered why ‘scientifically smart people’ might be an untestable hypothesis.
===>IGNORE BUTTON<==== <—– Push there
Heavy metal groups and associated genres do the very same thing.
“We exist because the non-existent might possibly, but shouldn’t, can’t, never could, impossibly exist; it’d better not, or we’re screwed.
Must. Not. Exist. If. We. Are. To. Exist. Free. of. Those. Who. Say. It. Does. Or. Something.
Since when is it the mission of Science, or of even a minor science-related web site and associated blog, to disprove religious beliefs?
Opinion is not science.
Opinion mud wrestling is not science.
Supposedly really smart people here express pretty adolescent behaviors.
===>IGNORE BUTTON<==== <—– Push there
Charles J. Slavis, Jr
I have no problem with you believing what you want. I have no problem with a society who believes that what you think is the same as your right to own personal property.
I’ve a problem with certain of my fellows who think they have a right to decide in what you should have a personal ownership interest.
In that way, they are no different then earlier generations of folks who believe like you.
I don’t hold that history against you. You weren’t extant at those times.
I don’t believe what you do, but I believe in your right to believe it.
Hell, smart folks around here still struggle with wanting to see the both of us in stocks and pillories to fit their own prejudices.
“String up the theist and the atheist. They both suck!”
You see, Charles?
It really isn’t about either one of us.
They have serious deniable issues.
@keith:
“I’m not arguing any position, just pointing out that genuinely religious people have gained knowledge in a way that can’t be transmitted in words, simply by experiencing something for themselves.”… “I love this blog for the accessible particle physics, the atheism crap is an embarrassment.”
Since you want to learn about particle physics, I’ll show you a brand new way: learn it by experiencing something for yourself, in a way that can’t be transmitted into words. That’s how I learnt it! What do I care if it has no correspondence with the version of reality that those stupid physicists come up with? I know from personal discovery that I have seen the truth. As you might have guessed, I can’t tell you about it myself; I can only hint at how you can get it too.
That way, the weirdos on this blog wont think of you as a troll wasting their time, and you won’t have to read all this embarrassing atheism crap.
A propos this topic, I just became aware of a crusading theologian named William Lane Craig who has made the KALAM ARGUMENT one of his main themes. He has debated Dawkins and others on a Mexico TV program called City of Ideas (Ciudad de Ideas).
I found the debate on YouTube. It was actually kind of splendid. Craig is a strong debater—agile, quick-thinking, personable. Everybody including the official Judge (Michio Kaku) had some showmanship flair.
I also encountered a new 40 minute YouTube that is packed with statements by actual cosmologists (Alan Guth, Vilenkin, Roger Penrose, Hawking) played off against clips of theologians. It includes Muslim theologians and is quite interesting in a nunber of ways. The Kalam argument originally arose within Islam.
I will go get the link. I’d like to share it and hear other peoople’s reactions. The director/editor/narrator team goes by the handle Skydivephil. The narrator is a woman, she’s very good I think. Probably you could get it just by googling “Skydivephil Kalam” or searching with those two words on YouTube. But I’ll fish up the link and be back in a moment.
Oh, as I recall Sean Carroll is in it (along with Guth, Vilenkin…). There are clips of a number of cosmologists interspersed with clips of theological oration by Craig and and dynamic young Islamic speakers making the Kalam argument for the existence of God.
Yes. I tried “debunk kalam” on YoutTube search and got this one as the first hit! I also tried
“skydivephil kalam” and it was the first hit except for one promoted video.
I was too slow editing. I checked and it is just 28 minutes (not 40). And the link, to save trouble doing the search, is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE
I think the main premise of Kalam cosmological argument for God is that an infinite regress of human explanations is impossible. They sometimes use the word “causes” but it seems to have a more general meaning of “explanations” because the causal framework within which causes operate is of course part of the explanation—and all explanations are human constructs.
Here’s a Wikipedia giving historical background on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
William Lane Craig has modernized the argument and made it appear compatible with modern cosmology (his interpretation) and with science more generally. He quotes noted cosmologists cogently but selectively. So the makers of that 28 minute YouTube can have fun with contradictory clips.