The Fire

Comments

[AndThenSome]

Please.

This is an argument from analogy, and a poor one at that.

The hypothetical fire in the basement is a verifiable, natural event that could be easily and objectively substantiated; the so-called truth of Christianity is not.

Is this the kind of thing that makes believers feel all fuzzy and righteous inside?

[Don]

You seem to be missing the point.

The video is about how people react to religious truth claims in general and the message of Jesus in particular. The verifiability of those claims (or lack thereof) has nothing to do their acceptance of rejection of them.

Of course the fire is verifiable, but notice that none of the people in the video refused to leave the building based on whether or not the fire was verifiable.

Many of them never get to a stage in their thinking of wanting to verify it. They reject Tim's advice based on assumptions they held before he got to the room. They don’t think people should make objective truth claims to others, for instance, or they don’t think objective truth exists. Those assumptions preclude them from even considering the fire claim or taking action to save themselves. Whether or not the fire is verifiable plays no part in their decision.

Other characters actually accept that there is a fire but refuse to sacrifice certain things in order to escape, so again verifiability plays no part in their decision.

The one guy who is concerned about verifiability is presented with some verifiable evidence (the testimony of Tim, the smoke outside the building and the people gathering in the parking lot) but doesn’t think that is sufficient. He wants more evidence, and he wants particular pieces of evidence. Even when presented with cogent reasons why those pieces of evidence are not available, he won’t go. So, again, he did not make a decision based on whether Tim’s claims were verifiable or not, but on the content of those claims.

I tried to show in the video that it would be silly to respond to a truth claim about a fire in certain ways. I did this because I think it is silly to respond to a truth claim about anything in these ways, including something much more important than a fire: the nature of ultimate reality, which is what religions teach.

You say that a claim about a fire is not analogous to the Christian claim because Christianity is unverifiable. Even if I grant that some religions are unverifiable (and I don’t in the case of Christianity), the fact remains that many people do not reject religious claims because of their verifiability (or lack thereof), therefore the analogy is fine. Just as the people in the story rejected Tim’s claim because of factors that had nothing to do with whether or not the fire was verifiable, people reject religious claims for reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not they are verifiable.

Also, in the case of Christianity, there is plenty of verifiable evidence to support its claims. It may not be the specific evidence that all people want, and it may not come in the quantity that all people want, but it is verifiable evidence nonetheless, so the analogy is fine on that level as well.

The bottom line is that people reject religious claims in general and the claims of Jesus in particular for the same silly reasons that the people in the video rejected the claim about the fire. What they should do is respond to religious claims in the way that sane people respond to claims about a fire in their building: with a spirit of openness, honest intellectual inquiry and a realization that something very important is on the line, not flippancy, anger and close-minded irrationality.

[Lou]

Very well done! I'd like to see you guys do more of this type of thing. Keep up the great work.

[Asa]

Having listened to the radio show you guys have done on this, I've got to say I like the light-hearted approach you've taken with this video - it's a 5 minute skit, not a two hour lecture on the finer philosophical points of issue.

Despite not being a Christian myself, I think there are both good and bad arguments for and against Christianity (and other religious beliefs as well, obviously to differing degrees), and I think you've done a good job lampooning some of the bad ones against Christianity in the video. I often hear Christian apologists talk about countering these types of views, and wonder to myself whether anyone who can seriously claim to have thought through their worldview actually holds them.

I guess the whole post-modern 'your view / my view' attitudes are probably more prevalent in the States, here in the UK, I think most people just don't feel comfortable talking about religion as much! But, despite not being a Christian, I certainly applaud anyone who will taken on the bankrupt post-modern epistemology that challenges the very existence of reality - even if it's only done in a light-hearted way! Good work!

[AndThenSome]

I'm going to have to disagree with you, Don. The claim "There's a fire in the basement" isn't at all analogous to "Jesus is the Son of God" or "Christ died for your sins."

You also seem to be saying that those who reject the claims of Christianity are closed-minded and intellectually dishonest. You really can't see the possibility that someone could dismiss Christianity sincerely and rationally?

You write of Christianity that "there is plenty of verifiable evidence to support its claims." I would like to hear the verifiable evidence for the following:
1. Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
2. Jesus was conceived without a human father.
3. A "star" shone over his birthplace, guiding visitors.
4. Any of the miracles attributed to Jesus actually happened.
5. Any of the conversations, sayings or parables attributed to Jesus are authentic.
5. Jesus was God.
6. Jesus died (which is impossible, if one asserts he was God, since God is, by definition, immortal) and was ressurrected after 3 days.
7. Jesus ascended to and remains in heaven.
8. Not accepting Jesus as your lord and savior will get you a one-way ticket to hell--otherwise known as "the fire in the basement."

[Asa]

I think the issue with the video is that we, the audience, know that the fire in the basement is real and genuine right from the start. The viewer is of course in the know, and can judge the actions of the characters accordingly.

In real life, we aren't given a 'sneak peak' of the truth before we're asked to make up our minds about these theological issues. In addition to this, it certainly is true that a mundane thing like a 'fire in the basement' is not in the same category as a supernatural event, or the existence of God.

However, even if the video hadn't shown us the clip of the fire at the start, and we weren't as viewers 110% sure that the fire was real and the guy running around the building wasn't just playing some prank, this doesn't actually make the reactions shown in the clip any more rational or sensible. And this is the point that I think the video was trying to make (as Don clarified in his radio show) - not that atheists are idiots, but that there are SOME responses to these issues that just don't make sense.

Personally, I think it's perfectly possible to engage intellectually with these theological issues, and ultimately reject them (i.e. not become a Christian). I've done just this. But just because I don't believe that Christianity is true, it doesn't mean that I think all negative responses to it, and arguments against it are equally valid.

[AndThenSome]

Asa writes:

"Personally, I think it's perfectly possible to engage intellectually with these theological issues, and ultimately reject them (i.e. not become a Christian). I've done just this. But just because I don't believe that Christianity is true, it doesn't mean that I think all negative responses to it, and arguments against it are equally valid."

This is, of course, true, not just for religion, but for any number of claims or views.

[Asa]

You bet.

I just think that in this particular sphere, you hear SO many bad arguments (in logical / philosophical terms) coming from both sides.