Theism and the "Honey Badger" Skeptic

[Chase]

It's been a while since I delved into the realm of apologetics here, and some of those threads are my favorites on this board because the discussion is mostly pleasant (even though there is a clear perception of implications that may cause reality defining and therefore emotional reactions are normal.)

 

---

 

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the roadblocks potentially faced by what I call "honey badger" skeptics when it comes to the concept of a supreme being. This type of skeptic is similar to the mammal it's name draws from in that they are people that doubt the existence of a god(s) and other divine beings and concepts but simply do not have the desire to do their own research either way. These skeptics are not necessarily "atheist" (a believer in the concept that there is no supreme being.), and are usually very openly "willing" to accept any worldview, even theistic ones, as the truth if only it were made totally clear to them by others. Characteristics of such skeptics are:

 

1. Honey Badgers are undecideds that are looking for others to prove the existence or non existence of gods.

2. Honey Badgers are quick to assert how open-minded they are to the idea of theistic reality or lack thereof as a form of avoiding a position -or- because they are in fact undecided. Honey Badgers will remind you of such open-mindedness often.

3. Honey Badgers genuinely haven't done much of any personal seeking on the topic -or- are not being honest when claiming they have done research.

4. Honey Badgers often view personal seeking as a waste of time.

5. Honey Badgers are often "searching for divine billboards" that provide definitive truth in an instant, and are adverse to the idea of "sampling" faiths, beliefs, and schools of thought.

6. Honey Badgers are often unusually focused on rejecting evidences and arguments from others, despite not holding a position and being open-minded.

 

---

 

Why does this matter?

 

The Honey Badger isn't devoid of emotions and doesn't live outside of time. Eventually, they will die, like any other human would, and the question of what life looks like afterwards, if it looks like anything, is still present. The question of where meaning is applicable in their lives is still present. These people still hurt and have to reconcile themselves with the world they live in. These people still have to decide SOMETHING is important to them. Life requires action, even from those who don't care.

 

For the atheistic organizer, the Honey Badger skeptic matters because they will provide push back on your argument through apathy. They will often used detached tones when talking about theists' beliefs and practices by saying "This doesn't bother me or affect my life, why are they wrong? Why are you right? and ultimately "Why should I care that God doesn't exist?"

 

For the evangelist, the Honey Badger skeptic matters because they are part of the nations you are called to minister to. Their apathy is a genuine struggle between them and salvation. They won't care to seek God, so they will ultimately fail to know Him. If they fail to know Him, they are separated from Him for eternity. (or they don't reach enlightenment, don't become good beings, don't get reincarnated favorably, depending on faith being evangelized.)

 

For the Honey Badger, it renders bad "scholarship" when they are involved in theological or atheological discussion - because they are inherently passive and would fail to contribute any relevant information to discuss. When assessing anything as an evidence they are quick to reject the ideas presented before positing any information of their own to back up the alternative hypothesis or idea. If the Honey Badger skeptic genuinely DOES care about their wellbeing beyond death or has concerns with the reality of the universe, they are their own stumbling block when it comes to determining answers. Honey Badgering with regards to existence and reality may cause a lack of drive to care about other things in a sort of bleed-over effect. In other words, to be a Honey Badger in general is to allow yourself the risks involved with a making decisions without putting weight on them.

 

---

 

This thread was inspired by the multiple encounters I've had with this specific type of skeptic and have been questioned by them about my buying into the Christian worldview. At the times prior to hearing several common lack of positions and prideful avoidance of having the other person present and defend their own positions, I've come to the conclusion that a fair response to those people is simply that "You have to care enough to learn for yourself before you can argue with others."

 

With Christianity in particular, you don't need to become a Christian to determine if it is the true "way" or not. It only took me a week of contemplation personally to decide God -WAS- real, after all! You do have to, however, do your own research. Why is it people are able to have faith in something? Is there something about those people that I want? Is there something about those people that was similar to how I feel now? What do I agree and disagree with them on? Why is that or isn't that?

 

This isn't a one person answer. It's the same with other "truths" - you have to look at the matter from multiple angles and determine based off the evidence what you have.

[Eviora]

Hahaha, this is perfect! I even made a honey badger deck celebrating the meme back when I used to play Magic! However, I think a lot of people won't get it if they haven't seen the video...

 

Can you show me an example of how to search for supernatural truths that is proven to be effective?

 

 

[Chase]

@Eviora

 

Yeah. I should provide the video for reference in the op. It's a classic.

 

What constitutes effective searching for one person is probably not assuredly effective for another person. The relativity here isn't because the truths being searched for not objective, mind, but that people are interested by different aspects and thus have different levels and angles of interest throughout the idea of supernaturalism. There are also different worldviews to sift through depending on which ideas are being presented. (I.E. is the Christian "God" as attractive as the Hindu pantheon to research? Or more or less so?)

 

The simple answer here is that I don't know what would strike your fancy in particular and I wouldn't be certain if my response would cut it. And that's perfectly okay because missing the mark happens. I guess I can try to take a stab at sharing examples if you give my research a focus. What would you like to know in particular? (I understand your question to be looking for a process in research. I'll be sure to mind that!)

 

@GS BALL

 

You at the very least suggest the existence of "agnostic" people in the world (People who affirm inability to know if the supernatural is affirmable or not or people who simply roll with not knowing.)

 

I don't think those people don't exist - but I wouldn't consider them "Honey Badgers" unless there was a blatant apathy behind their not knowing.

 

Why do you believe not everyone can hold to a faith? And what do you mean that the supernatural should be left undispurbed? Those are interesting statements and I'm not sure I know why you've made them.

 

I disagree on both - but you may have something I need to look to there.

 

 

[Eviora]

@Chase

 

What? If we're to have any meaningful discussion here we'll need to have some way of distinguishing between true claims and false claims, right? An obvious way to show that one statement is false is to find a logical contradiction within it. What I'm asking is whether you can show me any example where we can conclude that something "supernatural" does, in fact, exist or occur. I want to see one agreeable methodology for establishing such a claim.

 

Also, Yagami-san is quite an interesting choice of avatar given our past discussions~

[Chase]

Ah, so you want something that can be believed logically as a supernatural "truth" found via a mutually respected process?

 

I think I may have something - but I want a day or two to collect my thoughts and present it with evidence that isn't mine along with various methods used to deem this something as logically verifiable. If I am asking people to do their homework - I should do mine as well. Is Friday or Saturday a fair due date for you? In the mean time - if you still think I'm misunderstanding you - feel free to correct me. I want to make sure we're on the same page. 

 

Also - I like Light Yagami the regular human being a lot, and I understand his rational for acting as Kira initially. I feel superimposing Christological or anti-self-deification positions is ignorant to the presented "reality" of Shinto/Buddhism through the shinigami set in the anime. Death Note's universe lacks the rational for other worldviews.

 

Is it safe to assume the use of the honorific makes you a fan as well? Or am I mistaken?

 

---

 

GS Ball, that's quite a lot to sort through, but I promise I'll get back to you as well with some dilegence in my response.

 

There's a few premises of yours that I think are particularly interesting.

 

 

 

[Eviora]

Due date? I'm way past my days of assigning people homework! This is your party, after all, and it's not like this honey badger is likely to do any work when she can already think of literally hundreds of ways to respond to the premise of this thread! So, um, anyway, reply whenever you want, or never, if I'm too scary. Life can be so annoying at times - don't stress yourself out over my whimsical little responses.

 

I'm totes a big fan of Death Note, and I do think Light is an interesting character who is entertaining to watch, though I don't know if I like him as a person. Definitely more of a fan of L. =p

[Chase]

GS Ball, let me cover a few things right now. Do mind that I will be speaking from a Christian perch and not of those of other faith here - because I don't have the experience to argue as much from those other vantage points.

 

Faith In Emerging Information

 

Just yesterday, this happened to me! I am currently taking a class about the first century Christian Church, which happened to be stationed within the Roman Empire - meaning that Roman background is going to be very pervasive in the language used in Paul's letters, the Acts of the Apostles, and even the Gospels themselves. One of those gospels where there is a seemingly extraordinarily pervasive Roman theme is Mark - the point blank gospel known for documenting the miraculous happenings that were caused by Jesus before he was crucified.

 

Applying the Roman Empire's widespread political ideology (Which, to keep brief, is simply that Romans respected Emperors who were selfless and respected the values instilled by being a Republican government for 500 years prior to the age of Roman imperialism, more than they did Emperors who deified themselves and operated tyrannically.) to the Markan Jesus reveals a significant comparison of Jesus to the likes of Emperor Vespasian (the Emperor responsible for quelling the Jewish Revolt in Palestine and destroying the Second Temple in Jerusalem.) Furthermore, John Mark seems to address Jesus in the opening of his Gospel as "Son of God" - which is exactly what people referred to Emperor Augustus and his successors as.

 

There is historical accounts of Emperor Vespasian healing a man by spitting into his eyes, as well as being the head of a legion of Roman soldiers represented by the crest of a boar in a specific region in Palestine known as Gerasa.

 

Mark reads in two halves. First, the Markan Jesus is presented as a God-Man that can perform all of these miraculous deeds, in SPECIFIC driving a demon called "Legion" out of a man known as the "Gerasene Demoniac" and into a herd of pigs, and healing a blind man by spitting into his eyes... - and secondly, Jesus is crucified.

 

This mirrors Jesus as an answer of sorts to the Roman Emperors, who not only defeated the Judeo-Christian God's people and destroyed their temple, but also performed many of the same feats as Jesus. Mark does make the point to expand upon the ideals of his seemingly more Gentile, Greco-Roman audience to ensure Jesus is a "better" result. Jesus has the power to drive away the "Legion". Jesus makes the ultimate service and sacrifice for his people on the Cross. Jesus is just simply better at embodying the ideals you have, Romans. The Temple? That didn't matter to the Roman people at all, except it might if the Romans had made the point to illustrate the importance of it's destruction. It was depicted on coins and hailed as a triumph - and the Roman mind would say "yeah man, our imperial god is stronger than that Jewish/Christian one. Look what happened to the Temple. Booyah." Mark's gospel has a profound beginning-to-end focus on propping up Jesus to a people that may be facing extreme pressure from their government and their neighbors.

 

If I were a skeptic, I would be perfectly content with pegging Jesus as remarkable as a Roman Emperor. Those guys were human. There is nothing supernatural about that. Do you see where this could cause a believer to reconcile? I had to last night.

 

I disagree with the notion that people should leave faith for those gifted for it because in my faith specifically, it's encouraged that faith be tested. If you aren't learning about what you believe, then you probably shouldn't be believing it - or at least you don't have the grounds to barring the possibility of the personal experience with the divine.

 

The Fallibility of Humanity

 

Yes, you're correct in that people will be demanding of tangible results from their belief in the supernatural. Heck, there are some "Christians" that have birthed entire denominations and followings on the so called "prosperity gospel!" (If you believe, it shall be given - very much in the literal sense.)

 

Good critical scholarship demands respect of all possible revelations. For a believing scholar - it's leaving the door open for say, the body of Jesus Christ being discovered and having Paul's damning verse of "if the Resurrection didn't occur, our faith is in vain." come to fruition. For a skeptic, it's not imposing what you want to come to light as the end-all-be-all and actually following what is and isn't in front of you regardless of how you feel about the evidence. This goes beyond the supernatural and applies to science and history. Humans are indeed not very responsible at times. There are universities that offer so-called "liberal arts" education without teaching from multiple angles and instead crown one as ironclad - on both sides of the issue at hand and in others.

 

That doesn't make the flaws of humans greater than the God that created humans, right? God wants a relationship with -all- of his creation, and gave said creation the choice in reciprocating. They aren't overstepping by taking their own path, even if that path will ultimately lead somewhere utterly different than what God intended. I also believe it's fair for people to demand things of God, with the caveat that the expectations be tempered by God's will potentially being different from our own. Merely demanding the divine bends their ears to us and works on our behalf is part of communicating with God.

 

Faith's "difficulty level"

 

It absolutely is a daunting decision because it does potentially affect the rest of your life - in both years and in different areas. However, faith being hard isn't a barrier so much as it is the crossbar one pole vaults over in the Olympic Games. You can fail to get over the bar at times - but if you keep at it, you will eventually get better. God also isn't demanding perfection from us - so we end up taking home the gold even if we don't make it over the bar anyway.

 

--

 

Eviora, thank you for kindly allowing this to be freelance research at my own pace. I will get you a response!

 

Also, L is dope. I legitimately had trouble deciding which I wanted to prevail in their struggle.

 

 

...uh.....should I see the tv drama? I've heard it's awful...but I don't know if you have an opinion on it.