Theist Tricks: The 'atheist friend', and limits to our senses

I came across a couple of postings today. The first was this which is a response to the second (link in the response). To cut to the chase, the original was a sermon invoking one of the favorite characters in sermons, the atheist friend, and the response was a further attack on this fictional character in order to further advance the old 'limit of the five senses' argument, which is an infamous one from the theist bag of tricks. It takes different forms, and I've probably addressed it in some way before, but I don't think it can hurt to hit it again...

The story is just that, a story. The 'atheist friend' character is a popular one in sermons, where through that character, the preacher can present a false depiction of atheism or any atheist argument and then show how it's flawed. This is known as a straw man argument, where one builds an opponent out of straw and attacks the creation rather than fighting his actual opponent.

Of course the five senses argument is silly, and one no critical thinking atheist would assert. In fact, it's always the religious who use arguments pointing out the limits of the five senses in order to do what Kim here is trying to do, show how if they're limited, then we can't rule out the "non-physical spiritual realm". There exists, however, two flaws in that line of argument.

The first is corroboration. Indeed there are limits to our senses, and we can't always trust our senses, a fact that seems so important to point out by the religious in these arguments yet strangely ignored when relating believer testimonies as proofs for their beliefs. It is precisely because we humans aren't perfect that we seek corroboration, more sets of eyes and ears and so forth to corroborate what we think we're experiencing, or perhaps to show us how we're mistaken.

The second is instruments for observation. A pair of glasses to read, a hearing aid, a pressure gauge, a camera, all of these are instruments for observation, and we rely on them as we do our senses and just like with our senses, we still require corroboration.

Now the limits of the five senses argument is to sow doubt in one's observational abilities, and then prey on that doubt to show how the "non-physical spiritual realm" then can't be dismissed. Well the truth is it can't be dismissed, but that has nothing to do with our observational abilities but rather in the very definition of this supposed realm. For instance, I could say we humans can't discount the possibility of there being a realm that can't be detected. Well if it can't be detected, then sure it could exist and we'd have no way to know, since it is, by definition, undetectable, but what reason would we have to think that this undetectable world exists?

Well likewise, what reason do we have to think this "non-physical spiritual realm" exists? Ah, that's strangely absent from the argument, isn't it? That's because the argument isn't designed to give you a reason to think it exists, but rather to make you doubt your ability to discount believing such a realm exists. That's what's going on with this argument, one that I classify as a "theist trick", for that is what it is, something to trick you. It's design is to make you vulnerable, and then exploit that vulnerability.

So always be alert to any argument which invokes the "friend" who supposedly represents the opposing position of the speaker, and always be on guard for arguments which seek to exploit doubt or confusion.