The transformational power of accepting Christ is evidence that Christianity is also true.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 500
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
In the American prison system, many convicts have accepted Christ by responding to the gospel given to them by a prison chaplain. Up until this point, these convicts have led lives full of crime and debauchery, but after accepting Christ, they are transformed and live noticeably different lives, oftentimes completely turning their life of crime around, and committing themselves to the beneficent teachings of Jesus.
A Pew Research Center survey of prison chaplains indicates that religious programs play a critical role in rehabilitating inmates. Chaplains overwhelmingly consider religion-based initiatives vital for prisoner rehabilitation and often witness inmates converting to Christianity, leading to significant behavioral changes (Pew Research Center). For example, the story of Howie Close, who transformed from a violent prisoner to a chaplain at the same facility where he was once incarcerated, highlights the impact of religious conversion and mentorship on changing lives (outreachmagazine.com).
One could explain the transformational effect of Christianity purely as a byproduct of the religion being itself true, but what if the best explanation for this phenomenon is that Christianity is true, and there is a real transformation of the soul taking place?
This is the contention of this debate: Whether Christianity is a placebo effect, or this phenomenon is evidence that Christianity is also true.
That's a shame. I was looking forward to the content that would result from this debate, but it looks like Auld forfeited all of the rounds and relinquished the debate
I'm referring to the kind of debate you've made here, where you simply state that "The transformational power of accepting Christ" is evidence for Christianity. You don't say that it is compelling evidence, or that it is evidence that alone shows that Christianity is *likely* true, you just say that it is evidence in favor of Christianity. Allow me to explain how it is almost impossible for you to lose this debate by using the raven paradox.
Consider the statement "All ravens are black." Every time you see a raven that is black, that is evidence in favor of the statement being true. Are you with me so far? Now consider the statement "Everything that is not black is not a raven." Really, this is actually just saying the same thing as our original statment. So, it follows that every time you see something that is not black and is not a raven, that is evidence for all ravens being black. Thus, seeing a green apple that is not a raven is evidence, however tiny, that all ravens are black.
Moving back to this debate, your resolution does not say that religious rehabilitation is *strong* or *compelling* evidence for Christianity being true; no weight is given to the strength of the evidence. Rather, you merely state that it is evidence at all: "This is the contention of this debate: Whether Christianity is a placebo effect, or this phenomenon is evidence that Christianity is also true." There is no adjective modifying the word 'evidence' in that sentence. Hence, it is basically impossible for you to lose this one. Do you understand what I am saying?
As a philosopher, I don't understand what class of arguments you are referring to. "X is evidence for Y debates" is so generic that it includes all connections between correlation and causation, which is the basis for all science, mathematics, etc, so you need to be more specific with your description of the kind of debates you mean, else it is meaningless. Religious conversations in prison are a cogent inductive argument that Christianity is true.
The thing about these "X is evidence for Y" debates is that, in my opinion, they are almost impossible for the Pro side to lose if they even try at all. As shown by the Raven paradox, even a statement like "This apple is green and not a raven" is evidence, however small, for the claim that "All ravens are black." I don't think that religious conversions in prison are particularly *strong* or *compelling* evidence in favor of Christianity, but I cannot deny that they are evidence for Christianity at all.
Auld, I was able to find the study you referenced by Lea Zanbar, but it doesn't look like the main purpose of the study was to test anything like the relationship between truth and belief, rather the study was intended to to understand what motivates people to get actively involved in their communities to improve their well-being and solve local issues.
Apologies, that citation was supposed to follow the following sentence
the full citation:
Zanbar, Lea. "Sense of belonging and commitment as mediators of the effect of community features on active involvement in the community." City & Community 19.3 (2020): 617-637.