Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is Atheism Rationally Justifiable?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

First, I’d like to thank Mr. Arrington for granting me posting privileges.  I consider it quite an honor, and I hope this post (and any future posts) warrants this trust.

Second, the following is an argument I think will help us to focus on a fundamental issue that lies behind ever so many of the debates here at Uncommon Descent, and elsewhere.  That is, is the sort of implicit or even explicit atheism that is so often built in on the ground floor of a “scientific” mindset truly rationally justifiable? Such cannot be assumed, it needs to be shown.

I’ll begin by defining some terms for the sake of this argument:

Definition of God (for the purpose of this thread): First cause, prime mover, root of being, objective source of human purpose (final cause) and resulting morality, source of free will, mind, consciousness; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent inasmuch as principles of logic allow; an interventionist as necessary to facilitate movement towards final cause and also inasmuch as logical principles are not violated; source of logic — “reason itself.” (I am not talking in particular about any specifically defined religious interpretation of god, such as the Chrstian or Islamic God.)

Definition: Weak, or negative atheism is the lack of any belief that a god exists, and the position that a god probably doesn’t exist, and is not the positive belief that gods do not exist (strong atheism), and is not agnosticism (the lack of belief that god either does or does not exist and the further view that there is a lack of sufficient probability either way).  Strong atheism is the belief that no god or gods exist at all.

Definition: A worldview or mindset is rationally justified when it answers adequately to the facts of the real world as we experience or observe it, makes good sense and fits together logically, is simple but not simplistic, and honestly faces the issues and difficulties that all worldviews face.

Definition: Intellectual dishonesty occurs when (1) one deliberately mischaracterizes their position or view in order to avoid having to logically defend their actual views; and/or (2) when someone is arguing, or making statements against a position while remaining willfully ignorant about that position, and/or (3) when someone categorically and/or pejoratively dismisses all existent and/or potential evidence in favor of a conclusion they claim to be neutral about, whether they are familiar with that evidence or not.

These will be important as we consider:

Evidence in favor of God:  The following is a brief summary of the evidence that typically leads many people to make a general finding that a god (as described above) exists, even if variantly interpreted or culturally contextualized:

(1)
Anecdotal evidence for the apparently intelligently ordered anomalous, miraculous (defying expected natural processes and probabilities) events attributed to god, such as signs, supernatural events (e.g. Fatima, Guadeloupe, Paul’s Damascus Road Experience), or answers to prayers to god;

(2)
Testimonial evidence (first-hand accounts) of experience of such phenomena, including interactions with a god-like being or accounts of god-like interventions;  Also, the testimony of religious adherents of various specific gods can be counted as evidence of the god premised in this argument in the manner that various cultures can vary widely in their description of certain phenomena or experiences, and come up with widely variant “explanations”; what is interesting as evidence here, though, is the widespread crediting of similar kinds of phenomena and experience to a “god” of some sort (which might be the case of blind or ignorant people touching different parts of an elephant and thus describing “what the elephant is” in various ways). Such testimonial evidence can be counted in favor of the premise here, but cannot be held against it where it varies, because it is not testimony that such a god doesn’t exist.

(3)
The various Cosmological and Ontological Arguments for the existence of god;

(4)  The Strong Anthropic (or Fine Tuning) argument and other evidences for design of our world and of life in it;

(5) The empirical, scientific evidence assembled in support of the design arguments in #4 (such as recently persuaded Antony Flew — formerly the world’s leading philosophical atheist — that there is a god);

(6) The Moral arguments for the existence of god.

(7) Empirical and testimonial evidence of phenomena closely correlated to the existence of a god as described above, such as the survival of consciousness after death, and the existence of an afterlife realm; the evidence for interactions with correlated entities such as angels and demons (which seem to act to influence our free will towards or away from our human purpose), etc., gathered by various serious and scientific investigations into what is often referred to as the “paranormal”, including mediumship studies dating back to William Crooke and ongoing through the work at Pear Labs and the Scole Experiment, including consciousness-survival research published in the Lancet. While indirect, this evidence tends to support the proposition that god exists.

While the various arguments listed above have been subjected to counter-arguments and rebuttals of varying strengths and weaknesses across the ages, one must not lose sight that while there is much evidence of all sorts (as listed above) in favor of the existence of god; there is zero empirical evidence (to my knowledge) or and little in the way of rational argument that no such god exists.  In other words, decreasing the value of the arguments and evidence for god does not increase the value of the position that there is no god; it can only increase the reasonableness of the “weak atheist” (there isn’t enough evidence) or an agnostic position.

The commonly seen rebuttals to these argument are simply attempting to show weaknesses in or alternatives to the arguments themselves so that such arguments cannot be taken as demonstratively convincing (that god exists); such counter-arguments as a rule do not actually make the case that god (as described above) in fact does not exist.

The argument against weak atheism:

The above shows us that, ironically, strong atheism is a weak position. That is probably why atheism advocates seldom defend it in informed company. So, we must first focus on the “stronger” atheist position, the one they defend in public: “weak atheism,” generally described as absence of belief in god or gods. I will argue that it too is far weaker than is commonly recognized.

I know of no positive arguments for the strong “there is no god” position, other than the argument from evil which has been addressed by Boethius, Adams  and Platinga. Aside from that, there are only rebuttals/reactions to various “there is a god” arguments. This exemplifies how rebutting an argument does not eliminate it as evidence, it only offers an alternative perspective that one  can evaluate along with the original argument.   Depending on the strength of the rebuttal or alternative explanation, that particular positive evidence for god may be decreased in value, but there is no concurrent increase in the value of an argument against the existence of god (as described above).

If a “weak atheist” claims to “lack belief” because there is “no evidence for god,” he or she is necessarily being intellectually dishonest, because we certainly aren’t privy to all potential or available evidence. Are such atheists claiming to be omniscient? If not, then, a more modest and reasonable point would be that they are not aware of evidence for god. However, given what we have already seen, such “weak atheists” cannot genuinely claim to not know of “any” evidence for god after having perused any of the above evidence.  That is to say, there is evidence for god, just, they don’t accept it. But incredulity or hyper-skepticism on your part does not equate to “no evidence” on my part. Testimony from otherwise credible sources is not made “less credible” simply because the testimony is about something the listener personally finds to be in-credible; it is not intellectually honest to discredit the credibility of testimony only on the basis of the subject matter being debated.

Also, strong atheists often only refer to themselves as weak atheists because they have realized that the strong atheist position is an assertion they cannot support in informed company.  They do this to provide cover for their real view, which is an obvious form of intellectual dishonesty.  One can often discern when this is going on when the person ridicules belief in god or makes categorical dismissals about evidence they have never even seen; they believe there is no god, and so assume there can be no valid evidence for god, and advocate for that position rhetorically via ridicule.

Even if the “weak atheist” is not aware of any compelling evidence for god, he or she must know that we humans are quite limited in what we know, and may often be unaware of mistakes in what we think we know. That means that any categorical claim a “weak” atheist makes about the available evidence he or she is not privy to — that it is not credible or convincing — is again intellectually dishonest because you cannot justifiably make a categorical claim about something you have no knowledge of.

So, if we have a weak atheist who is aware of the existence of the above evidence and agrees that there might be more evidence they are not privy to; and who does not categorically assert problems with the evidence they have not yet seen; and who does not categorically dismiss the available evidence as “non-evidence” due to hyper-skeptical bias but rather states that the available evidence they have seen is not compelling towards a conclusion that god exists; then one must ask the following:

In the face of such overwhelming amounts of evidence — thousands of years of testimony and anecdotal stories; many serious arguments based on credible empirical evidence and apparently necessary logical premises and inferences; and, the complete lack of any generally successful attempt to make a sound argument that god in fact does not exist — one must ask: how can any intellectually honest person come to any conclusion other than that on the balance of the evidence, god probably existseven if god is poorly and diversely defined, and even if the experience of god is open to various interpretations and even to misunderstanding?

As an analogy: even if one has never personally experienced “love”; in the face of thousands of years of testimony and anecdotal stories that love exists, and empirical evidence supporting that certain physical states correspond to assertions of experiences of love, would it be intellectually honest to “lack belief” that love exists, or would it be intellectually honest to hold the view that even though one doesn’t experience love (or using the same argument, color, joy, dreams, etc.), that love probably exists – even if people are widely disparate in their explanation, description, or presentation of what love is?

Another analogy: because witnesses disagree in their description of a criminal suspect in a crime, or disagree about the particulars of the crime they witnessed, this doesn’t mean there is no criminal at all.  Depending on the testimony and evidence, one may hold that it is likely that a crime occurred, and so it is likely that a criminal exists, but that the arguments, testimony and evidence are  not enough reach a finding of “guilty” for any particular suspect.

As far as I am aware of there is no anecdotal or testimonial evidence that god does not exist (because lack of experience of a thing isn’t evidence the thing doesn’t exist), very little in the way of logical argument towards that conclusion, and there is a vast array of logical, anecdotal, testimonial and empirical evidence that god (at least as generally described above) does exist. Because a billion people did not witness a crime, and only a handful did, doesn’t tilt the scales in favor of no crime having been committed at all; imagine now a billion people that report witnessing a crime, and handful that did not, and you have something more comparable to the state of evidence concerning the existence of god.

Even if one doesn’t find that evidence compelling for for a final conclusion that god exists,  when one weighs the balance of the evidence for and against god, one should be willing to at least consider whether it is more probable that god (as described above) exists than that god does not exist.  Problematically (for the atheist), the view that it is more likely that god exists than not is not any sort of an atheistic position.

The argument against strong atheism:

Strong atheism is defined as the assertion that no god or gods exist whatsoever.

First, it is obvious that strong atheism cannot be logically supported, simply because it is impossible to prove (not in the absolute sense, but in the “sufficient evidence” sense). There may be evidence and good argument that certain gods, or kinds of gods, do not exist; but there is certainly no generally accepted evidence or successful argument that no significant, meaningful god or gods whatsoever exist, including the one as defined for this thread.

Instead of trying to actually support their own claim, strong atheists usually attempt to shift the burden of proof onto theists by essentially asking the theists to prove the atheist position wrong, implying or asserting that atheism must be held true by default.  That is, such try to argue that they have nothing to argue and can sit comfortably on their view as a default. However, that is not so; every worldview of consequence has a duty to show that it is factually adequate, coherent and explains reality powerfully and simply.  Strong atheism is not a default position; it is a positive assertion that no god or gods exist.  The default position is always “I don’t know” or true agnosticism.

Strong atheism is a sweeping, categorical assertion that something does not exist. As such, It has the job of proving a universal negative.  Perhaps this could be accomplished by showing the converse positive claim to be self-contradictory, and readers advocating strong atheism are invited to make their case based upon the definition of God at the top of this post.

Also, however unlikely it may seem to an atheist, it might be true that a god of some sort exists outside of the circle of what she or he knows or what the collective of atheists actually know. After all, we all know full well that “to err is human.” So, since the atheist could be mistaken or ignorant of the key fact or argument that would be decisive,  the strong atheist position unjustifiably excludes a potentially true explanation from consideration.  What is the rationally useful point of a metaphysical position that excludes a potentially true explanation from consideration?  Especially when it requires asserting an unsupportable universal negative? What, then, does strong atheism bring to the table of debate other than the potential for intractable error and denial of potential truth for the sake of a sweeping, unsupportable, universally negative assertion?

Conclusion: atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person. The belief that god (as described above, which is supported by the listed evidence) does not exist, or that it isn’t more likely that god exists than not, can only be a position based on ignorance of the available evidence and argument for god, or a hyper-skeptical, intellectually dishonest, ideologically biased, a priori dismissal of all of the evidence for the existence of god.

Comments
Json @ 682:
First, Robin Collins does not hold a PhD in the field of physics. Your written characterization is misleading and simply untrue. Robin Collins does indeed have a PhD, but it is not in physics. Robin Collins did attend the PhD program at the University of Texas in the field of physics, but Robin Collins did not graduate from that program.
Okay, then the source that I had misrepresented him. Here is what Biola University’s website says about him: “Robin Collins (Ph.D., University of Notre Dame) is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Messiah College in Pennsylvania. He has graduate level training in theoretical physics and has written over thirty-five substantial articles and book chapters on a wide range of topics in philosophy of physics, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of mind.” (http://cct.biola.edu/about/robin-collins/)
Second, Paul Davies is mentioned as a credible source to bolster your argument for Fine Tuning. While I agree Paul Davies is credible (you should quote him fully as his thoughts on happenstance for life are not how you portrayed them), I think using him as a reference, in light of the fact that he disagrees with the Kala Cosmologic argument, does you more harm than good. Davies is also of the opinion that the Anthropic principle lacks proper reasoning to be used as evidence.
While Davies might disagree with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, he still provides a good source of expertise on physics. He’s not scornful of those scientists who are religious and he notes that our universe appears to have come from a series of “fortuitous accidents.” I believe in coincidences, but there is simply too much evidence for design to wave the existence of the universe away as a happy accident or a product of chance.
The original cosmological/first cause arguments were deeply flawed, which is what I was speaking to. Even this variation of the original Kalam derivative has been altered because it’s been heavily criticized.
Please provide evidence for these claims. What flaws are you talking about, and who states that the original arguments were flawed to begin with?
However, despite this the Kalam cosmological argument has absolutely nothing to do with god. It’s not an argument for anything in particular. So how is it that you go from, “Therefore, the Universe has a cause”…to “God exists”? You have asserted a claim without evidence.
Given that whatever begins to exist has a cause (premise 1) and that the universe began to exist (premise 2), then the third premise—the universe must have a cause—leads to the conclusion that there must be some transcendent cause for the universe’s existence. Think of the qualities that can be identified as to the cause of the universe: a cause of space and time must be uncaused, beginningless, timeless, immaterial, personal being endowed with both freedom of will and enormous power. And that is a pretty good description of God.
Fine tuning doesn’t lead to a first cause. That concept is not even part of the principle. IF one would believe in a designer, it could very well be the Universe itself. But one may not argue the Universe is First Cause.
No, but fine tuning makes it less likely that the universe is simply a happy accident or a product of random chance. Design implies a designer. A dress does not design itself and sew itself together, and a universe does not design and create itself. Big Bang cosmology makes that point.
Fine tuning, in this context, deals with life in general. It says nothing of humans specifically. Even the CSC website, referenced by this article’s author, attributes only “life” to fine tuning. To argue the Universe was fine tuned for human existence is simply misunderstanding what fining tuning means and, more importantly, to ignore the history of life on Earth.
What else would be the purpose, then, of the fine tuning we see here on Earth? Paul Davies, writing in The Mind of God notes: “Davies concludes by saying: “Just why Homo sapiens should carry the spark of rationality that provides the key to the universe, is a deep enigma. . . . I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate. . . . We are truly meant to be here.”
Evidence from fossilized life on Earth clearly shows the human species did not exist first. It clearly shows the adaptation of life to its surroundings.
Yes, I agree. And it also shows that only Earth is suited for human life. The four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force) operate perfectly for life to flourish on Earth.
Yes, very biased. That is the only true evidence we have. But slavish? I hardly think so.
Actually, if you’d have read through this website you’d see that it’s not the only true evidence we have. However, you refuse to consider anything else. That’s what I would call slavish devotion to materialism.
Scientific Theology – epitome of an oxymoron. Again, another argument that because life is possible in the Universe, somehow humanity must have a purpose. This is also an example of the repetitive use of probability quotes in your arguments. Which is why I used probability to relate to your reasoning that the improbability of no other life forms on other planets is even smaller than all your examples.
Why is it an oxymoron? The greatest scientific minds who have ever lived practiced their science while holding to a belief that God exists.
You will convince yourself that Fine Tuning is at the Universe level and permeates through the expanse of an unfathomably large universe, but then you’ll take the stance that only Earth is graced with the “blessing” of life. As of today, June 22, 2013, there is no evidence of a supernatural creator, anywhere. And it’s not because nobody’s been looking, either.
Or maybe it’s that you’re not looking hard enough. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, which has been debated for centuries. Paul wrote: “What may be known about God is manifest among them . . . His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish.” (Romans 1:19-22) Since “the world’s creation”—particularly since the creation of intelligent human creatures, who could perceive God’s existence—it has been evident that there is a Creator of immense power, a God worthy of devotion. Those who fail to acknowledge God’s glory are thus inexcusable. Scientific research is limited—restricted to what humans can actually observe or study. Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork. Since “God is a Spirit,” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny. (John 4:24) It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific.
I would argue the Universe set the Universe’s rules in motion. That was my point of using possessive grammar (thought that was obvious). Rules do demand a rule giver, and again that is the Universe. Why do I have to keep pointing out data you’ve already conceded?
I have conceded nothing, Json. How does a universe set its own rules in motion? Please show your work.
Good grief. My stance was theists always point to morality as an “unknown” and then assert there must be a designer/creator to explain morals (argument from ignorance).
An argument from ignorance states that we don’t know the exact cause. Theists assert that God is the objective standard of good and hence, we can know what is good and bad. That’s not an argument from ignorance. Science doesn’t even begin to explain moral guidelines, because that is outside of scientific inquiry.
I did not state that we didn’t know what morals are, but theists argue we do not know how they came into existence. Thus my Santa Clause example and how humans have CREATED those rules to manipulate a child’s behavior illustrates how humans do in fact create moral codes within a society.
Humans do create rules. The problem of morality stems from knowing where the objective standard of good and bad lies. Theists say God; atheists say humanity. Murder is common in the animal kingdom; why do humans make rules against it? Why do we state that it is wrong to take a human life?
Which religion? Yours? I’ve studied many religions, including Christianity. Have you?
Actually, my religion (Christianity) has not had a problem with science. I’ve also studied religion at the college level and was raised in a religious household. When you say “study” are you talking about an actual class or Bible study, or are you simply talking about searching through atheist websites to see what they say about religion?
Are you aware the “birth of a god’s son from a mortal” story has been told through dozens and dozens of religions?
Yes. That does not disprove the Bible’s account, though.
Are you aware sacred dates within Christianity aren’t even original to that religion? You are not special in your religious beliefs. There have been many religions before yours and there will be many more after yours (again, evidence says this will happen).
Argument from ignorance.
And, yes, science is good, but only when it doesn’t contradict your faith. Your thought process when it comes to answering questions: “If I don’t know the answer, it must be god”. Even if a scientific hypothesis doesn’t turn out to be the answer, it doesn’t mean the default should be “god”.
I don’t have any problem with science. I am, however, aware that science is limited to what humans can see and observe. No human has all the answers, and I like to see scientific progress being made in various fields. I also don’t believe science has all the answers; there are many questions that science simply cannot answer.
And finally, you admit to being a Christian. I would like to point out that all of your philosophical reasoning and principles in which you argue by (Fine Tuning, Kalam, Anthropic, First cause), not one lends any credibility to a Christian creator/designer. In fact, your philosophical position lends credence to all religions that believe in a creator, not just yours.
Actually, I have found that the reasoning I’ve used does tend to point towards a Christian creator. It is simply a matter of considering the evidence from Christianity as well as from other religions and what they have to say about creation. All religions have a creation story; the question is, which one closely matches what we know about the universe?Barb
June 22, 2013
June
06
Jun
22
22
2013
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
Barb @681
A scientist (Robin Collins, PhD, physics) described the “anthropic principle” (as it’s known in philosophy) as “the extraordinary balancing of the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe.” He further echoes the findings of Paul Davies (writer of “Cosmic Jackpot”) that the coincidences are simply too amazing to have been happenstance. Our universe has just the right conditions to sustain life.
First, Robin Collins does not hold a PhD in the field of physics. Your written characterization is misleading and simply untrue. Robin Collins does indeed have a PhD, but it is not in physics. Robin Collins did attend the PhD program at the University of Texas in the field of physics, but Robin Collins did not graduate from that program. Second, Paul Davies is mentioned as a credible source to bolster your argument for Fine Tuning. While I agree Paul Davies is credible (you should quote him fully as his thoughts on happenstance for life are not how you portrayed them), I think using him as a reference, in light of the fact that he disagrees with the Kala Cosmologic argument, does you more harm than good. Davies is also of the opinion that the Anthropic principle lacks proper reasoning to be used as evidence.
#3 refers to the cosmological argument for God’s existence, sometimes framed as the Kalam cosmological argument. It goes as follows: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. It’s certainly not a logical fallacy; it’s a syllogism. We have empirical evidence for the truth of the first premise. We do not see things simply coming into being without a cause.
The original cosmological/first cause arguments were deeply flawed, which is what I was speaking to. Even this variation of the original Kalam derivative has been altered because it's been heavily criticized. However, despite this the Kalam cosmological argument has absolutely nothing to do with god. It's not an argument for anything in particular. So how is it that you go from, "Therefore, the Universe has a cause"...to "God exists"? You have asserted a claim without evidence.
Who says that the Universe is not a product for humanity’s existence? You? What proof do you offer for this premise? The fine tuning of the universe does provide strong evidence for a first cause, or a designer.
Fine tuning doesn't lead to a first cause. That concept is not even part of the principle. IF one would believe in a designer, it could very well be the Universe itself. But one may not argue the Universe is First Cause. Fine tuning, in this context, deals with life in general. It says nothing of humans specifically. Even the CSC website, referenced by this article's author, attributes only "life" to fine tuning. To argue the Universe was fine tuned for human existence is simply misunderstanding what fining tuning means and, more importantly, to ignore the history of life on Earth. Evidence from fossilized life on Earth clearly shows the human species did not exist first. It clearly shows the adaptation of life to its surroundings. My original argument was stating the Universe did not adapt to human life, but human life adapted to the Universe. Your "proof" that the Universe is not a product for human's existence is in your nearest library, science section.
And you are biased because of your slavish devotion to evolution and materialism.
Yes, very biased. That is the only true evidence we have. But slavish? I hardly think so.
Alistair McGrath, writing in a three-volume series called Scientific Theology, pointedly asks, “Is it a pure coincidence that the laws of nature are such that life is possible? Might this not be an important clue to the nature and destiny of humanity?” As of today, June 10, 2013, there is no other life in the universe save Earth. And it’s not because nobody’s been looking, either.
Scientific Theology - epitome of an oxymoron. Again, another argument that because life is possible in the Universe, somehow humanity must have a purpose. This is also an example of the repetitive use of probability quotes in your arguments. Which is why I used probability to relate to your reasoning that the improbability of no other life forms on other planets is even smaller than all your examples. You will convince yourself that Fine Tuning is at the Universe level and permeates through the expanse of an unfathomably large universe, but then you'll take the stance that only Earth is graced with the "blessing" of life. As of today, June 22, 2013, there is no evidence of a supernatural creator, anywhere. And it’s not because nobody’s been looking, either.
Who set “the universe’s rules” in motion? Rules demand a rule giver; they don’t appear out of nowhere. You have (wittingly or not) ascribed the universe as the result of deliberate creation. Thanks for making my point for me.
I would argue the Universe set the Universe's rules in motion. That was my point of using possessive grammar (thought that was obvious). Rules do demand a rule giver, and again that is the Universe. Why do I have to keep pointing out data you've already conceded? You insist Fine Tuning is rational. A fine tuned universe argues any changes in the physical constants would have drastic changes to that universe and therefore the "rules" of that universe. Science knows when, where, and how the "rules" of our Universe came into existence, already.
It’s not an argument from ignorance; we’re not ignorant of morality or laws that constrain it. We simply choose to suppress our consciences or our morality when it might benefit us. Again, if there are “rules”, then there is a rule giver. Rules do not simply appear out of nowhere. Where do we as humans get the idea of behavior that is right or wrong?
Good grief. My stance was theists always point to morality as an "unknown" and then assert there must be a designer/creator to explain morals (argument from ignorance). I did not state that we didn't know what morals are, but theists argue we do not know how they came into existence. Thus my Santa Clause example and how humans have CREATED those rules to manipulate a child's behavior illustrates how humans do in fact create moral codes within a society. Ergo, your question is answered. Humans create the rules in which humans live by, just as wolf-packs create rules that the alpha male eats first. It's simple to understand if you drop the pretense for a god.
Spoken like a true atheist who has little to no real knowledge of religion. Science and faith aren't at war. When scientific evidence and biblical teachings are correctly interpreted, they can and do support each other.
Which religion? Yours? I've studied many religions, including Christianity. Have you? Are you aware the “birth of a god’s son from a mortal” story has been told through dozens and dozens of religions? Are you aware sacred dates within Christianity aren't even original to that religion? You are not special in your religious beliefs. There have been many religions before yours and there will be many more after yours (again, evidence says this will happen). And, yes, science is good, but only when it doesn't contradict your faith. Your thought process when it comes to answering questions: “If I don’t know the answer, it must be god". Even if a scientific hypothesis doesn't turn out to be the answer, it doesn't mean the default should be “god". And finally, you admit to being a Christian. I would like to point out that all of your philosophical reasoning and principles in which you argue by (Fine Tuning, Kalam, Anthropic, First cause), not one lends any credibility to a Christian creator/designer. In fact, your philosophical position lends credence to all religions that believe in a creator, not just yours.Json
June 22, 2013
June
06
Jun
22
22
2013
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
Json @ 680:
Evidence: #1 & #2 — Exact same quality. They are both anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal n. – “non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts”…enough said.
#2 is testimonial evidence from firsthand accounts. That is not anecdoctal evidence.
#3 — Does not prove an existence of a supernatural god. This only argues that the universe must have a cause, but does not provide any evidence of what that cause is (or why). Plus this is a logical fallacy called Special Pleading: To argue that everything must have a beginning except god is illogical.
#3 refers to the cosmological argument for God’s existence, sometimes framed as the Kalam cosmological argument. It goes as follows: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. It’s certainly not a logical fallacy; it’s a syllogism. We have empirical evidence for the truth of the first premise. We do not see things simply coming into being without a cause.
#4 & #5– Why do religious people always argue the universe as if it’s a product for human species’ existence instead of looking at human species’ existence as a product of the universe? Arguing that small percentage changes in life sustaining variables does not provide ANY evidence for a god.
Who says that the universe is not a product for humanity’s existence? You? What proof do you offer for this premise? The fine tuning of the universe does provide strong evidence for a first cause, or a designer.
So what if the universe constants were so different that human life could not exist? Why does it have to? The answer is because you have a presupposition for life. And why? Because you are biased based on the religious text that your read.
And you are biased because of your slavish devotion to evolution and materialism.
You are arguing from an appeal to authority. The only thing Fine Tuning tells us is that life as we currently understand it would only have been very different. Since you are arguing that there is no evidence to “disprove God”, then I argue there is no evidence to disprove there is no life on other planets in unimaginably different forms than our own.
Alistair McGrath, writing in a three-volume series called Scientific Theology, pointedly asks, “Is it a pure coincidence that the laws of nature are such that life is possible? Might this not be an important clue to the nature and destiny of humanity?”
If that’s so, Fine Tuning is even more fallacious.
Fine tuning is not fallacious. You have provided no premises from which to reach such a conclusion. A scientist (Robin Collins, PhD, physics) described the “anthropic principle” (as it’s known in philosophy) as “the extraordinary balancing of the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe.” He further echoes the findings of Paul Davies (writer of “Cosmic Jackpot”) that the coincidences are simply too amazing to have been happenstance. Our universe has just the right conditions to sustain life.
We only know of ONE configuration of life. To take a position that the probability for the conditions of life is so unlikely therefore it must have been a creator is ignoring the probability that among the billions of stars there is no other form of life besides what we know on Earth. That probability is even smaller than what is brought forth in the Fine Tuning argument.
As of today, June 10, 2013, there is no other life in the universe save Earth. And it’s not because nobody’s been looking, either.
If we look at the Fine Tuning argument from the standpoint that life is the product of playing by the universe’s rules, instead of universe’s playing the rules of what is needed to create life, then Fine Tuning becomes completely irrelevant. Life is not the tail that wags the dog here.
Who set “the universe’s rules” in motion? Rules demand a rule giver; they don’t appear out of nowhere. You have (wittingly or not) ascribed the universe as the result of deliberate creation. Thanks for making my point for me.
#6 — Doesn’t Santa Clause exist to maintain morality in little children? But who makes up those “naughty and nice” rules? Humans do. “Clean your room or you get a lump of coal”. Is that one of the commandments from god? No. Humans created that rule. Just as humans have created moral codes to co-exist as a species. Again, this is another logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance: we don’t understand morality, so it must be from a god.
It’s not an argument from ignorance; we’re not ignorant of morality or laws that constrain it. We simply choose to suppress our consciences or our morality when it might benefit us. Again, if there are “rules”, then there is a rule giver. Rules do not simply appear out of nowhere. Where do we as humans get the idea of behavior that is right or wrong?
#7 — PEAR: “to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice. PEAR closed its doors at the end of February 2007 with its founder, Robert G. Jahn, concluding that after tens of millions of trials they had demonstrated that human intention can have a non-local effect on physical targets.” —-nothing supernatural or god-like there. But it’s extremely dishonest how you reference their “…studies ongoing through the work at PEAR Labs” 6 years after they have shutdown. Note: there have been no scholarly articles since their official closure. #7 is probably the most intellectually dishonest of all seven points you bring forth, and that’s saying a lot. Please cite the publication in Lancet that supports your claim, as I was unable to find such support.
I think this is what you’re looking for (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600820139) The article in question is "Dissociation in people who have near-death experiences: out of their bodies or out of their minds?" The Lancet, Volume 355, Issue 9202, 5 February 2000, Pages 460–463, by Dr Bruce Greyson, MDa
One does not prove that god does not exist (how could you?). The process takes the evidence that tries to prove god does exist and shows how the evidence is wrong. That’s how it works.
Wow, you’ve really loaded the deck against the theists, haven’t you? “Here’s the evidence, and it’s wrong!”
One makes a claim, provides evidence for that claim, and when the evidence is shown to be false, then the claim is false. You don’t continue to argue the claim is true without new evidence. If it worked any other way, then anyone anywhere could make any claim they liked and wait for others to prove them wrong.
You have also made false claims concerning the anthropic principle. I’m glad to see you’re learning from your mistakes.
Why must religion argue from probability, impossibility and the safety of ignorance because we don’t know all the answers to all the questions then the answers must be a god? Why is a god the default answer to the unknown? Have their not been unknowns in the past that were explained by the god answer only to be given a rational reason as more understanding was acquired? Have we not learned our lesson that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth? Religion simply gets in the way of the truth.
Spoken like a true atheist who has little to no real knowledge of religion. Science and faith aren’t at war. When scientific evidence and biblical teachings are correctly interpreted, they can and do support each other.Barb
June 10, 2013
June
06
Jun
10
10
2013
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Evidence: #1 & #2 -- Exact same quality. They are both anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal n. - "non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts"...enough said. #3 -- Does not prove an existence of a supernatural god. This only argues that the universe must have a cause, but does not provide any evidence of what that cause is (or why). Plus this is a logical fallacy called Special Pleading: To argue that everything must have a beginning except god is illogical. #4 & #5-- Why do religious people always argue the universe as if it's a product for human species' existence instead of looking at human species' existence as a product of the universe? Arguing that small percentage changes in life sustaining variables does not provide ANY evidence for a god. So what if the universe constants were so different that human life could not exist? Why does it have to? The answer is because you have a presupposition for life. And why? Because you are biased based on the religious text that your read. You are arguing from an appeal to authority. The only thing Fine Tuning tells us is that life as we currently understand it would only have been very different. Since you are arguing that there is no evidence to "disprove God", then I argue there is no evidence to disprove there is no life on other planets in unimaginably different forms than our own. If that's so, Fine Tuning is even more fallacious. We only know of ONE configuration of life. To take a position that the probability for the conditions of life is so unlikely therefore it must have been a creator is ignoring the probability that among the billions of stars there is no other form of life besides what we know on Earth. That probability is even smaller than what is brought forth in the Fine Tuning argument. If we look at the Fine Tuning argument from the standpoint that life is the product of playing by the universe's rules, instead of universe's playing the rules of what is needed to create life, then Fine Tuning becomes completely irrelevant. Life is not the tail that wags the dog here. #6 -- Doesn't Santa Clause exist to maintain morality in little children? But who makes up those "naughty and nice" rules? Humans do. "Clean your room or you get a lump of coal". Is that one of the commandments from god? No. Humans created that rule. Just as humans have created moral codes to co-exist as a species. Again, this is another logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance: we don't understand morality, so it must be from a god. #7 -- PEAR: "to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice. PEAR closed its doors at the end of February 2007 with its founder, Robert G. Jahn, concluding that after tens of millions of trials they had demonstrated that human intention can have a non-local effect on physical targets." ----nothing supernatural or god-like there. But it's extremely dishonest how you reference their "...studies ongoing through the work at PEAR Labs" 6 years after they have shutdown. Note: there have been no scholarly articles since their official closure. #7 is probably the most intellectually dishonest of all seven points you bring forth, and that's saying a lot. Please cite the publication in Lancet that supports your claim, as I was unable to find such support.
"The commonly seen rebuttals to these argument are simply attempting to show weaknesses in or alternatives to the arguments themselves so that such arguments cannot be taken as demonstratively convincing (that god exists); such counter-arguments as a rule do not actually make the case that god(as described above) in fact does not exist."
One does not prove that god does not exist (how could you?). The process takes the evidence that tries to prove god does exist and shows how the evidence is wrong. That's how it works. One makes a claim, provides evidence for that claim, and when the evidence is shown to be false, then the claim is false. You don't continue to argue the claim is true without new evidence. If it worked any other way, then anyone anywhere could make any claim they liked and wait for others to prove them wrong. This entire article is nonsensical. The "evidence" is based on logical fallacies and asserting "we don't understand or it's impossible by chance" so it MUST have been god (this is ALSO a logical fallacy). Why must religion argue from probability, impossibility and the safety of ignorance because we don't know all the answers to all the questions then the answers must be a god? Why is a god the default answer to the unknown? Have their not been unknowns in the past that were explained by the god answer only to be given a rational reason as more understanding was acquired? Have we not learned our lesson that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth? Religion simply gets in the way of the truth.Json
June 9, 2013
June
06
Jun
9
09
2013
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT
But that is objectively not true (if by ‘true things’ you mean Christianity). Atheists and other non-Christians are perfectly capable of being good, and avoiding negative consequences. Do you deny this?
That's entirely irrelevant to my point. Perhaps you missed the qualifier "might be" in the text you quoted. I'm not making a claim about Christians or non-Christians, I'm trying to understand KN's reason for arguing, because he doesn't seem to be arguing for any significant reason nor does he seem to be making a case about "what is true".William J Murray
January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
William, you say...
For example, for a Christian presenting their case, the reason “why” one should care might be because knowing (or believing) true things is necessary to be able to be good, to pursue the good, and to avoid negative consequences
But that is objectively not true (if by 'true things' you mean Christianity). Atheists and other non-Christians are perfectly capable of being good, and avoiding negative consequences. Do you deny this?lastyearon
January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
StephenB, My view on what "teleology" means is consonant with your view; Mung often reads to me like a zen koan and I start musing about different things. I just happened to write that musing down. I apologize if I contribute, in your view, to the misunderstanding in debates due to my layman application of terms and concepts. I wish that everyone was capable of understanding and engaging you and more rigorous and educated debaters here on your terms, but if that were so, we probably wouldn't be engaged in many such debates at all, and they probably wouldn't last very long. The culture war would be largely over by now - heck, it probably wouldn't have ever started in the first place. I recognize I bring a less precise armament to the fight, but I think (and hope!) that what I have to offer serves a good purpose.William J Murray
January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT
KN, I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't recognize an answer to my question #2
Unless you are arguing about what you believe is objectively true, why should I care about anything you say here?)
... in your response at 672. I take what you say seriously; but that doesn't answer the question of why I should care about what you are arguing. If you are arguing for a social-pragmatist concept of agreed-upon rationality, what is the pragmatism in service of? Getting along with the least amount of conflict and the maximum amount of personal enjoyment? Is that the payoff, so to speak, for adopting your position - the goal of your argument? The question isn't, "why should anyone take you seriously", but rather "why should anyone care about what you say", even if what you say is true? For example, for a Christian presenting their case, the reason "why" one should care might be because knowing (or believing) true things is necessary to be able to be good, to pursue the good, and to avoid negative consequences. Believing true things helps to fulfill one's good purpose and God's plan, which are of ultimate significance and consequence both personally and as part of something greater than oneself and greater than any particular society or worldly consideration. So we can see that that "the reason why we should care about what the Christian argues in terms of rationality" is contingent upon a broader base of fundamental beliefs about who and what we are, and why we exist, informing the reason why arguing/debating about what is true matters. Whether or not one adopts this broader base of beliefs doesn't change the fact that IF one postulates that their position is true, THEN we have a good reason to care about what they argue, and whether or not their argument is valid. I can't understand (due to my own limited education in such matters, I'm sure) the context you are arguing from in the sense of why I should care what you have to say in the first place. As far as I can tell, you are not claiming that what you are arguing about is true in the objective sense, nor do I see that you have stated that what you are arguing for will necessarily have any benefit for me or society or anything else. IOW, it appears to me to be sophistry - argument just for the sake of argument. IOW, IF what you believe is true, THEN ... why should I care about your argument? Is there a downside to not believing as you do? You don't seem to claim there is. You don't seem to even be claiming that, outside of a pragmatism that may or may not appeal to anyone in particular, there is even any benefit for adopting your view. If your argument is true .. so what? From your point of view, am I supposed to care about "what is true" for its own sake for some reason?William J Murray
January 31, 2013
January
01
Jan
31
31
2013
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT
Kantian Naturalist
But is the social-pragmatic conception of rationality the “objectively correct” conception?Here I hesitate, for while I do think that it’s superior to other conceptions, I certainly don’t think that people who disagree with me are irrational, or that they don’t deserve to be taken seriously.
It is possible for one person to evaluate another person’s rationality only if there is some objective standard with which to do the evaluating. It has little to do with measuring intelligence: people of average intelligence can be quite rational while intelligent people can be hopelessly irrational. Like all decisions, the choice to be rational comes from the will: One either decides to be rational because he wants to find the truth or he decides not to be rational because he wants to avoid the truth. Accordingly, the decision to honor reason’s rules is inseparable from the commitment to discover the truth. Reason is the vehicle and truth is the destination. Without the destination, the vehicle has no legitimate function; without the vehicle, the destination is unattainable.
I think that there are good reasons for one to accept the social-pragmatist conception of rationality, and I think it’s a better conception than, say, the Platonic, Scholastic, or rationalistic conceptions.
It is important to know the difference between a famous philosopher and a great philosopher. Sadly, history is rife with intelligent men who would prefer to avoid the truth. While it is impossible (and would be presumptuous) to test for their motivations and intentions, it is easy to spot the two great weaknesses in their writings--blatant contradictions and sloppily formed definitions. This is certainly the case with the pragmatist philosophers. They avoid the truth by trying to pervert its meaning. Truth, as Aristotle (a great philosopher) points out is “saying of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not.” Truth is the correspondence between what you know or say and what is. Pragmatism, the notion that truth is what works for the individual, is completely irrational. It is based either on an unconscious confusion or a conscious perversion of the meaning of words. We already have words for what works, namely “efficient” or “effective.” Truth doesn’t mean efficient, or effective, or practical, as I have made clear. As G.E. Moore points out, what is true is not always practical (death) and what is practical is not always true (a successful lie). Atheists and agnostics, who rule the academy, lionize third-rate philosophers and carry on as if they were first-rate philosophers. Meanwhile, the truly great thinkers are shunted off to the side.
As for the content of the present discussion: there are, as the pragmatists like to say, different degrees of clarity — or, of conceptual grasp or mastery. At the most basic level, one’s grasp of a concept consists of one’s ability to use a word in sentences that are intelligible to others who share that language.
The content of the present discussion is about rationality, not clarity. Granted, a rational argument should be clear, but the two ideas are hardly synonymous. Or again, one’s grasp of a concept is not the same thing as the ability to communicate it. Granted, one must understand a concept to communicate it, but the two ideas are not the same. I am not trying to be unduly critical here, but this is a recurring problem. Rather than address a topic head on, you often introduce a new series of distinctions related to some novel idea that has little to do with the subject matter on the table.
One point I’d like to stress is that the social-pragmatist conception is a historical conception, in the double sense that rationality is fundamentally historical and that we come to understand that rationality is fundamentally history by reflecting on the history of conceptions of rationality.
We have been down this road before. You claim that rationality is socially constructed, and I respond by explaining why that cannot be the case. You insist that I misunderstood you and that you meant something else, but when the time seems right, you repeat the claim that rationality is socially constructed.StephenB
January 30, 2013
January
01
Jan
30
30
2013
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT
There is no reason to think that Revelation is not inspired. The events came to pass as and when prophesied. The 'Mark' is not meant to be taken as a literal inscription on the hand or head.Mung
January 30, 2013
January
01
Jan
30
30
2013
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
I don't know if I believe the "Book of Revelation" is "God breathed scripture" or not (I think it probably is not), but I won't be accepting no "mark" in my hard or forehead. Can I get a WITNESS!?!CentralScrutinizer
January 30, 2013
January
01
Jan
30
30
2013
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
Let me just say that I'm not interested in trying to persuade anyone here to take me seriously, or to engage with me in conversation. I think I have something valuable to offer, and I think that I should be taken seriously here, but if people here decide that they're not interested in doing so, I'll respect that choice -- I'm not going to waste my time persuading people to take me seriously if they don't already see the value of my contributions. As for the content of the present discussion: there are, as the pragmatists like to say, different degrees of clarity -- or, of conceptual grasp or mastery. At the most basic level, one's grasp of a concept consists of one's ability to use a word in sentences that are intelligible to others who share that language. Since we all understand that we're talking about the concept of rationality, we're well beyond that minimal, basic stage. (No one here has any difficulty understanding what is said by "you're being irrational!". One might disagree with the claim but still understand it perfectly well.) We're at the point where we're arguing about the reasons for and against adopting different conceptions of 'rationality', as we might also argue about different conceptions of 'beauty' or 'goodness' or 'truth' or any other notion that is centrally located in our intellectual orientations. I think that there are good reasons for one to accept the social-pragmatist conception of rationality, and I think it's a better conception than, say, the Platonic, Scholastic, or rationalistic conceptions. One point I'd like to stress is that the social-pragmatist conception is a historical conception, in the double sense that rationality is fundamentally historical and that we come to understand that rationality is fundamentally history by reflecting on the history of conceptions of rationality. Thus, for example, I think that Kant improves upon earlier conceptions by pointing that rational inferences must be integrated with sensory information in order to yield judgments about possible experience, and that Hegel and Peirce improve significantly on Kant by pointing out that concepts themselves are laden with historical significance, that judgment is carried out in the context of communal inquiry, and that previous philosophers have been held captive by what Sellars famously calls "the Myth of the Given." The social-pragmatist conception of rationality does not accommodate any such notions as "presuppositionless knowledge," "intuitive knowledge," "revealed knowledge", "clear by the light of reason," "intellectual intuition", "phenomenological disclosure," etc. But is the social-pragmatic conception of rationality the "objectively correct" conception? Here I hesitate, for while I do think that it's superior to other conceptions, I certainly don't think that people who disagree with me are irrational, or that they don't deserve to be taken seriously. I do think that our conceptions of such notions as reason, knowledge, meaning, inference, perception, imagination, etc. does become more and more sophisticated and precise over time. Truth, Peirce famously said, lies at the end of inquiry. So I can construe, as a regulative ideal, an ideal community of inquirers for whom inquiry had come to an end; their conceptions of the universe, and of themselves as part of that universe, would be absolutely correct --- nothing could alter them. But such an ideal is useful to us only insofar as it offers us a picture of where we are heading, with no precise road-map of how to get there. Absolute truth is the idealized limit that the history of the community of inquirers approaches asymptotically.Kantian Naturalist
January 30, 2013
January
01
Jan
30
30
2013
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
KN, (1) When you use the phrase "the concept" near the end of 670, are you talking about what you consider to be an objectively true concept of rationality, your particular conceptualization of rationality, or something you imagine to be within some consensus, vague idea of what "rational" is generally agreed to mean? (2) Unless you are arguing about what you believe is objectively true, why should I care about anything you say here?William J Murray
January 30, 2013
January
01
Jan
30
30
2013
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
I do think of rational principles as explications of what is implicit in our norm-governed practices, but I don't think of those practices as the result of agreement, as (for example) Hobbes and Locke thought about the origins of morality. And I do think that the practices, and so too the norms to which we are committed, are not 'set in stone' -- at any point, the question, "should we accept these norms?" can arise. What we call rational principles have an ultimate authority for us in the sense that they are not deduced from any other principles, but that does not mean that it would irrational for us to alter them. I don't think there's anything irrational about logics with more than two truth-values, or logics in which the law of the excluded middle does not always hold. More generally, I follow Carnap, Sellars, and Brandom in treating deontic (including ethical), alethic, causal modalities as material mode metalinguistic speech about the inferential commitments and priorities embedded within linguistic practices. This does not negate the authority of those modalities, but explains it. By my lights, someone counts as rational if she can enter into the social space of reasons, can contribute to the game of giving and asking for reasons -- and that involves such capacities as: being able to respond with a reason when asked for one; being able to ask for a reason, and understand when a reason has and has not been provided; make explicit her own inferences; assess her own inferences; assess the inferences of others, whether implicit in their behavior or explicit in their avowals; and so on. (Young children are slowly initiated into this space as they mature, and noticing how their rational capacities mature is one of the many joys of parenthood.) Of course putting the point this way is an idealization, and the reality is that inequalities of power and affluence introduce massive distortions into this picture of idealized communicative reciprocity. But that's just part of what makes those inequalities and privileges count as unjust and irrational. (The community of rational inquirers is not the only dimension of the moral community, of course, but it plays a central role in the story.) That said, it's a serious mistake to conflate these two different things: giving an account of what it is to be rational, and giving an account of how we came to be rational. The former is a matter of explicating the concept of 'rationality'; the latter is a matter of explaining the origins of rationality. It's important to keep track of the different areas of disagreement. Obviously, I have a much more modest ("deflationary") conception of rationality than, say, StephenB seems to. But having a different conception of rationality is not the same thing as lacking the concept altogether, or not being entitled to the concept, or having an inadequate grasp of the concept. Just as obviously, I can see why someone in the Aristotelian-Thomist tradition might think that my conception of rationality is flawed and that my grasp of the concept is inadequate, but since I hold the same view of people in that tradition, belaboring the point is not terribly helpful. And while I'm skeptical of any possibility of reconciliation, I do think that there's plenty of room for further clarification of the relevant issues, and that can only be done through that synergy of reflection and dialogue that philosophy has been since the Socratic revolution.Kantian Naturalist
January 30, 2013
January
01
Jan
30
30
2013
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Some versions have 616 rather than 666. spooky.Mung
January 30, 2013
January
01
Jan
30
30
2013
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Thanks Mung. Would you believe that I knew what I was doing and just wanted to make sure that you were on your toes? Would you believe that I typed in 662 and 266 appeared? Would you believe that simply I blew it? 266 should be 662.StephenB
January 30, 2013
January
01
Jan
30
30
2013
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
The neighbor of the beast.Chance Ratcliff
January 30, 2013
January
01
Jan
30
30
2013
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
666Mung
January 30, 2013
January
01
Jan
30
30
2013
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
266?Mung
January 30, 2013
January
01
Jan
30
30
2013
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @266 I believe that your use of the fire tetrahedron to dramatize the difference between necessary and sufficient causality is a classic. Who would have thought that someone could explain an abstract philosophical principle by describing the concrete physical and chemical effects of lighting a match? Great stuff!! .StephenB
January 30, 2013
January
01
Jan
30
30
2013
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
And, more generally, I’ve denied that one’s membership in the community of rational beings stands or falls with one’s acceptance (or rejection) of any particular metaphysical position.
Denial is not a rational rebuttal. The human mind can deny anything. Ever wonder why that should be possible? What is actually being said in this paragraph? What does it mean to be a "member in the community of rational beings"? Who defines the parameters of that "community"? What does "rational" mean, from KN's perspective? If there are no objectively valid definitions or criteria applied for being "a member of the community of rational beings", then he has said nothing more than: "I can call myself rational regardless of what I believe and how I argue it." IOW, "I'm perfectly rational because I say so." Indeed, KN's statement about " membership in the rational community" is without any significant value other than as manipulative rhetoric unless he subscribes to a particular metaphysical position. Arguing anything, outside of rhetoric and sophistry, requires a certain metaphysical position. Denying it doesn't change that fact.William J Murray
January 30, 2013
January
01
Jan
30
30
2013
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT
SB: Well put. My own development at 101 level is here on. I hope it will help catalyse [re-]thinking. KFkairosfocus
January 29, 2013
January
01
Jan
29
29
2013
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT
Kantian Naturalist
If you think I’ve tried to reduce either logic or causation to either mental models or sociological constructs, I don’t think you really understand my views about norms, social practices, and realism.
I can only respond to what you write, and I think I have fairly summarized your views. You have described the Laws of Identity and Causality as agreed upon "norms," not as self-evident truths that apply in each and every case to the real world. Consistent with that view, you have argued that the rules of right reason need not be fixed and were not necessarily "discovered." All this ties in with your position that a temporal and contingent universe does not necessarily require a first cause. To be sure, you have qualified the point by saying that you will not dogmatically say that the universe did come into existence without a cause, but that is just another way of saying that you allow for the possibility that such may be the case. So, I have no reason to believe that I do not understand your views.
But since you have an a priori commitment to identifying rationalism and theism, such that the very notion of rational naturalism can’t make any sense to you, I’m not surprised you’re not able to understand my views.
From a philosophical point of view, I am committed only to the first principles of right reason and the reliability of noumenal knowledge, from which my theism follows as surely as the night follows the day.StephenB
January 29, 2013
January
01
Jan
29
29
2013
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
In re: StephenB @ 658:
Every atheist/agnostic I have ever interacted with tries to reduce logic and causality to mental models or sociological constructs. Whenever atheism confronts reason; reason will lose. That is why the atheist (and the agnostic) feels the need to attack reason. It has no other arguments.
If you think I've tried to reduce either logic or causation to either mental models or sociological constructs, I don't think you really understand my views about norms, social practices, and realism. But since you have an a priori commitment to identifying rationalism and theism, such that the very notion of rational naturalism can't make any sense to you, I'm not surprised you're not able to understand my views. William Murray, is there a point you're trying to make with your (659)?Kantian Naturalist
January 29, 2013
January
01
Jan
29
29
2013
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
What I’ve consistently denied is, firstly, that the intelligibility of objectivity entails (or presupposes) the existence of God or belief therein
That's the great and terrible thing about the mind: it can deny anything. Or accept anything. I wonder how the mind can have such an ability?William J Murray
January 29, 2013
January
01
Jan
29
29
2013
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
Kantian Naturalist
I realized a long time ago that there aren’t any really decisive arguments for or against the existence of God. For every good theistic argument there’s a cogent atheistic response, and for every good atheistic argument there’s a cogent theistic response. So if one were to be strictly rational, I suppose one should be an agnostic.
It doesn't require much of a leap to observe the fact that regularity implies order, which in turn, requires an orderer (God, first cause, lawgiver etc). This is a perfectly reasonable argument. The only faith necessary is the apriori commitment to the first rules of right reason. It is the atheist who must make the leap, either by questioning causality or denying our ability to know anything. Every atheist/agnostic I have ever interacted with tries to reduce logic and causality to mental models or sociological constructs. Whenever atheism confronts reason; reason will lose. That is why the atheist (and the agnostic) feels the need to attack reason. It has no other arguments.StephenB
January 29, 2013
January
01
Jan
29
29
2013
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
Ah, well, there's the rub, isn't it? Throughout all of the conversations we've had here, I've consistently upheld the objectivity of normativity (here I'm taking normativity in the broad sense to include both norms of belief, i.e. epistemology and logic and norms of conduct, i.e. ethics). What I've consistently denied is, firstly, that the intelligibility of objectivity entails (or presupposes) the existence of God or belief therein; secondly, and in my view as a much more basic issue, that "objective" means "absolute." If I thought that objectivity is the same as, or entails, absoluteness, I'd be in a very position in the dialectic. And, more generally, I've denied that one's membership in the community of rational beings stands or falls with one's acceptance (or rejection) of any particular metaphysical position. The debates that we have here tend to revolve around the assumption that the only genuine choices we have are theism or nihilism. I have been a theist, and I have been a nihilist, and I'm no longer either. I reject both, and I think I've got a genuine alternative. In light of that, I'll continue to hold that the objectivity of our intellectual and ethical norms does not depend on theism.Kantian Naturalist
January 29, 2013
January
01
Jan
29
29
2013
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
I realized a long time ago that there aren’t any really decisive arguments for or against the existence of God. For every good theistic argument there’s a cogent atheistic response, and for every good atheistic argument there’s a cogent theistic response. So if one were to be strictly rational, I suppose one should be an agnostic.
In order for the arguments themselves to be cogent or not cogent, they would have to have value in and of themselves, and logic would have to be assumed as an objective, valid arbiter of the cogency of such arguments, and one would have to assume that humans have access to the objective application of such reasoning methodology. Otherwise, all you are saying here is that the way the arguments affect you personally is that they are equally "cogent". Isn't it interesting how all those hidden assumptions about objective values populate every comment, even when one intellectually denies they are necessary for their statements? If you aren't claiming that the cogency of both arguments is objectively equal, who the heck cares that you personally find them to be so? Everyone personally finds them to be somehow situated in comparison; without an objective means to arbit, all you (or anyone, for that matter) are expressing here is what flavor of pie you prefer (in your case, neither).William J Murray
January 29, 2013
January
01
Jan
29
29
2013
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Though this thread seems to have petered out, I found myself writing a bit on the topic yesterday in an email to a friend, and it seems germane to this conversation, so I've copied and pasted here: I realized a long time ago that there aren't any really decisive arguments for or against the existence of God. For every good theistic argument there's a cogent atheistic response, and for every good atheistic argument there's a cogent theistic response. So if one were to be strictly rational, I suppose one should be an agnostic. Both theism and atheism require a leap of faith. But I don't think that either theism or atheism has any essential connection to spirituality; I've met more than a few atheists who were deeply spiritual, and more than a few theists who were not. The question about theism or atheism is about one's sense of intellectual orderliness and comprehensibility to reality, whereas spirituality (or the lack thereof) is about one's sense of openness and receptivity to that which transcends the self. That spiritual theists call this transcendence "God" and spiritual atheists call it "Beauty" or "Love" or "Nature" is of secondary importance. The important thing is, I don't think there's any reason to believe that atheists own the market on rationality or that theists own the market on spirituality.Kantian Naturalist
January 29, 2013
January
01
Jan
29
29
2013
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
F/N: Maybe, part of the underlying issue is the battle for truth in a world where ill prepared youngsters are often immersed in a milieu that imagines that radical relativism represents progress. KFkairosfocus
January 24, 2013
January
01
Jan
24
24
2013
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
1 2 3 23

Leave a Reply