07 March 2010

There's an explanation...

I have been challenged by one of my commenters, Kev, to prove the existence of a few things. I would normally respond in kind - through a comment, but I'm bored, so I'll take a stab at a few. It should be made clear that the commenter believes in god and I do not. He is challenging me on my logic.

Moral right & wrong

Being that many animals can grasp right and wrong on a basic level, it confuses me that anyone would suggest that morality comes from a holy origin. A dog understands benefit and detriment. Apes have a sense of humor. Elephants show emotions. Dolphin families spread culture. It doesn't take a human to understand right and wrong, so it makes sense that a man-god cannot be the only authority for morality. We, as human animals, have a natural internal sense of what is right and wrong, developed through the evolutionary process.

Human consciousness, the world outside yourself

I categorize this into the same bin as all the masturbatory existential questions we've all heard before. Is it such a leap to assume that... I think, therefore I am? Sometimes challenging reality is nothing more than an attempt to scuttle the debate before it advances onto the really interesting topics.

Love

It is apparent to me that everyone has their own interpretation of what love is. To a ravenous believer, "love" is the obsession they have for their savior. To a romantic, love is the longing they have for the object of their desire. To me, love is an intense loyalty felt toward those who have endeared to me. In any case, as with all emotions, its origin rests with the chemistry of our brains. I cannot prove the existence of something that has a different definition to everyone who has experienced it.

Mathematical consistency to which all things are subject, Chaitin's number

This one has me tickled. As I stated in my entry, Proof of Evolution, nature does NOT adhere to mathematical models. There are no perfect circles, no perfect spirals. The Platonic model is not valid in the real world. I would suggest the book, The Black Swan, if you're interested in understanding the real mathematics of nature.

The existence of black holes, dark matter, strangelets

Strangelets, as I recall, are hypothetical, so nobody claims any proof of their existence, only conjectures. Dark matter is said to be detected through its gravitational effects on other matter. Black holes are detected by their distortion of the light emitted from galaxies farther away, like a giant lens, which bends toward them as it passes by on its way to Earth. They have also visibly devoured whole parts of galaxies, leaving a telltale sign of a massive source of gravity. Similarly, we can detect planets in other solar systems as they pass in front of their home stars and temporarily disrupt the light and radiation that we detect.

I didn't answer all of the challenges, but at some point I have to stop and make a point. There are good reasons for scientists to be doing what they do. First, if the basics of what we understand about our reality are wrong, then we, in turn, would not be able to have the technology that works so precisely in our daily lives. For example, if our understanding of chemistry were off by just a little bit, we wouldn't be able to have digital watches. It's as simple as that. Second, there are many things we don't know, but it is quite a different thing to say that what we DO know is wrong. There's a reason why you leave your house through the front door and not the window.
Posted by Andrew Gonsalves at 11:10 PM
Labels: ,

26 nibbles:

  1. Thanks for taking the time Andrew. I don't think you have answered any of the contentions near sufficiently, but it is a start. I really would challenge you to look at the actual arguments, not the straw versions on atheist internet chat rooms, which seem to be the ones you have used here...

    I'll keep reading!
    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting topic, Drew, though part of me wishes you'd posted Kev's specific questions instead of broad labels. Maybe that's just me.

    As a fellow atheist blogger/forum moderator, I can certainly relate to the place where you are now. I cannot even remember how many times I've had to carefully walk someone through the true history and existence of morality. I've had to deconstruct the cosmological argument, I've had to quantify love, and call people on the "god of the gaps" fallacy. The one thing that's helped me keep my patience through it all has been a clear memory of what it was like for me to leave religion. At 14, when I got in a massive and futile debate with my freshman biology teacher about evolution, I wasn't even aware of internet forums. I didn't even know there were other atheists in the world (other than, perhaps, some folks in Europe). I imagine how things would be if I were that 14 year old today, trying desperately to fight for beliefs instilled in me against those who I've been taught are evil or arrogant or what have you. What would help me, gently, to realize the errors of my perception?

    The answer is blogs not unlike this one.

    To Kev:
    Right and wrong are understandings rooted in the very development of our species. Because our survival depended on cooperation—dealing with everything from predators to hunting food to the elements—those who were more capable of fairness were more likely to survive. Altruism, sympathy, kindness, forgiveness, etc. all have their genesis in interacting with other people for a common cause. Without these things, cooperation is more likely to break down and that's when survival is endangered. Today, after millennia of social evolution, we have a conscious counterpart to evolutionary altruism called the social contract. The social contract is a collective understanding about behaviors necessary for civilization to endure. If a society collectively decided that theft was allowable, the benefits from property rights would be sacrificed, to use a simple example. Laws and social norms are an incarnation of the necessities for societal balance.

    Drew covered consciousness perfectly: cogito ergo sum. If I am not, from whence cometh the question? My consciousness exists because I can question its existence. Regarding the world outside of ourselves, there are interlocking patterns of nature based on empirical evidence. Does this mean reality exists? Not necessarily, but it does make reality the most likely explanation. I can expand on this if you'd like.

    Perhaps, though, you could answer some questions:

    Why do you believe in the specific god you believe in and not any others? What separates Yahweh from Ra or Odin?

    In the Bible, Jesus on several occasions, very specifically explains that Judgment Day will happen in the lifetimes of the people he preached to. Everyone from 2,000 years ago has been dead for at least 1,900 years. The Bible also says that God/Jesus are infallible. Logically, this is a clear contradiction which cannot be reconciled, which means at least one of the axioms is incorrect. How can you reconcile this?

    If the God of the Bible is absolutely moral, how can a Christian claim that genocide, murder, rape (including the rape of children), incest, bestiality, theft, slavery, lying, bigotry, jealousy, greed, etc. are wrong?
    ReplyDelete
  3. Will: Kev provided me with a list. He wanted to see my proofs for each of the topics listed above. In any case, I've never been indoctrinated. I've always seen the world through whatever makes sense to me.

    Kev: I really don't see how any of my explanations are straw men. You asked for my proofs and I gave you either an explanation or a proclamation that certain things don't even exist. I don't believe I've obtained any of the above reasonings from forums or chat rooms. I read books written by intelligent people. I process the information and come up with a reasoning. To give an example of this, I will point out that The Black Swan is not written by an atheist, but the book contains amazing logic in the realm of natural mathematics.
    ReplyDelete
  4. Will,

    Thanks for the reply. Though this isn't my blog, I will take a little bit of space to address what you have written here...

    But first, I would like to say that I am very surprised that when you were only 14, you staked your claim to one of the most controversial questions of all time. Men of nearly infinite genius have lined up on either side of the question over the last two thousand years, and the fact that you intuitively "knew" the answer to a question which great men have had a hard time deciding speaks either to the poor theologies to which you were exposed, the poor reasoning which led to your conclusion, or the astounding capability of the world's most brilliant 14-year-old, whose intelligence rivals that of fully experienced philosophers. I don't think there is anything I believe to which I held fast when I was 14, but hey, at least you're consistent, right? I understand I digress, but though the "I have been an atheist since I was 14!" boast can give you some street cred in atheist chatrooms, I think leaving that little detail out when talking to a theist might be smart because it undermines your credibility almost totally... Moving on to the substantive assertions...

    Concerning your first question, I believe that several religions have left sufficient quanta of historical, philosophical, and structural (design-based) evidence. I have settled on one (Christianity - specifically Catholicism) because I believe the evidence is the most supportive of a God's existence. I also had serious doubts about God when I was finishing high school and during some of college (though my "atheism" - if you can call it that - was much more apathetic than today's atheists bent on trying to destroy everyone else's faith) but eventually was called back to religion not by some assertion about faith (which I still often have problems with), but by a rich intellectual foundation which is not as simplistic and archaic as I once had thought it to be. The God I believe in is known as Yahweh, God, Allah, Brahman, and many other names. He could even be Zeus and Ra. Though I believe my religion is the shortest path to everlasting life of love, I do not doubt that God has revealed Himself at different times as different forms. We cannot see further than our cultural lens allows us, and perhaps the God of Christianity is the same as the Brahman essence of Hinduism represented in different form. God is not bound to such constraints, I simply think his fullest form of truth is in Christianity, because evidence suggests that is true. Even still, the question you pose is almost self-defeatist - what makes you so sure none of these entities exist at all? You would say, there is no evidence, I am sure. Of course the questions becomes what the standard is for evidence, and though you would disagree, I would contend that evidence can never be fully proved. There is a bit of faith to every claim you or I make about the world, and I cannot know for certain that x or y has happened in the world. I will always need some reports from others that will require my faith in their scientific abilities, their honesty, their sensory experience's accuracy, and/or their lingual assessment of the data. Our definitions for evidence are different, but I think the atheist's is almost wholly disingenuous.

    Your second and third questions have nothing to do with if a god exists, they have to do with the classification of a God into the Christian category (as did your first, but it also had a prong of metaphysical existence). Accordingly, I will not answer them as proofs of theism. The atheist logic as posed here is not shored well, for the denial of the Christian God does not lead to no God possibly existing, it leads to one God being illogical if it can prove anything at all...
    ReplyDelete
  5. But I don't believe is proves anything at all, and I will answer them as a Christian (not a simple theist), and why I believe they are not inconsistent with God. The main reason is that I am not a biblical literalist. Though this trick might work with Sola Scriptura literalism, Catholics are not bound by such constraints. I have very much enjoyed Andrew's posts on evolution and scientific inquiry because Catholics hold that science will provide the framework of "how" while religion provides the understanding of "why." Evolution does not work against Catholicism, it works very much to show a Divine Hand's nature. But moving back toward the question, Catholics believe the bible to be a library, not a single book. When in different sections of a library, different types of understanding are necessary. In certain sections are poetry, for example - in this case Psalms. Genesis (mythology/allegory), the Gospels (historical accounts), and many others must be read in a different light to derive the actual meaning of the book, just as different library sections require different understandings of the reading therein. Inconsistencies within the text (even though some difficult) do not render God as nonexistent, rather they show problems with the way in which the book was written or is interpreted, because the evidence for God's existence is not found within the bible. The bible is a book of faith & morals, not one of logical argument and scientific precision. Looking for science and total consistency by reading a book literally that was written by many hands in many literary forms will only lead to disaster - which is one of the reasons Protestant Christianity has over 20,000 sects (most are because of different literal readings of the bible). Christ did not unequivocally say He would return during the lifetimes of those around Him, and there is much scholarly debate as to such claims. [Even if He did, Catholicism does not hold that Christ was omniscient, nor is it required that He be infallible. We do believe he never sinned, but He was fully human and could still make a mistake. One can make a wrong turn and not have sinned despite the mistake. But there is room to argue that He wasn't speaking literally, as many of His parables were told...] But those are within Christianity, given that the debaters believe in God. Such things have nothing to do with whether God exists in the first place. Inconsistencies in a non-literal book do not require that the book's topic be completely false...

    Thanks Andrew, I know this is your blog. I will try not to distract the blog much more than I already have. My posts will be scarce from now on to avoid just such a thing.

    -kj-
    ReplyDelete
  6. Kev: I don't mind your responses as long as you keep them civil. They can be as long as you like. I appreciate the contribution to the discussion.

    However, I find one of your points funny. You see the hand of a creator when you look at evolution, but I see a self-organizing system with no outside intervention. Part of me wants to say, "Stop, you are missing something if you see that." If you want to claim that a creator created the initial rules (elemental physics) and then set it all in motion, fine, but to claim any guidance along the path of evolution is missing the point.

    In any case, all this bible/holy book stuff has always been hokey to me. As stated, I've never been indoctrinated and I certainly don't need it in my life.
    ReplyDelete
  7. Although I believe God sustains the existence of everything by keeping it in His mind, I don't think intervention necessary to further evolution or other natural processes. So it would be the former idea. Thanks for the clarification...
    ReplyDelete
  8. "But first, I would like to say that I am very surprised that when you were only 14, you staked your claim to one of the most controversial questions of all time."

    I was 14. Like most 14 year olds, I thought I knew everything. I didn't, and fortunately, I had a damned good freshman biology teacher there to slap my ego in the face with incontrovertible evidence and flawless logic. In the end the claims I had taken as truth from the church were demonstrated as false and I was given the first real taste of critical thinking. The conversion didn't happen overnight, but looking back that was when I stopped being a faithful theist. By age 23ish, I'd come to terms with the resulting paradigm shift.

    "I believe that several religions have left sufficient quanta of historical, philosophical, and structural (design-based) evidence."

    There's evidence that religions exist and gods as concepts exist, of course, but it's impossible for there to be scientific evidence for supernatural phenomena. In other words, there exists no historical or structural evidence for god or gods. At the very most, you have on your hands a god of the gaps argument. I invite you to post anything and everything you have and we can discuss each of them. Seriously, please post the evidence you have reference only in passing in a post in which you're insisting there is evidence.

    "what makes you so sure none of these entities exist at all?"

    I'm an atheist. I disbelieve the existence of god, I don't actively believe that god doesn't exist. I simply remain unconvinced. I believe this also describes Drew.

    "Your second and third questions have nothing to do with if a god exists"

    They have to do with what I can probably assume you specifically believe.

    Don't you believe in the divinity of Jesus? Don't you believe he was infallible? If not, mea culpa. You'd be the first instance of a Catholic I'm aware of that does not have those beliefs, but I suppose there are exceptions to every rule. If, however, you do believe in the words of the Bible and in the infallibility of Jesus, I have presented you with a logical contradiction meaning one or more of the axioms is untrue. So, Kev, do you believe that Jesus is fallible or do you believe that Matthew 16:27-28 and 24:34 are wrong? If you choose the former, why worship unquestionably something/one that's imperfect? If it's the latter, how many contradictions would I have to post for you to question the overall veracity of the supernatural stories of Christianity?

    And weren't you the one that brought up morality? If as you suggest, morality comes from religion/god, how can you explain getting your morals from a decidedly immoral god/Bible?
    ReplyDelete
  9. Will,

    A comment forum is not exactly the best place to lay out a proof for God, unfortunately (for length, mainly). But as far as evidence goes, I think several arguments cast reasonable shadows of evidence that lead to a fair suspicion that God exists. The first would be a design argument, the Teleological Argument of Fine Tuning, more specifically the idea that over 50 values in the universe exist at numerical constants which allow for life to exist. A common rebuttal of this argument asserts that there are an infinite number of possible universes which allow these values a certainty of rendering some universe (us being that universe). However the ad hoc nature of this rebuttal turns Occam's Razor on the atheist and suggests the assertion is not as powerful as many atheists believe. Another evidentiary example is the Ontological Argument, posed first by St. Anselm and recently by Alvin Plaintinga. Another example is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, also posed by Plantinga. Furthermore, after reading Swinburne's Providence & the Problem of Evil (a book that I would highly recommend), I no longer believe the problem of evil is as effective as I once did as a refutation of God. I also believe a very firm case can be made for the historical existence and resurrection of Jesus with the very standards that historical scholars use to evaluate data gleaned from historical records and digs. Further, three or four historically accepted facts have led to the inevitable conclusion that Christ rose from the dead (He was buried by Joseph of Arimathea; He was found by a group of women, who at that time were not allowed to vote or even be a witness in a courtroom; His followers who witnessed the resurrection events were killed for refusing to deny that it happened; and the Jewish idea of a Messiah was steeply opposed to what Christ turned out to be, yet the followers believed in him anyway...) If you are truly interested in hearing the full proof for this, there is a great book called The Case for Christ that lays it out fully with many Christian and Non-Christian scholars' input. I hope that you are both reading the strongest philosophies you can find on either side (in contrast to Dawkins, Harris, & Hitchens), because it would be quite unfortunate if you were making all of your decisions based on what you see of some of the less intellectual Christianities....
    ReplyDelete
  10. Andrew & I have debated your third point a bit, and I still think the logic is lacking. You are making a positive assertion by saying God does not exist. As I said previously, "I still dissent from the idea that "no belief value in x" is equal to "belief that no x exists." If I say, "there are no slave mines in Texas," it is not the same as saying "I have no belief about slave mines in Texas." One is saying something about what exists (or in this case does not exist) and the other is saying something about my mental state of belief, which is a decision unmade about the existence of slave mines in Texas. The two are not equivalent. This argument (or word-play, I should say) does not logically stand as escaping the necessity of proof, despite what some biologist or journalist has told you in his book about why God doesn't exist." See previous posts for more...

    Finally, I believe in the simultaneous full divinity and full humanity of Christ, also known as the Incarnation. This concept has led to much debate within Christianity, but I am of the belief that the perfection of Christ does not mean He never made mistakes. Any Catholics asserting that I am incorrect are either not familiar with the dogma or wrong, I promise you that (Maybe you are confusing Christian with Catholic?). It is possible that Christ did not know that this world would continue as long as it has. In fact, I would be very surprised if any Catholic positively asserted that Christ knew the future. His humanity is central to what we believe, and that is important because it ensures that His sacrifice was a powerful one (if He knew He was right all along the sacrifice would have only been going through the motions. Faith and self-sacrifice, to be genuinely integral to Christ's crucifixion, require that he not be clairvoyant). However Christ still could have been infallible (as Catholics define the term) on issues of morality or other areas. I don't believe the bible needs to be read literally, as I said above (did you even read it?). There are many inconsistencies (wait, there are?! Maybe you should write the pope and all of the Magisterium, I am sure they have no idea about this astounding find of yours! Even if they do, they are just ignorant old selfish men seeking power, right???), but there are also many voices. Just as there are inconsistencies between Hinduism and Catholicism, there can be inconsistencies in scripture that pose no problems. (How do you explain inconsistency in the form light must take according to the double-slit experiment? You must not believe light exists, because two accounts conflict in observing it...)
    ReplyDelete
  11. Ah. I see why the assertion about morality was thrown in there at first. Which leads to another proof of God, the proof from morality. You attest that God is immoral in the Old Testament. But how do you know what is wrong and right? The fact that you see an objective morality as existing in the first place speaks not to simple biology, but something transcendent that can only be attributed to God. Jealousy and greed? Why would that be a problem in your world, where this life is the only one we have. Selflessness is not an attribute of a species that wishes to survive, unless done to further one's own tribe. But greed does further one's own tribe, through inheritance, yet you say it is wrong? Further, if we are just complex apes, there is very little reason why moral rules should exist for us in the first place (not simply social contract theory, that is a bare minimum). For example sexual morality. Why do you believe it is wrong to cheat on your wife? After all, to do so would not be to do anything wrong from the darwinist perspective because you are only trying to propagate your genetic code. The same goes with rape. And you must believe homosexuality is a natural perversion, right? Because to a darwinist, this is the number one sin - failure to further your species. If we are simply high apes, what is the difference between killing an ape and a human being? To say that there is a difference is speciesism and makes no sense. When a lion kills a buffalo, we would never call it murder if the lion just walks away, but we don't know if the buffalo has a consciousness as a human does. It could be that the buffalo does. But this isnt wrong like a human killing a human, is it?

    Thanks!

    -kj-
    ReplyDelete
  12. The Teleological Argument doesn't necessarily have anything to do with god or anything supernatural. The universe exists in a way that happens to support what we understand as life, therefore god exists? I'm glad you mentioned Occam's Razor because it has a wonderful role to play in dissecting that line of thinking.

    The Ontological Argument is nonsense simply because the real existence of something cannot be demonstrated using a priori proof. I'll demonstrate by slightly modifying Anselem's argument:
    1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is that than which nothing greater can be conceived
    2. The Flying Spaghetti Monster may exist in the understanding.
    3. To exist in reality and in the understanding is greater than to exist in the understanding alone.
    4. Therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in reality.
    The biggest assumption is that there is something which can objectively be demonstrated as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Unless you demonstrate in a verifiable way how god (or FSM) is the greatest thing which can be conceived, which isn't possible because "greatness" is subjective, the argument falls apart before even getting to the "I think of it, therefore it is" line of fallacy. The same can be applied to ALL ontological arguments.
    1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
    2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of the Flying Saghetti Monster.
    3. Therefore, the Flying Saghetti Monster exists.

    Are you willing to admit that the existence of god is equal to the existence of the flying spaghetti monster based on the Ontological line of logic?

    For the record, I've read The Case for Christ. I've also read The Case Against the Case for Christ, which turned out to be surprisingly well researched and supported. I invite you to read it (it's available online for free). The Bible was authored well after the proposed lifetime of Jesus, and extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus before the spread of Christianity is... well... basically nonexistent from the perspective of an anthropologist or archeologist. I can go into detail here if you'd like.

    I'm a little frustrated that you don't understand what atheism is. When you were born, you didn't believe in God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit. You had not yet been convinced. Some time in your life, someone or someones presented to you a case for Christianity and you decided to believe. Well, people have presented the same case to Drew and I as they've presented to you, but he and I remain unconvinced. We remain at null theory until we're presented with something more convincing. Do you have any evidence that there are slave mines in Texas? If you do, and the evidence can be verified, I will agree that there are slave mines in Texas, but until then I have no reason to simply take you at your word. Moreover, the more fantastic the claim, the stronger evidence is required to be convincing. If I told you there were slave mines in Texas, a simple article in a newspaper might be enough. If I told you that I can teleport anywhere in the galaxy with the snap of my fingers, this would probably require nothing short of a demonstration for you to be convinced. Hopefully. If you didn't require a great deal of proof for a fantastic claim, that would make you gullible. Which isn't in the dictionary, oddly enough.
    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm glad you verified that you believe the Jesus of the Bible was fallible. The next logical question is: how do you know what Jesus was right about? If Jesus was wrong about something as important as Judgment Day, how do you know he was right about any of the other important things he's attributed with saying? How do you know the wages of sin are death? How do you know that there's really an eternal life? How do you know he was god's only begotten son? This question can be expanded to scripture itself. If you believe some of the Bible is wrong, how can you identify which parts are right?

    "How do you explain inconsistency in the form light must take according to the double-slit experiment? You must not believe light exists, because two accounts conflict in observing it..." Good question. I'm going to answer you with something that's central to my understanding of intellectual honesty: I have no idea. I barely understand the broad strokes of quantum theory, let along mysteries that still elude some of the smartest physicists. Because I don't know, I don't try and fill in the blanks with assumptions or unsupported hypothesis—faith, if you will—I allow my cup to remain empty until an answer can be demonstrated scientifically.

    "But how do you know what is wrong and right?" I don't. There's no such thing as objective morality. There are, however, moral rules set in stone when it comes to the god of the Bible. I didn't put them there, so it's not I who is imposing those standards upon god. I'm holding the god character to his own rules, and clearly he breaks nearly every last one of them. The god of the Bible murders, commits adultery, steals, and is commonly jealous. God is immoral by his own standards, if you believe in the Bible. You, however, only believe in some of the Bible, though, so I have no way of knowing whether or not you've picked and chosen which of these to selectively disregard.
    ReplyDelete
  14. Will - Thanks for the replies.

    The Teleological argument posits that because the world appears to be designed, there must be a designer for the world. That designer is what we call God. I believe you know that end of the argument, you are simply being difficult because you can. As you know, it is much more difficult to prove a positive than to deny a negative...

    Moving on, I don't think you are comprehending the Ontological Argument in reference to God. Of course a priori arguments can prove something's existence. A single bachelor, for example. The Flying Spaghetti Monster fails the argument you have posed it within, because it is a physical being. As such, it is requisite that the being is not all powerful, because it is limited to the rules of our universe, which are a great many. Of course, you will say, then let's say this Monster is outside of space and time and Omnipotent. Well sir, you have just argued that God exists, and you can call him a stick of butter for all I care, the concept is God... I think you should study up on the argument, you seem to be missing most of it here (perhaps not the words, but definitely the concept)...

    Haha, I read that book as well. Funny how different views dismiss different things I guess is all I can say to that. I didn't find it to be convincing, mainly for some of the ad hominem nature of some of the analyses and the fact the Bart Ehrman would probably agree with over half of it and he still remains open to Christianity...

    I stand with my original claim about the positive nature of the atheist claim. The jury is not simply out in your mind (that is called agnosticism), you positively argue that God does not exist. Such a claim requires proof just as God's existence does... I also have an advantage because I can say that I believe belief in God has been programmed into our natures. It takes a good deal of straining to reject God fully (which I don't think either of you do, I simply think the morality bothers you - probably mainly the sexual morality), and I believe the zero position to be belief for many sociocultural reasons inherent to many cultures...

    Like morality. Though you rail against the God's morality in the bible, I think you conveniently skipped all of the questions I asked you about morality. Is rape wrong or not? Not objectively? Then can you give me a circumstance in which it is okay...? I do not believe the morality in the bible to be a reflection of God, but of the people in most all of the biblical cases. Which is not a disproof of God, but a scriptural argument...

    As far as the double slit experiment, there actually is a right answer. But that is irrelevant, because I did not employ the example to show God exists, I used it to prove that two people seeing a phenomenon can independently see two things that are objectively true realities, which you didn't seem to address except to shoot a red herring the opposite direction about "faith."

    I would also have you reread what I said about Christ. I didn't say He was fallible. But if the book is wrong, to a Catholic, there is no problem for scriptural interpretation, because we believe in the Authority of the Church, as handed from Christ to Peter. Christ promised this Authority would not let the Church down, and we believe the Holy Spirit acts as a sort of guard rail to ensure that the Magisterium does not lead the Church into a place where it should not be. But none of this is generic theism, it is all a specific theism that entails me believing in what Christ said...

    What if you are wrong, about everything you have ever believed? You will say "oh but you could be wrong, Allah could be the God!" But first of all you can't win without making a bet, and second if there is a chance that the God is forgiving of those who try I have a fair shot. You may not (which may be what you have always wanted...).
    ReplyDelete
  15. I realize some of my answers here on the last post are a bit sloppy but I have some things to take care of and will get to this when I get a good chunk of time. Sorry. But go ahead and make any points you wish....
    ReplyDelete
  16. Also Will, I think there is a lot you did not address in the post above your last, but of course that is your prerogative. I am not trying to convince either of you to become Christians or something, I am simply saying that it is not inherently unreasonable to be a theist. Though it can be fun to slam people for things they believe (being skeptical is much easier than committing to something, especially if that commitment involves swallowing your pride), but essentially for atheists it shouldn't matter. Let people believe what they believe. You are not called to evangelize your beliefs as Christians are, especially considering the fact that there is no morality or place for them to be saved to. Most of the time, it just comes across as vitriolic whining about how theology has no place anywhere, when in reality, theology is no different in many ways than any other system of beliefs and should be allowed in political and social discourse accordingly (like me saying you can't bring in a particular system of beliefs about anything else that hard science cannot prove, like feminism, or even democracy).
    ReplyDelete
  17. "The Teleological argument posits that because the world appears to be designed, there must be a designer for the world. That designer is what we call God."

    No, it's just that the world appears designed to you. That's it, nothing can be inferred from that conclusion alone. You cannot say, "The earth appears to be designed in my opinion therefore god exists." You skipped some steps. You first have to demonstrate how likely it is that the universe came to be the way it is. The problem is that we can't actually do that. We don't have other universes to compare our universe to in order to establish the likelihood of the strength of gravity or the behavior of electrons because we are only aware of those behaviors in our reality. Once we 1) establish conclusively that there are other realities and 2) demonstrate how unlikely our reality is, we can then and only then speak specifically as to how unlikely our universe truly is. But even if we could do all that, demonstrating conclusively that certain perceived balances in our universe are very unlikely, that doesn't suggest a designer at all. It's less complex for the an unlikely universe to exist than it is for there to be a designer.

    The Telological argument fails every step of the way and, as I said, does never actually makes it to the step of "god" or whatever you want to call a supernatural creator/designer.

    "Of course a priori arguments can prove something's existence."
    Anselem demonstrated conclusively that it can't. As soon as he wrote "the greatest being thinkable", he introduces something logically useless because it cannot be objectively verified. The Abrahamic god is not the greatest being I can think of. The greatest being I can imagine is a super-intelligence that evolved naturally during the first incarnation of the universe and that's survived subsequent big-bangs, amassing the sum total of all knowledge of reality and with it absolute power and perfect logic. This is superior to god in greatness because it does not have to violate natural laws. See? Greatest is entirely subjective. What's the greatest for you is not necessarily the greatest for me and certainly can't be established as the greatest objectively or scientifically or even philosophically.

    Descartes goes on to make another simple mistake: "Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing."... "unless I am wrong" is how that sentence ends. People are fallible and make mistakes. Because he omits this obvious reality, his argument is basically "because I believe god exists, god exists", which is meaningless.

    The reason I chose parody with the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that it's the easiest way to demonstrate flawed logic. You say the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a physical being; you're wrong. The Flying Spaghetti Monster represents god via parody and therefore has all the same traits as god. He is a perfect parody by design. The bottom line is very, very simple: the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real, it's fictitious, and yet it's just as likely to exist as your god. Bam, the Ontological argument for the existence of god has failed. Before you presume to tell me I'm not educated on a subject, you should demonstrate that's the case. Otherwise it's just a red herring.
    ReplyDelete
  18. "I stand with my original claim about the positive nature of the atheist claim." I'm unconvinced of the existence of god. I've never, in my entire life, argued positively that god doesn't exist. What I contend here is that the positive belief in god is illogical. Theists are illogical for believing in god, regardless of whether or not he/she/it exists. God may very well exist, i redly admit that, but until there is a shred of real evidence, positive belief in god simply cannot be logically justified. That's atheism. What you're describing, a positive belief that god does not exist, is called nontheism or "strong atheism". Nearly all atheists are implicitly atheist, or weak atheist (agnostic atheist, if you will). Almost no atheists are strong atheists, or nontheists.

    "Is rape wrong or not? Not objectively? Then can you give me a circumstance in which it is okay…?" Rape is generally wrong from my own subjective morality. Can I imagine a circumstance in which it's okay? Of course. I happen to love biology, specifically zoology, so I know that for some species rape is necessary for their survival and continuation. Dolphins rape, dogs rape, some primates rape; it's a reality of life. If you want to keep this strictly human, I can't personally think of an instance where rape would be morally acceptable… but this isn't about my personal, subjective moral code. This is about the rules the Abrahamic god sets up as absolute… which he then repeatedly and flagrantly violates all along insisting that he's morally perfect. This isn't a scriptural argument, it's about disproving something for which there are inherent contradictions. This is logic 101.

    I am 6' tall.
    I am 5'4 tall.
    Can I, as I am described here, exist? Of course not because I have two contradicting traits.

    A morally perfect god that establishes murder to be morally wrong and then sets about murdering is a contradiction and as such does not exist. Something or somethings above must be untrue. If, as you seem to implicitly suggest, it's the scripture… which scripture? Is god not morally perfect? Is murder moral? Or did god not do the things which which he's attributed in multiple places all across the Bible? Please answer this because no other Christian (or Muslim or Jewish person) I've asked this of has ever even attempted to answer and I take that as dishonest. I don't believe you to be dishonest.

    "As far as the double slit experiment, there actually is a right answer." Yes, there probably is but because I'm unaware of it I'm willing to admit I don't know. I'm afraid your slit illustration fails on a basic level: I can demonstrate Biblical contradictions conclusively whereas the double-slit only appears to be contradictory and can be demonstrated to not be so.
    ReplyDelete
  19. The faith argument was not a red herring, it's central to the issue. It references the Teleological and Ontological fallacies and with your reference to the slits. You're assuming god exists, then you're trying to build something around that assumption. That's not how critical thinking works, that's how faith works. If you approached god from a simply critical thinking standpoint, you'd have to be convinced of god, not necessarily assuming god doesn't exist (as I said above) but simply not having been convinced yet of a positive claim. We're all born atheists and some people are later convinced, usually in childhood before the development of critical thinking, that god exists. I'd be willing to bet you are one of those folks born into a religious family or that learned of an accepted faith before you were an adult. Am I wrong in that assumption?

    "What if you are wrong, about everything you have ever believed?" So be it. If I truly am wrong and by some random chance you (a pseudo-Catholic) happen to be right, as I burn in hell for all eternity despite being a good person but simply because I used critical thinking and logic to tackle the big question, I'll know that the conclusion I reached was supported by empirical evidence that I was born with. In other words, I'll be willing to admit I was wrong for the right reasons instead of being right for the wrong reasons.

    Just FYI, Pascal's Wager is folly. He proposes there are two options—belief and disbelief—when in fact there are myriad on the belief side. A lot of Muslims think you'll be going to hell right along side me (despite the fact the Qur'an says otherwise). A lot of Christians believe that Buddhists will go to hell. Some Buddhists might even think you'll be reincarnated as something unfavorable. Even if you accept Pascal's argument, you're left with a ton of different, conflicting, self-righteous religions that are willing to damn each other to hell for believing something slightly different.

    "I am simply saying that it is not inherently unreasonable to be a theist." This is the core of the discussion as far as I'm concerned. I have come to the conclusion that it's not logical (I prefer logical to reasonable, as reasonable is subjective) to positively believe in something for which there's no verifiable evidence.
    ReplyDelete
  20. The teleological argument: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1817#comic
    ReplyDelete
  21. Will…

    There comes a time when I realize I should stop arguing with a person because it doesn’t bring any further good to a situation. Now seems to be that time, because you seem to be rejecting premises that no reasonable person would and only a philosopher with an axe to grind would try to argue to make a point that does not correspond with reality. Accordingly, this will be my last comment on this thread. You can have the last word!

    Also, one word of advice: If I were you I would be a little more careful about telling adherents of a religion what their religion believes or holds as truth, even if your experience with other adherents or vigorous reading of mainstream media led you to that conclusion. Telling someone what they believe is not only incredibly patronizing and presumptive, but also shows a vast overconfidence in your reasoning abilities to derive that which a group of people believe a God (that you don’t even believe in) revealed to them. You may believe that you understand the world’s rules better than over 5 billion people who believe in a God, but to also have a monopoly on all of the information in their religion is something that undermines your credibility and assures that the other person will dismiss you outright. Surely with all of the brainpower freed up by not having to know anything substantive about any religion’s precise belief (instead being able to rely on poor caricatures and stereotypes provided you by fellow nonbelievers and the American media) allows you to see this, though…

    It seems someone taught you that science and reason necessarily conflict with the idea of God and “proof” is the only way by which someone can know something truly. But many religions see no problems between faith and reason or science. In fact, some encourage and embrace any scientific exploration, despite what Dan Brown novels tell you. Further, the only necessary result of such thinking about proof is solipsism. Though you have drawn a line on “unscientific” data, that choice is very arbitrary as far as your standard of proof is concerned. Your belief system about the world is necessarily made up of a vast majority of that which you do not, can not, or will not prove, for lack of time, patience, or ability. You accept much about the world on “faith,” yet there is only one type of faith you wish to challenge. My favorite philosopher, David Hume, might have a few things to offer you on this subject. If all of the beliefs which you hold were put up to such a stringent test as you have erected against religious faith, what would survive? I have a feeling not much. But inconsistency is not the worst of all flaws, I suppose…
    ReplyDelete
  22. I don’t believe there is knockdown proof God’s existence. Belief in God necessarily requires faith. As does a ruling in a courtroom. In a courtroom, one is asked to evaluate the evidence and decide if it weighs for the plaintiff or the defendant (A totally decisive proof is not even required in death penalty cases, as ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is often advised to be about 90% certainty). So the original question comes. I was asked if there is any evidence that God exists. I believe there is, all around us, through logic, and as given by our moral foundation. These arguments and thoughts evidence the fact that God exists, but of course they do not prove it. Faith is requisite somewhere along the way, though leaps of faith may be further for some than for others. But faith is not to be so easily despised as you love to shame others into believing. Faith is required to having any halfway healthy mental relationship with this world. Without faith, many of us would not truly know anything…

    I urge you to reexamine the Teleological Argument. It is not as easily refuted as you seem to believe. The argument is that over 50 values in this universe, many of which are set to a point at which, if only changed by at most 10^27 would disallow our existence and the existence of matter itself in many circumstances. The low numerical value of these constants make the existence of the universe and our life so improbable that it is more likely that there is a creator than an infinite number of universes (Occam, meet Will). For illustration, imagine a ship travels to Mars, where it finds buildings made of Mars’ stone, including dry fountains, statues made from rock found miles away from the site, and furniture and dinnerware made of a third kind of rock. It could be that Martian winds blew these buildings into existence and carved the statues and furniture and placed them in the houses. But the chances of such a thing happening are so astronomically low that it is much more likely that something designed them and placed them there. This is a common sense judgment, not something that needs to be verified. We don’t have to simulate Martian winds on a composition of Martian sands and stone at different distances in a wind tunnel to know that the chances of this happening mean that a designer must be or have been around on Mars. No tests need to compare other similar planets to see how unlikely such a thing is. The numerical values of such a thing happening on its own speak for themselves. I am not arguing this is necessarily the God I believe exists (that takes a revelatory step). But it is a God. Then you go on to argue about the probability of there being a God, which is absurd and shows your lack of knowledge about statistics. The probability of God existing cannot be determined (as you yourself have admitted), so we must say it is 1 or 0, which is the same as saying nothing at all. Are you really trying to argue that you have come up with a probability that God exists? What values did you use to come up with such a theory? Is there a precise number value to this probability or is it just your gut feeling that the probability is low? The quality of your assertion that the Teleological Argument fails is drastically reduced by your apparent inability to understand statistics, my friend. Throwing in such an assertion about probability might work when you are in a group of your atheist buddies where everyone is patting themselves on the back for their humiliating Christians, but here it won’t fly. Throughout your whole teleological “refutation,” you are ignoring common sense to try and prove a point. But then again, maybe common sense is not so common to those who deny that there is moral right and wrong…
    ReplyDelete
  23. Which brings me to morality. I think you sincerely believe that there is no objective moral truth when you are arguing with a theist. But in real life, I am sure this is not the case. Though you may pretend on the internet that the Nazi killing of over 10 million people was not objectively wrong, I am sure in your heart you know it was so. Then again, perhaps you have spent so much time ignoring your heart that you can no longer hear anything that can penetrate the softness of your brain. There is good and evil, whether you are willing to admit it or not. Why is good better? I am sure you have a conscience that has pled with you when the atheism in your frontal lobe says something is okay to do, (even if the pleading no longer happens because you have ignored it so long). Do you admire someone who violates their own conscience? Of course you don’t, because that would not be true to their personal morality. So therefore someone who is a deliberately hypocritical violator of his own conscience is bad, because they are not being true to their morality. Why? Where does your conscience get this authority? Is it simply a mindless accident of evolution that a conscience can conflict with one’s personal or social morality?

    Now you turn to the typical moral indignation which all atheists display at God. I think you failed the logic 101 which you think you are an expert at, based on your conclusions here. Truly, the only alternative you can derive from the fact that He seems to be morally inconsistent to you in a book written by over 100 different people over a period of over 1500 years is “God doesn’t exist”? The only conclusion that can be derived from your statements about your height is that you don’t exist? No, you could be a liar or crazy, there could be an error with your keyboard that results in two different numbers, you could be giving a range because you don’t know, or your measuring method could have been erroneous. There are many different alternatives than “I don’t exist.” I wonder where you took your logic classes; I will gladly have no one I know attend that university…

    Your height is something that cannot be simultaneously different. But one’s reaction to situations can change, can it not? None have said God is completely static and unable to react to different situations. Furthermore, who required God to abide by those laws which he requires his people to live by? The nature of moral choice entails apparent hypocrisy in certain situations, without exception (I am surprised at your moral sense of hypocrisy in another, since morality is ultimately relative and hypocrisy cannot be said to be objectively wrong). You are seeing God, an infinite being with choice and will, as one-dimensional. It is no wonder none have tried to rectify this view in you, because it doesn’t even reach the starting gate of an argument about the nature of a dynamic being. God is not a rock or something that cannot change in reaction to those with free will, though you may pretend that He is so you can refute a god that not even a child would believe in. Further, I would not maintain that Catholicism or Christianity have a full estimation of God. But they do have the fullest. That doesn’t require us to know everything. Revelation in the bible is an impression of God by a mass of human people, and accordingly could be just as effectively a reflection of themselves as it is of God. Dishonest is requiring God to be static, positing an argument that claims your moral superiority because of some seeming hypocrisy (even though you don’t believe in morality), and claiming victory. A discussion of textual discrepancy cannot take place here because there is not enough space. But I have many, many sources if you are truly interested in learning and not simply in trying to prove some moot point.
    ReplyDelete
  24. As I said, the right answer to the double slit is that light IS simultaneously a wave and particles. It actually IS contradictory. Look it up. But that is impossible! You say. Good thing you aren’t teaching our kids science, I say.

    Okay, on to a priori args. I provided you an example that shows they can work. A bachelor is necessarily single. Yet you said they “can never work.” How does this one fail? Your assertions here, little sense as they do make, depend on your rejection of absolute truth in the first place. Of course you think “greatest” is subjective to you! There can be no greatest when there is not even a true “great.” I will admit that the limits of the English (or maybe all human) language make arguing the Ontological Arg difficult. But simply because you and I disagree on what “greatest” is does not mean there is not a true “greatest.” Your understanding of an idea does not dictate the reality of that idea. Also, the FSM argument doesn’t make any sense in trying to refute God. If it is the same being as God in every way, why not just call it God and try to refute it there? In essence, the FSM was designed to make fun of Christianity and parallels the idea of pink unicorns or a toaster floating around Saturn. However, in taking the qualities of God for a cheap laugh, the FSM does nothing to stay positive arguments for the existence of God. As I said before, call God what you will. That doesn’t change any arguments…

    You are right about your choice to believe or not. But the atheist understanding of hell is just as shallow as the fundamentalist Christian’s. Though you have hinted at a deeper understanding of hell here, understanding hell as a personal choice and not a mandate by God is integral to understanding its nature…

    In reference to your note about the Wager, I already answered this: “you can't win without making a bet, and … [it could be that] there is a chance that the God is forgiving of those who try...”

    As far as reasonableness is concerned, the fact that we have argued about it this long shows that it is not definitely one way or the other, and theism is not as foolish as many atheists think it to be....

    Thank you for the exchange. I have really enjoyed it. Prayers,

    -kj-
    ReplyDelete
  25. Since this is the end, I'm going to try and make my response more succinct.

    "you seem to be rejecting premises that no reasonable person would"
    What's "reasonable" is entirely subjective, so the way you use this here means "you seem to be rejecting premises that I find reasonable". I'm sure you do find your premises reasonable, but that doesn't necessarily make them logical or scientific in any way. You use the term "reason" throughout your responses as if to mean "a thing which people objectively understand as truth", but that's not what the word means. Because reason is subjective, we (humans) have developed methods by which we can demonstrate objective truths: logic and science. There's no room for opinion in logic or science, there's only room for the best and most honest truth. The same applies to "common sense".

    "If I were you I would be a little more careful about telling adherents of a religion what their religion believes or holds as truth,"I'm just as much a student of religion as any religious person (perhaps more so because I don't view one faith as being better of more right than another)." Telling you what you believe is not what I'm even doing, I'm telling you what people of a given faith believe. When I said that Catholics generally believe that Jesus was infallible, I was speaking a true tenant of the church. I wasn't saying you, Kev, believe it, I was saying it's a well established part of Catholic belief. And it very much is. Because you described yourself as Catholic, was it so inappropriate for me to attribute to you basic beliefs of that sect? Also, I wasn't raised atheist, I was raised Lutheran and went to several private religious schools.

    "It seems someone taught you that science and reason necessarily conflict with the idea of God and “proof” is the only way by which someone can know something truly." I've established that science and logic (not reason) conflict with the belief in god (not the idea of god), and proof is the only way by which someone can demonstrate something. Your interpretation of what I've posted misses some key points. The idea of god exists as any concept can exist. God as an entity may very well exist, too. All I've said is the reasons for believing aren't convincing because they either violate logic and science or sidestep them completely.

    "Though you have drawn a line on “unscientific” data, that choice is very arbitrary as far as your standard of proof is concerned." …and then you don't demonstrate how you came to this conclusion.

    "I don’t believe there is knockdown proof God’s existence. Belief in God necessarily requires faith." Yep. To believe in god one must have faith, suspending at least in part logic and science. Just FYI, courtrooms aren't a good example of a crucible for truth. Most lawyers are masters of selling fallacious arguments to juries.
    ReplyDelete
  26. "The argument is that over 50 values in this universe, many of which are set to a point at which, if only changed by at most 10^27 would disallow our existence and the existence of matter itself in many circumstances." What are the specific odds that these 50 values are the way they are? Work it out and please show your work instead of writing "The low numerical value of these constants make the existence of the universe and our life so improbable" because that's how how statistics works. The answer, by the way, is 100%.

    "Though you may pretend on the internet that the Nazi killing of over 10 million people was not objectively wrong, I am sure in your heart you know it was so. "
    My heart pumps blood and my mind is telling me that by my own understanding of morality, the holocaust was wrong. I've had this debate before, so I'm going to try and make this simple: you believe that morality exists outside of humans, like the laws of thermodynamics, yes? We know the laws of thermodynamics are real because they are perfectly consistent. Is morality perfectly consistent?

    "Is it simply a mindless accident of evolution that a conscience can conflict with one’s personal or social morality?" It's not a fluke at all, in fact it's a beautiful part of the evolution of our species. Humans have been a social species since long before we stood erect. Our survival depended a great deal on cooperation. I can't kill a large animal to eat on my own, but with the assistance of other hunters the job becomes less dangerous and easier. Because human interaction is basically necessary for survival, those who were socially adept were more likely to survive. If I was more willing to work with others, think of others, and help others, my own personal odds of survival were increased significantly. Over time (millions and millions of years), the most socially adept were favored and broad social norms developed from what is simply human survival. The empathy you feel for the Jewish people comes from feeling empathy for a fallen fellow tribe member, who now is unable to help contribute to your survival. The fact that our morality stems from our evolutionary roots makes it more real, more connected to what we really are. Instead of an arbitrary code from a supernatural being, we get a clear story of how we came to be "good".

    "Truly, the only alternative you can derive from the fact that He seems to be morally inconsistent to you in a book written by over 100 different people over a period of over 1500 years is “God doesn’t exist”?" I never said god doesn't exist. What I derive is that there is a paradox, therefore some part of the definition of god is wrong. God may exist, but he/she/it cannot exist in a state of paradox. Either the ten commandments are morally relative (subjective, even), the Abrahamic god never murdered anyone, or the Abrahamic god is immoral. Or the Abrahamic god is a fictitious construct written by many different authors and as such is more a reflection of the author and their time than some absolute moral code.

    "None have said God is completely static and unable to react to different situations." No, but it's a central teaching of Christianity that the ten commandments are absolute. Go ask your priest if you don't believe me.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)