Saying Something Doesn't Make It True
Having written several articles about the religious nature of Intelligent Design, it is pointless to keep saying the same things again and again. If someone refuses to listen or to understand what has been explained in court rulings, and by the scientific community, and by secularists, and by me, then saying it yet again won't help to enlighten the hopelessly obstinate religious believer. Trying to explain the difference between faith and science doesn't work at all, because the religious are incapable of separating fantasy from reality. They can't distinguish between objective evidence and wishful thinking.
Victor continues to insist that it is unfair that teaching his creationist bullshit is regarded as unconstitutional. This time, he puts a new twist on it: If teaching ID is unconstitutional, then science should be as well.
I don't think defining religion as a perspective on ultimate reality is uninteresting or useless.In particular in America one of our guiding concepts is keeping matters of religion free of compulsion. Some people on the atheist side want to engage in what I consider to be compulsion, but this often tries to fly under the radar because on the face of things it isn't religion. But, in the sense that matters for things like the Establishment Clause, atheism is very much a religion.In Victor's religion-addled mind, teaching science is tantamount to forcing atheism upon students. And of course, atheism is a religion, too. How does he come to this conclusion? Because some theist commentator said so. Never mind the fact that after complaining about how people never give a definition for religion, she goes ahead and declares atheism to be a religion without defining what religion is. And her main reason for this is bizarre: because even atheists can experience that same emotion of awe that religious people interpret as some kind of spiritual presence. So that makes atheism a religion? Victor apparently has no problem with this ridiculous leap of logic. It tells a story he wants to hear, so he buys it.
For example, it is hypocritical to use the Establishment Clause argue against the teaching of intelligent design on the grounds that those who advocate it intend to undermine materialism and support religious belief, but not use the Establishment clause to argue against the use of evolution to attack religious belief and promote materialism. - Reppert
And how does teaching science force atheism on students? Here's where Victor inadvertently admits something that most theists refuse to admit: the evidence doesn't support belief in God. We know that religion is based on faith, and faith is belief without (or in spite of) evidence. And we know that (legitimate) science is the opposite of faith - its conclusions are based on evidence. So Victor understands that the evidence is not on his side. What he doesn't understand is that science doesn't care where the evidence leads. It doesn't push any particular metaphysical view - it just goes where the evidence leads. It may seem to Victor that science advocates atheism, but science only advocates conclusions based on evidence, and the evidence is what it is.
As for atheism being a religion, let's consider that. We'll start with something that neither Victor nor Kennedy have done. We'll give a definition. Not a definition I make up to suit my own narrow purpose, but straight from Merriam-Webster:
: the belief in a god or in a group of godsIn this context, we can eliminate the last of these, because it is a figurative usage of the word that can apply to many things, such as enthusiasm for football. The other usages of the word involve belief in God or gods, or the system of creeds, ritual, and worship associated with that belief. Atheism is not belief in God, nor does it involve any creeds, rituals, or worship. So atheism clearly doesn't fit the Merriam-Webster definition. The Oxford definition is very similar to this.
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
Does atheism imply some metaphysical view? No. Many atheists are metaphysical naturalists, but certainly not all. Thomas Nagel for example, has supernatural beliefs. Does atheism involve any kind of organized system of belief? No. There is no atheist bible, no doctrine, and no leadership. And please don't try to tell me that Dawkins is some kind of religious leader. He's a guy who writes books and tweets his opinions, not the pope. Atheism is the absence of everything that religion is.
So Victor can say that atheism is a religion, but only by making up his own peculiar self-serving definition. And he can insist that it is hypocritical to advocate teaching science in a science class, but only by abandoning any pretense of intellectual honesty.
It does seem like a stretch to say that atheism is a religion, as I agree with you that it lacks the organization and focus that would put it into the religion category. However, I disagree with some of your points. You say that atheism is not a metaphysical view, but the core of atheism is the belief that gods don't exist which is a metaphysical position. In the great metaphysical who-done-it mystery, that seeks to explain the existence of the world, the atheist has eliminated one of the three suspects, namely gods, based on the fact that the other two suspects, infinite chain of contingent contingents, and eternal physical brute fact can't be conclusively eliminated as suspects based on the available evidence. So, by default, the atheist is saying that either the infinite chain of contingent contingents exist and is the culprit in this metaphysical mystery or an eternal physical brute fact exists and is guilty of causing everything else to exist. You say that, "We know that religion is based on faith, and faith is belief without (or in spite of) evidence." Well, the atheist/naturalist would seem to have faith as there is no conclusive arguments or evidence that either the infinite chain of contingents or the eternal physical brute fact exists.
ReplyDeleteYou say, "the evidence doesn't support belief in God," but the evidence doesn't show that there are no gods or that or the infinite chain of contingents or the physical brute fact exists.
On a side note, what supernatural beliefs does Thomas Nagel have?
I agree that atheism can be defined in various ways, and the way you define it determines what claims you might make. I have always defined atheism as nothing more than a lack of belief, and this has nothing to do with what I do believe. I am an a-unicornist as well. Why? Because I see no reason to believe in unicorns. What does that tell you about my beliefs? Nothing.
DeleteAs for how the universe came to be, I think we agree that there must be something that is either eternal or non-contingent (or both). We don't know what that is, but once again, I see no reason to postulate that it must be a God. The beginning of our known cosmos is entirely consistent with the laws of physics as we understand them, so why should we think that it was a supernatural act? This is not a matter of faith. If I saw reason to conclude that the universe was created supernaturally, then I would. But the evidence is what it is. There's nothing supernatural going on, by all the evidence we have.
And have you never read any of Nagel's work? He thinks that mind is immaterial in nature - not physical, and not explained or accounted for by natural laws. In other words supernatural. This is precisely why theists are so in love with him. See here.
As to your a-unicornism, what this tells me about your beliefs is that you don't believe that unicorns exist. Comparing atheism a-unicornism is not a good comparison because a unicorn, if it existed would be just another contingent object that just happens to exist, while God is a necessary being and is one of the three suspects in our metaphysical who-done-it.
DeleteI would never say that the cause of the world must be God, but I think that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe and other things. There is no evidence of eternal physical objects that have no explanation for their existence.
As to supernatural acts, why do you assume that if God was the cause of everything other than himself that some supernatural miracle had to occur? God could have simply created matter/energy and the physical laws that lead to the big bang. There are mysterious events that have happened in the 13.8 billion year history of the universe, such as the strange dominance of matter over antimatter shortly after the big bang. Does this qualify as a supernatural event? It depends on what one means by supernatural.
I have read Mind and Cosmos. Theists do admire that Nagel is a maverick who dares to question the traditional dogma of naturalism, but Nagel does not believe in any gods or that the mind is an immaterial soul, as a Hylomorphic dualist does. He is vague about what he thinks about the mind because I don't think he knows at this point, but he seems to think of it as a sort of emergent property. I don't see this as a supernatural leaning.
"if it existed would be just another contingent object that just happens to exist, while God is a necessary being and is one of the three suspects in our metaphysical who-done-it."
Delete- How do you know God is necessary? He's not necessary to explain or world, because there are other possibilities. And as I said, if anything exists eternally, why should we assume that it is God? Why couldn't it just be the thing that spawns our cosmos?
"There is no evidence of eternal physical objects that have no explanation for their existence. "
- There is no evidence of a God that has no explanation for its existence, either. The only difference between these two possibilities is that yours has the added attributes that you postulate for your God. And there's reason for me to assume that whatever exists has those attributes. The very idea that there's some intelligence involved is refuted by the sheer randomness of events that have unfolded.
"He is vague about what he thinks about the mind because I don't think he knows at this point, but he seems to think of it as a sort of emergent property. I don't see this as a supernatural leaning. "
- It is supernatural by definition, since he doesn't attribute mind to he laws of nature by which the rest of our physical reality abides. Furthermore, he rejects the evidence and the body of scientific knowledge that regards mind as purely physical. It might not hylomorphic dualism, but is some kind of dualism that he subscribes to.
A necessary being is a metaphysical category that is contrasted with contingent objects/beings. There are certainly other logical possibilities for the cause of the world, but there are problems with these possibilities, as the available evidence shows that physical objects are not eternal or lacking an explanation for their existence.
DeleteAs a necessary being, the explanation for God's existence would be by the necessity of his own existence. Necessary being can't not exist. I'll grant that there is no conclusive evidence for God's existence, but how does my faith in God differ from your faith in an infinite chain of contingent contingents or an eternal physical brute fact? After all, you have no conclusive evidence or arguments that these things exist, and yet you conclude that because it's logically possible that these things exist, that God doesn't exist. You have just as much faith as I do.
im-skeptical wrote: "The very idea that there's some intelligence involved is refuted by the sheer randomness of events that have unfolded."
DeleteThe seeming randomness of events could be nothing more than an illusion and certainly is not conclusive evidence that God does not exist. For example, the seemingly random meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs could have been orchestrated by God.
:A necessary being is a metaphysical category that is contrasted with contingent objects/beings. There are certainly other logical possibilities for the cause of the world, but there are problems with these possibilities, as the available evidence shows that physical objects are not eternal or lacking an explanation for their existence.:
Delete- The problems you see relate to things that exist in our finite cosmos. Of course we don't observe things that are eternal, because any such thing that may exist is not part of our cosmos. But still you postulate something that exists apart from our cosmos, and you have no evidence for it. If you can do that, so can I.
"As a necessary being, the explanation for God's existence would be by the necessity of his own existence. Necessary being can't not exist. I'll grant that there is no conclusive evidence for God's existence, but how does my faith in God differ from your faith in an infinite chain of contingent contingents or an eternal physical brute fact? After all, you have no conclusive evidence or arguments that these things exist, and yet you conclude that because it's logically possible that these things exist, that God doesn't exist. You have just as much faith as I do. "
- That's not true. I don't know what exists outside our world, nor do I claim to know. Where's this faith that you keep accusing me of? All I have said about it is that a god, with all its omni-properties that you believe in is unnecessary. The universe could come about by virtue of some other thing that is simple, natural, and would require less "faith" to believe.
"The seeming randomness of events could be nothing more than an illusion and certainly is not conclusive evidence that God does not exist. For example, the seemingly random meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs could have been orchestrated by God."
- Could have, but what reason do I have to believe that?
im-skeptical wrote: "That's not true. I don't know what exists outside our world, nor do I claim to know. Where's this faith that you keep accusing me of?"
DeleteFor evidence of your faith I present exhibit A where you wrote, "But still you postulate something that exists apart from our cosmos, and you have no evidence for it. If you can do that, so can I." Based on the logical possibility that there might be some mysterious eternal physical brute fact that exists outside the observable universe, you conclude that this thing, and not God, is the explanation for our universe. Since this physical brute fact is outside our universe it is not possible to observe or test it, hence you have no evidence that this thing exists. Furthermore, all the evidence that we do have suggests that physical objects are finite and have explanations for their existence, so the idea of an eternal physical brute fact runs contrary to what we know about the world.
The fact that you can't identify what exactly the eternal brute fact is doesn't change the fact that as an atheist/naturalist you have committed yourself to believing that this thing exists and is the explanation for the universe even though you have no proof that this is the case. You said, "Faith is belief without (or in spite of) evidence," and you have no evidence for your belief in the physical eternal brute fact, so by your own definition you clearly have faith.
im-skeptical wrote: "The universe could come about by virtue of some other thing that is simple, natural, and would require less "faith" to believe."
Could have, but what reason do I have to believe that? What could be simpler than a being with no parts?
im-skeptical wrote: "Could have, but what reason do I have to believe that?"
Do you realize that this is the same exact response that theist apologists give to skeptics who try to refute the axiological argument by saying that objective moral facts might not exist?
"Based on the logical possibility that there might be some mysterious eternal physical brute fact that exists outside the observable universe, you conclude that this thing, and not God, is the explanation for our universe. Since this physical brute fact is outside our universe it is not possible to observe or test it, hence you have no evidence that this thing exists. Furthermore, all the evidence that we do have suggests that physical objects are finite and have explanations for their existence, so the idea of an eternal physical brute fact runs contrary to what we know about the world."
Delete- There's a lot of contradiction going on here. First, you contradict what I said. I never said that it's "this thing, and not God". What I said was "I don't know what exists outside our world, nor do I claim to know." Then, you berate me for having no evidence of this thing, whatever it might be. Exactly. That's why I don't claim to know what it is. You, on the other hand, do make a claim about what exists, and you have no evidence for it. So I'm not the one who is guilty of making claims without evidence - you are. Now let's get something straight about what evidence we have. Everything we can observe is necessarily finite, because it exists within our finite cosmos. That says absolutely nothing about what might exist outside the bounds of the finite cosmos. Furthermore, you yourself do not limit your beliefs about what exists to finite physical contingent things, so I really don't know what point you're trying to make. If you follow your own logic, you couldn't believe in God, so you are contradicting yourself. Yet, you think I should follow that logic to reject belief in any other possibilities. What gives?
"The fact that you can't identify what exactly the eternal brute fact is doesn't change the fact that as an atheist/naturalist you have committed yourself to believing that this thing exists and is the explanation for the universe even though you have no proof that this is the case. You said, "Faith is belief without (or in spite of) evidence," and you have no evidence for your belief in the physical eternal brute fact, so by your own definition you clearly have faith."
- Again, I said something is the cause of the universe, but I don't claim to know what it is.
"Could have, but what reason do I have to believe that? What could be simpler than a being with no parts?"
- The reason is still simplicity. Your divinely simple God is anything but simple. He's the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. He's the source of human intelligence, but he knows much more than the greatest genius that ever lived. He's the source of human morality, but no human is free of sin. And he's so powerful, he can create a universe in a single bound, and it's all planned from start to finish - but the world that emanates from him is the epitome of complexity, full of suffering, and full of unfortunates who are destined to suffer for eternity. How does any of this comport with divine simplicity?
"Do you realize that this is the same exact response that theist apologists give to skeptics who try to refute the axiological argument by saying that objective moral facts might not exist?"
- Now that's a really poor argument. To say "why should I believe it?" is simply to say that I don't have evidence to support the belief.
im-skeptical wrote: "There's a lot of contradiction going on here. First, you contradict what I said. I never said that it's "this thing, and not God". What I said was "I don't know what exists outside our world, nor do I claim to know."
DeleteSo, you are completely open to the possibility that the explanation for the universe is God? If so, this would seem to clash with your past comments and claim of being a naturalist.
im-skeptical wrote: "That says absolutely nothing about what might exist outside the bounds of the finite cosmos. Furthermore, you yourself do not limit your beliefs about what exists to finite physical contingent things, so I really don't know what point you're trying to make. If you follow your own logic, you couldn't believe in God, so you are contradicting yourself."
My point is that there is no good reason to think that the ultimate source of the world is an eternal physical brute fact because all the data we have is that physical things are finite and have explanations for their existence.
Nothing I've said has ruled out God's existence.
im-skeptical wrote: "The reason is still simplicity. Your divinely simple God is anything but simple...How does any of this comport with divine simplicity?"
To say that God is simple is to say that he is an immaterial being who is not dependent on the existence of parts that need to be put together. This goes along with God's Aseity--that his existence is dependent on nothing.
Nothing that you're saying in this paragraph makes God's existence any less likely. I don't see any reason to expect that God's creation would be exactly like himself.
im-skeptical wrote: "Now that's a really poor argument. To say "why should I believe it?" is simply to say that I don't have evidence to support the belief."
If you are really so open to God's existence then why is it good enough to say that it's possible that objective moral facts are an illusion while it's not good enough to say that the seemingly randomness of event could be an illusion? This seems to be a double standard.
"So, you are completely open to the possibility that the explanation for the universe is God? If so, this would seem to clash with your past comments and claim of being a naturalist."
Delete- Absolutely. I am open to any explanation that is supported by evidence. All you have to do to get me to abandon my naturalism is show me convincing (ie. objective) evidence. Currently, the preponderance of the evidence points me to naturalism. All the evidence we have is that the things that exist are physical things that adhere to natural law. So until I see other evidence, I'm sticking with naturalism.
"My point is that there is no good reason to think that the ultimate source of the world is an eternal physical brute fact because all the data we have is that physical things are finite and have explanations for their existence. Nothing I've said has ruled out God's existence."
- And my point is that we both agree that there is some cause of the universe, and whatever that cause is, it is something that exists outside the universe. And all the data we have is that things are natural, not supernatural. I agree that God's existence hasn't been ruled out, but you have to agree that a natural cause is not ruled out either.
"To say that God is simple is to say that he is an immaterial being who is not dependent on the existence of parts that need to be put together. This goes along with God's Aseity--that his existence is dependent on nothing.
Nothing that you're saying in this paragraph makes God's existence any less likely. I don't see any reason to expect that God's creation would be exactly like himself."
- To say that God is divinely simple is nothing but a platitude. How can you know anything at all about the attributes of God (assuming he exists at all)? It seems to me that if you succeed in making the argument that there must be some kind of transcendent first cause of the universe, you still have no basis for claiming that it has any particular attributes or characteristics. Furthermore, the attributes that you do claim for this God contradict the reality of the world. To explain away all the randomness, all the imperfection, all the suffering, you need to devise strange justifications that only serve to prove the point that this God isn't all he is cracked up to be.
"If you are really so open to God's existence then why is it good enough to say that it's possible that objective moral facts are an illusion while it's not good enough to say that the seemingly randomness of event could be an illusion? This seems to be a double standard."
- Not if you think about what I'm saying. In the one case (randomness) there is objective evidence that supports the thesis, and in the other (God's existence), there isn't. The single standard that I adhere to is evidence.
im-skeptical wrote: "Absolutely[I'm completely open to God's existence ]...So until I see other evidence, I'm sticking with naturalism."
DeleteNaturalism is completely incompatible with being open to God's existence. Either you are open to God's existence or not. If you are a naturalist then you are not open to God's existence, as a main presupposition of naturalism is that gods don't exist.
im-skeptical wrote: "Currently, the preponderance of the evidence points me to naturalism. All the evidence we have is that the things that exist are physical things that adhere to natural law."
This is just another example of your inconsistency. You say that there is no [conclusive] evidence that immaterial objects exist. Fair enough. But then you make the leap from saying that it's logically possible that some mysterious physical brute fact exists outside of our universe, even though all the evidence that we have shows that physical objects are neither eternal nor inexplicable, so I'm siding with naturalism. This seems to be a double standard.
im-skeptical wrote: "I agree that God's existence hasn't been ruled out, but you have to agree that a natural cause is not ruled out either."
I never claimed to be absolutely certain that God exists--I say that God most likely exists. The only thing I'm absolutely certain about is that some thinking thing I call "I" exists. I do admit that it's logically possible that an eternal physical brute fact exists, and that this thing is what caused the universe to exist.
This brings me back to one of my main points. You say I have faith because I have beliefs that aren't conclusively proven, but so do you. By your own definition of faith, you have faith too.
im-skeptical wrote: "To say that God is divinely simple is nothing but a platitude. How can you know anything at all about the attributes of God (assuming he exists at all)?
DeleteWell, I don't KNOW with absolute certainty what God's attributes are, but I think that we can extrapolate them by using reason. If God isn't simple then Dawkin's who designed God? argument would have force because we would need to explain where the parts came from that make up God, as well as how these parts were put together. Not to mention what caused God to be. However, if God is a simple being who posses Aseity then there is no need to explain who designed God and he is not dependent on the existence of matter or anything else. The explanation for God's existence is by the necessity of his own nature.
im-skeptical wrote: "Furthermore, the attributes that you do claim for this God contradict the reality of the world. To explain away all the randomness, all the imperfection, all the suffering, you need to devise strange justifications that only serve to prove the point that this God isn't all he is cracked up to be."
I don't think that this is true at all--I think God's attributes are completely compatible with the world we live in. As I said before, much of the randomness you think you see could be nothing more than an illusion. The imperfect world that we live in is compatible with a good, powerful God in that this is the best possible world that contains free creatures. God could have perfectly good reasons for permitting evil--reasons that may not be apparent to us finite creatures.
im-skeptical wrote: "Not if you think about what I'm saying. In the one case (randomness) there is objective evidence that supports the thesis, and in the other (God's existence), there isn't. The single standard that I adhere to is evidence."
What evidence do you have that say, the meteorite that killed the dinosaurs, was truly random in that no intelligent agent arranged the world in such a way that the event in question would happen. Just saying that it looks random to you doesn't make it so. So, in actuality, you have no evidence. In much the same way, if I responded that it's just obvious that torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong, and you say that this is just an illusion, we are on exactly the same footing. I can't conclusively prove that objective moral facts exist anymore than you can prove that most, if not all, events are random.
"Naturalism is completely incompatible with being open to God's existence. Either you are open to God's existence or not. If you are a naturalist then you are not open to God's existence, as a main presupposition of naturalism is that gods don't exist."
DeleteAgreed. They are incompatible. But I am still open to evidence. If the evidence shows that there are supernatural events, then I must abandon my supernatural view. All the evidence I have seen so far tells me that there is nothing supernatural, so I must believe that naturalism is the correct view. Just show me evidence to the contrary.
"This is just another example of your inconsistency. You say that there is no [conclusive] evidence that immaterial objects exist. Fair enough. But then you make the leap from saying that it's logically possible that some mysterious physical brute fact exists outside of our universe, even though all the evidence that we have shows that physical objects are neither eternal nor inexplicable, so I'm siding with naturalism. This seems to be a double standard."
- You added the word 'conclusive'. I believe I said 'objective'. Nothing can be proved conclusively. We have to believe what is deemed most likely by virtue of that available evidence. But I have already addressed this same objection of yours twice in this thread. From now on, every time you want to raise this point, just go back and read what I already said in reply.
"I never claimed to be absolutely certain that God exists--I say that God most likely exists. The only thing I'm absolutely certain about is that some thinking thing I call "I" exists. I do admit that it's logically possible that an eternal physical brute fact exists, and that this thing is what caused the universe to exist."
- Fine. What I believe is based on evidence. What you believe is most likely is not based on evidence. It is based on religious faith.
"This brings me back to one of my main points. You say I have faith because I have beliefs that aren't conclusively proven, but so do you. By your own definition of faith, you have faith too."
- Wrong. I didn't talk about conclusive proof, except to say that it doesn't exist. What I keep trying to tell you, and what you keep trying not to hear, is that what we believe should be based on evidence. There is just no observable evidence for what you believe. What I believe is based on the fact that absolutely everything in our experience is entirely consistent with natural laws. EVERYTHING - NO EXCEPTIONS - EVER. That's powerful evidence.
As for your discussion about the attributes of god, I'll address that soon.
im-skeptical: "Agreed. They are incompatible. But I am still open to evidence. If the evidence shows that there are supernatural events, then I must abandon my supernatural view. All the evidence I have seen so far tells me that there is nothing supernatural, so I must believe that naturalism is the correct view. Just show me evidence to the contrary."
DeleteThat sounds like a good answer on paper, but how does this work in reality? If one begins with the assumption that supernatural entities and events don't exist then how can that person ever come to believe that naturalism is false if supernatural things do exist? This is like someone saying, "Dogs don't exist, but I'm open to the possibility that they do. Many people have showed me creatures with four legs that bark, but these were obviously the first instance of a barking cat, or people hallucinating that their pet wolf was a dog."
im-skeptical: "Fine. What I believe is based on evidence. What you believe is most likely is not based on evidence. It is based on religious faith."
You have presented no conclusive or objective evidence for an eternal physical brute fact. Saying that it's possible that some mysterious physical object, which is different from all known physical objects, might exist beyond what we can observe isn't even remotely close to evidence. This belief is based on naturalistic faith.
im-skeptical: "There is just no observable evidence for what you believe."
There is no observable evidence for a naturalistic alternative to God.
im-skeptical: "What I believe is based on the fact that absolutely everything in our experience is entirely consistent with natural laws."
The problem is that it simply doesn't follow that because there is a natural order that therefore God doesn't exist or that naturalism is true. We both agree that there is a natural order, the question is who or set that order up, or if that order is just a brute fact.
I might add that saying that there has never been a supernatural event is highly contentious, and would come down to what one counts as evidence.
This is where we seem to part ways on a matter of definition. Evidence is what we observe. I say my beliefs are based on evidence, because what we observe is natural things that behave in a manner consistent with natural laws. That is real evidence. We do not observe supernatural events, ever. You can argue that they might exist, and I would agree, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't ever observe them. Sure, there are stories and anecdotes. Some people interpret their inner emotional experiences as miracles, some people read their book of mythology and insist that they have solid proof of these events, but none of this is objective and verifiable. Show me some real evidence - not just a story, or what someone says that isn't available for the rest of the world to witness - and then i"ll have reason to believe it. Until then, I don't have reason to believe it, and neither do you, unless you simply accept it by faith. But faith is not good epistemology.
Deleteim-skeptical wrote: "Evidence is what we observe. I say my beliefs are based on evidence, because what we observe is natural things that behave in a manner consistent with natural laws."
DeleteThe fact that there is a natural order doesn't necessarily support naturalism, as God could be the cause of the natural order.
im-skeptical wrote: "We do not observe supernatural events, ever."
No, you don't observe them, and how could you because you're beginning with the presupposition that supernatural things don't exist. It doesn't even necessarily follow that because one never observes a miracle that a miracle has never happened or will happen. Just because all you have observed is black swans, it doesn't follow that white swans don't exist.
im-skeptical wrote: "Show me some real evidence - not just a story..."
There are numerous accounts of people being amazingly healed after prayer. Of course since you haven't directly observed these events, you'll explain them away because you begin with the presupposition that supernatural events don't exist, and all you've seen are black swans, so white swans don't exist. Do you really reject all eyewitness accounts or just the ones that challenge your beliefs?
im-skeptical wrote: "But faith is not good epistemology."
Apparently it's good enough for you when it comes to your belief in an eternal physical brute fact.
"No, you don't observe them, and how could you because you're beginning with the presupposition that supernatural things don't exist."
Delete- That's not true. We don't observe them, regardless of any presuppositions we make. As a theist, you do not make naturalist presuppositions, but you would be lying if you ever claim to see an objectively observable supernatural event, because nobody ever sees them. Period.
"Just because all you have observed is black swans, it doesn't follow that white swans don't exist."
- But when we see white swans for the first, and we have reason to believe that they exist. Show me a supernatural event, and i'' have reason to believe that it exists.
"Do you really reject all eyewitness accounts or just the ones that challenge your beliefs? "
- I reject stories and anecdotes that cannot be objectively verified. Evidence is the reason for belief. And speaking of challenging my beliefs, don't you think that question is a bit hypocritical, given that no amount of evidence, logic or reason will ever be sufficient to challenge your faith?
"Apparently it's good enough for you when it comes to your belief in an eternal physical brute fact."
- As I said, I don't know what exists, not do I claim to. But I do know that there is better reason to believe a natural explanation than a supernatural one. I have attempted to give you my reasons. You reject reason if favor of faith.
im-skeptical wrote: "As a theist, you do not make naturalist presuppositions, but you would be lying if you ever claim to see an objectively observable supernatural event, because nobody ever sees them. Period."
DeleteWow, so all the countless number of people who have said that they have experienced a supernatural event are lying! This is a textbook example of begging the question.
im-skeptical wrote: "I reject stories and anecdotes that cannot be objectively verified."
Describe the process of objective verification.
im-skeptical wrote: "And speaking of challenging my beliefs, don't you think that question is a bit hypocritical, given that no amount of evidence, logic or reason will ever be sufficient to challenge your faith?"
The difference is that I admit that I have faith while you tell yourself that you don't.
im-skeptical wrote: "You reject reason if favor of faith."
Simply asserting that a physical eternal brute fact might exist beyond our field of observation is hardly reason. It certainly is not convincing. Likewise, pointing out that there is a natural order that very well could be the product of a transcendent being does not give me reason to accept naturalism. Finally, your claim that because you've never personally witnessed a miracle, therefore there has never been a miracle is not convincing. So, you've given no reason to adopt your naturalistic faith.
Keith, the God hypothesis you subscribe to is as it always has been, a primitive and arcane conjuration that tells us everything about humanity's early attempts at explaining the natural world and little of the reality of that world. It is a self-serving place marker for all the things we didn't know, used as we now know and understand as a means of explaining the unexplainable, during humanity's age of stupendous and abiding ignorance before the Enlightenment and the rise of the new science that "...progressively undermined not only the ancient geocentric conception of the cosmos, but, with it, the entire set of presuppositions that had served to constrain and guide philosophical inquiry." Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. The god hypothesis is a circular argument: 1. God exists. 2. You can't prove that He doesn't exist. 3. Therefore God exists.
ReplyDeleteYour, "The seeming randomness of events could be nothing more than an illusion and certainly is not conclusive evidence that God does not exist. For example, the seemingly random meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs could have been orchestrated by God" is a testament to the conjurations so emblematic of the non-explanatory character of unfounded religious belief. "Could have been orchestrated by God" has the explanatory power of a Marvel Comic from which such fantasies derive.
No Keith. The God explanation simply doesn't cut the mustard anymore at any level of reasoned analysis be it philosophical or scientific, and I might add, an ever increasingly tenuous and problematic concept to sustain in contemporary theology, given the failure of religion to prevent the rapid flow of adherents away from supernatural [let's call it for what it really is, unnatural] superstition as an explanatory tool.
Papalinton wrote: "Keith, the God hypothesis you subscribe to is as it always has been, a primitive and arcane conjuration that tells us everything about humanity's early attempts at explaining the natural world..."
DeleteThis is nothing more than the genetic fallacy--people's supposed motivations have no bearing on God's existence. You end the first paragraph with a straw man theistic argument that I could just parody back to by replacing God with eternal physical brute fact.
Papalinton wrote: "Could have been orchestrated by God" has the explanatory power of a Marvel Comic from which such fantasies derive."
And yet you can't disprove that God doesn't orchestrate events or prove that the meteorite impact was a random event.
Papalinton wrote: "No Keith. The God explanation simply doesn't cut the mustard anymore at any level of reasoned analysis..."
This is nothing more than your opinion.
I note Plank's egregious whining over at DI HERE The disingenuous and dishonest mewling he resorts to at a site which he knows we have no access to to defend ourselves, simply speaks volumes of the spleen and unbridled hate that so-called Christians are capable of. It demonstrates the utter intellectual paucity and failure of Christian belief and Christian schooling and education in setting their moral, ethical and principled character. Such mewling demonstrates nothing more than a continuation of the long and abominable history of fraudulent, underhanded, evil and corrupt nature of Christianity under which slavery, inquisitions, witch-hunting, homophobia, women's rights and child sexual abuse thrived not only over the centuries but are with us to this very day, all committed under the self-serving eye of the Catholic Magisterium. That baleful history puts a lie to the claim that the religious have any objective moral compass. Plank perpetuates that unhealthy and indifferent history.
ReplyDeleteHe can say what he pleases. He's only showing that he is thin-skinned, because he can't stand a two-way exchange with someone who disagrees that Dante's Divine Comedy is "The Single Greatest Product of Human Genius of all Time".
DeleteVictors comment is also interesting: "The biggest lesson I have learned over the past few years is that dialogue between radically opposed viewpoints is very desirable, but it is only possible if the parties in the dialogue accept, in addition to their partisan purpose of advancing their own view, also accept a common goal of understanding one another better, and promoting an understanding those differences."
What he's saying is that planks is welcome back at his echo chamber, where we don't tolerate those who disagree, because you know, we're all about dialog and understanding one another, and the last thing we want to do is converse with them if they say things we don't like.
The single greatest product of human genius, if there is such a thing, must be the elegance and simplicity of Charles Darwin's insight that gave us the intellectual and scholarly field of biological evolution, evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation. This discovery, in one fell swoop, simply swept away theological explanation of the 'GODDIDIT Hypothesis' and consigned it to the dustbin of history, where the balance of religious hokum is also now being consigned, much to the caterwauling chagrin of the religiose. To be sure, religion will live on as an interesting historical relic, and insight into how we artfully manipulated our proclivity for supernatural superstition as an early explanatory tool before science and reason became the 'force majeur' that it is today.
ReplyDeleteThere is little doubt Dante's Divine comedy is 'widely considered the preeminent work of Italian literature[1] and is seen as one of the greatest works of world literature.' [Wiki] It is a testament to the human capacity for ingenuity, imagination and fictional writing. There are equally great literature works by others, Shakespeare, Chaucer et al, that have shaped the human imagination. But they do not explain the world, let alone the natural world as does Darwin, or Crick, Watson and Wilken's research into the basic building blocks of life, DNA.
Try as they might, the Planks of the world might wish to imagine Dante's contribution as reality, but his claim that Dante's Divine Comedy is "The Single Greatest Product of Human Genius of all Time", simply serves to demonstrate the inertia of his intellect and self-inflicted ignorance, shaped as it is on the increasingly inconsequential and highly problematic epistemological substratum of religious belief.
He needs to ditch the religious woo if he is to be an interlocutor with any semblance of credible standing into the future.
It's not just a question of believing religious bullshit. I don't care how he interprets Dante. Everybody in the world agrees that Dante had a geocentric view of the cosmos. That's what I was trying to point out in a quite civil manner, but he isn't willing to talk about it.
DeletePlanks also castigated me for reading Psalm 14 the same way most people do: "You can be as patient as ever, and clearly lay out where he is mistaken about various subjects (such as his complete misinterpretation of Psalm 14), and it's like nailing jello to the wall. Nothing sticks. You might as well be talking to a rock."
I think he should try reading Anselm and Aquinas, both of whom agree with my interpretation. But of course if he was interested in some civil discussion, I could tell him this directly. He simply can't stand talking with people who have different views.
Yes, yes and yes. Plank subscribes to Apologetics, that very 'fertile' yet irretrievably problematic field of theological rationalisation which is itself a moving feast of opinion upon opinions. I'm reminded of Mark K Bilbo, alt.atheism Usenet newsgroup, insightful remark: "The very need of a thing called 'apologetics' is example of the weakness of the theistic argument. 'God' always needs apologies, rationalisations, explanations, equivocations, excuses."
DeletePapalinton wrote: "The single greatest product of human genius, if there is such a thing, must be the elegance and simplicity of Charles Darwin's insight that gave us the intellectual and scholarly field of biological evolution, evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation. This discovery, in one fell swoop, simply swept away theological explanation of the 'GODDIDIT Hypothesis' and consigned it to the dustbin of history..."
DeleteHow does evolution explain what caused the existence of the finely tuned universe we inhabit? How does evolution prove that the naturalistic alternative to God, the eternal physical brute fact, exists? How do you know that God didn't use a theistic version of evolution to create the organisms that we see today?
"How does evolution explain what caused the existence of the finely tuned universe we inhabit? How does evolution prove that the naturalistic alternative to God, the eternal physical brute fact, exists? How do you know that God didn't use a theistic version of evolution to create the organisms that we see today?"
DeleteAnd the bible does? I don't mean to be mean, but, pull the other leg. Give it a break Keith with all that pre-scientific stuff. Inveigling a god into the discussion simply doesn't cut the mustard anymore.
Papalinton wrote: "And the bible does? I don't mean to be mean..."
DeleteI'm still not seeing any arguments or evidence to support your belief in an eternal physical brute fact, so I'm going to assume that you have none. The lack of substance in your comments simply doesn't cut the mustard anymore.
I don't make one. Where's your evidence for an eternal non-physical, putatively live, non-human entity [thing? no-thing?] as a brute fact, Keith? What I do make is that evidence for a natural world/universe simply puts a lie to the hackneyed and overworked religious tradition of belief in supernatural superstition. Belief in trinitarian ghosts, spirits, nephilim, seraphim, malevolent grandpas, winged personages, floating messiahs and other things that go bump in the night, wafting in and out across the natural/supernatural divide as they might, at will, occasionally interfering with the physics of the natural world is crass and sophomoric. No adult in their right mind would continue to subscribe to such nonsense in the light of reason and science. Religion is the remnant dinosaur of human thought, soon to follow alchemy, astrology and shamanism as interesting historical relics of humanity's earliest attempts at explaining the real world during our great age of ignorance perpetuated by the hegemony of Christian thinking in its halcyon days. Those days are inexorably drawing to a close as better, more informed and sophisticated explanatory models are developed.
DeletePapalinton wrote: "I don't make one."
DeleteOh, OK, so you're just asserting that an eternal physical brute fact exists. Well, as the late Christopher Hitchens said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Let me formulate your argument: 1. Papalinton asserts that an eternal physical brute fact exists. 2. You can't prove that it doesn't exist. 3. Therefore an eternal physical brute fact exists.
Papalinton wrote: "Where's your evidence for an eternal non-physical, putatively live, non-human entity [thing? no-thing?] as a brute fact, Keith?"
My inductive argument for an eternal, necessary (note that God is not a brute fact) transcendent immaterial being of immense power is that God is the best explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, the existence of the universe; the existence of change; the finely tuned nature of the universe and everything in it; the existence of objective morals and duties; and the existence of consciousness. For deductive support for this argument please see The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology and Summa Theologica. This argument does not prove God's existence with absolute certainty, but it's vastly better than your mere assertion.
Papalinton wrote: "What I do make is that evidence for a natural world/universe simply puts a lie...humanity's earliest attempts at explaining the real world during our great age of ignorance perpetuated by the hegemony of Christian thinking in its halcyon days."
This is just a long section of empty rhetoric.
Papalinton wrote: "Those days are inexorably drawing to a close as better, more informed and sophisticated explanatory models are developed."
You know Voltaire said that religion would be buried before he was, and 237 years after his death faith still stands. The truth can't be buried.
"My inductive argument for an eternal, necessary (note that God is not a brute fact) transcendent immaterial being of immense power is that God is the best explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, the existence of the universe; the existence of change; the finely tuned nature of the universe and everything in it; the existence of objective morals and duties; and the existence of consciousness."
DeleteOld, tired, trite; predicated on supernatural superstition. The inductive argument for god has as much value as the inductive argument for the existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden, and with about as much credibility. Prof Michael Martin, American philosopher, accounts for your 'inductive' argument thusly:
"Religious experiences are like those induced by drugs, alcohol. mental illness, and sleep deprivation: They tell no uniform or coherent story, and there is no plausible theory to account for discrepancies among them." QED
Papalinton wrote: "Old, tired, trite; predicated on supernatural superstition. The inductive argument for god has as much value as the inductive argument for the existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden, and with about as much credibility."
DeleteIt doesn't follow that because something is old that it is false. The Pythagorean theorem dates back to around 500 B.C.E. Are we to conclude that because it is old that it is false? Besides, the inductive argument and some of its support is relatively new.
Saying that the argument is predicated on supernatural superstition is an attack on a straw man, as the argument begins with the observation that things like the universe exist and then argues that God is the most likely explanation for these things.
Comparing my argument to the argument for fairies is a poor analogy because fairies, if existed, would be contingent limited creatures that cannot account for things like the existence of the universe or fine tuning, while God can, as he is not a contingent, limited being.
Papalinton wrote: "Prof Michael Martin, American philosopher, accounts for your 'inductive' argument thusly...QED"
First of all, my argument doesn't even mention the Argument From Religious Experience, so this comment doesn't even address my argument.
Secondly, this is the genetic fallacy, as even if it's true that all religious experiences are false, it doesn't follow that God doesn't exist. Also, Martin's comment doesn't address those sane, clear minded people who have religious experiences.
Finally, I think that the fact that religious experiences are so universal and spread throughout time is a bigger problem for naturalism then it is for theists.
So, your counter argument (if your comments even count as an argument) fails, and you still have offered no arguments or evidence for the existence of an eternal physical brute fact. As I said before, even an inconclusive argument is better than your mere assertion.
Keith wrote: "It doesn't follow that because something is old that it is false."
DeleteYou are right there. But for Christianity, it is old, tired and trite, predicated as it is on supernatural superstition. The Pythagorian theorem has not changed one iota from the moment of its discovery. It is truly a concept universally acknowledged. Christianity and the Christian god? Not so much. Not universally acknowledged nor ever universally accepted [simply bring the expansive breadth of African Indigenous Religions, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism to the forefront of your mind to appreciate the bewildering range of competing, conflicting, but above all uniquely human conjurations of the God artifice].
Even more compelling and confirmed in research data, the christian mythos in the US, as everywhere else in the Western world, is becoming increasingly problematic and difficult to defend at every point where its claims bump up against scientific knowledge. Christian claims that run counter to reasoned logic underpinning the known natural world and which cannot be supported or verified by the sciences have largely been philosophically and epistemically corralled as products and misguided phantasies of Christian supernatural superstition.
"Saying that the argument is predicated on supernatural superstition is an attack on a straw man.."
Spot on. It is incontrovertibly an attack on a straw man, a directed and well targeted take down of the religious illusion of a Cosmic Puppeteer pulling the strings of the universe which is itself the risibly quintessential strawman argument that warrants only a strawman level of argument to dispatch it.
If god is the best explanation then which God? Mithra, Yahweh, Ra, Horus, jesusgod, Ganesha, Shiva, the Great Water Serpent of the Aborigine Dreamtime? All have been touted, professed and claimed for millennia without even a hint of a silhouette.
Keith, the delightful foot-in-mouth irony is that your inconclusive argument IS but mere assertion, no less. Your God fantasy is simply a projection of intentionality and purpose where none exists and is amply described, explained and accounted as a function of mentation within research into Theory of Mind. There is no god out there, Keith.
Papalinton wrote: "It is truly a concept universally acknowledged. Christianity and the Christian god? Not so much."
DeleteSo, if there's multiple viewpoints of interpretations of something then that thing doesn't exist or is false. By the this reasoning, the fact that the earth has been said to be flat and round shows that the earth doesn't exit or is false. Also, since there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics, according to your reasoning, the quantum world doesn't exist or QM is false.
Papalinton wrote: "It is incontrovertibly an attack on a straw man, a directed and well targeted take down of the religious illusion of a Cosmic Puppeteer..."
Saying that something is, "predicated on supernatural superstition" is not a targeted take-down of that thing, it is just empty rhetoric that can be dismissed as so much hot air.
Papalinton wrote: "If god is the best explanation then which God?"
The maximally great God.
Can you even get that close to naming the mysterious eternal physical brute fact of naturalism?
Papalinton wrote: "Keith, the delightful foot-in-mouth irony is that your inconclusive argument IS but mere assertion, no less."
If it's an argument then it's not an assertion.
Papalinton wrote: "Your God fantasy is simply a projection of intentionality and purpose where none exists and is amply described, explained and accounted as a function of mentation within research into Theory of Mind. There is no god out there, Keith."
Here you commit the genetic fallacy. You proceed to punctuate your response with an opinion backed with zero facts.