Atheists tend to argue from all points of the spectrum, including some points that are pretty far out. Not all Atheists make the same arguments at the same time, obviously. In fact it is common to hear one Atheist reject the arguments made previously by other Atheists, while claiming that no Atheist would say such a thing. This is all part of the relativity problem that attaches to the necessary Atheist denial of absolutes.
One of my favorite denials made by Atheists in past conversations is the denial of the existence of wisdom. For some Atheists, it seems that knowledge of factoids is all there is, that there exists no transcendent progression from knowledge. This is in keeping with the Materialist Philosophy that all reality is physical. If all reality is physical, then factoids about the physical reality is all we can hope to acquire.
Of what would wisdom consist if there were such a thing? By asking this question we can derive those human characteristics that must be rejected when we reject wisdom as a human quality, characteristic, or virtue.
“Wise; (a) 1. Having or showing good judgment; having the power of discerning and judging correctly or of discriminating between what is true and what is false, between what is proper and what is improper; sagacious; prudent; discreet…”
Webster’s Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary; 2nd Edition, 1979.
If the possession of factoids about the physical world is the only real intellectual capacity that we humans possess, then we could be thought of as simply memory systems, capable of acquiring and regurgitating the data surrounding physical factoids. But if we are expected to discern between true data and false data, another layer is added beyond just exercising memory cells. And if we have the ability not just to discern that there is a difference, but also to judge that the difference produces concepts that are either true or false, we are at yet another layer of the intellect.
So if we discern, judge, and comprehend that true and false concepts exist, AND if we then exert a rigorous self-discipline and intellectual honesty in pursuing true concepts while rejecting false concepts, we have reached a high level indeed. This level is defined as wisdom.
But if we reject outright that this level even exists, what have we in fact denied? If all there is to our intellect is the storage of information, we reject discernment; we reject judgment; we reject the need for rigorous self-discipline and intellectual honesty because that is not required for the storage of the factoids of knowledge.
And we also reject the idea that there really are true concepts and false concepts. The implication of this is serious because without any true or false concepts, logic and rational thought are not possible. By rejecting wisdom, we also reject our ability to think straight.
This rejection is consistent with Philosophical Materialism, because those things which are rejected are not physical or material; these things are qualities that have no mass, length or width, or other physical constraints. They are outside the material domain. Their rejection is necessary for the preservation of the philosophy. So this process of rejection is inevitable, not due to any process of truth finding, but due to the necessity of preserving a previously determined conclusion: Philosophical Materialism. This process is the fallacy of rationalization.
Because the denial of wisdom is rationalized, it is not a valid rejection. Even so, if it is rejected, the state of existence without wisdom is that of automatons, and if Atheists choose to consider themselves such, then they have accepted a bleak and false self-image. Yet they do not see themselves this way, which means that the rejection must occur at a surface level only, without thought of the deeper implications which have been shown here.
One can now see that all the reasoning here also applies to free-will, another transcendent quality that disturbs the equanimity of the Materialist Atheists. This is a subject for another post, because the rejection of free will is only a partial rejection; it culminates in a definite rejection of logic however.
6 comments:
I've quite enjoyed reading this series. Thanks for posting it.
As an empiricist with leanings towards to Philosophical Materialism, I actually found myself agreeing with a lot of your arguments, although not your conclusion.
All you've really done is shown that Philosophical Materialism is equivalent to any given religion you care to name. You can therefore conclude that it's an unfounded belief, or even conclude that it's nothing more than an assumption, but you can't conclude it's false without also concluding that every religion is false.
I particularly liked this paragraph:
". . . believers in Philosophical Materialism to create fanciful answers out of the whole cloth of their fertile imaginations, answers not verifiable yet declared true in order to preserve the limits of Materialism anyway."
You can easily replace the words "Philosophical Materialism" in that paragraph with the word "Christianity".
Thanks for your kind words.
Because of the focus of this blog on the logic or lack thereof inherent in Atheism, I have chosen in general not to engage in the quibbles that Atheists have concerning Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, etc.
Religion engages an element that Atheists deny: transcendency. The nature of transcendency is such that it cannot be put in a paper bag and be taken next door to show your neighbor.
For that reason it has to be discovered fresh by each and every individual. What I try to show is that it is not rational to reject it in the name of empiricism or Materialism, and that the job of rational investigation does not stop with physical entities. Rational investigation continues into personal introspection and meta-material questions such as "what is the source of math, and why is it universally coherent?", "why should the universe be rational?" and "what are the true limits to reality?".
So while I disagree with your statement about Christianity, I also know full well that what is true outside the material realm is not provable inside the material realm. This renders material based arguments concerning transcendent religious issues fruitless.
I will say that Philosophical Materialism is not at all similar to the teachings of Jesus in the most important ways. And that the use of the appelative "Christianity" as a universal is not identical to the teachings of Jesus. So the demonizing of universal "Christianity" is a useless pursuit, rationally speaking.
You're absolutely right that the job of rational explanation doesn't stop with physical entities. But I think you would agree that that's where the job of scientific explanation stops.
Once you get into the metaphysical, scientists are fully aware their chosen tools are useless, and they don't seek to answer such questions with science. Richard Dawkins himself has made this very observation.
But while scientists are happy to leave metaphysics alone, they understandably get peeved when deists start encroaching on their territory, claiming to know how the universe came into being, or how life began, and imposing purely deistic views on how such things should be taught.
Particularly when deists want such things presented as scientific when they're clearly not (I'm obviously thinking of "Intelligent Design" here). Most of the arguments I've seen from atheists that employ empiricism and materialism are just attempts to show that things like ID aren't science and shouldn't be presented as such.
Personally, I don't reject deism because it's not proveable, or because of a resort to Philosophical Materialism.
I reject deism because it has all the hallmarks of being completely man-made and therefore no more worthy of my time than, say, the works of JRR Tolkein (which I'm also not particularly interested in).
I'e found that every single facet of every religion can be easily explained in terms of the human history, politics and personalities that created it.
There's absolutely nothing to indicate that there might be anything supernatural going on.
Matt, thanks for your comments, I am enjoying this conversation.
And I agree that there is nothing supernatural to be found in any of the affairs of man such as politics or even religion. The additional (metaphysical)extensions of reality exist outside the material realm of our immediate existence.
I wonder though if you are rejecting deism or if you are really rejecting theism as it is found in ecclesiastical form...?
And I also wonder what you would accept as evidence for a metaphysical reality, given that such a reality - if it existed - would not intersect with the physical reality that we experience daily?
In other words, (posit with me for a moment) a reality does exist that cannot be detected using our senses or sense extensions (equipment). What would serve to indicate (strongly) that it exists? What would serve to indicate (strongly) that it does not exist?
You have invoked parsomony on human activities; is that sufficient to your mind? It is not sufficient to my mind, because parsimony applies only to things we can already detect because they are material.
So what sort of evidence could be presented that would be convincing? Again, material evidence need not apply for the job...
Interesting question. If material evidence is not allowed, then what sort of evidence could be presented to anyone that would be convincing?
After all, if the "evidence" is beyond our senses, then surely such "evidence" can never be anything more than a mere thought experiment. To believe in it, one would have to resort to the (rather fatuous) argument "I can conceive the idea of X therefore X must exist . . . somewhere".
While it's an interesting idea, it doesn't prove anything. If it did, then it could literally be used to prove anything at all.
But anyway, the fact is that both deistic and theistic arguments (and I was referring to both in my previous comment) don't follow this line of reasoning anyway.
They both rely on some sort of extension of the supernatural into the material realm to support their cases (eg healing power of prayer etc etc).
So I guess I would throw the question back to you. What sort of evidence can be presented, if material evidence cannot?
Hi Matt,
You probably suspected that I do have - if not an answer of physical specificity - at least one of a general direction.
There are certain things that we know to be true without physical or material proof, such as the first principles. These principles are not just assumed to be true, they are known to be true by inspection, apprehension, comprehension, discernment and judgment... all of which are innate faculties that we possess merely by virtue of being live humans.
Only a few Atheists have denied this, Nietzsche being the most salient. And as Neitzsche pointed out, when these "undeniable truths" are denied, all of our so-called "rational thought" is also denied as a consequence.
If we believe that rational thought exists, and that it is based on the actuality of these so-called "undeniable truths", then we have stepped outside the bounds of Philosophical Materialism.
We need not believe "anything", in the sense of "every ol' thing that comes along, metaphysically speaking". We have the abilities of rational discernment. What we do not have is sensory confirmation outside the material domain.
Can we function without sensory confirmation? We don't have to if we choose not to; we can live successfully totally within the material realm. We don't even have to acknowledge that we possess rational discernment or that there are such things as first principles.
These things have to be addressed at the individualpersonal level. This is because there is no physical show & tell that is possible, except in the Material domain. In fact, although one can share the experiencing of such a truth, one cannot ever prove it to an audience materially. People with similar truth experiences can, however, understand the truth experience that I am experiencing.
Can these so-called experiences be false? Of course, just as science can be false if it is not properly examined.
My own personal understanding is that the first principles are, in fact, undeniable. Moreover, I think it is undeniable that humans possess capabilities to understand such metaphysical concepts. There is no logical non-coherence in seeing the truth of these things. And it is clear to me that due to the Materialistic nature of evolution, it is not a satisfying answer to the existence of either set of these things. (Don't bother with "it clearly evolved because [insert narrative fabrication here]).
This is a "truth statement" of my personal understanding. I cannot prove it; someone else who hasn't experienced it might well not comprehend things in the same manner. This of course is where the accuracy of the logical vetting process is crucial: for me logical coherence and rational integrity are non-negotiable.
'Nuff for now,
Stan
Post a Comment