God: Listen up!
1. You must show yourself. Now.
2. You must eliminate natural disasters; they are evil.
3. You must eliminate evil people (those I don't like).
4. What I do with my sex organs is none of your business.
5. Happiness is the only virtue; you must make me happy (hint: think sex organs).
6. You must admit that you are evil.
7. You must declare that the Bible is false.
8. You must declare that Philosophical Materialism is absolutely TRUE.
9. You must declare that absolute TRUTH doesn't exist.
10.You must declare that it is absolutely TRUE that I have no FREE WILL. None. Whatsoever.
22 comments:
Stan, what kind of atheism are you analyzing here? I certainly don't recognize it.
Well of course you don't. It's all relative, not absolute, yes? So there is nothing to recognize. I understand your concern.
I dropped about a thousand words on my blog responding to an earlier post of yours. Enjoy!
http://monkeytrials.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-it-wheres-beefor-is-it-whats-beef.html
Atheism certainly isn't absolute, in that it isn't a set of principles.
But I can think of VERY few atheists who would agree that your list parallels their point of view, even in principle.
Scott, Thanks, I've already replied, see above.
Martin,
Not to worry, I've encountered all of these at one time or another. It's a composite.
BTW, no matter what I post, I seem to get Atheists who declare that it is not congruent with their beliefs or those of any acquaintance of theirs. But they always agree that belief is relative to the individual, nonetheless.
"BTW, no matter what I post, I seem to get Atheists who declare that it is not congruent with their beliefs or those of any acquaintance of theirs."
Perhaps this should tell you something.
I come to your blog because, while an atheist, I consider myself always a seeker. I really, truly, sincerely am interested in reality, and I don't want to make a mistake in evaluating reality. So to make sure I haven't missed something in my evaluation of Christianity, I read a lot of material such as yours. I'm always on the lookout for where I'm wrong, and I would love to admit that I am.
But so far most material on your blog goes wide of the mark. If you took the word "atheism" completely out of your blog, and replaced it with an underline and asked me to guess the word, I don't think I would know what it is.
I wish you would analyze my own atheism. I'd love an outside opinion.
Martin, because of the relativistic aspect of Atheism, a very high number of Atheists seem to think that their take is the One True Atheism, and that no reasonable person would think otherwise. In other words, "rationality is the definition of my thought process, so what I think is rational" (tautology): "every other viewpoint is not rational or even truly Atheist".
But that is not right. Rational thought has a specific objective process, and is based on specific subjective principles. These exist externally to me and are not of my derivation nor subject to my mental misconstructions. It is certainly possible to deny this, Nietzsche did in an outright honest fashion, while others deny it in a more stealthy mode.
Relativism requires this rejection: relativism insists that there is no absolute, certainly not an absolute guide to thinking rationally; but for someone to claim relativism AND rational processing is an error. (That is another reason why Philosophical Materialism is self refuting).
My own personal path out of this obvious dilemma was to study logic and fallacies and the First Principles, along with both Atheist philosophy and the philosophy of science and so forth.
It became necessary for me to reject virtually all my beliefs and start over, demanding rational processes along the way, not just considering my own thoughts to be rational by default.
To use this process, I had to confront the issues of what is "fact"? What is "truth"? Do they exist or not? How can I know that? If they do not exist, then what is knowable? If they do exist, how are they identified? on and on.
My personal process might not work for you, it seems to annoy a great many folk, who prefer the "rationality" of their own thought process to the known, objective rational process.
So your mileage might vary. But it would be far better for you to rationally analyze your Atheism for yourself than to have me do it. If you have specific questions, of course, I'll answer them and happy to do it.
Your presence here is welcome!
Thanks Stan.
I know there's constant argument about what "atheist" means. Atheists will say it only means "lack of belief" and Christians will often contest that.
I think the problem may be this: the vast majority of "us" (and I only say "us" in the loosest of terms) are really agnostic towards the universe, and atheist towards Christianity.
Really, truly at heart I'm agnostic. I refuse to try to guess at what the jigsaw puzzle picture is when we only have four pieces in place, and maybe a bit of the border. I say "I don't know" a lot.
So, whether there is some kind of intelligence behind the universe? Whether alien, god, or something else? Agnostic. Split 50/50. A 4 on Richard Dawkins' scale.
But whether the God of Abraham is real? Whether Jesus actually spiritually exists and lives within the hearts of believers? Whether Christ literally rose from the dead and ascended into heaven? Atheist. Split 99/1. A 6 on Richard Dawkins' scale.
The above goes for all other religions as well. 99/1 on Allah, 99/1 on Xenu, 99/1 on Zeus, etc.
So since, in the Western world people are generally talking about the Abrahamic God when they ask whether you believe in God or not, my answer is: atheist. Even though I'm really agnostic.
Does that make sense?
It really is a lack of belief. I remain unconvinced by the claims of Christianity.
So to analyze my atheism is really to defend Christianity. If I ever see a good, logical argument as to why Yahweh is real as opposed to Zeus, I'll back off at least somewhat from 99/1.
In my endless search nothing has convinced me so far.
Martin,
I have a convention of my own making that helped to sort out some divisive issues. I finally realized that my Atheism was really anti-ecclesiasticism... anti-church, anti-dogma, anti-blind-rules.
Now, the various churches out there doing their various church things do not really bear on whether or not there exists an entity that might have created the universe.
The hard question here is, "Is the universe orderly and rational, and how did that come to be?" This is not a question that involves any of the human-imposed "churchy" doctrines or exclusions or in-fighting or what have you. It is a straight out question involving just the universe.
I would be interested in your take on this. I have heard responses from pro to con.
I would be happy to give my inference if you are interested.
My atheism is definitely not anti-ecclesiastical. It comes from a purely skeptical viewpoint. I'm just not convinced that Christianity is real. I'm not convinced the Bible is anything more than what it objectively is: the Hebrew equivalent of any other culture's religion that we now call mythology.
"Is the universe orderly and rational, and how did that come to be?"
This is where I'm agnostic. But personally, I don't see it. If I look at outer space, I see spilled milk. A big mess of particles, congealing, colliding, interacting, but nothing that could be called "order." It could be there, but I don't see it.
In addition, when a tsunami strikes SE Asia and kills 200K people, everyone is trying to figure out why it happened, why the people who died died and why the people who lived lived. But a random mindless event fits the facts perfectly. Some good people died, some bad people died. Some children died, some survived. It seemed that people were having to use a seriously large shoehorn to make that event seem to have order, whereas if the event was random disorder it doesn't require a shoehorn at all.
Furthermore, if you've seen "March of the Penguins" you may have thought how incredible it is that these birds can live in such a harsh and cold environment, but then you realize that they grew up in this environment; to them, everyday life in the cold is probably just as routine and mundane as yours and mine is here in the temperate zone. Apply that to the universe; what seems like rational order to us may only appear that way because we grew up in it. There may be an outsider right now thinking, "How can these people live in this unordered mess?"
Or maybe not. I think the only intellectually honest thing anyone can do it stick to "I don't know."
By orderly and rational I was referring to the performance of mass/energy to specific, consistent laws, which did not exist before space/time and mass/energy were created in the Big Bang. The universe is governed by natural law, not chaos.
The physical laws that govern the behaviors are, in fact, universal, constant, consistent, and rational (to our minds, as you say). Also universal and irrefutable and consistent in this universe are the orderly relationships of mathematics. And certain tenets of logic such as the First Principles are also orderly, and universal (they don't change with time or location within the universe).
The appearance of chaos is actually a massive interaction of rational forces and energies that are behaving in a consistent manner, pushing and shoving on each other according to natural laws.
That is what science is all about. If there were no consistency or order to the laws of natural behavior, science would be futile.
Meanwhile fragile humans are injected into the mix of natural actions and reactions, and they get caught. One might think that a deity would be motivated to prevent pain and suffering and other evil from affecting humans. The idea that a deity would not allow that is in essence saying that humans should be cushioned from all blows, not ever suffer for their judgement errors, by an omnibenevolent deity. This presumes that earth is supposed to be a utopia, heaven on earth, with only happiness everywhere abounding. Free will would produce only happy consequences.
But omnibenevolence results in a stunted, angry offspring as parents know. Omnibenevolence is itself, an evil.
The "argument from evil" fails on several levels once you get into it. I wrote on this just a week ago, here:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2009/01/argument-from-evil.html
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2009/01/perspective-evil-and-consequences-of.html
I have to dash right now, let's discuss this further....
Stan
True, the physical laws are a mystery. But as far as I'm concerned, the only thing anyone can do is say "I don't know." We just don't have enough data yet. Some scientists say we may be living in one of many universes, each one with a random set of physical laws. On the other hand, other scientists dispute this. We just don't know yet. If you try to make proclamations about something of which we know so little, you'll make the same mistake the ancients made: Zeus is the cause of lightning bolts.
The argument from evil never really impressed me from the atheist side. I tend to side with Christians, who seem to be internally consistent about free will, anything programmed to be good is a robot, etc.
I concede the argument from evil.
All I was saying is that a neutral and mindless universe would tend to treat humans in a similar way to what we see: bad things happening to both good and bad people. If the universe were purposeless I would expect to see a tsunami kill 200,000 people, good, bad, women and children. In other words, if it looks random, feels random, and smells random, well...
As I said before, the source of my atheism is that the Hebrew scriptures don't distinguish themselves to me from any other culture's gods and scriptures.
Why? Why is Yahweh real but Quetzalcoatl mythology? Why is the ancient Hebrew god of fertility real, but the ancient Egyptian god of the sun imaginary?
Why is the story of Jason and the Argonauts Greek mythology, but the story of Jonah and the whale real?
Why is Gilgamesh being two thirds god and one third man mere myth, but Jesus being half god and half man real?
Why is X set of ancient primitive beliefs real, but Y set of ancient primitive beliefs not?
The universe is definitely mindless and neutral. Rocks and gases do not consciously follow a purpose nor or they directed by any purpose other than the natural laws that govern them. I don't think anyone disputes that, except for maybe a few pantheists. Does that obviate a creator, which unleashed both matter and rules for matter to behave by? That is what happened at the Big Bang.
I am not advocating the Hebrew scriptures as a source of logical proof of a creator. All religions have inferential issues that cannot be addressed materially. But they all hinge on one question, first and foremost: is it coherent logically to infer a creator for the universe?
There are no issues that supercede this one. If the answer is no, there is no creator for the universe, then all deologies and theologies are incorrect. If the answer is yes, then further inferences must be examined and tested for coherence, and conformity to known rational precepts.
The inference of a creator for the universe has several facets. Most compelling at the moment is Hawking's hypothesis that the Big Bang resulted from the collapse of a quantum-like equation, similar to what occurs with the Schroedinger Equation. Both of these are hypothetical attempts to reconcile a single coherent connection between natural laws, from micro to macro.
But there are other issues surrounding the Big Bang also, that seem coherent with the math models of string theory, predicting eleven dimensions, all coexisting.
Do these things point to a creator? There is nothing material that can be used as empirical certainty; in fact empiricism is useless outside the three dimensional space-time continuum to which we are restricted.
Perhaps your answer is still no. There might be no amount of inferential information from the subjective reality space that you trust. I felt that way for a while, until I realized that I trusted my own judgement and the tenets of logic, both of which are inferred solely in the subjective reality space.
But of course, your mileage might vary.
I enjoy this conversation, please feel free to stick around...
Stan
A little bit more. In subjective reality space (as opposed to objective, material reality) the only tools available to the introspection of that space are inference and the principles of logic and rational thought. Of course strict materialists discount introspection because it produces no physical artifacts. However, introspection occurs, like it or not.
So certainty has no material value, no physical handle to grab it by. But certainty can exist, as is shown by the First Principles. I do recommend reading and contemplating the First Principles, and considering how - or if - they impact your view of truth.
Some information on the First Principles is available here:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/search/label/First%20Principles
Stan
"Is it coherent logically to infer a creator for the universe?"
It is not. It is not logically coherent to infer anything when you don't have enough data. When people in the past attempted do do this, they erred. They didn't have the data that the sun is a large ball of gas that the earth orbits around, and so they inferred that it was a god named Ra in a chariot. This was logically coherent at the time; after all, the sun clearly seemed to move across the sky in 12 hours, and was so bright that it could not be of human origin. Therfore, supreme beings. They were wrong. They would have been better off saying, "We don't know what that flaming ball is up there" and left it at that.
Do you really want to repeat these mistakes? Do you want to become an ancient to the people of the year 12,000 A.D., who may have future high school classes studying "North American Mythology of 100 A.D. to 3000 A.D."?
You do remember the cliche about who will be condemned to repeat the past, right?
"Some information on the First Principles..."
I can't speak for freethoughtpedia, but I believe this can apply in some situations, and not in others. I don't see how relativism can possibly apply to physical reality. Either the sun is hot, or it isn't. True or false. But some moral situations could be seen as a grey area. I'm admit I'm being relativistic about relativism. I don't think it's an all-or-nothing idea.
"I am not advocating the Hebrew scriptures as a source of logical proof of a creator."
And I'm not saying you are. Nonetheless that is where I become atheist, for the reasons mentioned, among others. The logical and philosophical arguments for a creator I must remain agnostic about. But when people make specific claims such as "Jesus died for your sins" and "you will live for eternity in either heaven or hell" or "you must audit your engrams with an e-meter" I react to these claims with disbelief.
Martin,
You said,
"It is not logically coherent to infer anything when you don't have enough data." in reference to inferring whether the universe had a creator.
Of course there will never be any data concerning what occurs outside the material universe, which includes that unknown dimension before the Big Bang. And since there was no material existence then, material evidence could not exist either. So there is no possibility of finding a non-material existence, in the material existence.
Put another way, if (M) is the set of material existence and entities, it is not possible to find (!M) by searching (M).
G.E.Moore called this the Material Fallacy: trying to find the non-material in the material realm.
So, if you choose to say so, you must remain agnostic until death, because the data you seek cannot exist in this material universe.
Or if you choose to do so, you can choose to explore the non-material realm, which is subjective, not objective. Materialists reject the existence of the non-material realm, but I find that to be an extension of the self-refutation of Philosophical Materialism, and discount it. If the non-material, subjective realm exists, what does it contain, and how do we verify it, that becomes the issue.
But I'm afraid that it is not coherent to insist upon material data, in the material realm, for a non-material entity. (coherence meaning non-self-contradictory, and in congruence with the First Principles of logic).
Stan
"Or if you choose to do so, you can choose to explore the non-material realm, which is subjective, not objective."
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying the non-material realm is only in our minds?
To me, the definition of "supernatural" or "non-material" is so far meaningless. Either something exists, or it doesn't exist. There is something, or there is nothing. What is "supernatural?"
What I mean is that it is not possible to touch, feel, taste, hear or see anything that is non-material.
If there is any non-material existence, it would have to be inferred. Inference is a purely mental activity which is subjective.
For example the principle that "a self-refuting (self-contradictory) statement is not logical" is an inferred statement that we intuit to be true despite our inability to provide material proof of its truth. (Or its existence for that matter).
Moreover, we infer that this statement is true despite its position in either space or time, and that it is therefore a universal Truth, ie., absolutely true.
But there is no such thing as absolute Truth in the material realm, as we discussed before. So if we think that the principle regarding self-refutation is absolutely true, then three more things follow: a) Truth exists; b) it exists in the subjective, non-material space only; c) Truth can be absolute.
Now this truth entity is not dependent on my mind; it exists even without my mind or anyone's mind. But my mind is able to comprehend it and judge its validity and its independence.
As for the word "supernatural" or even the word "metaphysical", I try not to use them due to the overload of semantic baggage that each of those carries. It is far more clear to understand that if there is a category, "material",(M) then what is outside that category? We should call it non-material, (!M).
Your idea that either something exists or it does not exist is true for our universe's space-time; it does not address anything outside space-time though. Perhaps you might deny that there is anything outside the space-time of our universe. I think that the current work in quantum mechanics and string theory defy that idea, as does the question of what existed before space-time existed, which is outside the material realm.
So, no, the non-material realm is not only in our minds. But it is accessible only through our minds, by asking ourselves what is true and how can we know that.
The example I used above is actually the First Principle: Non-Contradiction, accepted as axiomatic for logic, science, and rational thought.
OK, so what you're saying is that the laws of the universe and the existence of such non-material entities as logic imply the existence of a designer. Correct?
But my original argument still stands. You don't know where or how the laws of logic and the universe came about, and neither do I. Material or non-material, we still need more information, material or non-material, before we can make a conclusion. This almost certainly will not happen in our lifetimes.
1) Humans have a horrible track record for inferring the existence of gods from things they don't understand. Humans have been wrong thousands of times on this topic before. (Zeus, lightning, Ra, sun, etc)
2) You're human
3) Therefore, if I had to place my bets, I'd bet you're wrong just like all the others were.
"But my original argument still stands. You don't know where or how the laws of logic and the universe came about, and neither do I. Material or non-material, we still need more information, material or non-material, before we can make a conclusion. This almost certainly will not happen in our lifetimes."
Your logic is right on the money. Our difference comes in where you claim a need for more evidence, which is ill-defined at this point for non-material entities. Non-material evidence is not measurable of course, and so requires a different metric.
The philosophy behind the First Principles gives us a clue: These principles are known to be true by inspection, and are undeniably true. This process is known as intuition - which is widely denied by materialists and Atheists alike.
However, by denying it they also are forced into the discomfort of not knowing for certain that the First Principles are true. And if that is the case, then there is no rational case to be made, because there is no basis for absolute rationality.
At the bottom, then, are the axiomatic intuitions that are required as underpinnings for logic and science and meaningful language.
So rational intuition exists and it can be valid. How valid it is can be determined by the same methods as empirical material determinations: comparison to the First Principles.
Your earlier statement that the creation of the universe at the Big Bang was not coherent with a creating being does not match my understanding of coherence. There is nothing self-contradictory about it.
So now the issue is purely one of percieved probability, one that cannot be calculated as can material, repeatable events, but one that is intuitively based. So of course, every individual gets to make his own intuitive decision.
But waiting for more evidence denies the intuited evidence that is available, and the point that there will be no additional evidence. So careful introspection
and honest stripping of ingrained preconceptions is required.
Your intuition might still come to the same conclusion. Mine did not. It remains a probablistic function. I might give more weight to certain things than you do. So go ahead and place your bets. The only thing that is certain is that materialism is non-coherent, and if Atheism is materialistic, then it also is non-coherent. As for Agnosticism, well, weighting the evidence is up to you.
Here's another take on agnosticism, especially the pyrrhonian absolutist sort that you seem to be trending toward.
Agnosticism is indeed absolute in the sense that "knowledge is contingent, but ignorance is absolute". All knowledge, including both empirical, material knowledge as well as introspected, non-material knowledge, is contingent and probabilistic; it cannot ever be absolutely confirmed. So depending on the parameters adopted for verification, either ignorance reigns supreme or conditional knowledge can be had.
If the parameters insist on absolute verification, then absolute agnosticism must reject everything due to its non-verifiability in an absolute sense. This then extends to rationality, logic, and to reason itself because the underpinnings of those are not verifiable.
The problem comes in that the terms of verifiability are absolutist for the pyrrhonian agnostic. I am agnostic and skeptical of evolution because the forms of verifiability available to science have not been satisfied. But my agnosticism could be modified by completing the empirical verification in a robust fashion. So my agnosticism is not absolute, it is conditional.
But the absolutist agnostic rejects on the basis of the following "truth": no satisfactory verifiability can exist within a probability-driven reality.
And there, then, is the paradox: If there exists no verifiability that is satisfactory, then there cannot be any "truth" either. So here it is that absolutist agosticism is seen to be non-coherent: it cannot be true if there is no verifiable "truth".
The non-absolutist question remains: How are probabilities to be understood and assigned if one is to assume the need for verifiability himself?
Again, the validity of the First Principles certainly can be rejected; Nietzsche did so and thus invented "anti-rationality", which is indiscernable from irrationality and insanity.
Many non-material principles can be judged on the issue of how the universe would look if those principles were NOT indeed valid.
For example, if it were not true that two material objects cannot occupy the same space. Or that a material object cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously. Or that a material object may not hover somewhere between existing and not existing. Or if it were true that the conscious self does not exist.
Falsification works in the non-material realm as well, but it is just a mental exercise in introspection, so different conclusions are possible.
Post a Comment