A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Quote of the Day
We'd be content and happy if Obama can stay president forever. … – Moammar Gadhafi, Sept. 23, 2009
This is where intellectual humility comes into play. It should be perfectly acceptable to declare that I don't know... yet.
But each of those alternatives which you offer is rigidly adhered to by certain segments who are defending specific worldviews that depend on their choice of origin-legend being valid.
The worldview which is not defended is that of rational integrity. That's because all of those segments presume that they have rational integrity on their side, even though they demonstrably do not.
I'm not impressed with theodicies as you know. But I do have a question for you. If there were a deity, what would you expect? By this I mean, what are your expectations that a deity would need to meet in order to be accepted as "reality" for you?
I don't mean such macro examples as "show himself on demand" or "move that mountain", I mean merely his existence as creator: what would irrevocably indicate his existence to you?
I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for but one thing that would give me serious pause and tip me heavily towards theistic agnosticism (say, 80/20) would be if the earth turned out to be at the center of the universe. This is one possible solution to the dark matter problem. Seems unlikely, but if it were confirmed that would be one of the strongest pieces of evidence that would go a long way in convincing me.
Other than that, it's difficult to think of anything. I hold judgment when it comes to things like "the universe appears designed" because appearance can be deceptive, and common sense can be wrong. Common sense once told us the sun revolves around the earth.
That doesn't mean I hold the position that it ISN'T designed. I simply remain openly agnostic. Could go either way.
"You still want physical evidence for a non-physical entity."
If I can't demand physical TRACES of a non-physical entity's interaction with the physical world, this implies this non-physical entity does not interact with the physical world at all. So what meaning does it have to say such a thing exists?
What meaning does it have to say that meaning exists, if meaning has no physical trace? Or rather, what is the meaning of meaning? And further, the meaning of the meaning of meaning? What is the partial pressure of a vial of meaning captured @STP? What is the street value of meaning per ounce?
Would Dawkins deny his own sentience? Would Dennett deny his own consciousness? Do the New Atheists deny their superiority and eliteness? Do they deny their purposefulness? That it has meaning? Or do they just deny these to other, lesser creatures than themselves?
Denying “why” (purpose) as a valid question says just this: there is no purpose for any of the material entities that exist. So they have no value - not a single one of them. Belief otherwise is derangement. The world must be purged of derangement. Materialist logic always moves in this direction.
Yet, why do we pursue knowledge? Does knowledge have value? And why do we exclude non-material existence in that pursuit? Especially since knowledge itself is non-material? (what is the meaning of knowledge?) And if non-material entities are the only ones that do not change or mutate or degrade with time, why should they not be acknowledged as the immutable truths underlying… everything? And why do they exist at all – immutable and unchangeable?
And if not why – the forbidden “why” – then how did they come to exist: immutable and unrelenting and incorrigible and coherent and non-entropic, valid after the universe goes totally cold and dead? Valid at the start of time? Valid, valid, valid. How?
Sorry for the delay, for some reason blogger puts comments to older posts into the "moderation" bin, and I have to remember to check for them. I'll check it out, but my point to you is, as always, that logical argumentation is never "proof" that can be considered incorrigible and final.
Taken together, all the philosophers who found the answer regarding God through their own thought process form a null set.
The answer happens to you.
But only when you want it and are open to it through intellectual and personal humility. (Sometimes it happens whether you want it or not, but not that frequently).
But you can't just "think it up". There is nothing less humble than a philosopher - unless it is a politician of course.
BTW, I have pointed out before that to be a philosopher is easy. You just: 1. Reject all religions. 2. Reject all prior philosophies and philosophers. 3. Write up your own stuff.
Also, Plantinga is not a philosopher in the usual sense: he is typically labelled a "Christian philosopher" which categorizes him as an apologist. He failed rule number 1, above.
26 comments:
I hope not, so you can get back to more interesting topics like God and science. :)
Martin, see the newest post...
Stan
Oo boy. Global warming. I'm staying out of that one! :)
Aw c'mon, shouldn't we at least trust the experts?
"I finally get out.... and you pull me back in!"
Fine. I'll spar with you later. You'll get what's coming to you...
Just can't wait!
I just haven't had the time for our wrestling match, however, in the meantime, let me ask you this:
You don't accept evolution, or intelligent design, or young earth creationism; so, what do you think happened?
This is where intellectual humility comes into play. It should be perfectly acceptable to declare that I don't know... yet.
But each of those alternatives which you offer is rigidly adhered to by certain segments who are defending specific worldviews that depend on their choice of origin-legend being valid.
The worldview which is not defended is that of rational integrity. That's because all of those segments presume that they have rational integrity on their side, even though they demonstrably do not.
Interesting. BTW, this is exactly how I feel about religion. Each one has its own agenda, its own revelation, and so I say I don't know.
That's why I'm interested in apologetics, or "theodicies" as you call them. I WANT to be convinced by one of them; so far, no dice.
I'm not impressed with theodicies as you know. But I do have a question for you. If there were a deity, what would you expect? By this I mean, what are your expectations that a deity would need to meet in order to be accepted as "reality" for you?
I don't mean such macro examples as "show himself on demand" or "move that mountain", I mean merely his existence as creator: what would irrevocably indicate his existence to you?
I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for but one thing that would give me serious pause and tip me heavily towards theistic agnosticism (say, 80/20) would be if the earth turned out to be at the center of the universe. This is one possible solution to the dark matter problem. Seems unlikely, but if it were confirmed that would be one of the strongest pieces of evidence that would go a long way in convincing me.
Other than that, it's difficult to think of anything. I hold judgment when it comes to things like "the universe appears designed" because appearance can be deceptive, and common sense can be wrong. Common sense once told us the sun revolves around the earth.
That doesn't mean I hold the position that it ISN'T designed. I simply remain openly agnostic. Could go either way.
Do you have any suggestions?
Nope, no more suggestions - the process is all yours at this point.
OK, one comment. You still want physical evidence for a non-physical entity.
Just the one comment, that's all.
"the process is all yours at this point. "
Dangit.
"You still want physical evidence for a non-physical entity."
If I can't demand physical TRACES of a non-physical entity's interaction with the physical world, this implies this non-physical entity does not interact with the physical world at all. So what meaning does it have to say such a thing exists?
A riddle for you.
What meaning does it have to say that meaning exists, if meaning has no physical trace? Or rather, what is the meaning of meaning? And further, the meaning of the meaning of meaning? What is the partial pressure of a vial of meaning captured @STP? What is the street value of meaning per ounce?
Now you see, don't you?
OK, so there exist things that are immaterial and do not interact with the physical world, but which we know to be extant.
How to apply this idea to deity.
Hmmm....
Well...
I could say that the orderliness of the universe logically points to a designer. No?
But this just degenerates into the old watchmaker argument, which I don't find to be conclusive.
Hmmm...
Ask me another riddle.
Also, an off-topic question: what do you think of Alvin Plantinga's Reformed epistemology, and the idea of God as a properly basic belief?
A Riddle: Or several packed together:
Would Dawkins deny his own sentience? Would Dennett deny his own consciousness? Do the New Atheists deny their superiority and eliteness? Do they deny their purposefulness? That it has meaning? Or do they just deny these to other, lesser creatures than themselves?
Denying “why” (purpose) as a valid question says just this: there is no purpose for any of the material entities that exist. So they have no value - not a single one of them. Belief otherwise is derangement. The world must be purged of derangement. Materialist logic always moves in this direction.
Yet, why do we pursue knowledge? Does knowledge have value? And why do we exclude non-material existence in that pursuit? Especially since knowledge itself is non-material? (what is the meaning of knowledge?) And if non-material entities are the only ones that do not change or mutate or degrade with time, why should they not be acknowledged as the immutable truths underlying… everything? And why do they exist at all – immutable and unchangeable?
And if not why – the forbidden “why” – then how did they come to exist: immutable and unrelenting and incorrigible and coherent and non-entropic, valid after the universe goes totally cold and dead? Valid at the start of time? Valid, valid, valid. How?
Do you have a link to the Plantinga argument? I'm not familiar with it.
I guess Wikipedia is a decent starting point for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology
Dangit. I pasted a link here but now it's gone. :(
Here, just check out the Wikipedia article for a quick overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology
Sorry for the delay, for some reason blogger puts comments to older posts into the "moderation" bin, and I have to remember to check for them. I'll check it out, but my point to you is, as always, that logical argumentation is never "proof" that can be considered incorrigible and final.
'logical argumentation is never "proof"'
Oh I know. I still enjoy it though. :)
Ah! Then for you it is just a game, one of words, for which you acknowledge that there is no great conclusive meaning.
Not at all. I just don't know what the answer is and I like the stimulation of philosophy and logic. Perhaps one day I will find the answer.
Taken together, all the philosophers who found the answer regarding God through their own thought process form a null set.
The answer happens to you.
But only when you want it and are open to it through intellectual and personal humility. (Sometimes it happens whether you want it or not, but not that frequently).
But you can't just "think it up". There is nothing less humble than a philosopher - unless it is a politician of course.
BTW, I have pointed out before that to be a philosopher is easy. You just:
1. Reject all religions.
2. Reject all prior philosophies and philosophers.
3. Write up your own stuff.
Also, Plantinga is not a philosopher in the usual sense: he is typically labelled a "Christian philosopher" which categorizes him as an apologist. He failed rule number 1, above.
Post a Comment