Ridicule comes from a position of presumed superiority, or at least the desire to project superiority. It is the most childish form of humor, accompanied by self-aggrandizment and the demeaning of its object. One of the earliest ridicules that I remember was the taunt:
“Fatty Fatty, two by four,This taunt was applied to pudgy children, of course, in order to make the object of the taunt feel inferior while making the attackers feel superior. The idea here is to use false characterizations which are absurdly false, rather than merely false. These absurd characterizations are then applied to a target in a manner as if they were actually the case, and in a tone of haughty distaste and disgust, in the form of “(snort) Can you believe that guy?(snort)”.
Can’t fit through,
The bathroom door,
So he did it on the floor,
Fatty Fatty, two by four.”
A satirist will take facts and stretch them to their limits without making false claims about the object. A ridiculist makes up absurdities which he presents as facts, but which are false claims being applied in a fashion which is intended to damage the object.
When strings of these Ad Hominems and false characterizations are delivered rapidly, they can produce a simulation of humor because of the surprise element of unexpected absurdity, and incongruity of the charges relative to fact.
Let’s examine George Carlin’s stage routine called “Religion is Bullshit”.
Carlin puts forth some premises; here are the first four:
”1. Religion involves worshipping an Invisible Man in the Sky:The first premise is false: no one worships a “Man in the Sky”. This premise is an absurd derogatory and nothing more. The absurdness accomplishes several things: it produces a laugh; it denigrates the actual premises of Theism; it projects superiority for Carlin, who implicitly is saying “Can you believe the stupidity of these people?? (snort)” The audience is expected to be pulled along with Carlin, who projects that he and they think alike. We're smart; those others are stupid.
2. The invisible man gives us a List of things not to do:
3. But if you do them, you languish in Hell: but he loves you and needs money. He can’t handle money.
4. Religion=Billions of $, no taxes, always need more.
The second and third premises take an ecclesiastic premise, distort it, and leave out the most important part. Yes, there is a set of moral principles; but the remainder of his argument is the “evil God” argument, which places an individual’s own opinion at the pinnacle of the rational hierarchy, and allows the individual to place his own judgment against God, over God. Carlin’s judgment is that God is hateful but professes love in order to get money – a string of absurdities placed together quickly for the denigration and laughs that constitute ridicule.
Next Carlin goes straight to judging God’s creation, using Carlin’s own criteria.
”I really tried to believe in God.The unstated presupposition is that God should have made life on earth more heavenly and free from choice between good and bad. It is a presumed ethic: There should be no bad. But this is not a stated premise, because the absurdity of that presupposition would undermine the argument’s built-in absurdities.
But looking around, something is wrong: war, disease, corruption etc
It’s not good work.
In a decently run universe, this guy would be out on his ass.
God has to be a man; a woman wouldn’t mess things up this badly.
It is apparent that God is incompetent and doesn’t care.
Only mindless robots believe this”
Next Carlin creates a faux absurd religion to be used to associate its absurdities with the target.
”I looked for something to believe in: decide on the sun.At this point, Carlin seems to be overstretched and hunting for material. So he creates another absurdity:
Can see the sun.
That helps credibility.
The sun gives us everything.
No crucifixions.
Never tells me that I’m unworthy.
But I don’t pray to the sun.
Believers pray for things. On Sunday.
God’s day off.
But there’s a Divine plan: it’s doing just fine.
What if prayer is not in the divine plan?
Suppose prayers are not answered.
That’s God’s will? Then skip praying and go to God’s will.”
” I pray to Joe Pesci.Outrageous, just for laughs; comedians need laughs.
He can get things done.
Joe fixed my noisy neighbor with a baseball bat.
Prayers to Joe are answered 50% of time, just like with God, and all the other superstitions.
In the final stretch, Carlin reduces the discourse even further, to logical fallacy by equating the Bible to fairy tales in the hopes that the false association helps with his overall denigration.
Finally he says:
There’s no Humpty Dumpty, and there’s no God.”Actually this last statement has achieved some degree of fame in the Atheist community, as if it contains some sort of supernal wisdom. But comparing Theism to fairy tales is an intellectual non-starter. It is ridicule fallacy (actually the False Association Fallacy using absurd falseness).
Carlin wraps up with a cheap but maximally absurd stunt:
”If there is a God, may he strike this audience dead. Everybody OK? Then strike me dead.”Actually, George Carlin is dead. Just not on his own absurd terms: George was unable to commit murder or suicide-by-prayer.
The fact that these sorts of denigrations serve as actual arguments which convict some people of their validity is a statement concerning the actual intellectual machinations of those Atheists. Purposeful absurdity using false characterizations cannot be considered fodder for truthful worldviews by reasonable people. Those who are influenced by ridicule are not entitled to characterize themselves as rational or logical.
31 comments:
Sorry if I'm flooding your blog here Stan. Last post for the day, promise. I had just read this and thought it entirely appropriate for this post.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
Basically, I think Carlin is ridiculing religion because he finds it ridiculous. He is not 'just' attempting to make it ridiculous so that it is easier to ridicule.
I also don't think all theists are stupid. Just wrong.
Also, I do think it is very common for theists to picture God as an unseen being who lives above them. Sort of like an Invisible Man in the Sky. In fact .. in what way is God NOT an invisible man in the sky? Are we not made in his image? Did he not impregnate the Virgin Mary? Did Jesus not 'ascend' into heaven, and does he not sit at the right hand of the Father? It is a very anthropomorphic view of a God, granted. And yes there are much more 'sophisticated' imaginings. However to claim that "Invisible Man in the Sky" as a common image of God is flat out false seems very selective.
"Carlin’s judgment is that God is hateful but professes love in order to get money"
I think it's rather obvious that Carlin's judgement is actually that God doesn't exist, and that people exploit the concept to rake in money. I don't think you can deny that people exploit the concept of God to gain wealth.
Finally, he's a comedian. Ridicule is his stock and trade. Lambasting him for using ridicule would be like lambasting an farmer for using a tractor.
Jefferson’s comment seems to affirm the inability of Naturalism to rationally deal with a First Cause. The only resort, according to Jefferson, is ridicule. Because Jefferson cannot understand the characteristics of anything non-material, he cannot argue against it rationally, and he is a rationalist who is without ammunition.
This in no way precludes the non-natural existence. It merely means that Jefferson could not deal with it using his finite mental facilities. The resort to ridicule is a resort to absurd, fallacious arguments, done in an attempt to denigrate that which cannot be disproved rationally. It is an admission of rational failure.
The inability to provide proof for their disbelief is the point of abject failure for Atheists, who stoutly maintain that their belief system is rational, based on Empiricism, which is the sole source of knowledge. Yet they are reduced to absurdity because their source of knowledge has no authority in the matter which concerns them most: Theism.
” Also, I do think it is very common for theists to picture God as an unseen being who lives above them.”
Attempting to anthropomorphize an entity (even an agent) that resides outside of mass/energy, space/time and having no physical characteristics might make the entity comfortable for some. But I doubt that you can provide many believers who actually think that God is an invisible Man.
And of course none of this has any bearing on the existence of such a being.
” I think it's rather obvious that Carlin's judgement is actually that God doesn't exist, and that people exploit the concept to rake in money. I don't think you can deny that people exploit the concept of God to gain wealth.”
At that point in his routine Carlin was talking about God. Don't make excuses for him.
And I do not deny that some people exploit the religious aspects (ecclesiastical) for gain, just as Dawkins exploits Atheism.
Still has no bearing on the existence of a non-physical agent: First Cause.
” Finally, he's a comedian. Ridicule is his stock and trade. Lambasting him for using ridicule would be like lambasting an farmer for using a tractor.”
Carlin considered himself a social agent; his tool was ridicule. But his goal was not just laughs, that would require humor. His goal was to denigrate in order to cause social change. He and Jefferson were together in that regard.
Neither had a rational or empirical leg to stand on.
Farmers don't use tractors to try to convict the ignorant of absurd concepts using denigration. All analogies fail at some point; some earlier than others.
Not at all. Jefferson's comment clearly outlines his opinion that the concept of the trinity is indistinct.
Further reading outlines that he found the bible internally inconsistent and flat out contradictory.
It is on this basis that the bible as an authority is rejected.
"But I doubt that you can provide many believers who actually think that God is an invisible Man."
There are a plethora of references that imply God is a man-like being who resides above us and is invisible. The bible springs to mind.
Intelligent Agent = Man
Unseen = Invisible
Heaven = The Sky
Yes it sounds less ridiculous to say that God is an unseen agent who resides in heaven .. But when you break it down, the phrase "Invisible Man in the Sky" seems entirely appropriate, especially in a comedic setting.
"At that point in his routine Carlin was talking about God. Don't make excuses for him. "
Sure, but in the context it is pretty obvious he doesn't literally think God can't handle money .. he's ridiculing the idea that God needs money. It's not making an excuse, it blindingly obvious he doesn't believe God exists nor does he believe that God actually needs money. It's not like churches collect all the money and burn it to make a pleasing smell for God.
Maybe you just didn't get the joke?
Does not "indistinct" mean that he could not form a rational argument against it? He wanted empirical facts to refute distinctly. But none existed, because his method of knowledge was/is too limited.
"There are a plethora of references that imply God is a man-like being who resides above us and is invisible. The bible springs to mind."
This assertion requires a reference.
"Intelligent Agent = Man
Unseen = Invisible
Heaven = The Sky"
You cannot redefine everything to suit yourself. I know that is an Atheist avocation, but it doesn't fly here.
Intelligent Agent is not restricted to Man, nor is intelligent Agent tautological with Man.
Unseen doesn't imply that it is present and not visible, although with string theory and the concept of overlapping dimensions, that is a possibility; unseen merely means that no one has yet seen something.
Heaven in the Theistic sense means only the place where the deity resides; it is not tautological with sky. I grant that "heavens" has become a term for sky, but it is not a Theological term.
"Maybe you just didn't get the joke?"
The "joke" was a deliberate absurdity created to demean God... as well as those who think that it is reasonable to consider a First Cause for the universe. Do you not understand that?
And it influenced at least one person concerning his worldview, which is what brought this post on. Apparently he didn't get the joke. And that was the purpose of Carlin's entire routine. Jack Benny was funny and ridiculed himself; that style was the benchmark for humor until the social commentators began to belittle and denigrate others by the use of ridicule and absurd statements. Their routines were meant to hurt certain classes of people in order to further the issues which they, the superior social commentators, valued. Their humor was funny only favored classes of people who shared the values (or lack thereof) of the social commentators. it is a form of classism.
None of this has any bearing on the existence or non-existence of a non-physical agent capable of creating a universe. You have avoided this subject the entire time you have been here. How about some evidence in that regard?
No, indistinct means that the term has no set definition. That it is internally contradictory.
Riight. I think I'll relent and agree to disagree about the Invisible man in the Sky line. I really feel like you are grasping at straws to distance Unseen Intelligent Agent who dwells in the Heavens with Invisible Man in the Sky.
Of course the joke was deliberately phrased to ridicule the concept. If he was taking it seriously it wouldn't be a joke! However if the joke was entirely untrue, it wouldn't be funny either. "It's funny 'cause it's true."
Theists believe in a personal God who interacts with the world. A First Cause is strictly a deist concept. So let's be clear, he wasn't demeaning a First Cause, but the concept of the Abrahamic Gods.
I'm pretty set on outlining to you why the term immaterial is equal to non-existent. Doing so would certainly invalidate an immaterial First Cause. But I'll try and stick to the subject and only peruse that in the other thread. How you think I've been avoiding that when that's largely all I've been arguing for .. Am I missing something here?? You want me to defend Carlin and disprove God in the same thread? I'm good, but I'm not that good :-)
”No, indistinct means that the term has no set definition. That it is internally contradictory.”
If it has no definition, it cannot be internally contradictory. But that is not the definition of indistinct. The term means that there is no “plain” definition. And Jefferson is wrong, and that point could be argued for hours, and we can if you wish, but I’ll have to terminate it at some point.
The issue of the Trinity is an issue of ecclesiaticism, not of the existence of a non-physical entity, one that cannot be defined using physical terms common to understanding this universe.
”However if the joke was entirely untrue, it wouldn't be funny either. "It's funny 'cause it's true."
You are confusing ridicule and humor. Humor is funny because it is true, or at least partly. Ridicule is not humor; It’s funny because its unexpected absurdity is made to look as if it contains truth. And it is only funny to a certain class of people.
He was explicit: "there is no Humpty Dumpty and there is no God." No reference to Abrahamic, or OK there’s a God but only deist. Let’s not try to make his statement what it is not.
”You want me to defend Carlin and disprove God in the same thread? I'm good, but I'm not that good :-)”
Ok let’s get to the other thread.
I think that the term "atheist" should be discarded. These folks are really anti-theists. This merely "without" a belief in God is nonsense.
The anthropomorphism of theism (a personal, that is a "human" God )and the "mythological/miraculous" elements seem to be the particularly objectionable points.
I presume that the non-theistic religions do not scandalize the atheist community quite as much because of the impersonal nature of those faiths.
Supernatural "personalities" just don't jive with these people. But, certainly, any atheist worth his/her weight in whatever, knows that this is a caricature. Claiming that belief in Zeus or in monotheism is essentially the same is simply schoolyard immaturity.
Maybe a dialogue could be begin with a discussion of the word anagogical.
Hmm. Good word, that.
I think that total freedom has a lot to do with it: the elimination of all moral consequences and the ability to choose ethics to fit their lifestyle, thereby making them de facto "good", and superior to religious persons who are not de facto good.
PZ once wrote about the total freedom of Atheism, and stopped just short of admitting that their thought process is also without any predetermined standard or grounding.
I suspect you are right. It's the principal of authority that gets stuck in their craw. To the atheist, theism is the theoretical justification for tyranny. If ultimate authority is not vested in the "people", says the atheist, God belief is simply a conceptual tool or mechanism for an aristocracy to dominate.
Of course, this view is empirically false. If it were so, the more atheistic and scientistic a society becomes, the more democratic and liberated it would be.
The truth is that liberalism can only thrive and truly liberate unless supported by non-liberal ideas and institutions. Hence, conservatism.
I'll call myself an anti-theist. I think theism is false, and therefore harmful. I'm won't speak for anyone else, however I have encounter many atheists who will argue that religion is harmless and just 'not for them'. I often find such atheists as vexing as theists.
The anthropomorphism of theism is objectionable because it points to the very human origins of theism. Animism to polytheism to monotheism. Getting closer and closer to the true number of gods as we go along history.
Personally I object to Buddhism and other non-deity oriented faiths on the grounds that they are also false. However they tend to be much less intrusive and pervasive in our society and thus attract a lot less attention. I object to them less because I've found their tenets to be less objectionable.
You may call belief in Zeus to Yahweh the equivalent of school yard immaturity, yet I have encountered people who pray to Zeus, who try to follow what they believe his will to be in their daily lives. To an outsider, both faiths seem equally arbitrary.
Atheism does not eliminate moral consequences. However you must answer to your fellow man, not an Unseen Agent who Dwells in Heaven.
In fact, because atheists don't really think there is a Being who is Impossible to See, it is easy to view theistic morality as bankrupt as they literally have no accountability when they claim only to be accountable to God, who doesn't exist.
Arguments from Authority are their own sort of logical fallacy and such arguments are rejected on that basis. Arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, not propped up by authoritarian decree.
"Compared to religious people, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, close-minded, and authoritarian.
In the US, in states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious US states, the murder rate is higher than average."
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
I don't have time to answer your blizzards of words just now, but I have to comment on the following, which I find hysterically funny:
"Arguments from Authority are their own sort of logical fallacy and such arguments are rejected on that basis. Arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, not propped up by authoritarian decree.
"Compared to religious people, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, close-minded, and authoritarian.
In the US, in states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious US states, the murder rate is higher than average."
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
No Arguments from Authority allowed, followed IMMEDIATELY by a reference to an authority...!
You seem to be a good stream of consciousness typist.
OK one more quick one.
”In fact, because atheists don't really think there is a Being who is Impossible to See, it is easy to view theistic morality as bankrupt as they literally have no accountability when they claim only to be accountable to God, who doesn't exist.
Theists have a standard to refer to. Atheists make stuff up, call it ethics, change it at will to match their changing desires, and then pass judgment on those who try to meet a standard. It is really of no consequence what Atheists think, because they are freethinkers who are untethered to any grounding principles and therefore their behaviors are not grounded in any standard. And because they reject absolutes, their thought processes are not grounded in any first principles, and thus their logic is a wandering, unsubstantiated, mess which is either circular or an infinite regress of continually unsubstantiated subpremises.
Why should any rational person give credence to that?
Now I really have to get to work, but I’ll be back later today.
"Atheism does not eliminate moral consequences. However you must answer to your fellow man, not an Unseen Agent who Dwells in Heaven."
Atheism absolutely and finally eliminates moral consequences. There are no morals attached to Atheism: none whatsoever. And that is why there are so many Philosophers (Atheist by definition) who make up and publish "ethical" theories, which they wish for others to follow.
The only mechanical, natural ethic for Atheism is evolution, which brings to the Atheist mind the possibility of engineering a better human by usurping the selection process under Atheist direction. Atheism leads directly to elitist self-worship and the product of the elite Atheist mind is called "ethical".
Read Nietzsche: the only honest Atheist, the one who recognized and documented what the "death of the God theory" actually meant in practical terms for Atheism.
The pretense of "morality" in Atheism, especially the "good Atheist", is the easiest pretense to shoot down because it has no basis in any factual accounting of Atheism or the "natural world" of Philosophical Materialism.
As for answering to your fellow man, there are two aspects of that within Atheism. First is the need to obey enough regulations to stay out of jail. That is merely pragmatism, not morality or ethics. Second is the concept of Humanism, wherein the elites control, and the herd answers to them. Read the First Humanist Manifesto, then the second and third in light of the first.
When Atheists adopt a "morality", it very frequently is Humanism.
Glad you are so amused! Sorry if it was a bit long and scattered, I was attempting to address all points made.
Citing a source is different from an Argument from Authority. If I just asserted such, surely you would ask me for a source? It's not right just because Zuckerman says so, but what the research reveals. Surely you recognize the difference?
"You seem to be a good stream of consciousness typist."
I have no idea what this means!
What is the theistic standard you refer to? I ask in part because if you have a supreme moral guide I would be interested in adopting it as my own.
"There are no morals attached to Atheism"
This is correct, atheism does not address morality at all. It would be like asking how tall is that building, and answering purple.
"And that is why there are so many Philosophers (Atheist by definition) who make up and publish "ethical" theories"
Or because they find the ethical philosophies of Christ or Muhammad flawed or lacking. If Christ revealed a system of perfect morality, we'd stop trying to improve it.
"The only mechanical, natural ethic for Atheism is evolution"
Kant's Categorical Imperative, or Reciprocal Altruism or even The Golden Rule are decent moral systems. Evolution is not a moral system. Moral system form via evolutionary processes however.
I reject Nietzsche's conclusion of nihilism.
"If God as the suprasensory ground and goal of all reality is dead, if the suprasensory world of the Ideas has suffered the loss of its obligatory and above it its vitalizing and upbuilding power, then nothing more remains to which man can cling and by which he can orient himself."
This is correct. However if there was never a god to begin with, then we've just removed some blinders. I understand the fear of letting go to something that seems so reassuring... But when you do, the feeling is liberating. You realize this whole time you were standing on your own, not held up by the crutch of God.
There is plenty of meaning to life, without the frame work of a God Theory for support. I mean to have a good lunch. I mean to be kind to my wife. I mean to raise my children to be rational, moral agents. My life has a tremendous breadth of meaning.
"First is the need to obey enough regulations to stay out of jail."
Which atheists seem quite adept at. Populations of atheists to theists in prisons do not at all reflect the proportions in free society.
1997, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 0.21% of inmates were atheist compared to 19% in society at large. And total speculation on my part, but they were probably all in there for smoking pot. Not exactly the scum of society here. In fairness, most theists in jail are probably for smoking pot too.
"Second is the concept of Humanism, wherein the elites control, and the herd answers to them. "
Actually the most common response I've heard from atheists regarding moral rules is some variation on the phrase "Don't be a dickhead."
101711 Jeremy
”Citing a source is different from an Argument from Authority. If I just asserted such, surely you would ask me for a source? It's not right just because Zuckerman says so, but what the research reveals. Surely you recognize the difference?”
You are bordering on the ridiculous now. You quoted a person, not a study.
”What is the theistic standard you refer to? I ask in part because if you have a supreme moral guide I would be interested in adopting it as my own.”
Very funny.
”Or because they find the ethical philosophies of Christ or Muhammad flawed or lacking. If Christ revealed a system of perfect morality, we'd stop trying to improve it.”
Ah. Then you are definitely superior, aren’t you.
”Kant's Categorical Imperative, or Reciprocal Altruism or even The Golden Rule are decent moral systems. Evolution is not a moral system. Moral system form via evolutionary processes however.”
None of these derive from Atheism. The Atheist is not bound by any of these. There is no way to tell what moral system an Atheist has chosen for the day, except to watch what sort of behavior he is currently exhibiting.
There is no reason to trust an Atheist nor is there any reason to believe anything he says.
”I reject Nietzsche's conclusion of nihilism.
Bully. So where does that leave you for today’s moral theory?
”"If God as the suprasensory ground and goal of all reality is dead, if the suprasensory world of the Ideas has suffered the loss of its obligatory and above it its vitalizing and upbuilding power, then nothing more remains to which man can cling and by which he can orient himself."
This is correct. However if there was never a god to begin with, then we've just removed some blinders.”
And yet you cannot even address the First Cause, much less provide proof for your belief system.
”There is plenty of meaning to life, without the frame work of a God Theory for support. I mean to have a good lunch. I mean to be kind to my wife. I mean to raise my children to be rational, moral agents. My life has a tremendous breadth of meaning.”
Swell, Now address the First Cause and provide proof for your belief system.
”1997, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 0.21% of inmates were atheist compared to 19% in society at large. And total speculation on my part, but they were probably all in there for smoking pot. Not exactly the scum of society here. In fairness, most theists in jail are probably for smoking pot too.”
There are not 19% Atheists in society at large. Don’t bother going to the “even the rocks, dirt, amoebas and newborns are Atheists” scam. And I would imagine that the stats on Atheists in prison reflects the conversion rate to Islam while in the slammer. But despite all this, SO WHAT? Why won’t you address the issue presented?
”Actually the most common response I've heard from atheists regarding moral rules is some variation on the phrase "Don't be a dickhead."”
Sounds about par with their argumentation…
"You are bordering on the ridiculous now. You quoted a person, not a study. "
You obviously didn't even check out the link because it is flooded with statistics and references.
"Very funny."
It's not funny. You claim theists have an superior, objective, God given moral code. I want.
"Ah. Then you are definitely superior, aren’t you."
I said "they find", but yes I think my personal philosophy is superior to Christ's. I'd gladly sacrifice myself to save the world AND I wouldn't condemn you to Hell for not believing I'm the son of God. I also wouldn't expect to be alive again in three days.
"And yet you cannot even address the First Cause, much less provide proof for your belief system."
Again you throw this at me despite that I'm clearly addressing it in the original thread.
I also have no idea what you mean for "proof of my belief system". I now feel like you are just throwing Red Herrings out.
"There are not 19% Atheists in society at large."
Pew Research Values Study, p4, http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf
I thought it was high too, but I sure wasn't going to fudge the statistic.
"But despite all this, SO WHAT?"
So it directly addresses your points raised??
"Why won’t you address the issue presented?"
What issue? I've practically gone point for point through the thread.
"Sounds about par with their argumentation"
Beats the hell out of
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my Commandments."
I don't want to be rude or anything, but what a dick move.
Back to the crux of the matter.
The atheist would have us believe that it's up to the theist to prove his assertion- after all, he's making the positive claim. If he fails, the default is atheism.
But that's simply not so. As far as I'm concerned, "atheist" is the old school word for philosophical materialist. Let's be true to reality, materialism is no "logical" default view.
Whatever scientistic rhetoric one chooses to employ , it does not make materialism the only sane and reasonable worldview. In fact, the presumption of it, (spaghetti monsters, teapots, hairdryers etc.) betokens an unwarranted and even comical stance of superiority.
Metaphysical naturalism is riddled with logical problems, not to mention existential ones. The issue of causation still looms, and, the talk about generating one's own subjective meaning in life just falls flat. "It's meaningful to me, even though, objectively,I know there's no such thing as meaning." Absurdity.
"It's meaningful to me, even though, objectively,I know there's no such thing as meaning." Absurdity.
Yes.
"It's meaningful to me, even though, objectively,I know there's no such thing as meaning." Absurdity."
What a laughable strawman.
Obviously if I believe something is meaningful to me, I believe in meaning. I do not believe in objective meaning. Objects do not mean something.
"Metaphysical naturalism is riddled with logical problems,"
The three main arguments against Metaphysical Naturalism are
1. Plantinga's Argument from Incredulity. Which is easily refuted as it is based on Plantinga's misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
2. Argument from Design. Which again has a myriad of flaws. Namely that of irreducible complexity which has been refuted innumerable times.
3. Argument from Consciousness. Hinges on the concept of "qualia" which are been roundly criticized. This is perhaps the strongest argument and it is based on so nebulous a concept a stiff breeze could knock it over.
Anyways, I feel like this is just descending into an exercise in ridicule. You've criticized atheists for flaunting their superiority, but at least I'm attempting to back up my assertions with statistics and arguments rather than mockery.
"You've criticized atheists for flaunting their superiority, but at least I'm attempting to back up my assertions with statistics and arguments rather than mockery."
Yes, and thank you.
The real argument against Naturalism is that it provides no evidence for its belief. So what is the reason for the belief?
The reason for its belief cannot be based on evidence.
The reason for its belief cannot be logic or rational assessment of evidence.
The reason for its belief is emotional. It is a decision, not a conclusion.
Being emotional, the defense of Naturalism descends into absurdity almost immediately, precisely because the belief is not evidence based, and cannot be supported otherwise.
Naturalism prides itself on being based Materially and not believing in a thing without evidence to support that belief. Hence its criticism of Theism.
Yet the belief in Naturalism is based on zero evidence to prove conclusively that the belief is supportable, using evidence.
Hence, the exception is granted to the belief in Naturalism without evidence: Special Pleading; the accusation against Theism, actually applies more aptly to Naturalism.
Unlike Theism which posits a logical reason for its beliefs, Naturalism merely denies the existence of something which it cannot test, empirically. This denial is not based on any empirical finding; it is merely a denial.
Naturalism grants itself an exception (no evidence required) which it denies to all other sources. And it declares that its denial is Truth, and that science supports it, which is false, and blatantly so.
Science voluntarily restricts its investigations to those things which it can measure and test; science therefore grants a category of untestable premises, and admits its inability to address them.
Naturalism denies that category and is therefore outside of the realm of science, and into the realm of philosophy, which, when held rigidly is an ideology. An ideology again without evidentiary support.
P.S.
Objective in the sense used does not refer to material objects, it refers to non-subjectivity. E.g. the "objective" viewpoint claimed by science.
So the belief in objective non-teleology logically supercedes the granting of special teleology. So special grants of teleology are in conflict with the over-all belief.
"Yes, and thank you."
Why, you are most welcome. I think it only considerate and practical. Herp derp theists are retards doesn't get you very far. I would actually like to change minds, or have my own mind changed.
"The reason for its belief cannot be based on evidence. "
Well I think you are wrong there. There is ample evidence to suggest that the natural world is real.
"The reason for its belief cannot be logic or rational assessment of evidence."
Again I believe you are wrong. Logically (and I use that term colloquially, not formally) and rationally if you have an entire universe composed of natural phenomenon, then it seems prudent and logic and rational to assume that the material world exists.
"The reason for its belief is emotional. It is a decision, not a conclusion."
I disagree as outlines above. There is ample reason to believe naturalism to be true and apparently rather weak reasons to believe it false.
Emotion doesn't enter into it until someone rejects the natural explanation in favour of the supernatural, which as you correctly point out has no evidence in its favour. It's strongest argument apparently is that you cannot prove it wrong. Nor can you prove it true.
This evokes the emotional response of "How the hell can you believe this??"
Personally that is what I find mind boggling.
"Naturalism denies that category and is therefore outside of the realm of science, and into the realm of philosophy, which, when held rigidly is an ideology."
If there was a good reason to think such a category actually exists, then it would fall within the realm of science. The supernatural is generally rejected because there is no good reason to suppose it exists.
"So the belief in objective non-teleology logically supercedes the granting of special teleology. So special grants of teleology are in conflict with the over-all belief."
Sorry Stan, you are talking over my pay grade here. Are you saying that objectivity refers to propositions that are mind independent? That is the definition I am most familiar with.
Since morality is meaningless outside the confines of moral agency, objective morality is incoherent...
From the atheistic viewpoint, why does any of this matter?
How could it matter?
If "value" is subjective, wouldn't that include truth itself?
”Well I think you are wrong there. There is ample evidence to suggest that the natural world is real.
That is completely off-topic and not part of the argument. Only certain philosophers claim that the natural world is not real: and they are Skeptics.
The argument being made here is that there is no evidence to suggest that there is no existence which is not natural. That’s completely different, yes?
”Again I believe you are wrong. Logically (and I use that term colloquially, not formally) and rationally if you have an entire universe composed of natural phenomenon, then it seems prudent and logic and rational to assume that the material world exists.”
You are arguing against a position that no one here has taken. We agree totally that the natural world exists.
”I disagree as outlines above. There is ample reason to believe naturalism to be true and apparently rather weak reasons to believe it false.”
That is not the position being taken once again. Naturalism is the position that, (a) yes, the natural world exists (we agree) and ALSO that (b) there is no existence beyond mass/energy and space/time. The argument is that (b) cannot be known using Naturalist techniques: there is no Natural evidence for Non-Natural existence or non-existence.
Methinks ye have slipped a cog.
” Emotion doesn't enter into it until someone rejects the natural explanation in favour of the supernatural, which as you correctly point out has no evidence in its favour. It's strongest argument apparently is that you cannot prove it wrong. Nor can you prove it true.”
Kindly rethink this in light of the above.
”This evokes the emotional response of "How the hell can you believe this??"
Personally that is what I find mind boggling.”
Yes I agree, your mind has boggled somewhat. You are arguing against positions not taken; rather like tilting at windmills. I’m sure that you don’t mean to argue as you have here, since we are mostly in agreement.
”"Naturalism denies that category and is therefore outside of the realm of science, and into the realm of philosophy, which, when held rigidly is an ideology."
If there was a good reason to think such a category actually exists, then it would fall within the realm of science. The supernatural is generally rejected because there is no good reason to suppose it exists.’
You are circling back to your old Category Error type of arguments. Draw a Venn diagram. Place one circle on the paper. Call it “physical”. Outside the circle write “non-physical”. Now decide where science should be written in. Let me know the result.
(more next)
(continued from above)
”"So the belief in objective non-teleology logically supercedes the granting of special teleology. So special grants of teleology are in conflict with the over-all belief."
Sorry Stan, you are talking over my pay grade here. Are you saying that objectivity refers to propositions that are mind independent? That is the definition I am most familiar with.”
I’m not sure what your pay grade is, but I will try to rephrase. First off, you used “objective” in the sense of being derived from objects. Now you are referring to mind-independent propositions. We’ll go with the second meaning.
If there is agreement that [ X ] does not exist universally, then the idea that [ X ] exists locally cannot be the case. That is all there is to it. Now let X = purpose or meaning or whatever. The claim that it exists locally is logically false.
If [ X ] then [ subset X ];
[ Not X];
Therefore, [ not subset X ].
This is not a claim that I / we make, it is an analysis of your claim to meaning in light of your other claim that there is no “objective” or universal “meaning”. It is an internal contradiction of the second kind ( two statement proposition), which violates the principle of non-contradiction, and is therefore non-coherent.
” Since morality is meaningless outside the confines of moral agency, objective morality is incoherent...”
Yes, if you mean that a search for morality looks outside of agents themselves. But then I have to ask, so what? First, Theism accepts a morality derived by a mind; however, second, what does that have to do with the existence of a first cause? Morality is a subject twice (or more) removed from the existential question.
"That is completely off-topic and not part of the argument."
Apologies if I misunderstood but you asked for evidence of the natural world, which I attempted to provide.
"The argument being made here is that there is no evidence to suggest that there is no existence which is not natural. That’s completely different, yes?"
So Naturalism is only demonstrably true only if Super Naturalism is demonstrably false? A view that is only held because it is unfalsafiable is not convincing.
"there is no Natural evidence for Non-Natural existence or non-existence."
Agreed. And I would posit that if your hypothesis proposes that evidence should be found, and none is, it is a strike against your hypothesis.
"Draw a Venn diagram. Place one circle on the paper. Call it “physical”. Outside the circle write “non-physical”. "
If it affects the physical, it is amenable to science. If it does not affect the physical, then why do we care?
"The argument is that (b) cannot be known using Naturalist techniques"
So my question is what techniques can determine the existence of non-natural existence?
"If there is agreement that [ X ] does not exist universally, then the idea that [ X ] exists locally cannot be the case. "
I must be misunderstanding you again because this seems completely incoherent.. So if say .. humans do not exist universally, they do not exist locally? But I agree it is afield of the original issue.
"Yes, if you mean that a search for morality looks outside of agents themselves. But then I have to ask, so what?"
Then we agree that objective morality is incoherent. Note that this was more in response to Chris than yourself.
”So Naturalism is only demonstrably true only if Super Naturalism is demonstrably false? A view that is only held because it is unfalsafiable is not convincing.
Your assertion of motive for the logical premise is both ornery and false. The premise is based on logic, and that you don’t like it has no bearing on its validity or truth value. So rather than assign false motives for annoying you, it would be better if you addressed the premise head-on. You are free to prove it false if you can.
In fact that was your promise when you first showed up here: you promised to prove that Philosophical Naturalism is True.
You can start by proving the above premise to be false.
”"there is no Natural evidence for Non-Natural existence or non-existence."
Agreed. And I would posit that if your hypothesis proposes that evidence should be found, and none is, it is a strike against your hypothesis.”
No one has made that statement or implication. You are again tilting at windmills.
”"Draw a Venn diagram. Place one circle on the paper. Call it “physical”. Outside the circle write “non-physical”. "
If it affects the physical, it is amenable to science. If it does not affect the physical, then why do we care?”
This is at least the third time around this circle, with you making the same statements every time, disregarding all prior arguments… Sometimes I think you misunderstand (when you argue against positions not taken) and other times I think you are just jerking the chain for no good reason, and I wonder why you are here.
One last time, the realms are independent; the agent existing in the non-physical realm created the physical realm, and therefore has access to the physical realm. This seems too simple to misunderstand; however, if it confuses you, I will try again.
You have not argued against this except to deny it. Create a syllogistic case against it, and then we at least have something to discuss.
”"The argument is that (b) cannot be known using Naturalist techniques"
So my question is what techniques can determine the existence of non-natural existence?”
Logical argumentation involving known universal principles and probabilistic extrapolation. And that case has already been made, and you have rejected it with no logical refutation or physical evidence for your support.
And in anticipation of your next objection, no, that is not physical evidence. For the non-applicability of physical evidence, return to the top of the page; repeat as necessary.
”"If there is agreement that [ X ] does not exist universally, then the idea that [ X ] exists locally cannot be the case. "
I must be misunderstanding you again because this seems completely incoherent.. So if say .. humans do not exist universally, they do not exist locally? But I agree it is afield of the original issue.”
We are talking principles, not objects, but let’s take your example anyway.
Premise: There are no humans in the universe.
Assertion: there are humans at this location within the universe.
Does not the assertion contradict the premise?
Now let's take principles:
Premise: Principle Q applies nowhere in this universe.
Assertion: Principle Q applies locally.
And again, does not the assertion contradict the premise?
”"Yes, if you mean that a search for morality looks outside of agents themselves. But then I have to ask, so what?"
Then we agree that objective morality is incoherent. Note that this was more in response to Chris than yourself.”
No, we agree only if agents are excluded from the discussion. Looking for morality in natural objects is not non-coherent - it is another Category Error. Looking for moral guidance from an outside agent which is not subject to, or revocable by, human minds is perfectly coherent.
"One last time, the realms are independent; the agent existing in the non-physical realm created the physical realm, and therefore has access to the physical realm."
I have repeatedly addressed this. Please explain how to distinguish super natural interactions from natural processes.
"Logical argumentation involving known universal principles and probabilistic extrapolation."
Therefore the spring appearing at Lourdes is probabilistic manifestation of the super natural? Perhaps I am just presupposing it is a natural process because springs form naturally? Because it is very common for people to claim visions? So it is probable to conclude that the kid imagined something and a spring formed naturally.
Your conclusion seems arbitrary and thus unwarranted.
"Looking for moral guidance from an outside agent which is not subject to, or revocable by, human minds is perfectly coherent."
*Shift eyes* .. just where are you looking, when said agent is claimed to exist outside the universe?
"If there is agreement that [ X ] does not exist universally, then the idea that [ X ] exists locally cannot be the case. "
"Premise: Principle Q applies nowhere in this universe."
This is a verbal sleight of hand. "Universally" means everywhere, not nowhere.
"Create a syllogistic case against it, and then we at least have something to discuss."
1. Hypothesize a God who is the highly intelligent and powerful supernatural creator of the physical universe.
2. We can reasonably expect that empirical evidence should exist for a purposeful and supernatural creation of this cosmos, such as the observed violation of one or more laws of physics.
3. No empirical evidence for a purposeful creation of the cosmos can be found. No universal laws of physics were violated at the origin of the universe in which we reside.
4. Modern cosmology indicates that the initial state of our universe was one of maximum chaos so that it contains no memory of a creator.
5. Scientists can provide plausible, purely natural scenarios based in well-established cosmological theories that show how our universe may have arisen out of an initial state of nothingness.
6. We can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God who is the highly intelligent and powerful supernatural creator of the physical universe does not exist.
Victor J. Stenger
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/ImpGodChapter.htm
.. I do anticipate several objection, but since we've gone around this three times already I suspect you already know my responses to your objections.
Question about #5.
What exactly is meant by nothingness?
Stenger's #2 is blatantly false. The evidence for the creation is the creation. Stenger confused meddling with the creation with the fact of the creation. There is nothing about the creation that suggests the necessity of finding violations. That also renders his statement #3 moot and non sequitur.
Subtotal: 1, 2, 3 are false.
Also, Stenger has no concept of syllogistic structure. His item 4 starts a new argument.
Item 4 has no existential bearing on a creating cause.
Item 5 is without merit. There are no known uncontested theories that start with nothing and produce mass/energy and space/time as well as the laws which govern them. Hawking's latest attempt even requires the pre-existence of Natural Law (gravity), and contains no mechanism for something from nothing.
This type of extravagant scientistic claim absolutely requires documentation; and any hypothesis (stenger uses erroneous terminology) presented must be accompanied by refutations of the hypothesis made within the discipline.
Using contingent scientistic claims for any worldview is hazardous: hypotheses come and go on a regular basis. That fact would render a science-based worldview unstable at best, and contradictory under normal circumstances where hypotheses are contested and refuted.
Subtotal: 1, 2, 3 are false; 4, 5 are without merit in this argument.
Item 6 thus has no support from his previous statements. It is a conclusion based on no evidence. The term "beyond reasonable doubt" is a relativistic, non-probabilistic opinion based on faulty premises.
Post a Comment