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, January 6, 2012
From PZ's Place, Diego Rosato, Italy, On Why I Am An Atheist
Have you sought out all the possible reasons and falsified them, one by one? If so, could you share that with us here?
Reasons? (Correct me if I'm wrong but from the context I assume you mean reasons to be a theist.)
Propositions are not true just because they can not be proved false and I've examined every proposition about theism I can find. The list of propositions about theism is as vast as the human imagination but I've examined every major reason for theism.
After examining these propositions, I felt a better question is not does a "most perfect being" or an "uncaused cause" exist but do the gods attested of by human religions exist?
You and I can't prove they don't exist but we don't need to. That we can't disprove the existence of thousands of gods doesn't mean it is reasonable to believe in their existence.
If there was a good reason to believe in theism it would have shown itself by now. So one way to look at it is that either gods really like to look non-existent, or that they are nonexistent.
”Reasons? (Correct me if I'm wrong but from the context I assume you mean reasons to be a theist.)”
When he says “no reason” it is reasonable to think he means theistic reasons, yes.
” After examining these propositions, I felt a better question is not does a "most perfect being" or an "uncaused cause" exist but do the gods attested of by human religions exist?”
Why do you think that? What humans think about the existence of a deity has no bearing on the fact of its existence.
” That we can't disprove the existence of thousands of gods doesn't mean it is reasonable to believe in their existence.’
No one that I know of makes that claim.
” If there was a good reason to believe in theism it would have shown itself by now.”
What constitutes a “good reason” in your mind?
” So one way to look at it is that either gods really like to look non-existent, or that they are nonexistent”
"”That we can't disprove the existence of thousands of gods doesn't mean it is reasonable to believe in their existence."
No one that I know of makes that claim."
No-one claims that everything that can't be proven false is true but there are believers will have their own special god/causes/beings that they will use this argument for. Believers rarely apply this reasoning to the other areas.
I know believers who say it is not reasonable to disbelieve in their god because of the impossibility of disproving their god. I don't know of believers who expand this argument to other areas of their lives.
” After examining these propositions, I felt a better question is not does a "most perfect being" or an "uncaused cause" exist but do the gods attested of by human religions exist?”
Why do you think that? What humans think about the existence of a deity has no bearing on the fact of its existence.
I felt it was a better question (and not the only question) because those ideas (most perfect beings and uncaused causes) are content-less. There is so little to examine. I can't find people who hold these ideas in the content-less form. People who hold these ideas will tell you all kinds of things about the "cause". Maybe the "cause" has the ability to reason and is worried about what humans do in the bedroom - then it is no longer just an uncaused cause it is a god of a human religion.
(Sorry, people are in the room, I'll continue this later)
(I have to catch a plane, quick thoughts, no spell checking, less proper sentences.)
good reason
Combinations of reasons containing but not limited to good logic and observation. Premises should be true and not unwarranted assumptions, there should be evidence that the premises are true, should be demonstrable that the premises are true, should be factual claims no subjective feelings or value judgments, critical thinking to reflect on these claims without falling prey to prejudices, biases, self-interest, vested interest.
Materialism? Is that your position?
I'll say that it is unlikely that the supernatural exist. Every explanation ever found as been natural. It's likely that this will continue.
I always like to run the Leibnizian cosmological argument on materialists, because it is very easy, very basic, and attempts to refute naturalism without so much as proving theism or deism per se.
1. Everything that can logically be conceived to have gone differently is contingent 2. The universe (by which I mean the entire spacetime system) can logically be conceived to have gone differently 3. Therefore, the universe is contingent
The argument is logically valid, so the conclusion follows necessarily if both premises are true. Premise 1 is true by definition. Premise 2 can be shown to be true because cosmologists are always talking about how things could have gone differently, such as if the gravitational constant had been different, or if there had been more or less entropy, and so forth.
Now that it is proven that the universe is contingent, on to the next argument:
1. Everything contingent has an external explanation 2. The universe is contingent 3. Therefore, the universe has an external explanation
Premise 2 was proven above. Premise 1 is the principle of sufficient reason. Arguments for the PSR:
1. We see no widespread violations; all inductive evidence points to its truth 2. In inference to the best explanation, we never include "there is no explanation" as one of the possibilities. 3. If the PSR were false, then your perceptions could be happening for no reason at all. 4. Any acceptance of scientific theories, like evolution, presupposes the truth of the PSR. 5. We presuppose it all the time in philosophical reasoning.
What I like about arguments such as these is you can accept any premise the theist has, and they still come no where near demonstrating the veracity of theism.
I would also suggest that it comes no where near refuting materialism. It certainly provides no reason to accept any supernatural claim.
If we expand the definition of "universe" to include "all cosmological states", it then necessarily includes all possible worlds.
1. Everything that cannot logically be conceived to have gone differently is necessary. 2. The universe (by which I mean all cosmological states/all possible worlds) cannot logically be conceived to have gone differently 3. Therefore, the universe is necessary.
Your second premise is false. Cosmologists are always speaking of how things could have gone if entropy had been less, the gravitational constant had been different, matter had never formed, and so forth. Since they can coherently describe such alternate states of affairs, then such states of affairs are LOGICALLY coherent.
What Jotunn was trying to argue is that "nothing" cannot exist, and thus all possible worlds contain something. The whole collection of all possible worlds cannot be conceived to have gone differently, and thus the whole shebang is necessary and not contingent.
I would agree. But his mistake is to define all possible worlds as containing only space, time, matter/energy, and the laws of physics. The game is rigged from the start to only allow materialism to pop out the other end.
There are possible worlds where there is a single disembodied mind, for example (not necessarily God). There is no logical incoherence in this notion, and thus it is true in some possible world.
Atheists often respond to this that "we know of no evidence that such a thing could exist". But "lack of inductive evidence" is not the same as "logical incoherence", which is what would be required to keep disembodied minds out of all possible worlds.
Thus, Jotunn's premise is a materialistic premise. As always, "lack of belief" atheists turn out to be die-hard materialists (and thus strong atheists) when pushed, and will stop at nothing to maintain their worldview of materialism.
But his mistake is to define all possible worlds as containing only space, time, matter/energy, and the laws of physics.
This is not quite accurate. The idea that something besides this can exist is certainly entertained.
Atheists often respond to this that "we know of no evidence that such a thing could exist".
Is indeed the predictable response. Not that it "does" exist, but that it even "can" exist.
There are possible worlds where there is a single disembodied mind, for example (not necessarily God).
I actually don't think this is possible, for several reasons.
Yes, we have no evidence that such a thing could exist.
We have ample evidence that such a thing could not exist. Example: In every instance in which a minds body is removed, the mind appears to cease to exist.
From what we know of universes, it would appear absurd for one to contain nothing but a mind.
Just because something is coherent, does not make it accurate or true. I'll avoid appeals to absurdity or ridicule to emphasize my point.
Lastly, I do consider myself a "strong atheist". I'm just pointing out why your argument is unconvincing. I would hardly phrase that as "will stop at nothing".
To sum up. Your argument does not refute materialism. It does not provide grounds to accept any supernatural proposition. It certainly does not argue for theism.
There are possible worlds where there is a single disembodied mind, for example (not necessarily God). There is no logical incoherence in this notion, and thus it is true in some possible world.
A mind without a brain? Isn't the mind what the brain does?
Also, it feels unpleasant to comment on someone's ideas when they are not allowed to speak. What did Jottunn do that was so horrible?
20 comments:
I like this one.
I'd say this is my reason too.
Nats,
I'm curious. Have you sought out all the possible reasons and falsified them, one by one? If so, could you share that with us here?
If not, then why do you say that?
Have you sought out all the possible reasons and falsified them, one by one? If so, could you share that with us here?
Reasons? (Correct me if I'm wrong but from the context I assume you mean reasons to be a theist.)
Propositions are not true just because they can not be proved false and I've examined every proposition about theism I can find.
The list of propositions about theism is as vast as the human imagination but I've examined every major reason for theism.
After examining these propositions, I felt a better question is not does a "most perfect being" or an "uncaused cause" exist but do the gods attested of by human religions exist?
You and I can't prove they don't exist but we don't need to. That we can't disprove the existence of thousands of gods doesn't mean it is reasonable to believe in their existence.
If there was a good reason to believe in theism it would have shown itself by now.
So one way to look at it is that either gods really like to look non-existent, or that they are nonexistent.
”Reasons? (Correct me if I'm wrong but from the context I assume you mean reasons to be a theist.)”
When he says “no reason” it is reasonable to think he means theistic reasons, yes.
” After examining these propositions, I felt a better question is not does a "most perfect being" or an "uncaused cause" exist but do the gods attested of by human religions exist?”
Why do you think that? What humans think about the existence of a deity has no bearing on the fact of its existence.
” That we can't disprove the existence of thousands of gods doesn't mean it is reasonable to believe in their existence.’
No one that I know of makes that claim.
” If there was a good reason to believe in theism it would have shown itself by now.”
What constitutes a “good reason” in your mind?
” So one way to look at it is that either gods really like to look non-existent, or that they are nonexistent”
Materialism? Is that your position?
"”That we can't disprove the existence of thousands of gods doesn't mean it is reasonable to believe in their existence."
No one that I know of makes that claim."
No-one claims that everything that can't be proven false is true but there are believers will have their own special god/causes/beings that they will use this argument for. Believers rarely apply this reasoning to the other areas.
I know believers who say it is not reasonable to disbelieve in their god because of the impossibility of disproving their god.
I don't know of believers who expand this argument to other areas of their lives.
” After examining these propositions, I felt a better question is not does a "most perfect being" or an "uncaused cause" exist but do the gods attested of by human religions exist?”
Why do you think that? What humans think about the existence of a deity has no bearing on the fact of its existence.
I felt it was a better question (and not the only question) because those ideas (most perfect beings and uncaused causes) are content-less. There is so little to examine.
I can't find people who hold these ideas in the content-less form. People who hold these ideas will tell you all kinds of things about the "cause". Maybe the "cause" has the ability to reason and is worried about what humans do in the bedroom - then it is no longer just an uncaused cause it is a god of a human religion.
(Sorry, people are in the room, I'll continue this later)
OK, I'll wait...
(I have to catch a plane, quick thoughts, no spell checking, less proper sentences.)
good reason
Combinations of reasons containing but not limited to good logic and observation. Premises should be true and not unwarranted assumptions, there should be evidence that the premises are true, should be demonstrable that the premises are true, should be factual claims no subjective feelings or value judgments, critical thinking to reflect on these claims without falling prey to prejudices, biases, self-interest, vested interest.
Materialism? Is that your position?
I'll say that it is unlikely that the supernatural exist. Every explanation ever found as been natural. It's likely that this will continue.
Nats,
I always like to run the Leibnizian cosmological argument on materialists, because it is very easy, very basic, and attempts to refute naturalism without so much as proving theism or deism per se.
1. Everything that can logically be conceived to have gone differently is contingent
2. The universe (by which I mean the entire spacetime system) can logically be conceived to have gone differently
3. Therefore, the universe is contingent
The argument is logically valid, so the conclusion follows necessarily if both premises are true. Premise 1 is true by definition. Premise 2 can be shown to be true because cosmologists are always talking about how things could have gone differently, such as if the gravitational constant had been different, or if there had been more or less entropy, and so forth.
Now that it is proven that the universe is contingent, on to the next argument:
1. Everything contingent has an external explanation
2. The universe is contingent
3. Therefore, the universe has an external explanation
Premise 2 was proven above. Premise 1 is the principle of sufficient reason. Arguments for the PSR:
1. We see no widespread violations; all inductive evidence points to its truth
2. In inference to the best explanation, we never include "there is no explanation" as one of the possibilities.
3. If the PSR were false, then your perceptions could be happening for no reason at all.
4. Any acceptance of scientific theories, like evolution, presupposes the truth of the PSR.
5. We presuppose it all the time in philosophical reasoning.
What I like about arguments such as these is you can accept any premise the theist has, and they still come no where near demonstrating the veracity of theism.
I would also suggest that it comes no where near refuting materialism. It certainly provides no reason to accept any supernatural claim.
If we expand the definition of "universe" to include "all cosmological states", it then necessarily includes all possible worlds.
1. Everything that cannot logically be conceived to have gone differently is necessary.
2. The universe (by which I mean all cosmological states/all possible worlds) cannot logically be conceived to have gone differently
3. Therefore, the universe is necessary.
Jotunn,
Your second premise is false. Cosmologists are always speaking of how things could have gone if entropy had been less, the gravitational constant had been different, matter had never formed, and so forth. Since they can coherently describe such alternate states of affairs, then such states of affairs are LOGICALLY coherent.
Martin,
Jotunn has left the building and will not be returning.
"2. The universe (by which I mean all cosmological states/all possible worlds) cannot logically be conceived to have gone differently
"
Wow. I'm failing to see the logic or truth or this.
I think it hinges on the word 'all'.
Can we really discover the origin of everything or the universe based on what humans can conceive alone? It just feels wrong.
JazzyJ,
What Jotunn was trying to argue is that "nothing" cannot exist, and thus all possible worlds contain something. The whole collection of all possible worlds cannot be conceived to have gone differently, and thus the whole shebang is necessary and not contingent.
I would agree. But his mistake is to define all possible worlds as containing only space, time, matter/energy, and the laws of physics. The game is rigged from the start to only allow materialism to pop out the other end.
There are possible worlds where there is a single disembodied mind, for example (not necessarily God). There is no logical incoherence in this notion, and thus it is true in some possible world.
Atheists often respond to this that "we know of no evidence that such a thing could exist". But "lack of inductive evidence" is not the same as "logical incoherence", which is what would be required to keep disembodied minds out of all possible worlds.
Thus, Jotunn's premise is a materialistic premise. As always, "lack of belief" atheists turn out to be die-hard materialists (and thus strong atheists) when pushed, and will stop at nothing to maintain their worldview of materialism.
Martin,
You seem to understand the argument quite well.
But his mistake is to define all possible worlds as containing only space, time, matter/energy, and the laws of physics.
This is not quite accurate. The idea that something besides this can exist is certainly entertained.
Atheists often respond to this that "we know of no evidence that such a thing could exist".
Is indeed the predictable response. Not that it "does" exist, but that it even "can" exist.
There are possible worlds where there is a single disembodied mind, for example (not necessarily God).
I actually don't think this is possible, for several reasons.
Yes, we have no evidence that such a thing could exist.
We have ample evidence that such a thing could not exist. Example: In every instance in which a minds body is removed, the mind appears to cease to exist.
From what we know of universes, it would appear absurd for one to contain nothing but a mind.
Just because something is coherent, does not make it accurate or true. I'll avoid appeals to absurdity or ridicule to emphasize my point.
Lastly, I do consider myself a "strong atheist". I'm just pointing out why your argument is unconvincing. I would hardly phrase that as "will stop at nothing".
To sum up. Your argument does not refute materialism. It does not provide grounds to accept any supernatural proposition. It certainly does not argue for theism.
There are possible worlds where there is a single disembodied mind, for example (not necessarily God). There is no logical incoherence in this notion, and thus it is true in some possible world.
A mind without a brain?
Isn't the mind what the brain does?
Also, it feels unpleasant to comment on someone's ideas when they are not allowed to speak. What did Jottunn do that was so horrible?
I'll not discuss those who are no longer allowed to comment here, but I can direct you to the blog rules in the upper right column.
Also, feel free to start your own conversation on any thread.
Jotunn,
If you are still around, please email me.
Stan
Martin, thanks for the explanation.
Post a Comment