A new Dummies book is apparently coming out, this one for Atheists. Most Dummies books are regarding subjects which are just a little outside the reach of the common joe in the general population, and they give quick introductions in a summary form to get c. joe up to speed – well, not up to speed but at least started in that direction.
So I am wondering, if Atheism is the void that they claim, the lack, the missing, the without-ness of Theism, why wouldn’t they just do a Theism For Dummies, and then say, “well, it’s just not that” in an Atheism For Dummies pamphlet or post card or such.
If this new Dummies is a comprehensive presentation of positive evidence FOR Atheism, then it will contain the disciplined logic and the empirical, scientific, replicable and replicated, falsifiable and not falsified, open data, peer reviewed, published incorrigible proof of the Atheist claim. Wouldn't it?
And if this is a comprehensive refutation of Theism, it should contain the disciplined logic and the empirical, scientific, replicable and replicated, falsifiable and not falsified, open data, peer reviewed, published incorrigible proof of that Atheist claim, also. Shouldn't it?
But somehow I suspect that it will contain no attempt to attack the basic Theist concept of a necessary creating agent for the universe, except by asserting increased, and possibly radical, Skepticism, rather than to provide actual material evidence for its void.
And I also suspect that it will concentrate not on basic Theism, but on ecclesiasticism and attacks on various ecclesiastical systems, rather than on what it is that Atheists actually know for certain.
I also suspect that it will not address the issue of Atheist trustworthiness, and the logical, necessary, lack thereof, nor the issue of personal ethics selected by the individual (or the Dahmerist lack thereof) which contradict other ethics, even within the Atheist community. Nor will it address the most applicable sub-ethic, which applies to all the Atheist ethics as a presupposition: Consequentialism (the most dangerous and relativist of all tactics).
I doubt that it will illuminate the intellectual connection between the elevation to elitism of Atheism, and the utopian, totalitarian march of “progress” of the political Left, under the banners of social justice, meaning enforced equalitarianism and redistributionism.
And I doubt that it will discuss the obvious sexism, racism, and arrogant Nietzschean irrationalism which infests the ranks of on-line Atheists, even while calling for utopian equality and Scientistic comprehension under Philosophical Materialism.
There will likely be long lists of EvilBible and EvilGod references, but without any indication of which of the particular Atheist ethics under which they are adjudged “evil” (certainly not under Consequentialism), much less firm and comprehensive Atheist definitions of “good” and “bad”. And I bet that there will be a much toned-down assessment of Islam and other retaliatory religions, possibly not mentioning Scientology at all as a prudent omission.
It will be interesting to see.
27 comments:
I wonder how bad the reviews for this piece of atheist propaganda will be...
PM,
We can make that assumption, ignoring solipsism, brain in a vat, and other Radical Skepticism for now.
What's the difference between solipsism, brain in a vat and Radical Skepticism with a big R and a big S?
In any case, we now have an agreement that the PM worldview starts by assuming that the material exists (1). Since another assumption regarding solipsism was mentioned, I will not add anything new. Let's only state that 'assuming that the material' exists does not equal 'assuming that the non-material does not exist'. Let's label that (1b), shall we need to refer it later on.
If we reject solipsism, then we are making another assumption: our consciousness, whatever its sources, exists and is not alone. Agreed?
Let's assume 'yes' and label is as (2) in order to list the possible next steps:
Given that (1) is already assumed, does (2) assume that our consciousness is material?
- If 'yes', we have defined a first material object: consciousness.
- If 'no', is consciousness assumed to be non-material?
-- If 'yes', we have defined an existing non-material object: consciousness.
-- If 'no', consciousness can be either material or not.
Please clarify statement (2).
”What's the difference between solipsism, brain in a vat and Radical Skepticism with a big R and a big S?”
With mere finger flicks you can google those up.
”In any case, we now have an agreement that the PM worldview starts by assuming that the material exists (1). “
No, what we have is your personal attempt to justify a PM worldview, as you understand it. But that is fine; continue.
”Since another assumption regarding solipsism was mentioned, I will not add anything new. Let's only state that 'assuming that the material' exists does not equal 'assuming that the non-material does not exist'. Let's label that (1b), shall we need to refer it later on.”
OK, with the understanding that you are multiplying assumptions without making an argument at this point. Assumptions will need justification at some point.
”If we reject solipsism, then we are making another assumption: our consciousness, whatever its sources, exists and is not alone. Agreed?”
”Let's assume 'yes' and label is as (2) in order to list the possible next steps:
That is four assumptions and one tactic so far:
1.a. Material existence exists.
1.b. There is no presumption due to (1.a). that the non-material does not exist
1 c. Solipsism is rejected (tactic).
2.a. Consciousness exists.
2.b. Consciousness is not alone.
”Given that (1) is already assumed, does (2) assume that our consciousness is material?
- If 'yes', we have defined a first material object: consciousness.
- If 'no', is consciousness assumed to be non-material?
-- If 'yes', we have defined an existing non-material object: consciousness.
-- If 'no', consciousness can be either material or not.”
Well, which do you assert to be the case, and why?
”What's the difference between solipsism, brain in a vat and Radical Skepticism with a big R and a big S?”
With mere finger flicks you can google those up.
It was rhetorical; you should have read: why do you make a distinction?
For all practical purposes, they are exactly the same thing.
No, what we have is your personal attempt to justify a PM worldview, as you understand it. But that is fine; continue.
There is nothing personal; nothing subjective here. One can disagree with the starting point yet express it; one can disagree with PM yet explain it. I was under the impression that this was the main purpose of this blog: you are not an atheist yet you have a blog about atheism, labeled ‘Atheism Analyzed’, where you expose atheistic worldviews without adhering to any.
OK, with the understanding that you are multiplying assumptions without making an argument at this point. Assumptions will need justification at some point.
Assumptions are never justified. If we label something that we know is true as an assumption, then this becomes a piece of knowledge. It's not an assumption anymore.
To be clear, in certain cases we do use the word 'assumption' for something that we know is true or false, as an hypothetical evaluation; but that is not what we are doing here. We literally assume that the material exists, without justification, as a starting point.
That is four assumptions and one tactic so far:
1.a. Material existence exists.
1.b. There is no presumption due to (1.a). that the non-material does not exist
1 c. Solipsism is rejected (tactic).
2.a. Consciousness exists.
2.b. Consciousness is not alone.
You added (1c) (2a) and (2b); they are not required assumptions as a starting point for PM. They can actually be proven true.
Given that (1) is already assumed, does (2) assume that our consciousness is material?
--
Well, which do you assert to be the case, and why?
Understand the starting point adequately and the answer shall become obvious.
But there will always be things that can't be explained so it makes sense to believe in the supernatural.
Stan, you doubter! You are a very suspicious man! What on earth leads you to those conclusions? I mean, other than that someone has take on the task of writing a 'Dummies' book that, far from illuminating the reader (as might be expected, give the general tenor of the series), will attempt to justify the unjustifiable?
When you enshrine at the center of your life a good, solid resounding lie (quoting Lewis), just about any other nonsense is fair game. Lewis was referring to our sense of 'ownership in time', but the built-in contradictions that attend the core of atheistic faith work just as well. It poisons everything from the center out. If you can swallow atheism, you can swallow darn near anything.
Even the idea of an 'Atheism for Dummies'. This does signal a change, however. It would seem that the authors have given up the intellectual approach and are now targeting the most appropriate demographic....
PM says,
I read exactly what you wrote; if you meant something else, then that is what you should have written.
”No, what we have is your personal attempt to justify a PM worldview, as you understand it. But that is fine; continue.
There is nothing personal; nothing subjective here. One can disagree with the starting point yet express it; one can disagree with PM yet explain it. I was under the impression that this was the main purpose of this blog: you are not an atheist yet you have a blog about atheism, labeled ‘Atheism Analyzed’, where you expose atheistic worldviews without adhering to any.”
If this were not your personal theory, you would undoubtedly have attributed it to its rightful creator, wouldn’t you? So far you have deduced nothing specific; you have made only a set of assumptions which you apparently think are necessary for your first deduction. Then your first deduction is a set of possibilities, from which you have so far not selected and justified a necessary conclusion, and so you have not produced an actual deduction.
But let’s move on.
”OK, with the understanding that you are multiplying assumptions without making an argument at this point. Assumptions will need justification at some point.
Assumptions are never justified. If we label something that we know is true as an assumption, then this becomes a piece of knowledge. It's not an assumption anymore.”
OK, then your assumptions have become your axioms, which are subject to analysis under Reductio Ad Absurdum; is that your position? If so then you can justify them with RAA.
“To be clear, in certain cases we do use the word 'assumption' for something that we know is true or false, as an hypothetical evaluation; but that is not what we are doing here. We literally assume that the material exists, without justification, as a starting point.”
This sounds very sock puppet-ish; this pot-hole filled road ends in a sink-hole, as it always has before. But continue.
”That is four assumptions and one tactic so far:
1.a. Material existence exists.
1.b. There is no presumption due to (1.a). that the non-material does not exist
1 c. Solipsism is rejected (tactic).
2.a. Consciousness exists.
2.b. Consciousness is not alone.
You added (1c) (2a) and (2b); they are not required assumptions as a starting point for PM. They can actually be proven true.”
There are ample Atheo/neuroscience arguments against the existence of consciousness; so although under PM, consciousness is not a given, go ahead.
”Given that (1) is already assumed, does (2) assume that our consciousness is material?
--
Well, which do you assert to be the case, and why?
Understand the starting point adequately and the answer shall become obvious. “
Is this a game? Or are you trying to make a rational argument? I don’t play games. If you wish to make an argument, then make the argument, and justify it down to and including your axioms. And if you don’t/can't use deductive formatting, then I will do it for you – but you must make your own argument.
Stephen Satak says,
"Even the idea of an 'Atheism for Dummies'. This does signal a change, however. It would seem that the authors have given up the intellectual approach and are now targeting the most appropriate demographic...."
Yes, likely the next step will be a comic book. Or maybe those exist already.
”When you enshrine at the center of your life a good, solid resounding lie (quoting Lewis), just about any other nonsense is fair game”
Here is another version of that sentiment:
”One of the peculiar sins of the twentieth century which we've developed to a very high level is the sin of credulity. It has been said that when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse: they believe in anything.”
Malcom Muggeridge
Here are some other pithy Muggeridge quotes:
”People do not believe lies because they have to, but because they want to.”
”Sex is the ersatz or substitute religion of the 20th Century.”
”Sex is the mysticism of materialism and the only possible religion in a materialistic society.”
Even on prime time TV, casual sex without consequences is depicted in almost every sitcom and in most other shows, too. It has become soft porn. Sex is now an end in itself, self-gratification on the first date, and completely without consequence; the birth control or abortion is virtually never, ever depicted.
A Nok,
That is not the reason or even a reason. So your comment is misplaced sarcasm and you have not connected with any target.
Not a reason?
Every time I find a gap in a materialist's knowledge, I know they can not prove that materialism is all there is. Therefore everything that is unexplained is evidence against materialism.
A Nok,
I guess I mistakenly took your comment as sarcasm.
If something is unexplained, but is material in nature, it is possible that it will ultimately be explained using material techniques, perhaps even techniques which do not currently exist.
The criterion for the limitation of materialism is falsification. If a proposition can't be falsified, or if even an event (such as the miracle at Lourdes) can't be falsified using materialist techniques, that is the point where materialism fails.
Philosophical Materialism fails because it can neither prove nor falsify its own premise and reason for existing: the claim that material existence is all that there is.
If you wish to make an argument, then make the argument, and justify it down to and including your axioms. And if you don’t/can't use deductive formatting, then I will do it for you – but you must make your own argument.
Feel free to re-write the statements presented any way you want, as long as the meaning is conserved. You already attempted to do so, but failed:
That is four assumptions and one tactic so far:
1.a. Material existence exists.
1.b. There is no presumption due to (1.a). that the non-material does not exist
1 c. Solipsism is rejected (tactic).
2.a. Consciousness exists.
2.b. Consciousness is not alone.
1.a. OK
1.b. OK
1.c. NOT OK
2.a. NOT OK
2.b. NOT OK
The last three were added --by you-- as conditions for the first two to be accepted. You want them to be the '1s'. You said:
We can make that assumption, ignoring solipsism, brain in a vat, and other Radical Skepticism for now.
1.a. and 1.b. are assumed without justification. If we add something such as 'ignoring...' after the assumption, then the assumption becomes dependent on the 'ignoring...' bit. The 2s become 1s, and the 1s become 2s...
What's wrong with the 1s alone?
”Feel free to re-write the statements presented any way you want, as long as the meaning is conserved. You already attempted to do so, but failed:
That is four assumptions and one tactic so far:
1.a. Material existence exists.
1.b. There is no presumption due to (1.a). that the non-material does not exist
1 c. Solipsism is rejected (tactic).
2.a. Consciousness exists.
2.b. Consciousness is not alone.
1.a. OK
1.b. OK
1.c. NOT OK
2.a. NOT OK
2.b. NOT OK
The last three were added --by you-- as conditions for the first two to be accepted. You want them to be the '1s'. You said:
We can make that assumption, ignoring solipsism, brain in a vat, and other Radical Skepticism for now.
1.a. and 1.b. are assumed without justification. If we add something such as 'ignoring...' after the assumption, then the assumption becomes dependent on the 'ignoring...' bit. The 2s become 1s, and the 1s become 2s...
What's wrong with the 1s alone?”
OK, I can see that you do want to play games. You say something and then deny it. Here is what you actually said (July 17, 2012 11:41 AM):
” If we reject solipsism, then we are making another assumption: our consciousness, whatever its sources, exists and is not alone. Agreed?”
You then said,
” Let's assume 'yes' and label is as (2) in order to list the possible next steps:”
To which I replied,
” That is four assumptions and one tactic so far:
1.a. Material existence exists.
1.b. There is no presumption due to (1.a). that the non-material does not exist
1 c. Solipsism is rejected (tactic).
2.a. Consciousness exists.
2.b. Consciousness is not alone.”
That is just a list of your assumptions, which you now deny.
I am done with you. You appear to be a sock puppet for one of the previously banned Atheists: not only your argument style, which is all assumptions and no proof, but also your own personal confusion as to what you have said before, and how to actually create a valid argument. You make no argument and you deny your own assumptions. You are wasting my time.
Make your entire argument from start to finish. Use the standard IF/THEN form to make your premises and conclusions readily apparent.
Otherwise we are done here.
What's wrong with the 1s alone?”
OK, I can see that you do want to play games. You say something and then deny it. Here is what you actually said (July 17, 2012 11:41 AM):
No games are being played here.
Pause for a second.
Could it be that you misunderstood/misinterpreted the statements written above?
It's painful to do so but here's what actually happened step-by-step:
PM proposed (1): the PM worldview starts by assuming that the material exists.
Stan replied: We can make that assumption, ignoring solipsism, brain in a vat, and other Radical Skepticism for now.
PM replied: another assumption regarding solipsism was mentioned, I will not add anything new.
PM asked Stan to confirm: If we reject solipsism, then we are making another assumption: our consciousness, whatever its sources, exists and is not alone. Agreed?
There is already some confusion here and that led you to label this discussion as a 'game'. Here is why it is not a game...
- "I will not add anything new" meant that I cannot move forward beyond (1) if we cannot agree that (1) is an assumption. If you say that we can assume (1) only if we also accept (2), then you are not assuming (1) at all, you are either saying that we have to first assume (2) before we can do anything else, or that as soon as we assume one, we cannot do anything else before we also assume (2).
- Hence, the question: If we reject solipsism, then we are making another assumption: our consciousness, whatever its sources, exists and is not alone. Agreed? The question was not meant to be equivalent to "let's accept (2) and move on". The purpose of the question was to ask:
Stan, you assume (2) and it means 'consciousness, whatever its sources, exists and is not alone'. Agreed? Right? Correct? True? It was merely an attempt to understand the exact meaning of your assumption. I repeat: your assumption.
- Then, in order to save a little bit of time, PM moved on with: Let's assume 'yes' and label it as (2) in order to list the possible next steps. The purpose of this sentence was to try to understand the exact meaning of the assumption (2) presented by Stan, if (1) is assumed.
Does that make sense?
Make your entire argument from start to finish. Use the standard IF/THEN form to make your premises and conclusions readily apparent.
Start to finish in this comment box would be too long, as it is almost full already I believe. So let's first confirm what you mean by "standard IF/THEN". Consider this:
IF the material is assumed to exist THEN what we call 'physical reality' is not an illusion
IF what we call 'physical reality' is not an illusion THEN 'brain in a vat' scenarios are false
Since we start by assuming that the material exists, we just proved that 'brain in a vat' scenarios are false. No need to assume (2); (2) is proven true, or in other words, solipsism is proven false.
Please note that any further accusation of game playing, sock puppetery or other irrelevant subject changes will lead me to not comment here again. I am not wasting your time; don't waste mine with ad hominem.
”Start to finish in this comment box would be too long, as it is almost full already I believe. So let's first confirm what you mean by "standard IF/THEN".”
What I mean is standard modus ponens distributed deductive argumentation.
” Consider this:
IF the material is assumed to exist THEN what we call 'physical reality' is not an illusion
IF what we call 'physical reality' is not an illusion THEN 'brain in a vat' scenarios are false”
Your first argument is incorrect; it does not follow that the existence of B means that we necessarily experience B. The antecedent must contain all the conditions which are necessary and sufficient to prove the conclusion. So the existence of B does not mean that it is necessary that we experience B, and that it is a sufficient condition for us to experience B.
Further, it is commonly held by Materialist philosophers that sensory input to the conscious mind can be, and frequently is, an illusion or delusion; this is a standard Materialist position. It is the position frequently used against miracle arguments, for example. So allowing your first argument is contingent upon what you wish to do with it; it is not always the case that humans are not illuded and/or deluded regarding physical reality.
Next, it is also commonly held by Materialist philosophers that “brain in a vat” cannot be defeated, if it is asserted as a Skeptical position in an argument; there is no evidence possible, and no deduction possible which can demonstrate conclusively that we are not brains in vats, or for that matter, that we are simulations in a computer program.
It is unlikely that Philosophical Materialism can be proven valid by using premises which are rejected by Philosophical Materialist philosophers.
”Since we start by assuming that the material exists, we just proved that 'brain in a vat' scenarios are false. No need to assume (2); (2) is proven true, or in other words, solipsism is proven false.”
You will have to provide better arguments if it is necessary that solipsism be defeated for your argument to proceed; No one else has done it, you will be the first to defeat it. Generally it must be assumed that Radical Skepticism is false without the possibility of proof that it actually is false.
That always opens up any argument to attacks by Radical Skeptics. And again, Radical Skepticism is used primarily by Materialists.
“Please note that any further accusation of game playing, sock puppetery or other irrelevant subject changes will lead me to not comment here again. I am not wasting your time; don't waste mine with ad hominem.”
You certainly appear to be wasting my time. The size of the comment box is adequate for a very large number of modus ponens deductions; make your argument. Use multiple comments if necessary; we do it all the time here.
For the love of Jesus, has Stan agreed that the material world exists yet?
IF the material is assumed to exist THEN what we call 'physical reality' is not an illusion
IF what we call 'physical reality' is not an illusion THEN 'brain in a vat' scenarios are false”
Your first argument is incorrect; it does not follow that the existence of B means that we necessarily experience B
The material existence which is first assumed to exist is the material existence that we experience. It's the material existence where our living material bodies reside and perceive each other; the material existence made up of matter and energy that we interact with.
What would 'material existence' mean if not 'the material existence we interact with'?
...allowing your first argument is contingent upon what you wish to do with it...
That's illogical. You are basically saying that the first argument is contingent upon the validity of PM as this is what I wish to do with it. Might as well say that because you reject PM, then no argument that could possible lead to PM should be accepted, since what we wish to do with it is to justify a PM worldview.
- “brain in a vat”
- simulations in a computer program
These two scenarios violate the first assumption by saying that the material existence may or may not exist. The assumption is that it does exist.
You certainly appear to be wasting my time.
Look how much was cut from your comment... who is wasting time? My apology if something I removed was essential to address the assumption & arguments presented. However, I fail to see what. Please insist if something was actually useful.
The size of the comment box is adequate for a very large number of modus ponens deductions; make your argument. Use multiple comments if necessary; we do it all the time here.
- There is no point moving forward with more deductions that depend on the first ones when the first ones are rejected. That would be wasting time. Agreed?
- I have no intention of using more than one comment box due to the moderation/censorship that takes place on this blog.
Let's update the status of the argumentation for PM:
(1) Assumption: The material exists.
(2) Deduction: IF a theory violates (1) THEN it is necessarily false.
Solipsism violates (1) by stating that the material might not exist.
Solipsism is false.
Note that (2) is not really useful to move on and justify PM. It's included here because you insisted that to accept (1) you needed to consider (2) either before or right after (you did not specify when asked). Please clarify your position/understanding.
Let's jump ahead and introduce a new, more controversial, point to be discussed:
(3) Deduction: IF conscious human beings interact with each other only using material means THEN a conscious human being must use material means to prove he/she exists to others.
Unless you can show me how to use non-material communication channels, I believe this means that we can conclude that human beings can prove to each other that they exist and are conscious using material means only.
Papts BR
I agreed to that long ago. The hang up is whether Radical Skepticism is allowed as part of the argument. Philosophical Materialism is based on two premises: (a) material evidence is required for a non-material existence [the standard Category Error]; (b) Skeptical knowledge destruction [you can't know that].
PM,
OK, let’s skip down to your first argument:
”Let's update the status of the argumentation for PM:
(1) Assumption: The material exists.
(2) Deduction: IF a theory violates (1) THEN it is necessarily false.
Solipsism violates (1) by stating that the material might not exist.
Solipsism is false.”
First, I grant your assumption (1), with the caveat that it is not exclusive (all that exists); exclusivity is what you have to prove in order to prove that Philosophical Materialism is, in fact, the case.
Second, you assume exclusivity in your (2) deduction; you have assumed the target of your proof (material existence is all that there is) to be true, as part of your proof. This is circular and it also illegally eliminates an argument against your position by asserting the truth of your position as part of the proof of your position.
So we cannot proceed any further, because this fails logical precepts... Unless you merely agree not to use Radical Skepticism as part of your argument, of course. And even then, only your original assumption is agreed upon, not your deduction, (2).
So, agreeing to only assumption (1), let’s proceed:
”(3) Deduction: IF conscious human beings interact with each other only using material means THEN a conscious human being must use material means to prove he/she exists to others.”
You seem unaware that the current Materialist position is that the conscious mind is not the originating agent; the brain is deterministically the actor, and the conscious mind is merely the recipient of information regarding that which the deterministic brain has already done. In other words, the conscious mind is merely memory, and is an illusion of being an actor/agent, or even being necessary. So in order to be congruent with current Materialist ideology, the term “conscious” must be stricken.
Also, the non-material aspect of human thought projection is well documented in quantum mechanics, and even patented for non-quantum projections (US 5830064) (Note 1) and perhaps thus requires only training to be sufficiently developed for intra-mind communications. So the statement of deduction (3) cannot be said to be a permanent condition, nor exclusively true, but it is currently the case for most humans so far as is known for purposes here.
Otherwise, (3) is accepted.
Note 1: Blogger won't accept the embedded link, so here it is:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5830064.PN.&OS=PN/5830064&RS=PN/5830064
First, I grant your assumption (1), with the caveat that it is not exclusive (all that exists);
Indeed, that's precisely why (1b) was listed above, for clarification purposes.
exclusivity is what you have to prove in order to prove that Philosophical Materialism is, in fact, the case.
PM is the belief that all that exists is material. There is a subtle yet important difference between this definition and the 'exclusivity' you just mentioned. Perhaps using a more "visual" grouping system could help clarify:
PM states that the group "things we are justified to believe exists" (let's call it BE) does not contain anything non-material.
However, what you just asserted is different. You claim that for PM to be "the case", which I would define as "justified as a rational and logical worldview", it also needs to prove that the group "things we are justified to believe don't exists" (let's call it BNE) must contain 'all non-material things'.
If I correctly represented your point (please indicate) then it is not logically valid: things that are not part of the BE group are not necessarily in the BNE group. Nothing can be in both group at the same time, but things can definitely be in neither of them. The proverbial flying teapot is a classic example of something which is both not in BE and not in BNE, as we are certainly not justified to believe that it exists (nor part of BE), but we cannot be justified that it certainly do not exist due to the definition of the object (not part of BNE).
Second, you assume exclusivity in your (2) deduction
No.
Something non-material could exist, but the material cannot not exist; that would violate assumption (1).
Any scenario that implies that the material could not exist is thus rejected, hence solipsism is rejected.
Something non-material could still exist.
the term “conscious” must be stricken.
Can you demonstrate that you are conscious without using the material world?
Also, the non-material aspect of human thought projection is well documented in quantum mechanics, and even patented for non-quantum projections (US 5830064) (Note 1)
I have no idea what that means. All I see is an article about a material object that generates random numbers.
So the statement of deduction (3) cannot be said to be a permanent condition, nor exclusively true, but it is currently the case for most humans so far as is known for purposes here.
Otherwise, (3) is accepted.
Exclusively true appears to refer to the exact same problem listed at the beginning of this comment: believing that all communication between conscious human beings is done through material means does not equate 'belief that no non-material needs can ever be used to communicate'. The point is that the time to belief that something is true is when that thing was proven true. As of now, I see absolutely no reason to believe that human beings communicate without the use of purely material means.
I can't think of a single reason this blog post deserves a sincere or serious response.
Stan, as a former atheist of 40 years (hope you're taking your Centrum Silver), you should know that the Dummies series of books aren't meant for experts on the subject matter. As such, asking atheists to account for the silly things written in the book is rather dishonest.
That is, assuming you're not in the throes of an Alzheimer's memory lapse...
whateverman,
No you certainly don't seem to have a sincere or serious response. And of course we don't expect the dummy books to address the core issue of Atheism, do we? Of course we don't, because even long term Atheists won't address those issues head on. All they will do is to whine about Burden of Proof and claim that they can reject Theist propostions with no cause whatsoever. I think that we can expect a lot of implications of the possession of logic and evidence, without a shred of actual logical refutation or actual empirical evidence for the lack of non-physical existence. And a whole lot of Bible bashing and other nonsense which has no bearing on the existence of a non-physical agent. In other words, the standard Atheist dodge and weave in lieu of actual reasoning.
So, if insults are all that you have, then you actually have nothing to contribute. And that's what you have done.
”PM is the belief that all that exists is material. There is a subtle yet important difference between this definition and the 'exclusivity' you just mentioned. Perhaps using a more "visual" grouping system could help clarify:
PM states that the group "things we are justified to believe exists" (let's call it BE) does not contain anything non-material.”
Then unless you fully define the criteria for “justification” you need not prove anything; “justification” is a subjective term, and you may justify your belief in many different ways including emotional attachment.
However, under Philosophical Materialism, justification requires impeccable material evidence, which means disciplined, empirical, scientific, experimental, replicated, falsifiable and not falsified, peer reviewed, published, and open data.
Why? Because (1) only objective material information is allowed as knowledge under PM; and (2) that is exactly what PM demands of Theist claims, despite the obvious logic Category Error of doing so.
So if you are to eliminate non-material entities, you must use the actual criteria of PM to generate the impeccable material empirical knowledge which objectively allows you to do so.
That is the problem which you face.
” If I correctly represented your point (please indicate) then it is not logically valid: things that are not part of the BE group are not necessarily in the BNE group. Nothing can be in both group at the same time, but things can definitely be in neither of them.”
This doesn’t seem to follow. What category would the third category be? It seems that one either believes or does not, a binary function with no other possibility. Agnosticism is a form of non-belief.
”The proverbial flying teapot is a classic example of something which is both not in BE and not in BNE, as we are certainly not justified to believe that it exists (nor part of BE), but we cannot be justified that it certainly do not exist due to the definition of the object (not part of BNE).”
The flying teapot was created as a False Analogy / Red Herring by Bertrand Russell, and can be discounted on that count alone. The same goes for FSM and pink unicorns etc.: they are obvious Red Herring creations.
Your third category appears to be based on Skepticism, however. No proof, just Skepticism. (I knew it would show up).
:
”Second, you assume exclusivity in your (2) deduction
No.
Something non-material could exist, but the material cannot not exist; that would violate assumption (1).
Any scenario that implies that the material could not exist is thus rejected, hence solipsism is rejected.
So then you actually do make the assumption regarding solipsism, just as was pointed out to you. It is not a fact, it is a sub-argument of an assumption: i.e. an assumption, which you rejected on 7-19-12 at 9:22 AM.
Let’s let it drop; you appear not willing to admit to it.
Moving on:
” Something non-material could still exist.”
OK.
” the term “conscious” must be stricken.
Can you demonstrate that you are conscious without using the material world?
Under PM, I cannot demonstrate that consciousness is an agent in communicating anything. That is the point: PM claims deterministic agency for the brain only, not the conscious memory that gives the illusion of “mind”.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
”Also, the non-material aspect of human thought projection is well documented in quantum mechanics, and even patented for non-quantum projections (US 5830064) (Note 1)
I have no idea what that means. All I see is an article about a material object that generates random numbers.”
Then you did not read it, did you. I’ll read it for you:
”A number of years of experiments at the PEAR Lab using a highly sophisticated microelectronic random event generator have demonstrated correlation of certain mean shifts of the output function with the stated intentions of operators physically isolated from the apparatus, compounding to a high level of statistical significance. Although the mechanism by which probabilities are affected is still not understood, the phenomenon has been well documented and results published in respected and refereed scientific journals, as well as the book Margins of Reality, The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World, by Robert G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne, Harcourt Brace and Company, 1987. The invention to be described is concerned with the reduction to practice of the laboratory instrument, yielding practical devices which may be mass produced economically and operated in the field. Additionally, it defines various implementations of the technology and the applications to which they may be put.
Much effort has been devoted over history by inventors, scientists and even gamblers and sports figures to effect some degree of control over autonomous physical objects and systems above and beyond the use of muscular contraction and extension. For example, some golfers "ooch" their putts towards the cup even after the ball leaves the club face. Slot machine players look to winning strategies. The Air Force has invested millions in research to produce systems which enable fighter pilots to operate their cockpit displays and guns without removing their hands from the flight controls. Clearly a form of control over one's environment which emanates from the mind alone, unfettered by the need for physical contact, is something long sought, and has provided the theme for numerous science-fiction scenarios. It offers a challenge to the scientific mind, and has long been a subject of fascination to the public in general.”
[Emphasis Added]
” Exclusively true appears to refer to the exact same problem listed at the beginning of this comment: believing that all communication between conscious human beings is done through material means does not equate 'belief that no non-material needs can ever be used to communicate'.”
OK. The term “all” is a universal term; if you didn’t mean “all” in its universal sense, i.e. you actually meant the more restricted “all currently known by me”, then you are good to go.
” The point is that the time to belief that something is true is when that thing was proven true. As of now, I see absolutely no reason to believe that human beings communicate without the use of purely material means.”
Again, you make statements which are outside the realm of Materialist knowledge: when was this “proven true”, under the auspices of materialist requirements? Hint: it was not. You are assuming its truth, and should indicate that to be an assumption, not an incorrigible fact.
Here is the problem:
” As of now, I see absolutely no reason to believe that human beings communicate without the use of purely material means.”
(1) I have shown you a source with published data and a patent.
(2) What is important to a proof is what you can actually prove, not what you “see no reason to believe”.
This is the ultimate downfall of all Philosophical Materialism “proofs”: the attempted justification is personal, not objective. In other words, material proof is not forthcoming for the premises upon which PM is based. PM is based rather on a sentiment: “I see no reason to believe” without actual empirical data to back up that sentiment.
So, if insults are all that you have, then you actually have nothing to contribute. And that's what you have done.
I've got more than insults, Stan, but I thought I'd respond with the level of maturity and substance your OP was owed.
I can see by your response that I chose appropriately.
Whateverman,
If by OP you mean the post regarding the new Dummies book and the actual features which should be in it, then you are free to refute any or all of those characteristics of Atheism. As I indicated in the post you should use your Atheist-inhered logic and/or your empirical, scientific, experimental data to accomplish your refutation.
Now I suspect that that is what you consider an insult. Because you cannot refute any of it including the element of sexual predatory harassment, all you have left is your ridicule and pretension of hurt.
If you could refute, you would. You have not. So I repeat my previous rejoinder:
So, if insults are all that you have, then you actually have nothing to contribute. And that's what you have done.
Twice.
(per my previous comments regarding moderation/censorhip on this blog, I will post on the most recent comment thread)
Post a Comment