Contrast

An internet Atheist, seen at the Illogical Atheist Blog:

And this, the Argument From Reason, as told from the Brooklyn Bridge:







UNFAIR? Well, sure. Engaging internet Atheists is frequently unfair to the Atheist. Ask them to support their worldview of Atheism using their own claim of possession of logic/evidence, and that certainly is unfair to them, because they have none, and will do most anything to avoid admitting it.

Still, here is a chance for the Atheist to hop on board and provide that logic and evidence. Any takers?

Principles of Atheism: Atheist Logical Processes

The Ungrounded Philosopher
I’ve told this story before. It is still a bright illumination of the logical processes which are necessary in the world of Atheist philosophy. Several years ago I was reading a post by Massimo Pigliucci over at his blog. He was defining the job of philosophy – he was new to the post of philosopher professor at the time – and his definition of philosophy was that it is an "analysis of arguments".

I am always interested in logical analytics, especially as they are exercised by Atheists, and Massimo is an evangelical Atheist. So I asked him some questions as warm ups, to which he responded politely. Then I asked him how, in a universe of no absolutes, he is able to keep his analytical arguments from being circular or infinite regresses, given that there is no absolute base upon which to tether the premises. Well, Massimo moderated all comments and that question was deep-sixed and never was published, much less addressed by the triple PhD “public philosopher”. He continued with other comments, but never my question.

Massimo was alert enough to recognize the intellectual hazard involved in addressing the issue of untethered opinions masquerading as logical analyses, when they fail the basic criteria of deductive analysis 101. It was best for Massimo’s position to ignore (and suppress) the existence of the issue, period.

Arguments which have premises which are not grounded in first principles or which are circular or infinite regresses are logically non-coherent under the rules of disciplined deduction. So Atheist arguments are actually tautologically irrational, since they refuse to acknowledge that any grounding absolutes exist. As Nietzsche demonstrated to Atheists, first principles (being merely self-evident) cannot be proved, so they don’t exist, and he charged ahead with his Anti-rationalism philosophy, making him possibly the only truly honest Atheist. At least he acknowledged that without absolutes, rationality is dead. And not just rationality: morality as well.

Dueling Contradictions
Atheists can and do entertain contradictory positions, using them interchangeably as required to suit their narrative. What applies in one instance does not apply in another instance, including within the same conversation: this is relativism, ungrounded. This results from having denied all absolutes in the necessity of avoiding having to explain a cause for such absolutes. Without absolutes there is no way to provide absolute grounding for the premises of rational arguments. Ungrounded arguments are susceptible to internal contradiction, which are acceptable when that is necessary to support a conclusion. Internal contradiction, although rampant, is irrational because it is non-coherent and fails the rules of disciplined deduction.

This presents as slip-sliding arguments which cannot be made to follow disciplined, coherent lines of logic. Atheists refusing to part with their internal contradictions cannot be made to follow deductive reasoning.

Self-referencing
Self-endowed concepts of how “logic processing” should work cannot help but be self-referencing and/or non-coherent. They have to be either circular, infinite regresses or even completely un-tethered to any referent. Circularity can be disguised by using expert referents, but expert referents tend to use other experts, and the circles can go on forever. The bottom line is that there can be no absolute principles upon which to ground the premises of the arguments made by Atheists, because Atheism requires that there be no absolutes to which Atheists must defer. Deference (humility) is eschewed by Atheists, who wish to create their own stuff. And the common claim to situational relativism is actually just a form of self-reference, where moral decisions are made for others, on the spot, by referencing only the Atheist’s self-endowed morality du jour.

That’s the beauty of the VOID: there is total freedom to make up your own stuff, your personal morals, your personal concept of reality, your concept of your personal value as an elite, messianic, moral and intellectual presence in a world of lessers and the herd, a morally and intellectually deficient herd which needs your messianic powers just to survive properly. Self-endowed, tautological superiority is both a consequence of the VOID and an indicator of personal narcissism.

Narcissism (self-endowed ego-centrism) presents as a personal conviction that everyone else has a problem, not the narcissist. The narcissist is enthusiastically and defensively ignorant of his own ignorance and irrationality. The narcissist is defensive of his own rationalizations while vigorously rejecting actual disciplined deductive logic. The narcissist is arrogantly self-assured of his own self-endowed superiority despite evidence to the contrary, evidence which is totally ignored.

Observe Sheldon Cooper on the TV show “Big Bang Theory” for a cartoon version of a narcissist.

Tu Quoques
When confronted with obviously erroneous positions which they have taken, Atheists frequently resort to “you too” deflections. These do not falsify the charges being made against their position, and when called out, the Atheist frequently produces ever more deflections.

Red Herrings
Tactics such as changing the subject mid-stream or changing definitions to suit the narrative or even attacking the proponent are types of attempts to derail the argument from its logical pathway. This is necessary when the Atheist sees that his arguments fail and that he needs to stop the conversation before that becomes apparent. When the objective of the conversation is restored, the Atheist will deviate from it constantly, and try to make his new direction imperative.

False Analogies
Atheists seem to think that the orbiting tea cup, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), or the pink unicorn actually prove something logically. By making up absurdities they hope to show that other arguments are absurd by False Association with their own absurdity, and thereby ignoring the intellectual requirement to rationally address the other arguments directly by using disciplined deductive argumentation. The orbiting tea cup and the FSM fail under several fallacies, such as False Analogy, Ridicule instead of rational argumentation, and False Association.

Ad Hominem Abusives
When arguments go off the Atheist narrative, it is common for Atheists to resort to their personal morality for the Other, charging their opponent with lying or “hate” for example. Of course there are no lies in AtheistLand, because there is no Truth. And what the Atheist means by “hate” is not the common understanding because the Atheist has redefined the term to mean “any challenge to the messiah/Victim codependent morality” which the Atheist has defined as morality. Challenging the Atheist’s self-defined morality is a violation of “tolerance”, another term which is redefined by the Atheist to mean that the Other is morally obligated to tolerate any and all antics which the Atheist might wish to pursue. These terms, "hate" and "intolerance" as well as "lying", do not apply to the tautologically moral Atheist, but apply only to the Other.

There are other terms which Atheists apply in arguments in order to devalue the person rather than to address the argument. These typically presume knowledge of the opponent’s character (not that Atheists actually believe in positive character traits), past history, his intellect, his moral position, etc, none of which are pertinent to the argument.

The Ad Hominem is a desperation move by the failed Atheist, who cannot rationally address the argument being made.

Ridicule and Contempt
PZ Meyers has famously said and frequently repeated, “Ridicule works”. Ridicule serves to derail the argument by causing the opponent to become defensive and possibly become agitated and angry at the injustice contained in the ridicule. Thus the Atheist “wins”, via ridicule, not by any type of rational reasoning, but by flustering his opponent. It is form of Red Herring and possibly Ad Hominem Abusive. It is childish, schoolyard taunting, and any Atheist using it is not a worthy intellectual conversationalist. That includes PZ and those who revere him and his tactics.

Contempt presents in argument deflection by declaring the argument (or arguer) too stupid or evil to address (for example). This indicates two things: first, the argument is too difficult for the Atheist, and second, the arrogance, elitism and narcissism of the Atheist are fully illuminated. Contemptuous Atheists are not worth including in any discussions of any kind. As with all narcissists, the contemptuous Atheist is incorrigibly ego-centric, and cannot participate in disciplined deduction.

Finally
Pointing out fallacies in Atheist arguments is typically met with incomprehension and Tu Quoques. The Atheist self-endowed, untethered thought process has no fallacies, since there are no absolutes, no Truth to which to tie a fallacy; any process which supports the predetermined conclusion is valid. Rationalization of predetermined conclusions is standard.

However, it is common for the Atheist to claim fallacies and untruths in his opponent’s arguments, despite his own non-belief in absolutes including truth. And because it is virtually certain that the Atheist has never studied logic, his use of fallacy accusation is more than likely fallacious.

All this makes a rational conversation with an Atheist impossible. The Atheist is not rationally based, he is emotionally based.

Atheism vs Reason

It is not the case that thinking equates to Reason. It is so common for those who become Atheist to believe (yes believe) that their thoughts are now Reason that some write papers claiming Reason and others choose web appellations using variants of “Reason” in the pseudonym. This position is reinforced by the legions inhabiting the ranks of Atheism who follow the evangelical intellectualists, who in turn have learned a specialized niche and now consider that specialized niche to engender reason axiomatically. The actual process of reasoning is trivialized, as factoids are stacked in certain patterns and that stack of factoids itself is believed (yes believed) to be Reason. (Note 1)

But reason is not defined by facts; it is the other way around: factoids cannot exist unless reason is properly applied to their situation first. Reason comes first, not factoids. (Note 2) This apparently is not well understood amongst the Atheisti. One reason might be that Philosophical Materialism is commonly adopted shortly after the Great Rejection which defines Atheism, and the consequence of that is the belief (yes belief) that only objective empiricism can produce knowledge; hence the misapprehension that Reason is produced by thinking about stacks of inductive factoids which are arranged this way and that to produce congenial inductive results.

This consequence of Atheist-Materialism is a general Atheist population which quite ignorant of the actual axiomatic underpinnings of the cherished belief in empiricism; it is that ignorance which allows the worship of empiricism as the sole generator of knowledge. Rarely considered is the actual necessary process of justification of empiricism as a valid source at all: rather, Atheists wish to justify it using common sense: “it works!” they cry, even though they also claim that common sense is no basis for knowledge: common sense is not empirical science. It turns out that empiricism cannot justify itself, and that the belief (yes belief) in self-justification is internally contradictory and non-coherent.

Empiricism is justifiable as a limited subset of all knowledge generation. But the justification is not attributable to common sense. The justification derives from prior knowledge which is not empirical itself, but is meta-empirical, i.e. conceptual. An example of this is the concept of contradiction, which is not present in nature as a thing but which is actually conceived not to exist in nature.

Empiricism is justifiable only through its meta-empirical axioms, those beliefs (yes beliefs) which include the idea of universal consistency of behaviors across time and space; the actuality of cause and effect; the validity of Non-Contradiction; the belief in human rational capability; the binary property of existence/non-existence; and so on.

In addition to the meta-empirical axioms, it is necessary to deduce the necessary properties and procedures of empirical knowledge generation. Deduction as a procedure itself must be in place first. This appears not to be commonly understood, because even though Atheists do use the IF/THEN words, they appear unaware of the additional necessary conditions for the IF/THEN to produce valid deductive results.

One may declare that IF [it is Tuesday], THEN [purple does not exist] and to think that one has deduced. This is why the superficial appearance of process is no guarantee of validity of outcome. It is the reason that the actual study of the actual discipline of logic, its principles, its process, and its fallacies is necessary, and that they be applied with rigorous intellectual integrity which demands subordination to the logical results of a demonstrably valid, grounded intellectual process.

That is Reason. It is not just any thought in pursuit of justifying a conclusion. It is a disciplined, learned process. And that is what is necessary for a rational worldview.

Notes
1. This is especially common and egregious in the stepchild of biology, evolution, but also exists in the stepchild of astronomy, cosmology.

2. Nor does Atheism produce Reason, or Reason produce Atheism.

Here’s a Fun Fact…

So in an environment where we conclusively demonstrate that Atheists not only cannot provide any analytical data or logic for their A-religious, Voidist position, an environment where theist analytical reasoning and logic and evidence has been provided for their analysis, a person shows up with “evidence” that theist reasoning is “intuitive” (code for “gave the wrong answer”), and Atheist (non-religious) reasoning is analytical (“gave the right answer”).

That evidence is a single question on algebra.

The lesson might be, although claimed not to be, that theists are easily fooled, i.e. not all that bright. Atheists, the lesson might be, although claimed not to be, get it right because they are bright enough to analyze things.

Fun fact:

Analysis involves searching for and isolating all possible reasons, factors and evidence which substantiate an hypothesis, while also enumerating all possible reasons, factors and evidence which might disprove the hypothesis, and then providing unquestionable refutation for all possible challenges to the hypothesis, before making any declarations about the results or quality of the hypothesis. To be called science, it must be a controlled experiment, replicated successfully, falsifiable and not falsified, objectively peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal. For human trials there must be control groups and double blinds and other objectivity-preserving cautions taken, including all of the myriad possible complicating issues being successfully normalized. Causation must be demonstrated rather than correlation.

Serendipitously, Atheists have charged FORWARD (thanks Barack) into the closet, denying that they even have an hypothesis to substantiate. This is in response to the request that they provide analytical evidence for their position of rejecting either the existence of a non-physical agent, or rejecting the hypothesis cum deduction indicating that hypothesis to be rationally acceptable. The dash for the closet is a better indicator of the rational, analytical powers of Atheists than the answer to a single algebra question, because it is a specific response by a specific group to a specific issue which provides differentiation of the actual issue, whereas algebra is not an issue in either religion or Atheism, much less a differentiator.

Since Atheism has abandoned its claim to logic and evidence as the basis for its worldview, it seems odd to claim that non-religionists are more analytical, unless of course that means being mentally totally material-oriented and with limited or no mental capacities otherwise. The idea that knowledge stops at math/science is a limitation which directs focus away from rational principles, which works like this: Materialism is all there is because: shut up.

For Discussion...

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?

Theist–Atheist Debate: the General Case.

Moderator:
We are here tonight to debate the issue of whether a deity exists. First, the Theist:

Theist:
If the theory of Cause and Effect is consistent enough to be the basis for empirical science, then it should be consistent enough for the justification of the probability that the universe had a cause which was greater than the sum of the components of the universe itself. If that probability is in fact justified and without empirical or rational refutation, then belief that it might be the case is justified.

Atheist:
I have no God theory, and I don’t have to prove anything. The theist has to provide proof that meets my personal approval, and I only approve of material evidence, because material stuff is all that exists, and no, I don’t have to prove it.
(Audience applause)

Theist:
That refutes my argument…. How?

Atheist:
Your logic sucks.
(Audience applause and laughter)

Theist:
Please provide particulars so we can discuss actual cases.

Atheist:
Your logic REALLY sucks.
(Audience applause and laughter and lighters aflame overhead)

Moderator:
Well, that was quick. Thanks for participating, I think we all learned a lot here tonight.
(Crowd roars and rushes to congratulate the Atheist debater on his clear win)

Blog Analysts:
"Well, the Atheist wiped up the floor with the Theist last night. The Atheist was right on the money with his clear answers, while the Theist logic REALLY sucked".

Fred on Details of The First Principles.

I apologize to Fred for the delay in answering his question concrning the Details of the First Principles; it is a timely question, so I will answer it in a post:

Fred:
”Stan, Thank you for the answers and clarifications. I appreciate your time. In the third-to-last paragraph of your answer (Materialists do in fact claim...) you state Materialists' adherence to Cause and Effect doesn't allow for any human agency which in turn doesn't allow for any "original" - uncaused - thought, since this requires agency. You then say that because of this, reason,... also cannot exist under naturalism. How do you draw this conclusion? Would not a Materialist say that reason does not have to be uncaused (original) for it to exist? Would not a materialist also state that even granting for the non-material transcendent nature of thought one cannot deny the chemical and cellular processes occurring in the material brain in tandem with these thoughts as evidenced by countless scientific experiments; many of which have demonstrated that human behavior (and therefore thoughts) can be altered as a result of material changes through various means to the brain?”

For Cause and Effect to be completely in control of every aspect of human thinking, every thought (which must be material itself) must have a direct physical cause and that cause must be an effect of a prior cause, clear back to the big bang. Now Cause and Effect is ruled by entropy, which means that every effect must be less than its cause, with at least a portion of the cause resulting in disorder such as heat. A relentless trek toward disorder is the fate of the physical universe, and this is a rule that allows no exceptions: there can exist no reversible machines in our physical universe.

The emergence of life is the first anentropic (non-entropic) event, and that has been followed by generations of further anentropic events, all constrained to living systems. The universal law of Cause and Effect fails to account for the increasing order that is found in living systems. So there is some attempt to claim that things like sentience and thought “emerge” from complex systems somehow, yet there is no explanation for why complex systems exist in an entropic universe in the first place.

Cause and Effect as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics are universal and undeniably applicable to every and all physical systems… except living systems. But for Philosophical Materialism to be valid, everything that exists must exist physically and obey the laws of physics. This means that, given the conclusion first and trying to fit premises to it, all life must not be exceptional, all life must also fit into the rules of the physical universe, including Cause and Effect and Entropy.

Now if entropy dictates the degradation of effects within a long chain of causes, how might we account for sentience, thought and rationality? It has to be argued that a) these things are physical, and b) they are not exceptional, so that c) if they seem to be exceptional, that is an illusion or delusion. Even the self and consciousness as well as intentionality and agency are declared illusory or delusory. (If we believe an illusion it becomes a delusion).

Brain activity is given as definitive evidence of this delusion; moreover, damage to the brain shows that no mental activity can be correctly performed without a proper brain, with all segments hooked up and working together as shown under MRI. That physical hardware is exercising software of unknown origin escapes this description, which requires that a hardware brain be hardwired with physical connections, and that these connections fire just right somehow to perform a thought, the results of which are then transferred to the conscious mind – which is a delusion.

So it is the firing of the synapses that create the thought, and the thought is a transient state, existing only in time.

We are deluded into thinking that we somehow control these transient states, even creating sequences of them as would be required for critical thinking. There is no agency in the physical universe according to Philosophical Materialism. There is only response to stimulus (effect from a cause) and the response is lossy at that. So we are locked into our delusions.

I am not making this up, as ridiculously absurd as it appears. It is the necessity of a physical-only, material-only dogmatic philosophy that forces such absurd conclusions. Those who think that these positions are not absurd should pledge to abstain from using the results of intentional, conscious agency, including clothing, buildings of all types, transportation of all types, toilets, water and power utilities, and communications devices; these are concrete products of intentional agency. Denial of agency is dumfoundingly absurd. And so are the claims that we all live in a shared delusion.

The existence of the mind, rationality, agency and self requires a completely separate understanding of our existence within a physical universe. Our existence defies the natural laws, and requires a separate and extended view of reality beyond the Materialist viewpoint. The Materialist viewpoint is not sustainable even using its own standards of empirical knowledge: it cannot prove the limits it self-imposes on reality. But even more damaging is the boatload of absurdities that become necessary to believe, if Materialism is to be preserved.

“I suppose the question then is whether it is these material processes in the brain which are the material precursors to non-material thought, or vice versa? Or is it that the two are in a circular relationship where one causes the other and back and forth, back and forth, etc. Of course, a Materialist would give the "first/original" cause of all this as being purely material, the big bang. And a theist would give first cause as the "thought" or original act of creation of God. Is this not then an endless argument which can never be resolved since neither claim can be proven?”

The Atheist / Materialist claim can be proven false, due to the non-rational absurdities required for all humans to be living in a shared delusion. Theism is an understanding of a non-physical, non-material reality that presumes that, for one thing, a sentient being is required to create sentience in other objects such as humans. This cannot be proven empirically because it is not an empirical hypothesis, but it is not non-coherent nor is it paradoxical nor does it depend on mass or individual delusion.

"Of course, you rightly point out that because of this inability to prove their claims atheists cannot claim to be any more rational than deists. Is this the main, and only, point of your blog: to deny atheists the claim of rationality? Do you go on to make any arguments in favor of the claims of theists? (I suppose I could answer the last question myself by reading your posts further!) Best wishes.”

Please do feel free to read the posts, they are categorized by subject for your reading convenience. I do not indulge in theodicies because they are not proof of anything to the materialist mind. There are a great many theological sources but very few logical assaults on the Atheist worldview such as is done here. So that is the focus of this blog. However, I provide an insight into the study and use of real logic, and that can be used to find a coherent theology; that is a particular journey that I feel every seeker must make for himself, not one that I try to influence.

Again sorry for the delay in answering your question.

The Non-Intentional Life

There are some constants in the Atheist / Naturalist [1] worldview, some givens that resemble absolute truths at least within the limits of their worldview. One of these is that the only valid path to knowledge, at least reliable knowledge of any value, is through the empirical scientific process. For them, knowledge from any other source is suspect or worse. This position leads directly to another level, which is the reverence for the principle of Cause and Effect as a universal truth, and as the basis for science, which, in turn, somehow leads them to Atheism. If there exists no supernatural ontology, then everything that exists is just as we see it in the universe – that is the basis of Naturalism and Atheism. It is a big “if”.

As a consequence of the dependence of Naturalism and Atheism on the universal validity of principle of Cause and Effect, certain corollaries become necessarily true, in order to support that conclusion. That these corollaries are true cannot be in doubt under this thought process, because the conclusion which they support has been declared true, an exercise in rationalization. Some of these corollaries follow.

First, life is not a definable substance, and is not different in any way from the individual components that comprise the thing that is said to live. “There is no essence of life, unless it is [the existence of ] DNA”: Massimo Pigliucci. Life is not exceptional to purely material existence, and is fully defined by material causality.

Next, in humans as in all material substance based constructs there is no exceptionality from other material substances. Cause and effect applies to all substances, including humans. This means that every aspect of human functioning is a material effect which has a material cause.

This in turn means that the human does not exhibit any action that is not pre-determined by a chain of causes that go back to the Big Bang. So there is no human ability to decide anything, because every action is determinate beyond the ability of any self-agency to modify. And self does not exist either, because for one thing, there is no reason for a non-agent to be an independent entity, a self. A rock is not a self any more than the boulder from which it split was a self. Self is not a material substance; it cannot exist under the materialist decree.

So humans are without self, without agency, and without intentionality in their actions. If humans think that they have – or are – these things, then they are harboring an illusion or delusion. (Delusion occurs if one believes an illusion). If you doubt that this is a consequence of Atheism / Naturalism, then read the sources at the end of this article.

The typical Atheist response to this state of non-Agency is that the delusion of self and agency works just fine, and is a fine way to live, believing that we have agency in the face of being saddled with Fully Causal Determinism. Some Atheists and Naturalists even claim that there is a small bubble of non-determinism which is available to us, even though Causal Determinism is a universal principle; this allows us a small degree of agency within the constraints of our environmental and genetic histories.

If these ideas are valid, what would be the consequences? Are our actions fully predetermined and without recourse for modification? Or conversely, do the laws of Cause and Effect stop at some short-field locus that actually allows us to have some very limited agency?

Living Fully Causal and Without Self, Except for Self-Delusion.

How can we be self-deluded if there is no self to delude? To self-delude a self, requires a self, and the idea is therefore non-coherent. So that can’t be.

But maybe we are deluded, not by ourselves which do not exist, but by circumstances. What is it that gets deluded? There is no self; the conscious mind merely gets informed of the predetermined, fully caused actions of the neural electrochemical discharges. If the conscious mind is only a register of what has already happened deterministically, yet the conscious mind thinks that it performed those actions, then the conscious mind is, in fact, delusional. And that is necessarily true of all conscious minds. Every mind is delusional regarding its self and agency. And by necessary extension, all the products of the self and agency.

But then the question of self arises again. Something has happened that causes non-entopic activities to occur in the wake of the activities of human mental faculties. If there is no core being that causes those non-entropic activities for which living things are known, then how are they caused (or are they delusions too)? And can I not think, consciously, in a manner to design, to create, to cause things to happen that could not otherwise happen without an agent’s causal force? And things which would not have happened without intentionality? Is the existence of these agent-caused intentional products not real (because there is no agency)? Exactly how delusional are we? And why would we be expected to share the same delusions with countless others, say when we board a plane or ride an escalator, or engage with communication devices? How are universally common delusions implemented - what is their cause? Is it more parsimonious to consider that we share a common, universal delusion, or that we share a common, universal reality?

Consider the other claims of Atheists and Naturalists, specifically the claim to be rational. If they claim universal delusion on the one hand, how can they claim rationality on the other? If they have no self, if they have no intentionality or agency, if their actions are fully causal with their conscious minds merely informed post hoc, how can they be rational? Even if the neural electrochemical discharge is declared the source of rationality, that also is fully caused, deterministic, and without any agency or intentionality, and moreover, why should a material mass of molecules have any non-deterministic capability, much less rationality and self-hood? The Atheist / Naturalist argument must apply to the neurons as well as to consciousness.

So unless the Atheists / Naturalists can produce an argument that provides an exception to their primary argument which universalizes determinism, an argument for a non-deterministic haven which endows themselves with agency even while surrounded with a fully caused and deterministic universe, then their argument fails. And paradoxically, if they do provide an argument for excepting themselves from determinism in order to allow their own rationality, then universal determinism cannot be a valid principle. Either way, full causal determinism fails.

Moreover, if we are merely deluded into the belief that any non-deterministic agency exists, then the reality that we think we have created is also a delusion. Therefore, if the principle of delusion of agency is valid, then delusion becomes a constant and consistent necessity, a state which we cannot differentiate from actual reality if there is any actual reality. Once again the Atheist / Naturalist claim of rationality cannot be valid if we all are deluded. The argument from delusion prohibits rationality.

Empiricism and the Question of Self, Agency and Delusion
Empiricism is an intentional activity; it is the sole source of valid knowledge according to the proponents of universal determinism, the Atheists and Naturalists. Yet that pairing of concepts self-contradicts. Again, without agency to design and perform the experimental analysis which characterizes empirical activity, there could be no meaningful knowledge product issuing from empirical activity. Once again there must be an exception to the principle of universal determinism in order for meaningful information or knowledge to come out of empirical activity. And once again, the principle of universal determinism cannot be valid if knowledge or meaning exists due to the exceptionalism of agent driven empirical activity. Unless of course, empiricism and its products are delusions. So either determinism does not apply to empiricism, or empiricism and knowledge are delusions. Either way, Atheism and Naturalism fail as rational worldviews, since they require both fully causal determinism AND empirical knowledge both to be valid simultaneously.

Why is delusion a part of the Atheist / Naturalist worldview? What are the rational (or non-rational) logic steps that produce the necessity of delusion?

The conclusion comes first by decree: There can be no non-material existence. The support for this conclusion is winnowed and selected for those items which do not contradict the conclusion.

For example the basic conclusion, full materiality of existence is decreed, not observed. Under the decree, certain things cannot exist, things which would invalidate the decree. So when those certain things are seen to exist after having been denied, they must be declared to be delusions.

This process is both non-rational and non-empirical. It is the product of a belief system, one that specifically denies parts of reality that conflict with the basic tenet of the belief. Any invalidating observations are thus delusions, especially if they cannot be defeated empirically.

So in this sense, both Atheism and Naturalism are religious-types of non-empirical belief systems, which actually deny certain aspects of observable reality as delusions, and which are based on faith in concepts derived by rationalization rather than valid logical processes. The fundamental concept – all existence is material only - is decreed rather than observed and it is not even observable, yet it is declared both true and the basis for what is called a rational worldview.

The belief in Atheism / Naturalism is not based in empiricism or rational analysis, it is based in something else: a desire for it to be true.

[Note 1] I use the term "naturalism" here, despite its confusing meanings. While I prefer "philosophical materialism", naturalism is commonly used in some of the "mind" literature, so I will use it here, too.

Sources For Further Reading:

Pinker, Steven; “How the Mind Works”; 1997, WW Norton & Co.

Schwartz, Jeffrey and Sharon Begley; “The Mind and The Brain”; 2002, Harper.

Clark, Thos; “Encountering Naturalism”; Center For Naturalism, 2007.

Huemer, Michael; “Skepticism and the Veil of Perception”; Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.

Martin, Michael; Atheism, A Philosophical Justification; Temple University Press, 1990.

“The Cambridge Companion to Atheism”; Michael Martin Ed.; Cambridge University Press, 2007.

“British Philosophy and the Age of Enlightenment”; Stuart Brown, Ed.; Routledge History of Philosophy Volume 5; Routledge, 1996.

Reason & Analysis; Bland Blanshard; Paul Carus Lectures Series 12; 1962; Open Court Publishing.

Another Atheist Starts To Think

Over at Vox Day's place, an ex-Atheist tells the story of his intellectual journey.

Richard Carrier: Advice to Everyone on Becoming a Philosopher.

Richard Carrier, PhD., is a philosopher, lecturer, blogger and contributor to several naturalist websites.

On a recent blog post, he gives instructions on being a philosopher, and rightly suggests that everyone should perform self-examination. And one can’t help but agree with Carrier’s conclusion:

”Everything that's important follows from this process: what's right and wrong, what's important and unimportant, beautiful and ugly, true and false, better and worse, worthwhile or a waste of time. You will thus be able to make yourself a better person, and enjoy a better life, a life of less error and ignorance and greater wisdom and contentment--all at least within the limits set upon you that you can't escape.”

Carrier gives what he calls his four pillars of philosophy, written as tasks:

”Task Number 1. Spend an hour every day asking yourself questions and researching the answers.

Task Number 2. Read one good philosophy book a month.

Task Number 3. Politely argue with lots of different kinds of people who disagree with you on any of the answers you come to above.

Task Number 4. Learn how to think.”

But he immediately goes awry by insisting on three fundamental questions of philosophy, or at least to be answered first by the philosophically inclined, followed by three analytical examination questions:

"Who am I?"
"What do I really want in life? "
"How do I safely obtain it?"

…and to every answer to any of these questions then ask …

"Why is that the case?" and
"How do I know that's true?" and
"Are there other, better ways to answer that question?"

And to any of those answers, ask those same three questions, and so on, all the way down the line.”

First I suggest that his tasks are not in a proper order. “Learn how to think” should be first, and the task should be well established before any other philosophical tasks are attempted. While this seems obvious, apparently it is not. So here is the rather obvious reason why: If you still don’t know the proper process for analytical thinking, then you shouldn’t be doing analytical projects. Certainly not projects of enough import to direct the formation of your worldview. Learn the proper process first and thoroughly, and only then proceed into analytical philosophical projects.

Next I suggest that the original questions posited by Carrier are not the fundamental questions of philosophy. The questions posed by him are not basic to anything but narcissism in the seeker. Those question should be answered only after a solid grounding in deeper questions, such as these in the two lists below. The first list is mine, and is based on Russell’s list, below, and on “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”, by John Locke, and “the Laws of Thought”, by George Boole”, and ”An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,” by David Hume.

1. What is universal, and underlies valid thinking? (ontology)
2. What is truth? (epistemology)
3. What is knowledge? (epistemology)
4. What is life? (idealism vs. metaphysics)
5. What is a mind? (idealism vs. metaphysics)
6. What are origins and purpose? (teleology)

Bertrand Russell discusses the remaining philosophical questions to be answered by modern philosophers in his book, ”The Problems of Philosophy”. These can roughly be listed as,

a) Perception, reality, matter and idealism;
b) Knowledge, induction, general principles, universals and intuitive knowledge;
c) Truth, Falsehood and error;
d) The limits of philosophical knowledge.

Russell outlines and critiques the three basic first principles [1]:

”For no very good reason, three of these principles have been singled out by tradition under the name of ‘Laws of Thought’. They are as follows:

(1) The law of identity: ‘whatever is, is’.
(2) The law of contradiction: ‘nothing can both be and not be.’
(3) The law of excluded middle: ‘Everything must either be or not be’.

These three laws are samples of self-evident logical principles, but are not really more fundamental or more self-evident than various other similar principles: for instance, the one we considered just now, which states that what follows from a true premiss is true. The name ‘laws of thought’ is also misleading, for what is important is not the fact that we think in accordance with these laws, but the fact that things behave in accordance with them; in other words the fact that when we think in accordance with them we think truly”

Russell also attacks issues of the metaphysics of the self and mind as uncaused causers and non-empirical “substances” in his ”Fifteen Lectures on the Mind”. Ultimately he declares that mind must be of some non-material substance, as elemental and fundamental as matter, but not the same as matter, because the mind, as an uncaused causer, does not behave according to the laws of matter and is not therefore material. Russell was not a materialist.

Carrier offers no guidance toward the objective of validity in thinking. This is, in my opinion, a severe flaw in any recommendation to beginning seekers of validity and truth. Moreover, he has an a priori bias toward idealism, which is a generally discredited thought process, even amongst modern public intellectuals.

[1] Russell, "The Problems of Philosophy"; Oxford Univ Press; 1912 / 1997; pg. 72.

Science and Underdetermination: The Uncertainty of Objective and Subjective Knowledge.

Massimo Pigliucci takes a swipe at Atheist Jerry Coyne concerning Coyne’s lack of understanding of the separation of Philosophical Materialism and functional materialism (science). Massimo is correct here, but he takes the idea in wrong direction, being under the influence of Philosophical Materialism himself. As expected, he declares religion to have no value, epistemologically, since it is not falsifiable, materially:

” In the cases we are discussing there is no science-like connection between theoretical constructs and empirically verifiable facts, so to “falsify” the latter is equivalent to shooting into a cloud of gas. It unnecessarily flatters and elevates religious belief to treat it as science.”

For Massimo, there is no knowledge that is not science, even though he disputes it in the text. He cannot relinquish it in his worldview. He continues,

”That is because they seem to equate science with reason, yet another position that is abysmally simplistic from a philosophical perspective. Science is conducted through the application of reason to a particular type of problems and in particular ways. But reason can be applied to other problems in other ways. Philosophy, of course, is an example, as it makes progress through the analysis and dissection of concepts, not via empirical discoveries. Logic and mathematics are additional obvious examples: mathematical theorems are neither discovered nor proved by using scientific methods at all. Unless one wishes to conclude that math is not a rational enterprise, then one is forced to admit that science = reason is a bad equation.”

Massimo goes on to claim that scientists are not educated in the history and philosophy of science, and they shouldn’t be commenting outside their areas of expertise (never mind that Massimo has been doing that all along as a prophet of evolution). Only philosophers should be telling the world what science consists of – not scientists, who don’t understand it:

” But when it comes to writing for the general public, I suggest that scientists stick to what they know best, unless they are willing to engage the literature of the field(s) that they wish to comment upon…”,

and,

” He has of course no obligation to study philosophy, but then he should refrain from writing about it as a matter of intellectual honesty toward his readers.”

In the course of his discussion, Massimo refers to the Duhem-Quine Thesis, which he thinks supports his idea that “the philosophers of science have moved well beyond Falsificationism”. The idea, refined by W.V.O. Quine, does not refute Falsificationism, it refines it in order to determine its value as a source of valid knowledge. But here Massimo takes off in the old Philosophical Materialist mode again, creating a strawman to shoot down:

” Conceptions of gods are infinitely more flexible (or vacuous, if you prefer) than either Marxist or Freudian theories, and they are thus simply not falsifiable. This is often (naively) mistaken to imply that no specific claim made by these theories can be rejected on empirical grounds. That’s as manifestly not true as it is besides the point: of course modern science can firmly reject the empirical claim that the earth is a few thousand years old; but since “the god hypothesis” doesn’t behave as a hypothesis at all from the epistemological standpoint, it doesn’t matter.”

Of course the “god hypothesis” is not that the earth is a few thousand years old (the strawman); the god hypothesis asserts that there exists a first cause for the universe. Here empiricism is emasculated. And it is hopelessly intellectually helpless to claim that,

“It unnecessarily flatters and elevates religious belief to treat it as science.”

Let’s examine the idea of underdetermination, and then examine first how it applies to objective knowledge, and then how it applies to subjective knowledge.


Holistic Underdetermination

“Duhem’s original case for holist underdetermination is, perhaps unsurprisingly, intimately bound up with his arguments for confirmational holism: the claim that theories or hypotheses can only be subjected to empirical testing in groups or collections, never in isolation. The idea here is that a single scientific hypothesis does not by itself carry any implications about what we should expect to observe in nature; rather, we can derive empirical consequences from an hypothesis only when it is conjoined with many other beliefs and hypotheses, including background assumptions about the world, beliefs about how measuring instruments operate, further hypotheses about the interactions between objects in the original hypothesis’ field of study and the surrounding environment, etc. For this reason, Duhem argues, when an empirical prediction turns out to be falsified, we do not know whether the fault lies with the hypothesis we originally sought to test or with one of the many other beliefs and hypotheses that were also needed and used to generate the failed prediction:”

“A physicist decides to demonstrate the inaccuracy of a proposition, in order to deduce from this proposition the prediction of a phenomenon and institute the experiment which is to show whether this phenomenon is not produced, he does not confine himself to making use of the proposition in question; he makes use also of a whole group of theories accepted by him as beyond dispute. The prediction of the phenomenon, whose nonproduction is to cut off debate, does not derive from the proposition challenged if taken by itself, but from the proposition at issue joined to that whole group of theories; if the predicted phenomenon is not produced, the only thing the experiment teaches us is that among the propositions used to predict the phenomenon and to establish whether it would be produced, there is at least one error; but where this error lies is just what it does not tell us.”

“In sum, the physicist can never subject an isolated hypothesis to experimental test, but only a whole group of hypotheses; when the experiment is in disagreement with his predictions, what he learns is that at least one of the hypotheses constituting this group is unacceptable and ought to be modified; but the experiment does not designate which one should be changed.”
Pierre Duhem; “The Aim And Structure of Physical Theory”;

via plato.Stanford.edu.

From W.V.O. Quine:
The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. But the total field is so underdetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to reevaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole.”

Or as I have frequently put it, an hypothesis verification - or falsification - depends first on the deductive fallacy as a prediction made from a law, then on the inductive fallacy as a generation of the law; next, the hypothesis contains premises which must be reconfirmed, axioms upon which the premise reconfirmation depends, and First Principles which are observed characteristics of the universe which are thought to be universal, but without a universal proof.

Or as Feynman put it, every experiment should be accompanied by re-verifications of all the supporting principles to make sure they are still valid.

Quine argued further,

“…because this leaves any and all beliefs in that web at least potentially subject to revision on the basis of our ongoing sense experience or empirical evidence, there simply are no beliefs that are analytic in the originally supposed sense of immune to revision in light of experience or true no matter what the world is like.”via plato.Stanford.edu.

This argument against absolute truth is valid only for objective “scientific truth”, or sense and empirical truth. The argument for subjective truth cannot be allowed to suffer by any implications of this argument. To do so would be under a Category Error.

Contrastive Underdetermination is another name for the Dichotomy Fallacy, where a dichotomy is presented which ignores the possibility of other choices or hypothetical pathways. It is an example of the inability to prove a negative, the negative being that there are NO other possible choices to be considered, so that one of the choices offered must necessarily be correct.

Underdetermination and Subjective Knowledge
If objective scientific knowledge is subject to definable and measurable uncertainties, then what of the uncertainty of Subjective Scientific knowledge? Specifically historical knowledge and variable laden knowledge such as social science produces? Falsification in these areas is relegated to exceptions, not falsification. If falsification is the sole arbiter of validity, then the only possible source of knowledge is objective empiricism. But even Massimo argues that that is not the case. But if non-objective knowledge is subjected to falsification, it is jeopardized with refutation on scientific grounds. This is the basis for Massimo's refutation (and denigration) of religion (that generic belief).

But in even more jeopardy is evolution, which as a theory is allowed to produce any outcome, all outcomes, or no outcome at all. This is not falsifiable, certainly not in the empirical sense since it is not empirical. And it is not falsifiable in the inferential sense (a non-valid concept at best) because any finding is used to adjust the theory slightly in order to accommodate the “all outcome” conclusion.

Are inferential conclusions always false? Of course not. But they also are never objectively True; as shown above, even decent objective findings are never True in any absolute sense. Evolution is somewhat less than not objectively true. It is subjectively speaking, a series of extrapolations, stories made up in order to fill knowledge gaps that are otherwise unfillable.

These stories extrapolated to fill gaps in knowledge are now protected by law. They are being instituted as first principles. There are battalions of lawyers poised to defend these stories and their exclusive use in government education.

Scientifically speaking, evolutionary stories are not underdetermined, they are explicitly non-determined as empirical science; they are non-experimental and non-empirical, and thus have no real standing in objective knowledge at all, save as dogma for Atheist agendas.

But as Massimo continually demonstrates, the axiom of Philosophical Materialism in his swarm of supporting principles colors all conclusions that he tries to make, even when he starts out on the right track. It appears that the residual dogma from his years as an evolutionary scientist have stymied intellectual openness in his few months as a philosopher.

As it happens, many of the supporting swarm of underlying axioms and first principles of logic and rational thought are inferential and subjective. These paths to knowledge, it turns out, have more truth value than any objective science knowledge or subjective science knowledge. Massimo needs to look there, and adjust his worldview accordingly.

Rebellion, Freedom and Reality

When the movie, “Rebel Without a Cause” came out in 1955, I felt as if they had made it about me. Being adolescent in a time of gang warfare, football hero worship, drag racing, and back seat bingo – none of which applied to me – put me in a peripheral category. Being a peripheral adolescent is not fun, especially if it includes life at home, a place where I was pretty much just in the way. Mom and Dad both had careers and their expectations for me were that I be a scholar and keep quiet. Neither of which appealed to me, both which I ignored. I felt marginalized and without a definition of being anyone.

In those days, they cracked down on peripheral slackers. These days I suppose slackers and peripherals get lots of sympathy, and co-dependent support. I got cracked down on. James Dean got co-dependent support in the movie. Either way, rebellion is inevitable, because there is no way to develop a sense of ownership of one’s own self, if that self is controlled by someone else. Adolescent rebellion is one of the ways that youth sheds dependence and becomes. It is the need to become that drives rebellion, the need to differentiate oneself, to become autonomous, and in control. In adolescents, it is normal.

Not long after the James Dean movie, the James Bond movies started coming out. Talk about cool and in control. Bond always survived the worst attacks and then had sex with the most beautiful women. Not so the peripheral adolescent. The lack of control became omnipresent and painfully so.

Yet with the acquisition of adult age, a self-financed degree, a good professional job, the peripheral adolescent in me should have disappeared. It faded, but never really seemed to disappear, in the sense that rebellion against authority was always still just subcutaneous, barely repressed but also not really visible to the casual observer.

Rebellion is a destructive force. When it is not released, it becomes an attitude, a worldview. As it gets worse, it metastasizes into internalized negativity, then externalized as a substitute for rational thought. In an adult, it is a toxin.

Here’s what I mean by that. Rebellion might originally have legitimate causes such as seeking oneself by eliminating the forces that control. But it has illegitimate tactics that go along with that, including a thoughtless rejection of articles that are perceived as threats, which really are not. The pursuit for autonomy can and frequently does eliminate every input from standard cultural sources as wrong, and then: evil.

Such rebellion, when not abated in adulthood, can become stultifyingly irascible, belligerent, reflexive, uncompromising and destructive to rationality. This sort of individual finds support from like minded belligerents who come to feel that their pain is a source of moral superiority, a source that cannot be comprehended by the “Other”. Rebellion thus becomes a moral statement, a decree against almost everything cultural which might inhibit or control the rebel. Rebellion becomes a force against the tyranny of others, the tyranny of external control, of standards, of rules, of mores and of ethos. Rebellion leads to a reflexive rejection of most everything which the host culture values.

It is this reflexive rejection that gives chronic rebellion its irrational character. The adult rebel will immediately reject or deny a cultural standard without a shred of evidence to support his premise. The common path of rebel thought includes rejection, Reductio Ad Absurdum, ridicule, Ad Hominem attacks, and verbal violence upon foes. The adult rebel automatically knows better than his foes, still without a shred of supporting evidence. Generally seen as a fractious belligerent, the rebel will not succumb to reasoned debate, but will frequently explode tangentially into a non-coherent tantrum in the face of persistent logic.

This sort of worldview is seen by the rebel as freedom, total freedom of thought. Rather, he is captive to negative reflexion away from standards, all standards, whether rational or not, beneficial or not, moral or not. The rebel’s morality is merely to reject.

What suffers for the rebel is the loss of contact with universals. To present universals to a rebel is to meet with instantaneous rejection. Sometimes the rejection is based on scientism. No matter, the just the idea of universals is an idea of external control: psychologically anathema to the rebel.

But for rationality, universal reality is the only guideline we have. Coherence can only be derived from a condition of universal consistency, a trait that we can observe ourselves without external coercion. In fact, universal reality is deduced after inductive observation of the characteristics of the universe; it is falsifiable by continuous observation, and philosophical observations over millennia have observed some consistent characteristics that are inherent to the basic construction of the universe, and which render it coherent. These principles allow the deduction of First Principles, which apply to reality, and how we can think about reality coherently and produce valid thoughts through structured processes of thought. Such structured thinking about universal realities is called “logic”. And symbolic math. And ultimately science.

But rebellion is against the external control of things like roots, which demand subservience as they require recognition of their validity. Here again, reflexive rebellion goes astray, goes awry, as it rejects the implacable validity of the universal characteristics to which we are subject. Misreading roots as threats rather than foundations for valid thinking is endemic in rebels.

The freedom that rebels crave, they also reject because freedom of thought comes with the ability to apply rationality to every and all propositions, at least those subject to rational analysis.

And this brings us to morality. The rebel’s presumed morality, mentioned above, is derived from the pain produced by the rebellion, which the rebel presumes confers moral authority upon himself. But it can be seen that irrationality rules the rebel; so why would morality be invested upon such an individual? And invested by whom?

The intellectual world is infested with rebels of the sort discussed above. Their forte’ is to reject all the norms for thought and behavior that are present in the culture which provides for them. And they self-anoint (in Sowell’s terminology) with mantles of extraordinary morality, priests of differentiated thinking and Consequentialism. They gather into groups of self-appellated intellectuals, remaining in and taking control of university lounges, and venturing into government advisory positions from which to pontificate and maneuver the masses.

But their rebellious rejectionism remains a distinctive characteristic, the immediate defiance in the presence of rational alternatives to their “moral advances” and progressivism for the herd. Again, a mark of the irrational rebel is that they know better than us about everything (and in a moral way), without a shred of supporting evidence, in fact despite the masses of evidence to the contrary. Morality is not influenced by evidence, if you are possessed of irrational rebellion. The lack of personal freedom that the rebel incurs for himself everyday is to be compensated by the removal of personal freedoms from the Other, leveling the field once and for all, and this is morality. As Alinsky said in his tenth rule, “…clothe it in moral garments.” He didn’t mean be moral. He meant, make it look moral, regardless of the tactic: make the ends look moral, and the means will justify themselves: Consequentialism.

The inevitable Consequentialism of the rebellious is merely a self-justification for doing whatever they wish (frequently to whoever they wish). This illusion of freedom results in either incarceration of the Consequentialist in a just world, or abuse of the Consequentialist’s fellow man, in a Consequentialist world. Frequently in history it has been the latter, at least for those who aspire to control rather than be controlled. Rebellion in adults is not without victims, not in the victimology sense of co-dependence, but real victims. The first victim is the rebel himself, trapped in a fearful state of perceived persecution by forces that want to control him, unable to free himself into rational thought and worldview behaviors, because that requires his submission – subservience – to outside forces, the universals which cannot be recognized. Rejection of these necessary roots is fatal to rationality, and the rebel suffers under his own constrictions, imprisoned away from the reality of the universe as shown through its coherence.

In short, the rebel is miserable and frequently without recourse. The rebel is frustrated by the refusal of the Other to abandon rationality and join him in his irrational, miserable state. So he is also angry. And an angry, miserable, irrational Consequentialist is not a pleasant companion. Or correspondent. Or politician.

Rebels are beyond help, at least logical help. It is a deep seated psychological issue. But like most mental issues these days, it is not considered pathological until an actual crime is committed. The damage they do can be controlled, until they seize the three branches of government. Uh oh. Our reality is changing, and not to the more rational state.

The Trouble With Truth

The Trouble With Truth: Freedom vs. Subservience

Freedom is the advantage of Atheism, while subservience is the plague of religion: that is the message from PZ Meyers last Sunday. The perfect freedom that Atheism provides is a release from authority and obligatory moral tenets. According to Meyers, the Atheist has,

”...no gods and no masters, only autonomous agents free to think and act”.

The Trouble With Truth: Rebellion

Many Atheists arrive at their Atheism during or after a journey of personal rebellion. Rebellion is part of the adolescent process of determining who one is. An adolescent is captured under rules of behavior that restrict. The restriction is resented. If the person is to be self-sufficient, then those rules made by others are onerous. Many youth rebel, and some rebel against all authority over them. In the manner of a prisoner rebelling against captors, the youth rebels, seeking personal control. In many cases, the youth is released from the restrictions as he reaches legal maturity, and he becomes independent and moves on, having accomplished personal control at last. In others, the resentment lingers, and rebellion continues. For some it continues throughout life. Some never reach the degree of personal control they seek.

So it is no wonder that the ultimate freedom and personal control that Atheism promises is popular amongst the young. And it is no wonder that it, rebellious Atheism, declines with age, along with Leftist, omni-control political leanings. But there remain those who cannot let go of the resentment they felt at the restrictions placed on them during their formative years, who retain the need for personal control over everything to the very end.

Another factor is the type of fathering that the youth received. In today’s distributed families, the fathers very often are not present. The youth are raised in an estrogen-rich environment, one which tries valiantly to provide the needs of the young person, but fails to provide a stable masculine role model. It is now known that male rebellion against the single female parent is a direct link to Atheism, and that faulty fathers produce the same issues in children, especially males.

When Meyers promises the great relief of omni-freedom and personal control via Atheism, he knows what he is doing. Freedom from all constraint is the main offering that Atheism has to bestow. Complete freedom is an attractive feature to a person who has been afflicted with onerous restrictions, real or imagined.

But freedom always comes at a price. Complete, unrestricted freedom costs dearly. It costs the connection to reality through truth, because for the Atheist there is no truth, it is all relative. Relativity gives one freedom to choose, whereas truth can restrict you to predetermined answers.

The Trouble With Truth: Definition

That’s the problem with truth. Or at least one of the problems. Truth has some characteristics that are uncomfortable for the rebel, the seeker of perfect freedom. Because truth, by definition, is uncompromising. Truth is incorrigible, unchangeable by the opinions of humans. Truth is not controllable by humans. Worse, logic and rational thought require that truth exists. And worst of all, truth might not be on the side of the rebel.

Humans are not the source of truth. The universe is not the source of truth. The source of the universe and humans is the source of truth. So controlling truth and bending it to an individual’s personal needs is out of the question for actual, universal truth. Any concepts that are manufactured for personal benefit are opinions, not truth. So it is opinion that is relative, not truth.

How should truth be defined then, in order to capture its incorrigible, universal quality? There are so many definitions of truth, that I have condensed them before;

Here is another condensation:

”Original Truth reflects observable characteristics of the universe that are inferred to be incorrigibly valid and perpetually unchanging within our universe, and which, if not so, would require a different sort of universe than ours in order to accommodate them.”

The Trouble With Truth: The Role of Inference.

Inference of truth is the only possible manner in which it can be apprehended. It is not possible to use empirical scientific methods to generate a truth, ever. This is because of the “inductive defect” and its spawn, the deductive defect, upon which empiricism depends. Truth is known only through the process of observation, inference and introspective examination. Before any objections about using inference for truth are raised, consider the widespread use of inference to declare the truth of the evolution hypothesis. Empirical science also infers a probability of the validity of an hypothesis after performing experiments that fail to falsify the hypothesis. Science is no stranger to inference: it uses it extensively.[1]

Inference of universal truth is different only in that the validity is inferred from the consequences that would be seen if the concept were not true, universally. It would take a much different universe to accommodate realities where a tautology was not valid, where cause and effect was not valid, or where an large, non-quantum object could both exist and not exist simultaneously. Our universe would not be what it is if these concepts were not true.

It is certainly valid to declare that these concepts cannot be proven, especially empirically. But it is not valid to declare them false because of that. Nietzsche did that and invented anti-Rationalism. But rationality remains a desirable characteristic amongst most humans today. In fact, rationality is an inborn human faculty that is well described in Locke’s “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”. If a person denies rationality as a valuable trait, then a rational conversation cannot be had with him.

There are also arguments against introspection, declaring that mental activity such as that is subject to error. But this neglects the fact that all decisions are mental activities which are carried on in the individual mind, and which use the same Lockian human faculties that are exercised when analyzing empirical data. Moreover, introspective conclusions can be compared against those of others who have considered the same issues and have come to conclusions. Differences between individual findings can be considered evidence for consideration, just as is done in empiricism, comparing experimental results. The declaration that introspection and other mental considerations are faulty is a fallacy of failing to consider the full use, and consequences of full use, of the mental faculty and using only data favoring the desired conclusion (Exclusionary Fallacy). After all, Atheism is itself an inference which would automatically fail if introspection and mental agitations are not valid by definition.

The Trouble With Truth: Subservience.

Since it is demonstrable that truth does exist, and that it is incorrigible and its validity is not dependent upon what humans think about it, then it is necessary for human thought, if it is to be valid, to work within the framework of that truth.

I have been lucky enough to have observed and worked with some individuals who were independently brilliant. These individuals all exhibited a singular characteristic: intellectual humility. None of these people considered themselves to be “intellectuals”, especially “Public Intellectuals” endowed with the duty to moralize to the masses. What made them special was their willingness to look into physically abstruse matter with a totally open mind, a mentality that wished to know and understand rather than to control. By objectively exercising causes and observing all – All – the effects, or vice-versa, the truth of the phenomenon being examined could be found.

In other words, the observations were subject to the principle of cause and effect. The entire environment was allowed to be subservient to that principle. And the other First Principles as well, all were assumed as axioms. Valid thought can only happen under such subservience. Rebellion against these axioms produces the Nietzschean anti-rationality, which has no place in science, math, logic or rational discourse.

In fact, one can see that coherent information converges into knowledge, while incoherent information, i.e. noise, disperses into the chaos of more noise. Coherence is the First Principle of Non-Contradiction. Another way to say this is that denying Non-Contradiction produces chaotic thinking. So the total freedom that is the objective of Atheism and Materialism, the open thinking that denies absolutes, that claims control over its thoughts while denying external limits as arbitrary constructs, this total freedom brings only chaotic thinking.

Rebellion against absolutes and external control over the thought process is a faulty mind set, one which prevents the submission of thought to the reality of truth.

The Trouble With Truth: Reality.

Consider this. If there is no truth, then there is no reality, at least none that is stable and consistent. If there are no absolutes governing the universe, then the universe has no stable characteristics that we can call laws. And there is no consistency in an unstable reality that we can use to produce rational decisions, and thus rationality is non-existent.

Are we to believe this? Can this be inferred from any observations of the properties of the universe? Is language merely unintelligible mutterings without any logical meaning? Is there no personal experience with the reality that is described by the First Principles? Are there no absolute principles governing the behavior of the universe in a consistent and stable?

We can only infer answers to these issues. But if Atheism is valid, if there is no meaning to the principles of consistency, if total freedom of thought reigns, then all these things are so: and the consequence of that is another tenet of Atheism – we are meaningless, valueless, irrational creatures in an irrational, valueless, meaningless universe: so anything goes, anything whatsoever.

The Trouble With Truth: Ethics

Which brings us to ethics and truth. The most common ethic of Atheists is Consequentialism which is focused on the masses as Humanism. Here Atheists are forced to consider whether Consequentialism is “truth”, or whether it is merely a tactic.

It almost seems that I needn’t say any more about that, yet I am compelled to point out that ethics are never “truth” for Atheists, who deny that truth exists. So the default is “tactic”. They do claim loud and long that they are moral, Meyers does so frequently. But that resolves to “tactic” as well, since it cannot be truth either. And tactics are what Consequentialism is all about. It is no different than the procedures for carrying on warfare; once again, anything goes, if it produces results.

The Trouble With Truth: Not-Truth

The final yet universal problem for Atheists is that truth, when denied, produces an environment of not-truth. Without truth, only not-truth remains. That is the environment of Atheism: not-truth. In such an environment, as was pointed out earlier, anything goes, including all sorts of denials of the obvious. Atheism cannot be true for several reasons, in this case, the fact that it denies the existence of any arbitrary, uncontrollable, external, incorrigible, absolute… truth.

So it cannot be true.

[1] Note that science does not warrant inferred results to be truth: science, including empirical science, produces only contingent factoids, tentative information that is always subject to further investigation and findings.

Why I Am Not A Philosopher

”Philosophy is concerned with two matters: soluble questions that are trivial, and crucial questions that are insoluble”

Stefan Kanfer; quoted in Martin Gardner, “The Whys Of A Philosophical Scrivener”

The right hand banner at Massimo Piggliucci’s blog quotes the Marquis de Condorcet and Noam Chomsky, both of whom claim that the responsibility of public intellectuals is to reveal the institutional lies and prejudices:

” It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies.”

Thus does Piggliucci assume the mantle of Public Intellectual, and the presupposed responsibility attached to it.

How does one achieve the vaunted title of intellectual, anyway? There is no college regimen that produces intellectuals after studying intellectualism. There is no award that I know of which promotes a person from herdmate to intellectual elite. There is no guild or union for journeyman intellectuals, no licensing requirement, no on-the-job training for apprentice intellectuals preparing to certify as Master Intellectual.

Thomas Sowell declares that “Intellectual”, especially “Public Intellectual”, is a job name. These are to be strictly differentiated from people who use their intellect. Public Intellectuals typically are people who stay in school much longer than almost everybody else. Many never ever leave school their entire professional life. This, they presume, gives them wisdom. And the wisdom attained through constant schooling by other permanent school dwellers is thought to be superior to any wisdom attained in the outside world. Such superior wisdom, of course, is a characteristic of eliteness. Hence the urgent responsibility to dispense wisdom to the less wise.

The same goes for Philosopher. “Philosopher” is a job name, like doctor, engineer, produce manager at the grocery store, Mary Kay salesman. It is a profession. And these people also are to be strictly differentiated from people who have philosophies, which is everyone else in the world.

As a profession, Philosopher has several requirements and limitations.

It cannot accept the norms and mores of the current society, otherwise there is no path to eliteness.

It cannot accept any objective basis for irrefutable truth, or else its job is done and unemployment looms.

It must, however, supply derived subjective truths as rational, despite the lack of any firm basis for rationality due to the lack of objective truth.

Its product is words, and its success depends on selling those words. The sale of its words is enhanced by its controversy, both in erratic thought and erratic personal habits. Some claim that the more obscure the words, the higher the quality of the philosophical product.

Controversy in thought comes directly from condemnation of popular culture and the populace in general, including arrogations of the need for populace control that is necessitated due to the errors and stupidity of the populace.

Controversy in thought comes directly from denying absolutes, then declaring new absolutes which are morally imperative and binding. After which detractors are attacked with Ad Hominems and public cursings in gutter-speak. If you think this is an exaggeration, you need to get to know Dennett and Chomsky better.

This is the Dennett-Chomsky-esqe philosopher job description. One which attacks unreasoningly, places blame before data is in, verbally crucifies those who disagree, declares a demographic to be evil against all evidence to the contrary. One which uses the job description as the basis for truth, as if a title imbues every thought with the power of Truth. One which first chooses a “truth”, then vigorously searches out rationalizations to support it, even if those rationalizations must be meticulously fabricated out of thin air.

The professional Philosopher bears no resemblance to those of a philosophical persuasion, those who wish for accuracy, validity and truth, as well as an intellectual basis for thinking that those things might exist.

Professional Philosophers are no longer formed by introspection: in fact the value of introspection is denied outright as error-prone subjective delusion. Nor are they formed by any searching for first principles, which also are denied outright. Professional Philosophers are hired for their belief in, and ability to sell, preconceived and approved agendas. In fact, Professional Philosophers and Modern Skeptics travel in herds, or at least gaggles, all producing and selling the exact same product.

In short, Professional Philosophers are salesmen. They sell books. They sell universities. They sell worldviews. Primarily they sell Philosophical Materialism, Atheism and relativism.

What they sell doesn’t matter for my purposes here. It suffices to observe that selling a product requires taking a firm and unshakably positive position on the value and validity of that product. It becomes irrelevant whether the product actually has those qualities: the sales pitch is leveraged toward sales, not truth.

The victim in this is intellectual integrity and the search for truth - intellectual integrity because the buyer no longer has any need to think beyond the massive oversimplification which he buys, and the search for truth because the search is over: “truth”, however paradoxical, is prepackaged to sell easily. But wait, you also get eliteness, too!

In a sense, I am selling something too, although not for personal gain, and certainly not the canned product which the Professional Philosophers are now selling. What I pitch here is a need for individual intellectual accuracy in the search for validity in a worldview. This is an intellectual habit, one of personal inspection and introspection; one of finding those principles that are basic to rationality; those that underlie logic; those that, if false, would change the entire nature of the universe, and can be known to valid because of that non-falsification. It is a habit of personal intellectual integrity regardless of whether it is congruent with anyone’s packaged philosophical product.

And high on the list, it is an intellectual habit that does not deny any validity a priori and without scrutiny, because to do so is to live under a dogma.

Upon those incorrigibly valid intellectual principles, both a process for determining validity, and a worldview based on valid principles can be derived.

This is not Professional Philosophy, however. In fact, it seems to go against the professional job holders in Philosophical positions. Nonetheless, those of the original philosophical bent usually go against the intellectual journeymen of their time anyway; they are radically individualist in their search mechanisms, in their demand for validity, in their rigid intellectual integrity.

I aspire to the latter over the former, which is why I am not a Philosopher.

Insane Clown Posse as Philosophers of Science.

On Massimo Piggliucci’s blog, Julia Galef wonders why some of the masses distrust science. She takes a clue from the analysts at Insane Clown Posse, Violent and Shaggy, who have produced a video on the subject of knowledge, apparently.

”At first, "Miracles" sounds like a paean to scientific curiosity, urging us to appreciate the wonders all around us instead of dismissing the natural world as prosaic and mooning over the imaginary supernatural. I wholeheartedly agree with this. The "magic" we marvel over in stories is not inherently any more marvelous than what already exists in our world -- it just seems that way because we're so used to the real stuff. After all, are dragons and wizards really any more amazing than real things like -- well, let me hand the mike to Shaggy and Violent: "The sun and the moon, even Mars! The Milky Way! F-ckin' shooting stars!" Well said. Thanks guys.”

Of course, dragons and wizards are not what Philosophical Materialism and Atheism are all about; dragons and wizards are a sideshow, a red herring, one that is easy to refute. So the knowledge video is off to a great scientistic start.

This is something I really do think is important to keep in mind, because getting excited only by the supernatural isn't simply unjustified, it's also a recipe for unhappiness. "Sooner or later you're going to be disappointed in everything," Yudkowsky writes. "Either it will turn out not to exist, or even worse, it will turn out to be real."

Real? What she really means of course is “Material”: that is all that is real in her protected philosophical hot house. What is worse for her is that non-materiality is, in fact, real.

And as for unhappiness, who is an Atheo-Materialist to judge my happiness? For them, it is tautological that they are happier. It is a definition they have. PZ could have told her that.

After all, they get to make up their own morals and change them every day if they want to, to coincide with their proclivities; that's a sure road to happiness, is it not? On the other hand, the poor absolutists must control their behaviors to co-incide with concepts of Good and Evil which are archaic and denied by Nietzsche, of course.

Charismatic science popularizers like Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, and Neil deGrasse Tyson have argued again and again that understanding the world scientifically should increase our sense of wonder, not decrease it. And listening to them waxing rhapsodic about the universe, it's hard not to ask yourself, "How can people think there's no poetry in science?" Or as Richard Feynman put it, "What men are poets who may speak of Jupiter if he is a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?"

Feynmann also had an abiding disdain for philosophers and their philosophies, which he sneered at. He was an Atheist but not a Philosophical Materialist. Presumably this comment on science poetry was made in a similar vein: sarcasm. OK then, so much for the poetry of science.

” But I've been making an effort recently not to get stuck on the rhetorical question, "How can people think that?" and instead push onward to the earnest question, "Why do people think that?" If a belief is widespread, even if it's a mistaken belief, it cries out for some explanation. Hence, I ask: why are so many people with an innate curiosity about the natural world so uninterested in, even hostile to, scientific explanation?”

But the answer to that is so EASY! It is not the science, the scientist or the scientific explanation that is producing hostility, it is the morality and the uncompromisingly elitist worldview that is unrelentingly pimped along with the answer. Of course, sometimes it is the explanation, but only when the explanation is declared unchallegeable, impermeable to questions, fixed and certain for all time (think global warming and its unshakably loyal “science” adherents). Once again the semiconscious perpetrators do not even see the crimes they commit.

” And as Neil deGrasse Tyson describes in Death by Black Hole, scientific explanations can require multiple layers of abstraction, each of which takes people successively farther away from the immediacy of the phenomenon. "[To] explain how we know the speed of a receding star requires five nested levels of abstraction," Tyson writes…

So people just can’t grasp that which they (special that they are) have grasped.

Are we too unintelligent to comprehend abstraction, to dimwitted to follow the simple idea of red shift and doppler effects? This explanation is, itself, rather dimwitted. Not to mention its arrogance by ignoring that there are plenty of scientists who are not fooled by the Materialist ignorance of scientific boundary conditions. Materialists presuppose that all scientists are also Scientism-ists and Philosophical Materialists. This presupposition is false.

No, that is actually not the problem at all. We don’t hate science and we are not stupid; to the contrary, many of us do science. We love real science, objective determinations made without oppressive worldviews attached to them. It is not science, but science worshippers that are the issue. The problem is that Atheo-science worshippers like Dawkins, Piggliucci et al. (who are not science promoters, they are anti-religion hate promoters who use a false aura of science for their purpose of attempting to demolish religion) also wish to tell us what is True; and that followed by what our morals and politics should be. The problem is that such “scientists” cannot be trusted to tell the truth, or even to recognize it; for the most part they are not contributers to science at all, they are teachers and science parasites. And the result of that problem regarding these certain scientists is that they have driven away respect for elitism in science, and from that the scientism-ists deduce that science itself has lost respect.

There is no “loss of emotional contact” present in the skepticism toward real scientists and their products. There is skepticism toward elitist, Atheist, false intellectuals. This is what is totally transparent to science worshippers who have no knowledge of history or philosophy or logic and little knowledge of current events outside of rock groups (or whatever the Insane Clown Posse might be). This hermetic knowledge enclosure allows in no perspective for understanding the actual place of science in the overall world of knowledge; the enclosed myope in fact assumes that science is knowledge, all of it; there is nothing else to be known. This naïve oversimplification personifies the Materialist approach to every aspect of life and the universe: the axioms are very simple and easy both to understand and to parrot:

Axiom #1: material stuff is all there is.

And axiom #2: science says so.

Both of these simplistic axioms are incorrect; they are unprovable tenets of a religion. But for the Philosophical Materialist and Atheist these are First Principles, beyond which there is no use in thinking.

” And as for the hostility that some people feel towards scientific explanations, that might have something to do with the fact that unlike magic, science doesn't allow humans to be special. The anti-materialist notion that the universe is shaped around us, or that our thoughts and feelings can produce tangible effects in the world has a particular kind of romance to it that people find appealing. Scientific explanations, for all their objective beauty, take that away from us.”

The motivation to find an irrational reason for people to distrust scientists bearing truth statements leads to interesting depths, depths that are irrational themselves. It is perfectly valid to conclude that science, or at least evolution which attempts to pass as science, declares outright that a) no non-material cause may be thought of as a cause; b) therefore there is no deity and c) humans are not only just another animal, they are merely meat machines, hosting DNA, and have no value beyond that. And from that point the Materialists attempt to derive an ethic, a worship of humanity but not individual humans. Why should anyone be uncomfortable with that?

”Nevertheless, I think the perfect quote to close with is this one, from 18th-century bishop Samuel Horsley:

"Wonder, connected with a principle of rational curiosity, is the source of all knowledge and discovery... but wonder which ends in wonder, and is satisfied with wonder, is the quality of an idiot."

A great quote, and one I would wholeheartedly endorse, except for that fact that I'm a little skittish about calling Violent and Shaggy idiots. I hear they stab people.”

The Horsley ditty is a perfect description of SCIENCE, a fact that is completely lost on the Materialist author who tries to apply it to anti-science. Scientists are satisfied with exactly that: the fact that every question answered opens up ever more questions to be answered; and all answers, however glorious the explanations, are contingent. This is what Horsley is against: the denial of absolutes, a fundamental of Materialism. The idea that the infinite regression which is scientific knowledge leads to all actual knowledge, and therefore, wisdom. Horsley does not refer to material knowledge; he refers to wonder, to rational inquiry, and to knowledge and discovery. Galef erroneously plugs into Horsley's statement her own limited understanding of the source of knowledge: science.

Horsley is right, but the Galef doesn't even understand his position!

If there ever were to be an indictment of the complete lack of science comprehension of Materialist, Atheo-Scientism-ists, this article would qualify as evidence for the prosecution.

However, all this is right at home on the blog of Massimo Piggliucci.

Analysis: Argument From Authority

Yesterday I posted my list of definitions and assumptions to be considered as bearing upon the question of the Argument From Authority and its validity.

Absent any criticism of the definitions and assumptions, an analysis follows. I am sure that you will feel free to critique, and then we can discuss it:

Statement of the issue:

(In opinions on topic Z) We must submit to (the opinions of ) authority (on topic Z).

First the auxiliary verb, “must”, is an imperative, expressing command, requirement, obligation, or necessity”. [Merriam-Webster, 2004]

As an imperative, it is not possible to deviate from the dictates of the principle stated, without acquiring some unstated consequence, presumably in this case, lack of intellectual respect, at a minimum. Regardless of the consequence, the statement presents a rigid, absolute requirement to be observed in argumentation. This does not refer to requirements for obtaining empirical, first order data or any other empirical activity. It is merely a tactic of argumentation.

Assumptions about us:

a) We have less knowledge/expertise than the authority.

Assumption “a)” is not provable, empirically, without serious testing. However, as a presupposition it is difficult to argue against.

b) We are unable to attain sufficient knowledge/expertise to adequately comprehend and analyze topic Z.

Assumption “b)” is an arrogation that is likely false in many cases, while true in others; this makes it a “false association fallacy”. However, this is a powerful argumentative attack on the opponent, which has the value of derailing the conversation, while denigrating the opponent’s abilities as presumed through credentialing. This has no bearing on the actual validity of the opponent’s arguments.

As an argumentation tactic, this is intended to be a show-stopper. As a logical proposition, it has no bearing whatsoever on Topic Z.

Assumptions about the authority:

a) The authority demonstrably has adequate intelligence, with training and experience in Topic Z.

This concern is valid, and easily demonstrated.

b) The authority demonstrably is intellectually honest and demonstrably capable in analytics.

This concern is valid, and not easily validated; therefore, it is a possible exception.

c) The authority is motivated solely by the pursuit of knowledge, without ulterior motivations, including but not exclusive to: messiahism, fame and fortune.

This concern is valid, and even less verifiable except by observing the long term behaviors of the “authority”, not all of which might be visible. This is definitely an exception.

d) The authority’s opinion is within the overwhelming majority opinion of others, similarly attributed. There is no credible dissent.

Here the argument of the qualification of the “majority” comes into play. If the authority in question holds any power (say peer review and ability to publish) over the definition of the composition of the “majority”, then this is definitely an exception.

e) The authority (and majority) operate within acceptable practices of open scholarship and replication under the scientific method.

This is a valid criterion.

Assumptions about the discussion:

a) The discussion is in the form of an argument, not in the form of analyzing data, data interpretation, experimental methods, etc.

The imperative cannot be considered to exist within the definition of the Scientific Method, so this statement is valid.

b) The discussion can be in the apparent form of a single premise syllogism.

Valid assumption.

Assumptions about Topic Z:

a) Topic Z is of the appearance of complexity and data acquisition which is outside the boundary of availability to the “us” in the argument.

This presumption is without merit as a general principle; it might apply in some cases, not in others. A fallacy of false association.

b) Topic Z has been described adequately by genuine and unbiased scientific method investigation. Data is scrupulously produced and maintained. Data is genuinely analyzed and not manipulated toward a conclusion. There is no authoritative doubt remaining in the topic.

This is never a presumption concerning scientific method discoveries; objective replication is always required. This is not a valid presumption for argumentation, either, unless objective replication is done.

c) All data is readily available to potential replicators; replication of data-taking (new data) can be independently taken in order to fulfill the necessity of attempting falsification.

The first part of this premise may be asserted if undeniable evidence for its validity is available.

The second part is an undeniable requirement of empiricism, and should be a requirement for valid argumentation.

Now, what do we have?

Considering that there are numerous valid qualifications concerning the application of the absolute imperative statement, then the statement cannot be absolute. Why should it be considered imperative, concerning the qualifications that must be met for it to be a valid prescription for behavior? In other words, what motivates the use of such an device in argumentation?

The device does not present information concerning the Topic. It is a fundamental attack on the opponent, with an underlying presupposition of the opponent’s non-qualifications: an Ad Hominem Abusive. In John Locke’s terms, it is intended to induce shame and retreat.


It also is intended to derail the conversation, even halt it: a Red Herring.

From Walton, "Appeal To Expert Opinion":

” Jeremy Bentham describes the qualifications for authority:

1. adequate intelligence.
2. relative probity (honesty).
3. closeness of the opinion to the subject at hand.
4. fidelity of transmission; correctness and completeness.

He also includes expertise, with the claim that the ratio of knowledge of a subject between two individuals inversely determines the need to trust the authority figure. Yet he also claims that if objective “direct evidence” is available, then the persisting appeal to authority is fallacious.

The argument is designed to leave no room for reply; it is an attack on the other’s personal ability to judge evidence; it deflects the argument from evidence into the qualifications of the authority vs those of the respondent; it is Ad Hominem: “well, you’re not an expert, are you?”; an accusation of arrogance.

Rather than an assertion of a valid evidentiary proposition regarding the subject, it is, “…more like a decisive blocking or shutting-down type of move in argumentation that blocks off the respondent’s ability to raise any further questions or meaningfully or effectively take part in attempting to support his side of the issue any further in the dialogue.” (from "Appeal To Expert Opinion"; Douglas N. Walton, referred by Martin)(emphasis added)

In terms of logic and a rational search for valid answers, the Argument from Authority seems conclusively to be at odds with that pursuit. So it cannot be a valid position to assert in that pursuit.

In terms of winning an argument by forcing the default of the opponent, the Argument from Authority seems to be effective, IFF the opponent accepts the challenge without protest. I personally do not accept the Argument From Authority Imperative/Directive as a valid challenge.

However, within any rational pursuit, the input of authorities is always a wise thing to seek, providing the conditions above are met. In some (many?) cases the opinions of experts vary to the point of direct contradiction and in some cases experts might not fulfill the qualifications required of them as stated above. In these cases other sources of information must be sought.

Comments appreciated, as always.