”…arguing for the existence of God(s) on a purely "logical" basis is absurd. What Christian apologists refer to as "logic" is nothing more than mental constructs in our physical brains resulting from physical electrochemical neural mechanisms which we happen to possess as a result of natural selection in evolutionary processes.
It's as simple as that. The animals that preceded us that were able to utilize their physical sensory transducers hooked up to their brains and draw reasonable conclusions about the physical environments they existed in, compared to those who were less likely to have that neural ability, were more likely to pass that trait for survivability on to their progeny.
That is all that "logic" is... not some transcendental metaphysical absolute. Just yet another product of natural selection and evolution.”
That Atheists base their worldview on ignorance is expected; the magnitude of that ignorance is breathtaking. Presumably, if humans had evolved with a “rear lobe” rather than a frontal cortex, logic would be all different. When Atheists can’t refute a proposition, they go for diversions; refuting this stupid attack on logic takes the conversation off in the weeds so that the Atheist doesn’t have to answer the hard questions.
Here’s additional Atheist logic:
” Lehman granted that he had no support for his assertion, which goes for me as well. He didn't elaborate, but I will: neither have you.”
The old ”Tu Quoque argument relieves me of the necessity to support my claims”, ruse. Blatantly applied.
And later in the thread,
” Conceptual analysis is merely the analysis of concepts and the concept of a first cause is more of a laughing matter than a concept.”
Poison the Well; insert ridicule when logic has you cornered. Got no refutation? Then let’s all laugh really loud and point fingers; maybe it will go away.
(referred by Martin: thanks!)
11 comments:
Good post.
This one takes the cake.
"..the magnitude of that ignorance is breathtaking."- right on!
If the relativist actually understood his/her position, shouldn't they be just a b-i-t less zealous in defense of their, uh, "truth".
Hello there!!
Stan,
Same old, same old. That kind of "closed-mindedness" is just pretty much common.
I talked just today to a self-proclaimed atheist at the Uni. The main reason for his atheism was to cheer about Nietzche's "attacking christianity", and kept insisting until he also said he had curiosity about Buddhism, because it is a "more tolerant religion". He also is the nothing-is-absolute kinda guy.
What I basically told him was:
1)That when supporting a totally relativistic worldview, he was unable to distinguish how differing observation perspectives tend also to have different implications, and also that they have to be proved true a posteriori when induced.
2)To focus in what Religions have in common rather than what differentiates among them (not just the concept of comparative religion, but by the same token, let them know that most of their ecclesiastism attacks are unfounded and a waste of energy and time), and that because he embraced atheism as a worldview, he should have a logical support for that ideology.
Al least he agreed in some points.
See, that's the problem: I really, really wish there were less atheists like this (of course, not me being one), because they focus so much in the exoteric, and shallowly criticize eccleasiastism without examining it thoroughly. Nietzche's "superman" and "anti-rationalism" were just opinionated, a priori assumptions, because any person with no foundations to clarify how knowledge is obtained from different sources simply becomes succeptible to dogmatism.
What is rather weird and ironic is that some of them, who tend to expose the most hubristic behaviors, feel empowered and "liberated" when doing so.
Nevertheless, most of them prefer to attack "Religions", rather than seeking knowledge and use logic to backup their ideological stance.
I've also introspected myself about how sometimes applying a rationalist view to spiritual practices seem to be rather more counterproductive, because of their final subjective nature even most of us are unfortunately more succeptible to rationalizations, and remembers my former strong agnosticism: it may become an addiction to rationalize.
You begin to understand how this orders of the implicate, non-material realities interfere with this material world when "they" manifest to you as mind-constructs, but some very few times is more notable the interference by attacking your basic sensorial inputs of even interacting directly in the environment (that's part of the explanations of people knowing some other people's health and emotional states by reading Auras, and the Lourdes miracle you just mentioned, for example).
The objectiveness is reached, again, by researching and making experiments, and corroborating the also increasingly studied process of our "human interconnectedness"
Some people who are seriously studying (or were studying) these phenomena include Mr. Grof, Mr. Radin and this website I lately noticed.
I have had corroborated this once again, that most of the claims you made about the contemporary problems with atheism, are unfortunately true and nowadays more than ever.
Kind Regards.
” Lehman granted that he had no support for his assertion, which goes for me as well. He didn't elaborate, but I will: neither have you.”
There would be necessary evidence of dismissal, if the reason was that something was asserted without evidence; e.g., to say "You present no evidence" is evidence of reason for a dismissal.
LiWon,
Apparently Lehman made an assertion other than "you have no evidence". And apparently he made it without evidence, and admitted it.
Now Atheists are the ones who insist on material evidence. The reverse accusation being made is not a defense for their lack of evidence in support for their assertions. It is a Tu Quoque Fallacy, even if it is true, because it doesn't address the actual issue. It is a diversion tactic to derail the conversation.
And in fact, the lack of evidence presented for their own assertions, while requiring it from others, is a Special Pleading Fallacy.
Stan,
Do you (or have you) ever wander over to those kinds of sites and put your points to them?
Although I sometimes visit, I don't comment at those sites. If I did, it would take up a bunch of my time trying to get past the ridicule in order to make rational progress. That would dilute my efforts, so what I do is to comment on their thought process here. That allows me to keep the discussions all in one spot instead of all over the web.
My argument is not with them: they will not be persuaded by logic. My argument is about them and their logic.
Sometimes they show up here, and that is fun.
Indeed.
But I wonder, is what is seen in the comments here really all Atheists have got? Always the same Category Error, Scientism, Radical Skepticism, etc.?
Surely, the 'heavies' of the movement, Dawkins et al must be putting up more than just this?
Every atheist is the same error.
Believing in science and evidence instead of faith.
Science can't discover TRUTH.
Skepticism is just trying to make up reasons to not believe.
Hey all. Zilch here, via lehman at the smrties. I've been quoted somewhat without context here, so I'd like to clear this up a bit. Stan said:
Here’s additional Atheist logic:
” Lehman granted that he had no support for his assertion, which goes for me as well. He didn't elaborate, but I will: neither have you.”
The old ”Tu Quoque argument relieves me of the necessity to support my claims”, ruse. Blatantly applied.
First of all, I made no claims here, and no one asked me to support my position with evidence. All I was doing was pointing out that lehman, as I understood it, was admitting that his "belief" in the power of science to show us how the world is, is simply a recognition of the Problem of Induction: there is no logical way to prove, on first principles (supposing there are such things) that the Sun will also rise tomorrow- we only have what seems to be patterns that repeat, but we cannot be absolutely sure they will continue to do so.
Secondly, the Problem of Induction is something we've discussed in many threads, and my take on it is: first, so what? We don't have absolute surety. But we have models that are good enough to bet our lives on- and you and I do so every day.
I know that theists often claim to have an answer to the Problem of Induction. But their answer is simply their assertion that their God has told them that the world is real (or some such thing). Until the existence of this or these Gods is demonstrated, though, this alleged answer to the Problem of Induction is just an empty assertion.
cheers from cool Vienna, zilch
P.S. If any of you ever make it to this corner of the world, or are near SF most summers, drop me a line, and lunch is on me.
Why is Lehman Scott a guru? And he said logic is processed in our brains, and our brains are a result of evolution. I don't think he's redefining anything.
Of course, Lehman is absolutely correct.
And to state that his remarks was made out of ignorance is absurd beyond description.
The lines of evidence for how morality came about through the evolutionary process are many and varied. Recent studies of Mirror Neurons in the brain show the electro-chemical processes very well.
If anyone would care to actually look at the basics, you can find them here:
http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/text/contents.htm
Post a Comment