Why Are There Natural Explanations For Everything?
Perhaps you Christians can suggest reasons why a God like yours created the universe and man in such a way that there are natural explanations for why we exist, how we think, who we are, and why we behave as we do. As far as I know there are natural explanations for everything you claim a supernatural deity did. You don't think these explanations are good ones, okay, but they exist and they persuade many if not most scientists working in those fields.
Why then is it that your God created this world as he did and revealed himself as he has done that are indistinguishable from him not creating the universe or revealing himself at all? This is what I want to know. In fact, why does reasonable nonbelief exist at all?
Why then is it that your God created this world as he did and revealed himself as he has done that are indistinguishable from him not creating the universe or revealing himself at all? This is what I want to know. In fact, why does reasonable nonbelief exist at all?
81 comments:
Someone once said that if a God does exist, he sure went out of his way to make it look like he doesn't.
While scripture does indicate that there is such a thing as innocent deception (Jesus asking for forgiveness for those who know not what they do, or Paul to the athenians noting that in the past, God overlooked idolatry, but not so much any more), there is otherwise a link between deception and rebellion.
So it appears to me that the possibility naturalism (and the only worthwhile dispute here is with naturalism, not just any naturalistic explanation. And this point is only increased by the fact that even orthodox Christian philosophers have raised an issue with a hard distinction between the natural and supernatural) is part of the landscape of our freedom. Granted, it certainly isn't a universal option for all of us as our faith struggles are not all the same. If I myself left Christianity, I highly doubt that I would do so for such a stale boring and epistemically stunted view as naturalism. If I left the faith and I was wrong to do so because it is true, there are plenty of other deceptions out there besides naturalism that have become a part of the landscape of our libertarian freedom, both as the results of those free decisions and instigators of it.
Matthew 11:25-28.
"At that time Jesus answered and said, "I thank you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. Even so Father, for it seemed good in Your sight. All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
(1) In regards to why we exist, I'm assuming, based on the second to last question, that you're referring to the Big Bang. I'm not sure how this is not a point in favor of Christianity. Christianity predicts that the universe is not eternal whereas atheists, no longer willing to argue for a steady-state theory, often dance around the issue of the origin of the universe to avoid various cosmological arguments. Thus I have to disagree with your assumption that the universe was created in a way indistinguishable from divine creation. A finite past is exactly what we'd expect.
(2) I'm not aware of any robust explanations for how we think. What are the materialist explanations for qualia and intentionality, for example?
(3) It is simply false that there are natural explanations for everything the Christian God is said to have done. It would be more accurate to say that naturalists generally deny the alleged actions of the Christian God. For example, you deny that Jesus rose from the dead. You don't supply a natural explanation for how the resurrection happened. This point is not restricted to events in the Bible. Naturalists deny, as opposed to explain, countless supernatural/paranormal events even in modern times.
(4) Asking why reasonable non-belief exists is begging the question. Why are you rational for avoiding the obvious conclusions of cosmological arguments? Why are you reasonable when you deny that supernatural/paranormal events have ever occurred?
Jayman, apparently you have not read widely yet. There are natural explanations for everything. I'll not do your research for you. If you cannot research these answers for yourself then no wonder you believe. But just because you do not think these explanations are good ones does not mean they don't exist and that scientists and philosophers in their respective fields are convinced by them. They are. Why's that if your God exists?
@ Rob R,
Naturalism by its very name is natural. There is nothing deceptive about about what you see is what you get. All other worldviews, as are all the religions, particularly the christianities, are manufactured crap. Religion is less about belief than it is about habit. So atheism is not so much refuting a belief as breaking a habit. And belief is a habit too - a habit of mind.
@ Ray
Quoting the bible has the same value as prayer; it is what you do when you can't do something useful
Cheers
So nice to see the continued efforts of those chipping away at the Rock of Rationality with the little rubber hammers and chisels of Christianity.
:)
suggest reasons why a God like yours created the universe and man in such a way that there are natural explanations for why we exist
there is no natural explanation for why anything exists, much less humans. we've explained some of the how but, none of the why.
how we think, who we are, and why we behave as we do.
it is beyond the purview of science to explain origin, purpose, destiny, morality, intentionality, qualia, etc..
You don't think these explanations are good ones, okay, but they exist and they persuade many if not most scientists working in those fields.
some of the most brilliant scientists and philosophers are christians. furthermore, some very smart atheists have become christian after they "followed the evidence".
why does reasonable nonbelief exist at all?
it doesn't. i address this on my blog
we've explained some of the how but, none of the why.
When we roll the dice and a particular result appears, we don't as humans ponder endlessly and restlessly over WHY the result appears--we just accept that natural forces brought about that result.
We humans are the result of natural forces in action over billions of years. Partially out of curiosity, we may ponder over the mechanisms and processes that resulted in our existence, but mature adults don't endlessly pine away for "meaning" and a reason "why" we are here.
Only Christians (and other religionists) waste their time making endless claims about the metaphysical reason why the dice came up the way they did.
Like the two-year asking "Why" a hundred times until he gets a satisfactory answer, the only answer satisfactory to the religionist is "God did it." Then they can go back to sucking their metaphorical thumbs while the rest of the adult rational world gets back to work.
When we roll the dice and a particular result appears, we don't as humans ponder endlessly and restlessly over WHY the result appears--we just accept that natural forces brought about that result.
you're not explaining why there are dice to begin with. not looking for that answer is akin to intellectual surrender.
We humans are the result of natural forces in action over billions of years.
why are those natural forces in place? how did they get there?
mature adults don't endlessly pine away for "meaning" and a reason "why" we are here.
your definition of mature might need some amending because plenty of brilliant people do ponder these things and rightly so.
the only answer satisfactory to the religionist is "God did it."
what you are failing to acknowledge is the alternative and whether or not it is any better or rational at all.
Then they can go back to sucking their metaphorical thumbs while the rest of the adult rational world gets back to work.
not exactly. the nontheist returns to the intellectual surrender of trying to leave everything up to naturalistic forces ignoring all the metaphysical truths that need to be addressed.
You know, this is kind of off the subject, but I was thinking the other night (watch out everyone! LOL!). When I was a evangelical/fundamentalist Christian, I wold tell others and be told by others about how important God's glory is and how God needs to be glorified in everything.
Well, for a God who is so concerned about His glory, He sure is extremely silent and difficult to hear from. If he is so concerned about his glory, why is it for humans to get the credit for everything? Just food for thought.
OOPS! Damn typos! I meant to ask," If he is so concerned about his glory, why is it SO EASY for humans to get the credit for everything?"
John Loftus wrote:
But just because you do not think these explanations are good ones does not mean they don't exist and that scientists and philosophers in their respective fields are convinced by them. They are. Why's that if your God exists?
I wonder what about all the scientists and philosophers in their respective fields who are not convinced by the evidences you are convinced are naturalistic and sufficient? What? They don't exist? Does that really make sense? Nope. It does not.
@Mike...When you were a "evangelical/fundamentalist Christian" how could you be a christian if God never revealed himself to you and was silent? Also it's easy for people to get credit because they take glory they do not deserve.
@Jayman:
You raise some good points. In my wrestling, I've come across many of the problems you mention.
(1) I really have a hard time giving credity to Christianity for any kind of prediction. Check out the order of creation and match that with the actual order of events. We have the universe/earth followed by light followed by plants, which are followed by two lights to rule day/night (sun/moon) and the stars. Clearly this is false. I've heard people like Rev. Phillip try to equate "light & dark" with the development of photosensitive eyes... but let's just say I find that to be stretching things a bit.
(2) This is one of the most difficult objections for me as well. Where does "the mind" come from. But what are our alternatives to natural explanations that simply don't exist yet? Immaterial mind? A "little soul-man" sitting in the "driver's seat" of my mind? Think about the "supernatural" or simply immaterial hypotheses and how they explain the actual evidence that we do have. Given the high localization of thoughts, the mind, if it exists, is literally just controlling the brain. Shall we propose an immaterial "thing/substance" as the cause of the steering we witness or conclude that we just haven't solved what is probably one of nature's greatest mysteries, yet?
--- HERE is an interesting discussion at Ebon Musings. Check Part 5 for a discussion of some of your questions. I don't know that you'll find them satisfying, but it's a nice read nonetheless.
cont...
...cont.
(3) Regarding the resurrection, I'd simply say that if you don't presupposed that god exists and Jesus is the son of god... all you have is a fantastic tale to be believed or not. Seriously, strip the theology away and give the Bible to someone who's never heard of Christianity and get their read on it. Or find a historian who's been isolated from the religious discussion his whole life (I know, one doesn't exist) and ask him to predict its likelihood. Like it or not, any hypothesis that has grounds in the observable and historical world is more likely that a man being dead for a day and a half and then coming back to life. I think you press this question without realizing that it's force lies in believing that Jesus was god's chosen. If you don't believe that and believe in the Bible as inspired... you just have a fantastic tale like all of the other dying/rising gods of history. See Carriers in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave or Not the Impossible Faith for some good discussion. Or just listen to his debates with Licona.
(4) The KCA is quite interesting. I've not heard a good explanation of how we extend our understanding of causality, which exists in our observable, testable realm... to outside our realm. What is causation outside of time? The best attempt I've heard is that a bowling ball on a pillow is a cause that is concurrent with effect (bowling ball is causing the witnessed depressing in the pillow). But the bowling ball was clearly placed there previously and thus the transition from condition 1 to condition 2 (compressed) occurred in time even if we don't get there until after condition 2 is established.
How did a changeless mind create? How can god decide? How was there no universe and then a universe? All of these concepts happen in a time continuum.
Lastly, I find that we can say nothing about what exists outside of our universe. For all we know, "god" is an eternal kid playing with finger paint that creates universes. We are a speck of dust under his bed or like an ant farm in a jar on his dresser. Or an eternal computer. Seriously anything is possible and thus it's not about dodging the implications of KCA... it's about KCA basing it's assumption that we can say anything at all about what exist outside of our world. We can't!
hendy, here are some thoughts on your query about the creation account:
http://thegdebate.blogspot.com/2010/08/l-18.html
more to come later
As far as the natural explanation of evolution, I don't see how you can believe in an evolution of "right and wrong" or "good and evil." Do these exist, or has mankind just invented them for practical purposes?
The natural explanations are god's trials, testing the strength of our faith. god wants to know if we will still believe, for example, that the he created us from dust (or blood clots?) without a process of evolution, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
god is a heavenly OJ Simpson.
Except that OJ would not threaten would with eternal hellfire if you doubted his innocence.
Jim, evolution invents useful things. Not just structures. Behaviors as well.
For more info check out the works of primatologist Frans de Waal.
@trae:
This gets a little frustrating... we have to stick with the facts, so here we go, straight from Gen 1:1...
-----
1. Heavens and the earth created, earth was formless, let there be light is decreed, and day/night are separated (first morning/evening occur)
2. God separates "water from water" (?), putting the sky in between the water to separate the "water under the expanse" from the "water above it"
3. God takes the water under the sky and separates it with land; vegetation is created
4. Lights to separate day from night and differentiate seasons/days/years. Making of "two great lights", one for the day and one for the night (sun and moon). Making of the stars.
5. Water creatures and birds
6. Livestock and man
7. Resting time
-----
I don't see how your blog post about seeing things from a "terrestrial perspective" affects that the order is wrong... Whether on earth or as a cosmic bystander, one would have seen the creation of the universe and lots of stars, then 8 billion years later seen the formation of the sun, then 30 million years later the earth, then just following that the moon, then almost another billion years until first life. No one from a "terrestrial perspective" would have been around to witness this stuff so I don't get how that changes the timeline?
It doesn't really matter to me except that Christians tend to like to say, "Oh-oh-oh... see! Gen 1 says 'in the beginning' and therefore prophesies the Big Bang!!! Amazing, isn't it?" while completely ignoring all of the other details that show the thing to be a total stab in the dark at a campfire story to explain things. If you accept Gen 1 as being accurate, you pretty much have to accept Nostradamus' predictions of 9/11 and such...
There's also a strong resemblance between the Enuma Elish (probably earlier than the OT) to Gen (LINK).
@Hendy,
Allow me to pull my own Nostradamus: I predict trae norsworthy’s response will cause you more frustration.
@Marcus,
I recall at the annual office party about 10 years ago where the highest ranking manager had way too much to drink. I and everyone else in attendance were shocked when this guy, while dancing, pulled up his shirt and undershirt and started asking the women he was dancing with to rub his belly. I doubt he received his usual bonus that year :)
During his period of intoxication he was speaking and acting as if what he was doing was appropriate and enjoyable. He was 'right' in his eyes. Obviously other employees viewed his behavior very differently.
I view your comments and approach as someone who is intoxicated. It's like you have a mind virus which prevents you from seeing and understanding things as they are, only what you wish them to be. During this part of your life you are doing what you believe is appropriate and enjoyable. Your are doing what you think is 'right', just like the drunk manager at the office party.
I used to be as drunk as you, so to speak. I used to say the same things and act the same way as you. I woke up. I stopped drinking the kool-aid. You have not...yet.
I hope, for your own sake and those who are dear to you, that one day you wake up, that you stop your weekly intoxication where you worship your invisible god. If (when?) you do you please return to this site and permit us to celebrate with you and congratulate you in your deconversion.
Peace.
@Dude, I'm Free
Comparing me to an intoxicated man who obviously was not thinking the way he would if he were sober...nice.
In what way have I spoken or approached this thread or any thread in a way that was inappropriate. All I've done is question people's perceptions and worldviews while giving my own. All you have offered here is that you clearly disagree with me. Good. God can work with that.
Now that you have been enlightened, what have you got? Do yo have any real answers? Do you have any real hope? Do you really expect anything out of life? You say you have tired life with God, How is it working out without him? Invisible does not equal non-existant. When you were "like me" did you have a relationship with God. Was He silent. Did he ever do anything for you or for anyone that you know no one or nothing else could have done? If not, you might wanna examine if you ever had been a Christian in the first place. Not that you were or are not good enough or dumber or more stupid. It's not about us it's about God. Personally, I'm praying that God reveals himself to you and everyone you know. That He gives you the greatest gift you can ever receive: Himself. I want God to do this so you will know what true freedom really is.
Hendy:
(1) My first point was only regarding there being a beginning to the universe. The Big Bang theory better fits with theism (at least theisms that believe in a Creator God) than it does with atheism. The belief in a finite past does not rest solely on a literal reading of Genesis 1.
(2) If an immaterial mind exists then looking for mechanical explanations of the mind/body problem are going to be fruitless. I did not find Ebon Musings' part 5 convincing and he did not appear to address intentionality at all. The philosophy of mind is too large a topic to address in comments. I was merely noting that the large issues involved make John's gloating unwarranted.
(3) Nearly all our knowledge rests, to some degree or another, on the testimony of other human beings. The fact that belief in the resurrection rests on testimony is not a big problem in my view. The probability of the resurrection cannot be determined merely by looking at the a priori probability of a man rising from the dead (which is what you appear to be doing). At least in theory, a Bayesian analysis could show that the resurrection is the best explanation of the evidence. McGrew and McGrew actually make just such a case in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. But the resurrection was merely an example of the larger phenomenon of naturalists merely denying, as opposed to explaining, miracle accounts. I am not impressed that naturalism can explain everything because it merely dismisses accounts not compatible with naturalism.
(4) I wouldn't restrict myself merely to the KCA. There is also the Leibnizian cosmological argument and some of Aquinas' Five Ways are cosmological in nature. In fact, Aquinas' proofs show that God is acting in the present and not merely at the creation of the world. The only way I can see escaping Aquinas' conclusions is to reject cause and effect.
@Marcus,
"In what way have I spoken or approached this thread or any thread in a way that was inappropriate."
Marcus, it's your mindset. You can't see what numerous other people (especially at this site) can plainly see. By 'intoxicated' I mean that when a member of our species is intoxicated with alcohol they have a very different world view. This is where you are today. Yet, your intoxication is not from alcohol or other substances but by the indoctrination and brainwashing you have obviously suffered, as did I.
If your holy book says 2 + 2 = 5 then you will parrot without challenge that indeed, 2 + 2 does equal 5. Each week you go tell your invisible god that 1) you yourself is a worthless piece of crap - since birth - and that 2) he is the greatest thing in the universe. Wow. You are so lucky (oh, sorry. I need a bit of Christianese here... you are so blessed) to be raised in a country that worships your specific god and religion.
Like you, I used to preach and practice that 2 + 2 = 5. Like you, I believed with all my heart, mind and soul that I was doing my god's will. I now know that 2 + 2 = 4. You are wrong. Of course while you are suffering this mind virus you are completely blinded to that fact. It took me 25 adult years to figure this out. BTW, if you read my deconversion story (a link in my first post here)... it was President Bush the dumber that literally triggered my deconversion.
"Now that you have been enlightened, what have you got?"
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I am grateful that you asked this question. The answer is: Everything!!! After 25 years of loving Jesus, trying to follow his every commandment and trying to be the best Christian I could be... I was miserable and during the last few years depressed. After flushing that evil turd (and his more evil imaginary daddy) down the toilet my life is joyful, happy, fulfilling, enjoyable and probably the most important; I have peace.
I have peace and happiness like I have never experienced in my entire life. I am living. I enjoy every day. I love the people dear to me more. I love my pets more (although I have always been an excellent pet parent). I wish I could find the words to describe my love for life. The only other person that I have yet heard to express a very similar experience is Angie the AntiTheist on YouTube.
Similar to Angie I was continually getting more and more depressed as I "got closer to Jesus" and followed "his ways", the exact polar opposite of what your holy book says. Within a week of waking up from my coma 90% of the frustration, angst and depression vanished. During the past seven months I have almost rid myself of the remaining 10%.
"If not, you might wanna examine if you ever had been a Christian in the first place."
With all respect, this statement makes you look like a moron. I don't believe you are... But still, this has got to be the most stupid and idiotic thing any Christian could say. It's the catch-all phrase; when your mind cannot comprehend that a True Christian (TM) could completely abandon your version of Christianity, you choose the "I give up" explanation.
"Personally, I'm praying that God reveals himself to you and everyone you know."
Marcus, Marcus. As I said in a previous posting “I am praying that Zeus reveals himself to you and everyone you know.” Why do you continue to hate the one true god? Zeus is it. Are you so blind that you cannot see the obvious? My god is bigger than your god. Of course, you and I share one thing in common... we both have the same amount of evidence for the existence of each god. Precisely nil.
To all, I deleted the extra comments because I kept getting a message about the posting was too long. I kept posting shorter and shorter comments until they took, not realizing that each comment was posting. Sorry for any confusion. I am new to blogger.com.
@Dude, I'm Free
Oh my goodness. It could have been me that wrote nearly every word you wrote. Except that "drunk manager" story. Man that's good. What a great analogy.
I would like to read your deconversion story but I cannot find it. Is the link to it in one of the comments that you deleted?
@Emory,
My pleasure. As requested, here is my story.
Big bang is consistent best with agnosticism. Beyond a certain point we simply don't know. If you want to solve the problem by pulling a deity out of a hat you may as well pick the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
An immaterial mind does not exist. That is basic neuroscience. Mind-body dualism is not consistent with data. Look up "Alexia without agraphia" and "color anomia".
A historian can never affirm miracles happened. History is not an experimental science. You cannot rerun the tape. You can only assign probabilities to whatever may have happened. Any alternative explanation for what is reported, be it lies, illusions, or anything else, is more the true than one than miracles.(See Bart Ehrman).
I have no problem with a deity being involved in our daily lives. As long as you admit that it maybe His Noodly Goodness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
RAmen
John,
Naturalism in no way explains our existence or why we exist or even how we began to exist...what are you on?
So far as behavior, why would you expect anyone to behave other than within the capacity or functionality in which they were created? I mean even under your construct of naturalism someone or something cannot act other than by which it was preprogrammed to function or behave...I mean that's one of the basis of naturalism isn't it? Regularity???
If we find natural explainations for things that in no way minimzes their possibility of a supernatural origin, purpose and cause. In fact that in no way dimishes a God causation in any way or form.
This argument is bogus my friend.
Incidentally, the idea that you have to believe god is acting in our daily lives, or else you are rejecting causality altogether, reminds me of Islamic thinker, Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali. This was exactly what he said.
In his treatise "the incoherence of the philosophers", Ghazali claimed that all effects that come into being in the world as direct results of involvement by god, as opposed to fixed laws of nature. According to him, the idea that god created those laws and then stopped being involved in the day to day running of the world was heresy.
Unfortunately for muslims, Ghazali turned out to be extremely influential. The popularity of his ideas marked once and for all the end of the golden era of science in Islamic nations.
hendy
genesis doesn't imply that someone was there. the account has to be recorded from some perspective so why not the one in genesis?
an earthly observer would not have observed the creation of the universe because the earth wasn't around yet.
technically, an earthly observer wouldn't have seen the stars first. there would have been a general light from the sun because the atmosphere was clogged with various gasses. that person would have seen the sun first as the account records.
Havery; maybe there is no "why"?
Dude, I'm Free:
I am not Marcus, but I will nonetheless respond to your post.
I was miserable and during the last few years depressed. After flushing that evil turd (and his more evil imaginary daddy) down the toilet my life is joyful, happy, fulfilling, enjoyable and probably the most important; I have peace.
While I can understand your joy that you came free from what appears to have been an oppressive form of religion, I personally can also say with full conviction that "my life is joyful, happy, fulfilling, enjoyable and probably the most important; I have peace". But I say that being a practicing Catholic -- while I will not negate that you can feel these things too.
Yet, your intoxication is not from alcohol or other substances but by the indoctrination and brainwashing you have obviously suffered, as did I.
I certainly don't suffer from brainwashing; on the contrary, I have for some years now carefully pondered all arguments for atheism -- just recently I have read with full attention, and willingness to be convinced, Gary Drescher's "Good and Real" that Luke over at Common Sense Atheism recommended (an impressive book that got me thinking in surprising ways). I still find the arguments lacking, even though I reason about arguments for and against theism in a quite passionless way (you would be surprised how 'cold' the reasoning in my head is also when it is about arguments in favor of theism).
I find the arguments for atheism lacking certainly not because I am not knowledgeable in science. On the contrary, I am a scientist (a biochemist), I fully embrace the theory of evolution and even have written a review on the origin of life for the leading evolution website Talkorigins.org (google for origin of life, and the article will come up on the first page). Yet my knowledge of both science and philosophy is precisely what prevents me from becoming an atheist; for that, see also:
http://snipurl.com/10n1vx
Each week you go tell your invisible god that 1) you yourself is a worthless piece of crap - since birth - and that 2) he is the greatest thing in the universe.
Actually, while I agree with 2), I don't see myself as a worthless piece of crap at all. On the contrary, I am happy about what I am, and I thank God for that.
Within a week of waking up from my coma 90% of the frustration, angst and depression vanished. During the past seven months I have almost rid myself of the remaining 10%.
Odd, I have no frustration, angst and depression at all. However, I can well see how some forms of religion can lead to that (I used to be in religious surroundings less favorable to happiness myself), and I can also see that atheists can be perfectly happy. I don't buy into this idea that atheism equates nihilism. I have a good friend who is an atheist, and we both admire each other's ability to be content and happy in life, with so much discontent around us.
In summary, while I can understand how your deconversion feels like a liberating experience for you, I hope you have the openness to understand that my religion makes me feel liberated too: "the truth will set you free".
"you're not explaining why there are dice to begin with. not looking for that answer is akin to intellectual surrender."
Dice are there for a game.
A game is there for entertainment
why is there entertainment?
This could go on for quite awhile. There is no answer.
Hi Al Moritz
You were responding to Dude, I'm Free. Please do not be offended by my response. As I read through you reply to the Dude, I was looking for the 'true grit'. At the end, it was as though I was walking in a plain, no undulation, flat, uni-dimensional as far as the eye could see. It conjured the sense of white noise.
And I asked myself, if he had the misfortune of being born in India, would he have been a roman catholic as he professes to be? Because if he had been born there and had become a roman catholic from early childhood, then that would truly tell me that RC is the one true religion, and the god of the RCs is the one true god. Then I asked myself, if Al Moritz was born in India, would it be more likely [perhaps 99.999999%] that he would be a Hindu? And if he as a little boy succumbed to the cultural imperatives of the average Hindi family, would he fervently believe in the panoply of Hindu gods, or would he be declaratively roman catholic exactly as he is proudly now?
Then I ask myself, if Al Moritz was born in the jungles of Papua New Guinea, would he have been an animist will all the attendant beliefs of ancestor worship? Would he be able to tell the Dude, ...."I personally can also say with full conviction that "my life is joyful, happy, fulfilling, enjoyable and probably the most important; I have peace" in his animist world? I say, emphatically, yes.
I am also pleased to read that you, ..." can also see that atheists can be perfectly happy".
So tell me again why roman catholicism is the one true religion,and the RC god is the one true spectral numen? And where does this cheeky bugger hide?
Cheers
@Jayman:
(1) I don't know that it's a "better fit" with theism than atheism. I would support scientific discover wherever it leads. In that sense, supporting science is a "better fit" with "whatever is" rather than "what needs to be if god exists." Does that make sense? Perhaps some are hell bent on alternative universes to avoid the Big Bang... whatever. That's not my stance. I just want to know how reality can best be described.
(2) Fair enough. I guess I didn't expect you to find the arguments convincing (or maybe I did naively, but did you before clicking the link expect to find them convincing? Probably not). The point is that "this has not been explained" seems like a poor justification for "therefore, an immaterial ghost in the machine exists." What if we do find a connection? Would you change your stance? How much support of "the mind is what the brain does" is needed before a soul could be disproven as a valid hypothesis?
(3) I suppose I agree, though one has to establish a heck of a lot to build the case for "god raised Jesus from the dead." I find it quite plausible that the resurrection was an invention and that the gospels are simply unreliable as historical sources. We literally have nothing except these texts to go by. The writings of others hold that the believers thought they saw Jesus, but nothing of a resurrection. Why not strike some coins, make sure not to forget where the tomb was, etc. Why not retest the Shroud of Turin with carbon dating? I dunno... establishing Jesus' resurrection historically just seems like such a beat to shit cow that's not going very far. At the end of the day, it really does come down to anything is more likely than this man rose and even if he did... why suspect that it was the fulfillment of the prophecies inspired by the murdering and contradictory OT being?
(4) I guess I'll have to dig into these deeper some time. I would still suggest that cause and effect work in our world, our time continuum, our existence, and so on. We're hypothesizing about outside of our world. We have no grounds to do so. No grounds whatsoever. None of us, not even Aquinas can hold to know what was "before" or "outside" the universe before it existed.
Papalinton,
sure, I got fortunate with how I was born and raised, no denying that. However, this was not the point of my post.
I wanted to show that you don't have to be 'free from religion' in order to be happy and have peace, and that being religious does not necessarily mean being 'brain-washed'.
Al, people that are brainwashed are usually not aware of that fact and will deny it as strongly as you or I. Brainwashed is a very strong term. Most of the time we are dealing with varying degrees of conditioning. We can be conditioned by our parents, society, religion, tv, magazines, blogs. Some conditioning is much stronger than others. Religious conditioning tends to be very strong for many people.
A person can free themselves from religious conditioning only to fall for some other ideology such as marxism or more commonly, from one religion to another.
Papilinton, it is trivial to the discussion, but there is actually a significant Catholic population in India, and Christianity in India predates not only the arrival of European missionaries there, but even the Christianization of the countries from which those missionaries came.
I was very surprised by that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_India#Early_Christianity_in_India
Al, people that are brainwashed are usually not aware of that fact and will deny it as strongly as you or I. Brainwashed is a very strong term. Most of the time we are dealing with varying degrees of conditioning. We can be conditioned by our parents, society, religion, tv, magazines, blogs. Some conditioning is much stronger than others. Religious conditioning tends to be very strong for many people.
A person can free themselves from religious conditioning only to fall for some other ideology such as marxism or more commonly, from one religion to another.
Quite predictable comment, Zenmite. By the same token I could claim that you have been conditioned by naturalistic thinking in your intellectual surroundings. But we'll get nowhere with this kind of argumentation, obviously.
You may counter: "No, I just follow the evidence, without prejudice!" Well, fine. Problem is only that the evidence for naturalism is neither unambiguous nor sufficient, in my view. And trust me, I have carefully studied all arguments for it from here to the moon, and I probably have studied them more carefully and in an intellectually more rigorous way than most atheists (I am not talking about you, specifically) themselves will ever do.
And let me tell you what: I probably might have already become an atheist back in 2006, would it not have been for some critical philosophical knowledge (acquired under fortunate circumstances, I got lucky I guess). I may have been quite close to that at that point -- before I knew and had studied some more compelling arguments for theism, which now more firmly ground me in my beliefs. So you really cannot tell me that I would never have been 'ready to jump' because I was 'conditioned'.
Al, you read alot into my comment that was not there. I thought I made it clear that all of us are conditioned to one degree or another. I was in a cult for a couple of years a long time ago and we all insisted we were not brainwashed. Just pointing out that we usually are not aware of our own conditioning, not attacking you personally.
"And trust me, I have carefully studied all arguments for it from here to the moon, and I probably have studied them more carefully and in an intellectually more rigorous way than most atheists."
Now this is also a useless avenue. It's like my suggesting that I've studied the bible from here to the moon in a more rigorous way than most christians. It's just your subjective opinion about your own abilities...as it would be mine. I enjoyed reading your blog btw.
Al, you read alot into my comment that was not there. I thought I made it clear that all of us are conditioned to one degree or another. I was in a cult for a couple of years a long time ago and we all insisted we were not brainwashed. Just pointing out that we usually are not aware of our own conditioning, not attacking you personally.
Fair enough. I am, BTW, aware that I preferably think from one side of the spectrum (the theistic side thus; just like atheists preferably think from their point of view), which prompts me towards particularly critical pondering of the issues (and towards slipping into atheist's 'mental shoes' from time to time) order to overcome potential bias. It is also that theists and atheists appear to have different basic intuitions which themselves cannot be rationally proven or disproven. So if the two sides have different basic intuitions, they both can come to equally rational, yet different conclusions (now leaving the question of influence of emotionality totally aside).
I have had a discussion about this issue of basic intuitions with Justfinethanks here:
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=7322
where he replied:
This is an excellent point. My favorite illistration of this has to be how atheists and theists react when God is compared to Santa Claus. To an atheist, this is a perfectly sensible comparison as they basically have the same feelings about both entities and have the same kind of relationship with them. When an atheist hears “I prayed to God,” they basically react in the same manner as if you heard a grown man say “I sent Santa a letter.”
But to theists, this comparison is simply dumbfounding. One is a robustly defined being that has being seriously explored by great minds for thousands of years and the other is a silly fable. How could anyone who knows what they are talking about confuse the two?
It comes down to intuitions. To me and many other Atheists, God sure seems a lot like Santa. They have a lot of similar properties: the invisibility, the moral judgement, the wish granting.
But I suspect to you and other theists this comparison is insulting and perhaps even ignorant.
These intuitions are very powerful, and as you point out, precede our rational considerations. If the facts contradict our intuitions, it simply takes ten times more work to accept the facts than if they aligned with our intuitions. And that’s part of why discovering what’s true is so challenging. Not just because the facts are hard to understand, but also because its tough to accept the facts as being true once we understand them.
***
Different basic intuitions may also explain why I would disagree with Hendy when he says above:
"(4) I guess I'll have to dig into these deeper some time. I would still suggest that cause and effect work in our world, our time continuum, our existence, and so on. We're hypothesizing about outside of our world. We have no grounds to do so. No grounds whatsoever. None of us, not even Aquinas can hold to know what was "before" or "outside" the universe before it existed."
While I can follow Hendy's point, I simply disagree. I see no reason to negate commonsense intuitions when it comes to these things and declare that cause-effect thinking should not apply to things outside our universe.
I enjoyed reading your blog btw.
Glad you did (I suppose with 'blog' you mean the website that I linked to above).
Dice are there for a game.
A game is there for entertainment
why is there entertainment?
who said dice are there for a game? how would anyone know that? why would a rational person not seek an answer to such things? to not do so is intellectual surrender
There is no answer.
there actually is. some people choose to ignore it. why would any rational person do that? because they have been misled by unfortunately influential people into thinking they are justified in saying such things.
Hendy (part 1):
I don't know that it's a "better fit" with theism than atheism.
The reason I say that is because, given a Creator God, you'd fully expect the universe to have a beginning; whereas, given atheism, you'd expect there to be a 50% chance of the universe having a beginning (assuming an equal probability of a finite or an infinite universe). This is not proof or disproof of either position. It is merely one data point that fits better with theism than with atheism.
I guess I didn't expect you to find the arguments convincing (or maybe I did naively, but did you before clicking the link expect to find them convincing? Probably not).
I didn't expect them to be convincing because I thought it was unlikely that an amateur (?) atheist philosopher had solved a problem that professional philosophers grapple with. Considering the fact that he did not deal with intentionality you can't be surprised that I was not convinced on that front. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll explain why I didn't find his explanation of qualia convincing.
Ebon commented on the knowledge argument (Mary sees red for the first time in her life after studying color in a black and white room her entire life). Note that even he admits that his denial of the argument is incredible. He attempts to provide a counter-example using tennis instead of color. The problem is that dualists don't deny that you can acquire factual/propositional knowledge of tennis (or the brain) or that there is a connection between the mind and brain (his remarks about pain asymbolia and synesthesia ignore the fact that dualists believe the mind and brain interact with each other). We argue that what Ebon calls procedural knowledge (qualia) is a type of knowledge that cannot be acquired by propositional knowledge. He tries to skirt the issue by saying Mary acquired a new ability (to imagine redness) but not new knowledge. I would say Mary acquired a new ability because she acquired new knowledge (what it is like to see red); for how would Mary know she was imagining redness if she did not know what it is like to see red? Ebon highlights the absurdity of materialism; he wants me to deny my own first-person experiences of acquiring new knowledge when I experience something for the first time.
The point is that "this has not been explained" seems like a poor justification for "therefore, an immaterial ghost in the machine exists."
I agree. That's why I rely on anti-materialist arguments (such as the knowledge argument above) and not merely ignorance.
How much support of "the mind is what the brain does" is needed before a soul could be disproven as a valid hypothesis?
Basically, you would have to refute the anti-materialist arguments. The knowledge argument provides one example of how you could argue against the immaterial mind. Acquire propositional knowledge about some X that you have never experienced (and is not analagous to something you've experienced), imagine X, then experience X, and finally see if your expectations fully match their experience.
Hendy (part 2):
Why not strike some coins, make sure not to forget where the tomb was, etc. Why not retest the Shroud of Turin with carbon dating?
I find it doubtful that skeptics would believe in the resurrection of Christ if only the above pieces of evidence existed. If you think the NT writers are lying then you could think other Christians were lying on their coins or about the location of the empty tomb (the NT already makes it clear that the first Christians thought Jesus rose from the dead and that even the Jews thought the tomb was empty). Even if the Shroud of Turin was definitively identified as a burial shroud from AD 30 Jerusalem you could say that the shroud wasn't Jesus' or that they took it off of his corpse.
At the end of the day, it really does come down to anything is more likely than this man rose and even if he did
It would nice if a skeptic actually plugged some numbers into an equation to see how they arrive at this conclusion. Sure, we might disagree about the numbers you plug in but it might further the discussion. It would also be nice to see some numbers on modern day miracles. Does the nearness of the events, the number of eyewitnesses, or video/photo/audio evidence make any difference? Or is it simply that the skeptic will not believe in the supernatural/paranormal regardless of the evidence.
why suspect that it was the fulfillment of the prophecies inspired by the murdering and contradictory OT being?
My reading of Daniel 9:24-27, for example, is rather difficult to explain if God doesn't exist. I see it accurately predicting Christ's baptism, his execution, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
I would still suggest that cause and effect work in our world, our time continuum, our existence, and so on.
I don't see how that helps you. You can still work back to a first cause in our world and then, since you are committed to cause and effect in this world, you still need to posit a cause for that first cause.
We're hypothesizing about outside of our world. We have no grounds to do so. No grounds whatsoever.
Given cause and effect in our world, don't we at least have grounds to posit a cause outside of our world that initiated the first cause in our world? I think it does and thus materialism/naturalism has been disproven, while a supernatural realm (meaning something outside of our universe) has been proven.
Jayman said
"...Hendy (part 1):
I don't know that it's a "better fit" with theism than atheism.
The reason I say that is because, given a Creator God, you'd fully expect the universe to have a beginning; whereas, given atheism, you'd expect there to be a 50% chance of the universe having a beginning (assuming an equal probability of a finite or an infinite universe)..."
I disagree with the unwarranted assumption that if there's not (yet) a naturalistic explanation for the universe that the probability defaults to a 50/50 toss up.
The universe may or may not have had a "beginning", but there is not yet a "final" answer to that question--we're still looking; the Kalam Cosmological Argument is full of fatal flaws and more unsupported assumptions, and science is (and always will be) a continuing process of discovery, i.e., we are NOT at the end of what science can discover.
GearHedEd:
I disagree with the unwarranted assumption that if there's not (yet) a naturalistic explanation for the universe that the probability defaults to a 50/50 toss up.
I didn't make that assumption. I said given atheism (nothing else) the odds of an eternal or a finite universe are equal. I would hold that position even if a naturalistic explanation for the universe is found. Given only atheism, what do you think the odds are?
The universe may or may not have had a "beginning", but there is not yet a "final" answer to that question--we're still looking
It is worth noting that Aquinas' arguments work even if the universe is eternal.
the Kalam Cosmological Argument is full of fatal flaws and more unsupported assumptions
Unless you expand on this, I cannot address the alleged fatal flaws and unsupported assumptions. I will merely note that there are multiple cosmological arguments.
and science is (and always will be) a continuing process of discovery, i.e., we are NOT at the end of what science can discover.
I don't see how the KCA relies on a gap in scientific knowledge (if that's the point you're trying to make).
"I didn't make that assumption. I said given atheism (nothing else) the odds of an eternal or a finite universe are equal..."
Sentence one: Deny making assumption.
Sentence two. Make same assumption you just denied makling in sentence one.
"It is worth noting that Aquinas' arguments work even if the universe is eternal."
It is also worth noting that Aquinas was reasoning about a faulty picture of the universe in the mid thirteenth century (not to mention that he was a Dominican Friar, and CANNOT have been anything but biased toward finding God; otherwise he'd have been burned as a heretic).
Me: "the Kalam Cosmological Argument is full of fatal flaws and more unsupported assumptions"
Jayman: "Unless you expand on this, I cannot address the alleged fatal flaws and unsupported assumptions. I will merely note that there are multiple cosmological arguments."
See this:
Me: "and science is (and always will be) a continuing process of discovery, i.e., we are NOT at the end of what science can discover."
Jayman: "I don't see how the KCA relies on a gap in scientific knowledge (if that's the point you're trying to make)."
Nope. The point was that religious believers almost always point to esoteric apologetics like the Kalam Cosmological Argument to claim that there's No Other Way besides their favorite creator God to explain the origin of the universe, when there's NO EVIDENCE that it literally poofed into existence out of literally "nothing".
GearHedEd:
(1) How is atheism equivalent to there not being a natural explanation for the universe?
(2) Your comments on Aquinas don't address the soundness of any of the Five Ways (I think the first three ways are cosmological in nature).
(3) The KCA does not rely solely on scientific evidence of the universe's beginning to make its point. There are philosophical reasons to believe the past does not stretch back forever. I skimmed through the comments you linked to and you did not address the philosophical reasons at all. Justin Martyr (the commenter in the thread not the Church Father) handled your scientific objections quite well.
"(1) How is atheism equivalent to there not being a natural explanation for the universe?"
Atheism would imply ONLY natural (as opposed to God supernaturally "poofing" the universe into existence ex nihilo) explanations for the universe. That we haven't found the explanation yet doesn't mean that there ISN'T one. Just that we haven't found it yet.
"(2) Your comments on Aquinas don't address the soundness of any of the Five Ways (I think the first three ways are cosmological in nature)."
I don't care what Aquinas said. I'm not impressed by arguments formulated by Christian cheerleaders 800 years ago that find that "Presto! there IS a god, and He's the one we know from the Bible." Not to mention cosmology in 1250 A.D. still included crystal spheres of the heavens in which the stars are fixed.
"(3) The KCA does not rely solely on scientific evidence of the universe's beginning to make its point. There are philosophical reasons to believe the past does not stretch back forever. I skimmed through the comments you linked to and you did not address the philosophical reasons at all. Justin Martyr (the commenter in the thread not the Church Father) handled your scientific objections quite well."
The KCA is not scientific AT ALL. And philosophical reasons that don't reflect reality are worth exactly zip. Furthermore, if you linked to Justin's blog thread from his first post at May 18, 2010 8:01 AM, you'll see in the comments that when I pressed him, he backpedalled and eventually conceded,
"As [Borde, Guth and Vilenkin] point out, and as you quote, it is possible that some new cosmology will turn out to be correct, and that this predicts an eternal universe."
which is EXACTLY equal to "We don't "KNOW".
But he still grasps at straws by saying,
"But once again, we are left with the overwhelming weight of the empirical evidence in favor of premise #2."
No we're not. He (AND Borde, Guth and Vilenkin!) just NOW gave it away!
GearHedEd:
Atheism would imply ONLY natural (as opposed to God supernaturally "poofing" the universe into existence ex nihilo) explanations for the universe. That we haven't found the explanation yet doesn't mean that there ISN'T one. Just that we haven't found it yet.
The existence or non-existence of natural explanations for the universe is irrelevant to the statement you initially responded to.
I don't care what Aquinas said.
That's your choice but it doesn't refute his arguments. His arguments don't rely on cosmology so his scientific ignorance in that field is irrelevant.
The KCA is not scientific AT ALL.
That's fine. Not all truth is scientific in nature.
And philosophical reasons that don't reflect reality are worth exactly zip.
I agree, but philosophical reasons that are based on reality are fine.
Furthermore, if you linked to Justin's blog thread from his first post at May 18, 2010 8:01 AM, you'll see in the comments that when I pressed him, he backpedalled and eventually conceded,
I read his blog post and the comments. I agree with him that, based on the current evidence, theism/deism is far more plausible than atheism. You're relying on the fact that we can never have absolute certainty. If and when new evidence comes to light I might have to change my mind regarding the KCA, but until then I see it as more likely to have true premises than false premises.
Jayman,
"You're relying on the fact that we can never have absolute certainty. If and when new evidence comes to light I might have to change my mind regarding the KCA, but until then I see it as more likely to have true premises than false premises."
Then you're exercising a choice.
Again, all I ever said is that nobody really KNOWS. If you want to accept that as being good enough, that's OK with me. We'll just have to agree to disagree about the force the physical probabilities have over the KCA, since as I said initially in the paraphrase of P(2), "the universe may have poofed into existence out of literally nothing, but no one KNOWS whether or not this is TRUE at this point in time."
As I see it, people who accept these cosmological arguments are claiming a conclusion based on less than sure knowledge, because it coincides with their belief systems, NOT whether it has force of TRUTH behind it.
Jayman: "...Christianity predicts that the universe is not [past?]eternal whereas atheists, no longer willing to argue for a steady-state theory, often dance around the issue of the origin of the universe to avoid various cosmological arguments. Thus I have to disagree with your assumption that the universe was created in a way indistinguishable from divine creation. A finite past is exactly what we'd expect."
Hendy: "(4) The KCA is quite interesting. I've not heard a good explanation of how we extend our understanding of causality, which exists in our observable, testable realm... to outside our realm. What is causation outside of time?"
Jayman: "Hendy: (1) My first point was only regarding there being a beginning to the universe. The Big Bang theory better fits with theism (at least theisms that believe in a Creator God) than it does with atheism. The belief in a finite past does not rest solely on a literal reading of Genesis 1."
Hendy: "@Jayman: (1) I don't know that it's a "better fit" with theism than atheism. I would support scientific discover(y) wherever it leads. In that sense, supporting science is a "better fit" with "whatever is" rather than "what needs to be if god exists." Does that make sense? Perhaps some are hell bent on alternative universes to avoid the Big Bang... whatever. That's not my stance. I just want to know how reality can best be described."
Jayman: "(quoting Hendy): "I don't know that it's a "better fit" with theism than atheism."
Jayman's answer: "The reason I say that is because, given a Creator God, you'd fully expect the universe to have a beginning; whereas, given atheism, you'd expect there to be a 50% chance of the universe having a beginning (assuming an equal probability of a finite or an infinite universe)..."
(This is pure speculation and faulty mathematical reasoning to boot! -Ed.)
"...This is not proof or disproof of either position. It is merely one data point that fits better with theism than with atheism."
Me: "I disagree with the unwarranted assumption that if there's not (yet) a naturalistic explanation for the universe that the probability defaults to a 50/50 toss up."
Jayman: "(1) How is atheism equivalent to there not being a natural explanation for the universe?"
-----------------------
(Note: This question above seems to be the problem. It doesn't make sense as written, but I attempted to answer it anyway. It makes MORE sense if written:
"(1) How is atheism equivalent to there being a natural explanation for the universe?"
I can attempt to answer it again, if you'd like to clarify what you're asking.)
-----------------------
Me: "Atheism would imply ONLY natural (as opposed to God supernaturally "poofing" the universe into existence ex nihilo) explanations for the universe. That we haven't found the explanation yet doesn't mean that there ISN'T one. Just that we haven't found it yet."
Jayman: "The existence or non-existence of natural explanations for the universe is irrelevant to the statement you initially responded to."
(The "statement that I originally responded to" being at the top of this comment?)
There's much to ponder here:
"You're relying on the fact that we can never have absolute certainty. If and when new evidence comes to light I might have to change my mind regarding the KCA, but until then I see it as more likely to have true premises than false premises."
(1) Jayman: "You're relying on the fact that we can never have absolute certainty."
Me: NO, I wasn't relying on that. That's usually a Christian tactic, used to wedge their foot in the door of logic by saying things like "You can't prove a negative proposition like 'God does not exist', since you cannot investigate ALL possibilities". You Christians happily use that same defense of your own cherished dogma when it suits YOU. But if you care to look at the "Alvin Plantinga qoute of the day", you'll see that I argue for statistical confidence, not 100% proof. All of science relies on statistical confidence intervals, and what I'm "relying on" is that science and naturalistic explanations have consistently proved to be reliable predictors of future outcomes given non-changing starting conditions (except in extreme cases like the Big Bang, where observation has yet to probe).
Jayman: "If and when new evidence comes to light I might have to change my mind..."
If and when new evidence comes to light I expect that it will confirm the naturalistic position, and that I will NOT have to change MY mind.
Whose position is precarious??
GearHedEd:
(1) I said: "Given a Creator God, you'd fully expect the universe to have a beginning; whereas, given atheism, you'd expect there to be a 50% chance of the universe having a beginning." You replied: "This is pure speculation and faulty mathematical reasoning to boot!"
Note that my statement concerns whether the universe has a beginning, not whether it has a natural explanation. Where is the speculation and faulty math? Do you think it is speculation to say the universe has a beginning? Given theism or atheism, and nothing more, what would you expect to be the case about the universe having a beginning?
(2) Regarding whose position is precarious, I would have to say yours, based on the current evidence. Speculation about new evidence is, well, speculation.
Jayman: "Where is the speculation and faulty math?"
Right here: "... given atheism, you'd expect there to be a 50% chance of the universe having a beginning..."
Saying it's a 50-50 toss up is an unwarranted assumption. That's three times I've said that now, and you even included it in your response. If you're THAT dense, it's no wonder you think Christianity has anything substantial to offer.
Let's look at the track records of scientific empiricism vs. religion and theology as a means of explaining ANYTHING meaningful...
Theology has explained absolutely nothing satisfactorily, whereas observing the world around us has given us many valuable and practical insights.
You can't prove satisfactorily to YOURSELF that you even have a soul (all you have is a feeling, informed by ancient writings); how do you expect anyone to be convinced by a bunch of ancient myths and fairy tales?
GearHedEd:
Saying it's a 50-50 toss up is an unwarranted assumption.
What is the correct assumption, given only atheism?
That's three times I've said that now, and you even included it in your response.
But you've never put your neck out and made a statement as to what, exactly, atheism predicts concerning the beginning of the universe.
If you're THAT dense, it's no wonder you think Christianity has anything substantial to offer.
Is turning the other cheek something substantial?
Theology has explained absolutely nothing satisfactorily, whereas observing the world around us has given us many valuable and practical insights.
Obviously we have disagreements over theological matters so your comparison won't be convincing.
You can't prove satisfactorily to YOURSELF that you even have a soul (all you have is a feeling, informed by ancient writings); how do you expect anyone to be convinced by a bunch of ancient myths and fairy tales?
Where in this thread did I cite "ancient myths and fairy tales" in support of the existence of the soul? I noted that the existence of qualia and intentionality suggest that the mind is not entirely material.
@Dude, I'm Free
You said
If your holy book says 2 + 2 = 5 then you will parrot without challenge that indeed, 2 + 2 does equal 5. Each week you go tell your invisible god that 1) you yourself is a worthless piece of crap - since birth - and that 2) he is the greatest thing in the universe. Wow. You are so lucky (oh, sorry. I need a bit of Christianese here... you are so blessed) to be raised in a country that worships your specific god and religion.
Like you, I used to preach and practice that 2 + 2 = 5. Like you, I believed with all my heart, mind and soul that I was doing my god's will. I now know that 2 + 2 = 4. You are wrong. Of course while you are suffering this mind virus you are completely blinded to that fact. It took me 25 adult years to figure this out. BTW, if you read my deconversion story (a link in my first post here)... it was President Bush the dumber that literally triggered my deconversion.
I agree that if the Bible says 2+2=5 then we should throw the Bible away. It doesn't. Nor does it say anything approaching or looking like illogical or outright lies. Yes, it contains miracles and things that we don't normally see, but that doesn't make it false.
I was indeed blessed to be raised in family where my parents dragged me to church but they also live what they preach and I thank God for them. Not everyone gets parents as wonderful as mine. Yes, I was raised in a Christian household, but I wasn't a Christian until I turned my life over to Christ myself. You can drum the beat all day long about how Christians are Christians because they are raised that way, but what about those who find Christ and were raised in atheist households or other religions? Or what about those who were raised by Christian parents but are not Christians themselves as Adults? This is an individual matter.
@Dude, I'm Free
You said your de-conversion got started by our former President George Bush? Why? Does that make sense? Why would that matter? I didn't like or agree with most of his policies either. Bush does not define for me what Christianity is. He didn't die for me. Jesus did. He was not raised for my justification. Jesus was. I agree that it happens sometimes people loose sight of Jesus looking at Christians. That's a problem. But no one should allow that to cause them to miss out on Jesus. As a "Christian" you felt shame and condemnation then you were doing it all wrong. Didn't you ever read Romans 8:1? That's the good news...there is an answer. The Bad news is that you can't do it your own way. Pretending that your righteousness is good enough or worse that you have nothing needing atonement for is the lie...a delusion. Wake up and smell the kool-aid because you seem to have definitely drank it. Jesus is the only antidote.
You also said
"If not, you might wanna examine if you ever had been a Christian in the first place."[Quoting me]
With all respect, this statement makes you look like a moron. I don't believe you are... But still, this has got to be the most stupid and idiotic thing any Christian could say. It's the catch-all phrase; when your mind cannot comprehend that a True Christian (TM) could completely abandon your version of Christianity, you choose the "I give up" explanation.
No need to get offended. Let's try to unpack this a bit. The best definition of a "true Christian" comes from the Bible. Let's see.
1. A believer has joy. You said that you have more joy now that you have abandoned Christianity..that meansyoud didn't have it when you were saved
2. A believer's life changes....he/she becomes new. New desires. New feelings. There is a realization of the holiness of God and just how little you measure up. There is the hope and expectation of God allowing you to grow and the recognition of growth. See Romans 8:28-29. In short you know Jesus because of ongoing relationship with Him. Can you say you experienced that?
3. A believer is indwelt by the holy spirit.
It's interesting that when the original Greek texts describe this change the word used is "metamorpho" the word we get "metamorphosis" from. You know like a caterpillar becoming a butterfly - one way process. A butterfly never turns back into the caterpillar. It's the same way with being "born again". Once you are born, you can't become unborn. Given all of this...I must ask: Were you ever really a Christian?
Let me be clear...I'm not discounting you completely or anyone. If you were truly born again, you are still born again and God will bring you back...like the good shepherd that leaves the 99 to go after that one wayward sheep. I hope this is the case because your soul is safe, althought you don't recognize that anymore. In addition if this is not the case, you could still become truly born again and really see what it is God has for you. Either way would be awesome. I'm not qualified to judge your heart's condition. I can only go by what you have said.
Which is why I did not outright call you a liar about having been a Christian.
One last thing: being compared to being drunk isn't really a bad thing. On Pentecost when the Holy Spirit fell on those folks - giving birth to the Church - outsiders thought that the church was drunk. However Peter set them straight way more eloquently that I can. Read Peter's sermon in Acts 2.
Jayman:
"But you've never put your neck out and made a statement as to what, exactly, atheism predicts concerning the beginning of the universe."
Atheism doesn't make "predictions". Atheism isn't some great explanatory thing, the way Christians treat their favorite stories. I don't care if YOU think atheism is morally bankrupt, or wrong, or lacking in explanatory power. Your insistence on being "right" here is just a tit-for-tat pseudodialog in which you'll refuse to let someone else have the last word, and then run to your friends an say smugly, "He bailed on the discussion, because he's got nothing".
Jayman: "What is the correct assumption, given only atheism?"
The CORRECT course of action is to withhold judgement on matters in which there is not enough evidence to form an opinion. But your beliefs will not allow you that. You MUST claim to KNOW, because God told you (through the scriptures). Take away the Bible, and you have NOTHING.
Take the Bible away from me, and I still have explanations for the things you'll not understand anymore.
Jayman: "Where in this thread did I cite "ancient myths and fairy tales" in support of the existence of the soul? I noted that the existence of qualia and intentionality suggest that the mind is not entirely material."
First, I never claimed that you said anything of the sort. Look back and you'll see that I didn't.
Second, if you're a Christian, you get your picture of "The Way Things Are" from the Bible, and Christian dogma. The concept of "soul" is inseparable from this worldview; you didn't have to "say" it.
This:
"I noted that the existence of qualia and intentionality suggest that the mind is not entirely material."
is a wind-up into the argument that if "mind" is immaterial, then it's separate from the matter of the body, and therefore is immortal (I left out a couple of philosophical points in the interest of brevity, but you're obviously familiar with the argument or you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place).
Prove to anyone that you have a soul, and that it's separate from your body, and immortal. Make the claim that 'consciousness' or 'mind' is "soul", and I'll point out that if someone gave you a stout whack on the head, you'll lose your "soul" for a short time; or that if you suffer a stroke, your "soul" will be damaged even though you still live. I say that there's no such thing as "souls", and if there's no "soul" then there's nothing for a God to judge. And if there's nothing to judge, then Christianity is a fable.
I don't say these things for the usual reasons atheists get accused of, either. I am not incorrigibly hedonistic; I don't blame God for having a shitty life (my life is just fine, thank you), or that someone dear to me died; I'm not trying to dodge judgement, and I don't believe that there's any afterlife. I believe that when you die, you're dead. Period.
And if you're winding up to say that this leaves me no hope, you're wrong there, too. My hope is for my children to grow up into mature adulthood without crippling their brains with the mush of Christianity.
So far, it's working out well for us.
@Al:
You: I see no reason to negate commonsense intuitions when it comes to these things and declare that cause-effect thinking should not apply to things outside our universe.
Me: I see your point... but disagree. I think common sense would have an extremely hard time coming up with anything that would outrightly contradict the experience we have acquired.
Nevertheless, in the spirit of extending our common sense of what's in the universe to what's outside it, what are your thoughts on this comparison:
You: I see no reason to suspect that cause and effect do not exist outside our universe since they exist inside it as well.
Me: I see no reason to suspect that god (outside universe) is loving since he fails to prevent the rape and murder of a 5 year old when he is able, something that does not fall within the definition of love within the universe
@Jayman:
- Re. "better fit:" The Bible defines a creator and thus needs the universe to have a beginning. But "better fit"? I'm trying to think of an analogy to illustrate my exact thoughts here. Try this: would it be a "better fit" if my wife said she wanted a model X food processor because her grandma had one and she just loves those kind vs. me doing a lot of product research and finding out that model X food processors are the best buy for the money? Maybe that's bad... anyway, I guess I kind of see it, but not really. I don't know if you can have a "better fit" when comparing a text that needs to have outcome x with a method that just wants to know and it happens to be x.
- Re. the "knowledge argument:" I'll have to look into this further, but I don't see how imagining anything could ever match the fullness of the experience. How does my limitation of not being able to trick myself into knowing what, say, running water really feels like on my skin translate into an immaterial mind?
- Re. historical evidence: I suppose, though it would still help. I don't think you can carry the no-matter-what-happens-atheists-will-deny-it defense all that far. Let's just skip the bull crap and pray for the healing of an amputee, then. Or a modern parting of the seas. Or pillar of cloud. I don't care. Anything besides things in physical bodies that are pretty amazing but not literally out-of-this-world.
In any case, the historical argument could still be ridiculously stronger. The gospels say that "his fame spread throughout the country" and that "they tried to make him king"... no one noted this but the oral-tradition-inspired proselytizing gospel writers? They killed a guy that was highly known and no one else wants to write about it? He gets as much mention as Honi the Circle-Drawer or Simon the Magician. Perhaps the non-biased source suggest that his status and nature were about the same as these street-corner-dwelling fellas?
- Re. plugging number: Has been DONE. Thanks Richard Carrier.
- Re. Danial 9: helluva lot of "sevens" and such. Interesting read. You'll hardly be surprised if I don't find this vague numerological string of sentences very convincing?
cont...
...cont.
- Re. cause/effect: I can go the route of the creation of this world having a cause perhaps, but none of us can say anything about it. There could be another universe outside of this one with its own timeline, inside of another universe with its own timeline and the real god is outside of that one, but he's just an eternal boy with small powers. It's just that in that supernatural realm, his small powers equate to creating universes. And those universes spit off a chain reaction of universes that such a being doesn't even know about. Literally who knows. Maybe there's a realm without causation in which an eternal computer device exists and we're a program in it. We can't say.
I would hardly say that materialism is disproven, but even if a "supernatural realm" can be established, we're not capable of saying it's:
- a being
- a being who has favorable qualities x, y, and z
- a being who intervenes
- a being who even knows he/she/it created us
- not a collective
- not some sort of force
- a personal, disembodied mind of unfathomable power
One last thing I've often pondered. Say there is a realm outside of ours. Call it the 5th dimension. It's quite interesting for me to reflect on the fact that we're moving through the fourth dimension and defined by three dimensions. We're outside the 2nd and 1st, in a sense. Yet you can't actually create a 2d or 1d object. No matter what you use to create a 2d object, it will just be a representation for every line you could draw (lead, ink) will have some amount of height and thus be 3d. The best you can do is on a computer but this is not real, but a representation. Same for 1d.
Anyway, who knows where that was going. It's just interesting and it makes me wonder if anything outside of our universe in any sense that we're "outside" the 2nd and 1st dimensions could really create us or interact with us at all.
GearHedEd, is it too much to ask that you don't resort to insults and letting your imagination run wild about what I'm thinking and what I'm going to say next?
Make the claim that 'consciousness' or 'mind' is "soul", and I'll point out that if someone gave you a stout whack on the head, you'll lose your "soul" for a short time; or that if you suffer a stroke, your "soul" will be damaged even though you still live.
My claim is that the mind is not entirely material. I fully expect changes to the brain/body to result in changes in what the mind perceives. The materialist needs to provide refutations of the anti-materialist arguments concerning the mind.
"GearHedEd, is it too much to ask that you don't resort to insults and letting your imagination run wild about what I'm thinking and what I'm going to say next?"
Stole your thunder, did I?
"The materialist needs to provide refutations of the anti-materialist arguments concerning the mind."
Who are you calling a materialist? I agree that the mind is immaterial. But that doesn't render it a "soul". "Mind" is the activity in which the material brain engages. It is characterized by measureable electromagnetic patterns and effects (can you say EEG?) and shows distinct states depending on level and type of activity. Just because we haven't developed a "Brainwave Decoder Machine" yet doesn't take anything away from the idea that there's not a "mysterious spirit" inhabiting the insides of each of our crania.
And the closest thing I said that could be construed as an insult was
" I don't care if YOU think atheism is morally bankrupt, or wrong, or lacking in explanatory power. Your insistence on being "right" here is just a tit-for-tat pseudodialog in which you'll refuse to let someone else have the last word, and then run to your friends an say smugly, "He bailed on the discussion, because he's got nothing"."
If you took offense at THAT, then I would say that you need to develop a thicker skin. If I decide to insult you, there will no longer be any doubt that I have done so.
Hendy:
How does my limitation of not being able to trick myself into knowing what, say, running water really feels like on my skin translate into an immaterial mind?
Edward Feser (pp. 96-97 of Philosophy of Mind): "The reasoning is this. Materialism claims that physical facts about perception and the like are all the facts there are. But Mary, hypothetically, knew all the physical facts there were to know about perception -- the sorts of facts that could be written down in neuroscience textbooks or conveyed in lectures heard over the television monitor. Yet she did not know all the facts there were to know about perception, because she learned something new about it upon leaving the room -- and you can't learn something you knew already. So what she learned must be a non-physical fact. In particular, knowledge about qualia -- about what it's like to see red, for instance -- must be knowledge about something non-physical."
Let's just skip the bull crap and pray for the healing of an amputee, then. Or a modern parting of the seas. Or pillar of cloud. I don't care. Anything besides things in physical bodies that are pretty amazing but not literally out-of-this-world.
You'll be able to find modern accounts of miracles. It's a matter of what evidence will make you believe such accounts are true.
The gospels say that "his fame spread throughout the country" and that "they tried to make him king"... no one noted this but the oral-tradition-inspired proselytizing gospel writers? They killed a guy that was highly known and no one else wants to write about it?
Jesus is mentioned in non-Christian sources. But it's not as if there are numerous extant documents describing life in first-century Galilee and Judea so this line of argumentation is not strong.
He gets as much mention as Honi the Circle-Drawer or Simon the Magician.
That's a blatantly false statement.
Perhaps the non-biased source suggest that his status and nature were about the same as these street-corner-dwelling fellas?
Josephus notes that Jesus worked wonderful deeds and had followers down to his day. Tacitus notes that Christians were in Rome during the reign of Nero. So obviously he had quite an effect and even non-Christians were not willing to dismiss that he appeared to work miracles.
Has been DONE. Thanks Richard Carrier.
Thanks, I'll have to look it over when I have time.
You'll hardly be surprised if I don't find this vague numerological string of sentences very convincing?
Click on my website (through my Blogger profile) and find my commentary on Daniel 9 to see my interpretation.
I can go the route of the creation of this world having a cause perhaps, but none of us can say anything about it.
Cosmological arguments often argue that you can say something about it, even if it isn't a lot. Ultimately an argument for any given religion is a really a collection of many different arguments pointing to the same conclusion.
One last thing I've often pondered. Say there is a realm outside of ours. Call it the 5th dimension. It's quite interesting for me to reflect on the fact that we're moving through the fourth dimension and defined by three dimensions.
There's actually a book written by an atheist who argues, I think, that other dimensions could allow there to be some kind of afterlife even if God does not exist. I haven't read the book but maybe you'd find it interesting. It's called The Atheist Afterlife.
GearHedEd:
"Mind" is the activity in which the material brain engages. It is characterized by measureable electromagnetic patterns and effects (can you say EEG?) and shows distinct states depending on level and type of activity.
How is the brain's activity immaterial? An EEG measures electrical activity produced by the firing of neurons in the brain. Neurons and electricity are not immaterial. I wouldn't say that the activity of my foot (walking) was immaterial, so why do you say it of the brain?
Just because we haven't developed a "Brainwave Decoder Machine" yet doesn't take anything away from the idea that there's not a "mysterious spirit" inhabiting the insides of each of our crania.
You're addressing a straw man argument.
If you took offense at THAT, then I would say that you need to develop a thicker skin.
It's not so much a matter of taking offense as it is a matter of fruitful dialogue. If I get pressed for time I'll dialogue with Hendy rather than you because I don't have to sift Hendy's posts for the meat.
@Jayman:
- I'll read up more on the argument from Edward, though being aware of the fact she sees red is not different from being aware of imagining. We're talking about self-awareness. All that happens is that she sees red. She can't imagine what it's like to receive input from her rods and cones when such a stimulus is not present. Learning about something can also be taking place as activity in the physical brain. Don't comment back as it's probably not worth it without me reading more on this! For now I'm just putting out my gut thoughts which might not be helpful to debate against :)
- Sorry, I meant that non-gospel sources say about as much about Jesus as other figures. I didn't mean in quantity or diversity of writers. Essentially, I think the number of facts you can pull from them is not very different. So and so did such and such. Like that. What we don't have is anyone reporting anything like Josephus' accounts of Herod's deeds. You are correct that anything from that time is pretty threadbare with respect to sources, though. Let's just say it's on my wish list of what could have kept me convinced. To hear the amazing deeds in the gospels and not have a single report written elsewhere is frustrating to me. Again, the gospels said that they were going to try and make him king. That's big-timing it.
- Re. miracles: it's hard to find reliable sources. I'd probably have to see one, but the best evidence ever would be something that's not taking place within the body that could also be explained via an eventual natural understanding. Again, pillars of clouds, walking on water, parting the seas, manna from heaven, etc. would easily pass my standards. We have nothing like this. We have sporadic occurrences that aren't regularly connected with prayers. I would say that if "miracles" build the case for god's love, horrible occurrences or failed prayers for desperately needed miracles build the case for god's indifference or even malice. Theist only want it one way -- good is proof of perfection; bad is never proof of anything. That doesn't seem to fly anywhere else.
- I've got more reading on the cosmological arguments as well. I'm not uber convinced and it wouldn't go beyond some type of speculation about a power or force that doesn't seem to care post-creation, so it wouldn't make much of a difference to me. If a god exists, I'm far from convinced that anyone to date has any clue what it is or what it's like!
In response to the notion that we have natural explanations for everything, what about the mind? As a philosophy major, philosophy of mind was my focus. There are definitely materialist proposals, but to say philosophers have agreed upon a single materialist position is simply untrue. To say they've agreed on ANY one position regarding the mind is untrue...that's why it's still such an interesting field :)
"How is the brain's activity immaterial? An EEG measures electrical activity produced by the firing of neurons in the brain. Neurons and electricity are not immaterial. I wouldn't say that the activity of my foot (walking) was immaterial, so why do you say it of the brain?"
This is willfully obtuse. There's a qualitative difference between walking and thinking. You know what I meant, and it coincides with the things YOU were saying about 'mind'. It's not "tangible". You can't "pick up a mind and hold it in your hand", etc. It is an EFFECT.
But the effect we call mind is dependent on the structure of the brain to contain it (like a jar that contains water).
Break the jar, and it no longer holds the water.
"It's not so much a matter of taking offense as it is a matter of fruitful dialogue. If I get pressed for time I'll dialogue with Hendy rather than you because I don't have to sift Hendy's posts for the meat."
Whatever. But I think you prefer to talk to Hendy because you think you can still instruct him, as he's sitting on the fence trying to decide if Christianity has any merit.
That you think there's no "meat" in my discussion is because you're philosophically committed to your beliefs. There ARE other schools of thought that don't support Christianity, but if you choose not to investigate them, you're not being honest with yourself as a philosopher.
I'm not a philosopher, so you'll have to pardon my lack of modal logical arguments.
Katy said:
In response to the notion that we have natural explanations for everything, what about the mind? As a philosophy major, philosophy of mind was my focus. There are definitely materialist proposals, but to say philosophers have agreed upon a single materialist position is simply untrue. To say they've agreed on ANY one position regarding the mind is untrue...that's why it's still such an interesting field :)
Here is an interesting link:
http://www.unc.edu/~ujanel/Du.htm
A materialist philosopher admits that the evidence for materialism about the mind isn’t really any better than for dualism.
Note 3:
“This paper is only an uncharacteristic exercise in intellectual honesty.”
Kudos to the author.
In note 4 the author says:
“I believe my own faith in materialism is based on science-worship”
That reminds me of certain people here. I cannot share this science worship. Not just because I am a theist, but also because as a scientist I have more internal insight into the workings of science, and am therefore perhaps a bit more skeptical.
The Libet controversy about free will (below) is an example that emphasizes how dangerous science-worship and an unskeptical attitude toward science can be.
Libet and his 'readiness potential, implicating an illusory free will:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bereitschaftspotential#BP_and_free_will
This has been believed for so long. Yet the validity and interpretation of Libet’s findings have been finally challenged (some might say, discredited) by subsequent research:
http://machineslikeus.com/news/libet-was-wrong
Here is the more common link that explains the findings,
http://snipurl.com/z18se
but the explanation there is less clear.
(I have found that the whole becomes most clear when reading both links.)
And no, the above comment is not designed to encourage doubt of firmly established scientific theories, such as the the theory of evolution, supported by the convergence of many independent avenues of research.
Post a Comment