In the news this week ...

Bill Vallicella on Keith Parson's 'abandonment' of the philosophy of religon.

Women in India accused of witchcraft by shamen forced to drink poisonous potion:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12149785

The problem of superstitious beliefs in witchcraft in India can lead to the torture and murder of women, see this older piece:

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1003/S00527.htm

Will,

Is this (Only religious thugs love blasphemy laws )the article you meant to link to, much as I enjoy the apple store.

Here is another intesting article.

Peter Tatchell: Don’t criminalise homophobic Christians

https://www.bbc.co.uk/go/blogs/ni/2011/01/in_the_news_this_week_6.html/ext/_auto/-/https://www.atheist.ie/2011/01/be-honest-to-godless-in-the-irish-census-on-10-april/

The campaign to encourage people to tick the most appropriate box to the question "What is your religion?" in the forthcoming Irish Census is most laudable.

Perhaps the question being asked, however, is inappropriate. In the interests of fairness might it not be better that the question does not assume respondents to be religious?

What about: "What is your belief?" I think this question needs some refining, but it's a starting point. Possible answers would include "atheism" and "agnosticism" and again in the interests of fairness the beliefs would be printed in alphabetical order.

Newlach,

Aside from the fact that atheism isn't a belief....

Natman

As I said, it is a starting point. How would you improve the census question?

The point you make is a good one, it shows how important it is that the right question be asked. If "belief" isn't the correct word to use then "religion" isn't the right word either.

Natman said:

aisde from the fact that atheism isn't a belief

So you don't believe the proposition 'there is no god' to be true?

Andrew,

That can only be a proposition from the perspective of there being a god. That is not a perspective that atheists recognise.

Lack of belief in a god is not the same as believing the proposition 'there is no god'.

Atheists (as far as one can generalise about a group of individuals) lack a belief and so remain in the default birth position. People of faith make assertions and propositions from that base state.

Andrew,

Are you a fairy atheist? A invisible pink unicorn atheist? Not having a belief in anything like that is a belief?

To an atheist, why should the concept of a god be any different to the infinite number of other things no one believes in? You don't assert that not believing in fairies requires belief, do you?

I have just watched the video of the so called Rev Fred Phelps, of Westboro Baptist Church and his view on what happened at Tucson USA. The killing of six people and the injuring of 14 others including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords IS dreadful and very sad....
All I have to say is I feel sick after watching the video. I thank God that true Christians do not believe what this man is saying. Ignorance in the true sense of the word can be very hurtful and quoting scripture out of context can be very damaging.

Ah yes, the "true Christians" not to be confused with the only true scotsmen, who also never do anything that would bring Scotland into disrepute.

Dave said:

That can only be a proposition from the perspective of there being a god. That is not a perspective that atheists recognise.

Atheism is the negation of the proposition there is a god...hence the word.

Lack of belief in a god is not the same as believing the proposition 'there is no god'.

You're right, so you don't claim there is no god?

By the way a distinction should also be made between belief in and belief that.

I framed my question in terms of belief-that.

It's also worth pointing out that the claims 'there is a god' and 'there is no god' are equivalent propositions only each is the converse of the other. Since belief, as commonly understood, is a psychological state on whether a proposition is true I want to make it clear that if you believe the claim 'there is a god' to be false then you believe the claim 'there is no god' to be true.

Natman said:

Are you a fairy atheist? A invisible pink unicorn atheist? Not having a belief in anything like that is a belief?

I don't go around claiming there is no 'invisible pink unicorn'. On the other hand you seem to spend quite a bit of time here arguing with theists that there is no god.

To an atheist, why should the concept of a god be any different to the infinite number of other things no one believes in?

I'm not talking atheists, I'm talking to you.

Andrew,

"Atheism is the negation of the proposition there is a god...hence the word."

That is incorrect atheism is the lack of belief in a deity,

It is the lack of any reason to have or care about a proposition that there is a god. The negation (the verb to negate) of a proposition infers action, atheism requires no such action as it is the zero energy state as it were and therefore the inference and so the conclusion fails.

I do not make the claim "there is no god", I simply see nothing to even warrant a proposition that there is one.

When you have faith in something (an absolute belief without evidence) any proposition you make comes from that perspective and you cannot seem to grasp that my baseline and your baseline are different. From a theists point of view belief in their god is the natural state and it requires action to move from that state to non belief (ie a proposition that the god does not exist which requires evidence to prove). I understand that but I counter that that view in in error because every child is born without faith and has taken some action/decision (conscious or not - freely or not) to move to a state of faith.

The reason I (I cannot speak for others) spend time on here challenging theists is because when people say there is a god and he says you must live your life this way or that. I then say "I see no evidence for a god so either prove it or stop interfering in my life". It is theists interference in my life which causes me to challenge the basis of their claims. In addition there are those on here who make untruthful, erroneous, bigoted, denigrating and downright insulting statements about people such as myself based on their beliefs and those theistic beliefs need to be challenged as they have no basis in the real world. I also enjoy the debate so I kill two birds with one stone.

Andrew,

There exists an invisible pink unicorn, the fact of its existance must be considereed seriously. Unless you deny it, I can only assume that you too believe in the invisible pink unicorn. If you don't believe in the invisible pink unicorn then that too is a form of belief.

According to you, atheism is a belief only if I say there is no god. If I keep quiet like a good little minority, then it's not?

Your argument is confusing.

Touche Will

Will,

...and that's the irony of it all :-)

Same thing how God can be, supposedly, three and one.

If it was sensible, it wouldn't be called faith, would it?

I could've referenced the FSM, or Russell's Teapot, or been more condesending and said 'magical sky monkey', it's all the same really.

As is said

""Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." — Steve Eley"

How many invisible pink unicorns became man, performed miracles, established a church which has lasted so far for 2000 years, were crucified and rose from the dead?

Natman/Dave/Andrew

I think this can be clarified somewhat.

Andrew seems to think that the proposition "There is no God" needs to be semantically grounded with something like "a meaning" for the word 'God'. Whether they believe that there is a God or not, the Atheist position is one that utilises at least some premises about the way the word is used.

Assuming Atheism to be a substantial philosophical position, rather than a political one, this seems reasonable. However, he misses the point that Parsons has ultimately realised - namely, that the philosophical debate is effectively dead.

Some form of Theological non-cognitivism (the idea that, depending on which side of the boundary you fall, either "God is beyond human comprehension" or "the idea of God is meaningless") is generally accepted by Atheists. This is not a problem when we consider Atheism as an assertion that the correct response to this non-cognitivism is eliminativism.

However, underlying Andrew's concern is something that I think is worth bringing out, which is that there must be a reason for being eliminativist. What is it about the Atheist position that mandates that such nonsense is intolerable? Is there a fact of the matter that details what it is about the use of 'God' that renders it ontologically inappropriate? And what would this fact consist in?

Such facts are, as I think Dave notes in his "stop interfering" explanation, essentially political. One self-identifies as Atheist not purely as a matter of a lack of belief, but also to politically oppose the influence of heirarchical religion. And there's no problem with that of itself. The problem is the subconscious conflation of the two ideas, that Religion propogates and New Atheism has done nothing to address.

mccamleyc,

That is the point - your belief that your god exists and what he did is based on faith not evidence in exactly the same way that the belief that the unicorn is pink is based on faith not evidence. Of course we have evidence of its invisibility because we cannot see it.

If you had evidence of the existence of your god no one would require faith or belief. I require evidence and do not have faith or belief.


PaulR
Thanks for the clarification, I think I understand.

What you are saying is that my atheism only finds expression as a political reaction and has no real form of its own unless it has something to resist.

Yep, I can buy that and could probably be seen as

When I am challenged about myself or my morals or restricted because of someone's belief in a deity I find my self becoming Atheistically active towards that specific religion or deity. At all other times I am basically agnostic (if it even worthy of a classification).

Is that what an agnostic atheist is ?

Basically I am a passive agnostic until poked with a stick at which time I become a pesky aggressive (some might say opinionated) atheist.

Mccamleyc,

I don't believe your god has done any of those things either, so we're even there.

PaulR,

If someone were to start banging on about The Great Wahoonie and how everyone should believe in it or not be saved by the power of roasted vegetables, then you'd quite probably be calling for the men in white coats. Religion occupies a unique position in society in that you can talk about concepts that have no material evidence to back them up and not only are people expected to believe in you, but the message (and the people and paraphanalia associated with it) is supposed to be given some form of sacrosanct respect and not treated as a grown-ups fairy tale. As an atheist, I feel obligated to point out the deep flaws in theistic thinking. If I didn't, then I'd be adding my unspoken consent to the propagation of a delusion I find dangerously ridiculous.

Dave,

It's a weird one, that "agnostic" modifier, because politically, it tends to indicate a more centrist position that is happy to let each side be, while what it actually means is simply that one acknowledges a lack of certainty in the matter. I'd say it's possible to be an Agnostic Atheist in the political sense whilst being utterly convinced that nothing could possibly be that satisfies 'God' (ie; that even though 'God' is strictly meaningless, possibly even provably so, there's nothing wrong with Theological discussion as a kind of useful communal fiction).

What you want to call yourself is really all about a declaration of allegiance, I reckon. I'm in no position to go telling anyone where they belong, but I'd suggest it's probably not worth trying to self-classify on the grounds of your metaphysical opinion in matters of Religion; however much Fundamentalist spin has tried to paint "Faith" as the central notion, and however much New Atheism has bitten the bullet. If you don't like what some group is doing, be honest and oppose it for the reasons you don't like it, and likewise, feel free to join up if you think you want to support what it's doing. What more really needs be said?

Needless to say, there is a shocking lack of clarity over the intent and application of words like A/Theism and Agnosticism. At least one reason for this is the gross misconduct of philosophers of religion in the development of their field. Such structure and clarity is what philosophers are supposed to be working towards, rather than shouting angrily at the ghosts of history, and should we need to tear down the current state of the art to get back on the right track, perhaps we'd not really be losing anything of value.

You know, Natman, there's a sense in which one can be saved by the power of roasted vegetables.

And another thing, if the invisible pink unicorn (does that need capitalisation?) is invisible, perhaps it's maize.

Natman,

I think my interpretation of Andrew's criticisms remains with your own perspective. For me, at least, it's hard to see where your problem with theistic "thinking" lies with the absence of Material Evidence for the content of such thought, and where it lies with the consequences of thinking it. This suggests a conflation of distinctions.

Yes, many religions do exemplify both features. However, I deny that the former is necessarily a problem. Not everything we need sensibly use in public discourse need be Materially constructed - Mathematics being an obvious case in point.

The point is simply this: Be Clear in why you're opposed to it. Your objection to it on the grounds of the harm collective groupthink causes is valid, and I would say admirable, of its own accord. Yet why is there a need to tag on this extra point about Material Realism? Surely, one need not accept the latter in order to agree with the former, and one worries that the division between the two is not made sufficiently openly to the reader.

PaulR,

What you want to call yourself is really all about a declaration of allegiance

I think this is the crux, I feel no allegiance to anything theistic or untheistic and when someone tries to control my life by their theistic allegiance I wake up.

my way of thinking is, there is no evidence that something greater than us exists, our place in the universe is infinitesimally small, we have no knowledge of most of the universe, we understand (psychologically) why we have to create things to explain what we cannot explain by physical means. I have no problem with speculating about greater beings, divine or otherwise, I just do not accept any of the flavours that the religious adhere to at this point in time because they were made up to explain the world as they saw it. Divine, unchanging and forever true scriptures are the problem. Man stalled.

My biggest problem with religion, apart from the fact they want me killed, is that it does not grow with knowledge - it is stagnant, it should be searching and accepting of change.

An interesting sidebar is that there are some Philosophers of religion leaving the field because they have been invaded and usurped by feet in stone religionists.

How many invisible pink unicorns became man, performed miracles, established a church which has lasted so far for 2000 years, were crucified and rose from the dead

Well, fair point, but can your god Rapture Socks? And I know you might come right back and say, well how do you know the Invisible Pink Unicorn (May Her Holy Hooves Never be Shod) Raptures away all those socks from our laundry because we displease her, but tell me this, can you prove, irrefutably, that she doesn't? (Argument Copyright &copy LSV.) And where are all the missing socks in the world if she hasn't taken them? Hm? Hmm?

@PaulR

Now do you see?

Dave said:

That is incorrect atheism is the lack of belief in a deity,

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism

Atheism: disbelief in the existence of God or gods.
oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0046450#m_en_gb0046450>

Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God
Pg 64 Oxford Companion to Philosophy Second Edition

The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.  www.iep.utm.edu/atheism

I do not make the claim "there is no god", I simply see nothing to even warrant a proposition that there is one.

What is the 'warrant' for a proposition?

At any rate your point is confused; whether or not there is 'warrant' for the proposition is relevant only in how and why our beliefs are justified and not that they are beliefs.

I make the claim 'there is a god' you deny it because there's not 'enough/good evidence'.

Whether or not you think you make the claim is irrelevant;

As said in my previous post to deny this proposition (there is a god) is true is to assert it's opposite.

When you have faith in something (an absolute belief without evidence) any proposition you make comes from that perspective and you cannot seem to grasp that my baseline and your baseline are different.

Since that is not a definition of 'faith' I could agree with (I doubt there are many Christians that would accept it) you're point is irrelevant to this discussion.

Second, I did not mention faith regardless of it's definition, so you're not critiquing what I have said.

I am talking about bog standard belief.

Natman said:

There exists an invisible pink unicorn, the fact of its existance must be considereed seriously. Unless you deny it, I can only assume that you too believe in the invisible pink unicorn. If you don't believe in the invisible pink unicorn then that too is a form of belief.

Whether or not a proposition should be considered seriously is moot.

Next, I have nowhere claimed that that the absence of denial is evidence of assent.

What I did say, however, is when someone asserts there is a god and you reject their assertion that is a belief regarding the truth of that claim.

What evidence is presented is essentially irrelevant, the point is you reject the claim to be true.

According to you, atheism is a belief only if I say there is no god. If I keep quiet like a good little minority, then it's not?

Not at all, I'm framing the argument on your and Ryan's territory; namely, you are born without a belief regarding the existence or non-existence of God. As I said before, I'm talking to you and clearly you believe the claims of theists are false.

On your own terms, if you didn't have a cognitive disposition towards 'god propositions' then you wouldn't be an atheist.

Andrew,

you need to learn to think rather than speak from authority. You have so many conflicting statements above that you are actually falling over yourself.

You can semantically play with words, my statement is I do not have any compunction to believe in a deity, much less any of the ones on offer.

How you define the word atheism is of no consequence as they all conflict at some level, have you actually read what I have written in an attempt to move beyond your semantics. Try to understand where I am rather than where your scripture tells you I am.

Dave

you need to learn to think rather than speak from authority.

This is a caricature. I have made an argument why atheism is a belief which you have failed to deal with.

The references I gave were to show that atheism as a belief is widely held to be the case in common and specialist usage.

You have so many conflicting statements above that you are actually falling over yourself.

This is an assertion not an argument.

By all means show me the conflicting statements.

You can semantically play with words, my statement is I do not have any compunction to believe in a deity, much less any of the ones on offer.

You keep using 'believe in', this has connotations of faith, trust etc. That is not how I am using the word 'believe', I've said that before of course but for some reason it doesn't seem to be getting through.

How you define the word atheism is of no consequence as they all conflict at some level, have you actually read what I have written in an attempt to move beyond your semantics.

Unfortunately I have read what you've written.

Try to understand where I am rather than where your scripture tells you I am.

I don't think I've made any reference to scripture in these posts.

Andrew,

You believe something, I do not. Is it possible that you co believers can keep their noses out of my co non believers, we will reciprocate.

Dave.

Dave 13 **atheism requires no such action as it is the zero energy state as it were**

I know what you are saying but just to point out you cannot have a zero energy state as such. We use energy in every expression - and that energy can be of love or not love eg anger, frustration sadness etc - there is no neutral whether one is an atheist, a theist, a hindu, a muslim, a christian or whatever other label one cares to use. It is the energy that we express with that is important and has consequences for all no matter what their 'belief' is.

**If you had evidence of the existence of your god no one would require faith or belief. I require evidence and do not have faith or belief. **

You are right - faith and belief are not required once God is known. Faith and belief can be a part of the journey until people come to know who they are and then God is/can be known. We come to know God by knowing who we are - which is none of the things that people are told in church/religion. You are love - do you have evidence to know that?? Or has it been covered over by the all crap we all get thrown at us through the process of living and growing up such that we lose touch with the fact that our essence is love and that is what we are made from and are here to express with??

I remember listening to an interview with Dr Jonathan Miller in which he said that he doesn't call himself an atheist. He further said that his disbelief in God is so trivial that he doesn't give it a name. He went on to say that he doesn't believe in witches either, and that he doesn't call himself an ahexist!

@Andrew

To get a feel for the scope of atheist belief you might try googling "strong and weak atheism", "positive and negative atheism" or "implicit and explicit atheism". Not quite as extensive as the 30,000 or so flavours of Christianity, nor yet the diversity of theistic, deistic, pantheistic, polytheistic and paganistic beliefs, mind.

This video articulates a particular take on the question, although it gets a bit overwrought at the end.

I'm gonna restrict my comments to the semantics of your argument, Andrew.

As said in my previous post to deny this proposition (there is a god) is true is to assert it's opposite.
Only if one accepts realism about theological discourse. There is a lot of ongoing logic research on the presence of models and proof systems that provide Truth Gluts and Gaps - cases where there may be true contradictions or statements that neither they nor their negations are true.

Whether or not a proposition should be considered seriously is moot.
It's not really. Logical constructs are always grounded in the semantics of a discussion. Whether we accept a certain kind of inference as sound and complete (even one as supposedly basic as the Law of the Excluded Middle) depends at least in part upon the truth conditions of the field of discourse.

What I did say, however, is when someone asserts there is a god and you reject their assertion that is a belief regarding the truth of that claim.
This, on the other hand, I do think to be a legitimate point. If you think this is a question about belief about God, you may be making a Use/Mention fallacy. You don't need to be actively using the word 'God' in discussing utterances of it. But there must be a fact about why one chooses to have the opinion regarding 'God' that it's not appropriate language, and this tells us much about the motivations and intentions of the individual in question.

The reason why I think the Use/Mention fallacy probably is being committed was your last comment in that post:

On your own terms, if you didn't have a cognitive disposition towards 'god propositions' then you wouldn't be an atheist.

The problem is that Atheists needn't accept that there are such things as "God propositions" when they can be perfectly happy discussing "God sentences". That there is a one-to-one correlation between the sentences of a language B and the propositions of a metalanguage A is only guaranteed when one is being explicity realist about language B. The Atheist language may be incapable of interpreting the Theist extension of that language as anything other than nonsensical, and talk about it qua nonsensical utterance rather than about what the Theist is trying to say.

William - # 15 - you old literalist you!

I can think of many ways in which we might consider a unicorn to be both pink and invisible.

Proponents of what we might call The Intelligible Equine would suggest that the goddess is merely invisible to us because she is "in light inaccessible hid from our eyes". Many creatures in Her creation, however, have vision which ranges beyond the spectrum visible to the human eye - to such she undoubtedly appears gloriously pink.

I prefer, however, the liberal understanding which suggests that the word pink in this context does not refer to a colour at all and that there are other ways in which we can understand the term. Think of the pink pound, the currency used by homosexuals is not literally coloured pink. It is obvious to inclusionists, like myself, that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is actually a gay male. The common use of the female pronoun might be traced back to a misunderstanding of the human observer who recorded the issueing of her commandments, the so-called neigh-sayings. The IPU, concluding her revelation, declared: "And another thing, daaahrlinks, my holy hooves may never be shod". Two extremely camp centaurs from the backing troup dancing around her stall singing "I'm horny, horny, horny, horny" were heard to mutter the one to the other "Ooouuu, get HER!" and from thenceforth the IPU has always been She to her followers.

PaulR

First, thank you for your criticisms and the gracious way you’ve made them.

As said in my previous post to deny this proposition (there is a god) is true is to assert it's opposite. Only if one accepts realism about theological discourse.
I’m not sure this is the case.

There is a lot of ongoing logic research on the presence of models and proof systems that provide Truth Gluts and Gaps - cases where there may be true contradictions or statements that neither they nor their negations are true.

As you say this depends on the proposition. There are cases where a claim and it’s contradictory are both false but I’m not sure this is the case regarding claims that god exists or does not, to wit existence (although this might depend on how existence is used) as a predicate of god can be either true or false, so that god exists and god does not exist cannot both be false.

On the other hand the propositions god is omnipotent and god is not omnipotent would both be false if god does not exist. So that in denying god is omnipotent it cannot be inferred that you believe god is not omnipotent, for it may be the case that you believe god does not exist.

Although whether a proposition is actually true or false seems to me to be beside the point in this discussion; I am not arguing that god exists only that affirming or denying that god exists is a belief. And that such a belief – one affirming the non-existence of god - is characteristic of atheism.

Whether or not a proposition should be considered seriously is moot.It's not really. Logical constructs are always grounded in the semantics of a discussion. Whether we accept a certain kind of inference as sound and complete (even one as supposedly basic as the Law of the Excluded Middle) depends at least in part upon the truth conditions of the field of discourse.

A proposition may be accepted or rejected by an individual summarily; that it is accepted or rejected summarily does not mean the individual does not have a belief in relation to that proposition.

Further, that a proposition should or should not to be considered seriously is again a different category than whether or not a proposition is believed to be true or false.

What I did say, however, is when someone asserts there is a god and you reject their assertion that is a belief regarding the truth of that claim. This, on the other hand, I do think to be a legitimate point. If you think this is a question about belief about God, you may be making a Use/Mention fallacy. You don't need to be actively using the word 'God' in discussing utterances of it. But there must be a fact about why one chooses to have the opinion regarding 'God' that it's not appropriate language, and this tells us much about the motivations and intentions of the individual in question.

I’m not talking about the word ‘god’ itself; precisely what god refers to will have difference nuances depending on who is doing the talking but I am using the word as a referent to something other than itself.

On your own terms, if you didn't have a cognitive disposition towards 'god propositions' then you wouldn't be an atheist. The problem is that Atheists needn't accept that there are such things as "God propositions" when they can be perfectly happy discussing "God sentences". That there is a one-to-one correlation between the sentences of a language B and the propositions of a metalanguage A is only guaranteed when one is being explicity realist about language B. The Atheist language may be incapable of interpreting the Theist extension of that language as anything other than nonsensical, and talk about it qua nonsensical utterance rather than about what the Theist is trying to say.

Other points aside this will largely depend on individual atheists, it would be questionable, though, if the word atheist is appropriate if this was true of an ‘atheist’s’ position.

Interesting article about Keith Parsons listed above. Certainly a fascinating species of philosopher, who admits he is relying on his 'intuitions' and has failed to put even the slightest smidgen of an argument to support his outlandish contention, that those who believe in the existence of an ultimate and objective meaning to life are perpetrating a fraud (as if to suggest that only the epistemological nihilists are capable of honesty - whatever 'honesty' is supposed to mean in the ridiculous 'matter makes mind' paradigm of materialism). The word 'Kafkaesque' comes to mind (in the sense of utterly absurd).

Parsons thinks it's a miracle anyone believes in God. I tend to disagree, since I am of the view that it takes more 'faith' to believe in the highly speculative 'self-assembly of life' hypothesis and the completely unproven (and self-refuting) 'reason, consciousness and morality from matter' theory than it does to believe in what is - for me at least (and any clear thinking person) - blindingly obvious.

Following on from my last comment... I wrote that I tend to disagree that 'it's a miracle that anyone believes in God'. Actually that's not quite right. It is a miracle that anyone believes, not only in God, but in anything at all. It's a miracle that life exists, and it's a miracle that mind exists. In other words, none of these things could have come into being by purely natural means. If 'miracle' is to be defined as 'that which cannot arise by natural means alone', then, yes, it's a miracle.

But if by 'miracle', we mean that it's 'irrational', then, according to that definition, it's a miracle that anyone can live any kind of meaningful existence while at the same time believing that the entirety of reality is completely and utterly mindless, including one's own self and mind. It is also a 'miracle' (according to this latter definition) that any serious thinker can claim that meaningful philosophical discourse can only be undertaken on the basis of a meaningless and mindless view of reality. If that's not a contradiction, I don't know what is!!

I must, as an Anglican, record my absolute and undiluted joy as I watched the ordination on Saturday of three apostate former bishops to the Roman Catholic priesthood.

Our communion has been blessed beyond measure by the departure of men whose priorities are so skewed that, to conform with such an unimportant issue as the consecration of women to the office of bishop, they can ignore the wholesale corruption which mars the institutional Roman church - its collusion in the perversion of justice in so many countries on the issue of the abuse of children, its wholly unnecessary inculcation of guilt across the world by a senseless proscription of the use of condoms not to mention the consequent effect in the fight against sexually transmitted infections, its suppression of those theologians who articulate the authentic voice of Christ on behalf of the poor, its accommodations with dictators and oppressors right to this very day.

I earnestly hope that all who have so far fallen from the gospel of Jesus similarly depart from us - we can only benefit. I do, however, send you, RJB, my sincerest sympathies that your church has been afflicted with such sorry creatures. This is one case where our loss is, I'm afraid so much much more your loss.

LSV,

"I am of the view that it takes more 'faith' to believe in the highly speculative 'self-assembly of life' hypothesis and the completely unproven (and self-refuting) 'reason, consciousness and morality from matter' theory than it does to believe in what is - for me at least (and any clear thinking person) - blindingly obvious."

So you think unprovable and highly varied belief in an omnipotent, omniscient creator (or creators!) of everything in the universe, both known and unknown is more likely that the eventual result of 15-ish billion years of chaos theory and physical laws supported by a wide body of collected evidence and held up via experimentation? That's a profound statement of faith right there.

God/Yahweh/Zeus/Ra/Shiva is only a simpler answer if you're prepared to ignore questions like 'where did god come from?', 'why did it take an almighty supreme being 6 days to make the universe and not instantly, if he's so powerful?' and 'what's in it for god?'.

LSV,

"I am of the view that it takes more 'faith' to believe in the highly speculative 'self-assembly of life' hypothesis and the completely unproven (and self-refuting) 'reason, consciousness and morality from matter' theory than it does to believe in what is - for me at least (and any clear thinking person) - blindingly obvious."

you have encapsulated why we need a secular society and why the state should be separate from church. You are welcome to your view, to have and to hold, as is everyone else (although I would not want to accuse you of not being a clear thinking person just because you do not have the same view as me). I could puff out my chest with patronising arrogance and misplaced smugness if I wanted, but I will leave it to the experts - after all some religious folk tell us pride comes before a fall.

The very fact that you can dismiss people so readily is why your churches influence has to be neutered and the state needs to take an approach which balances the needs of ALL the people with the wishes (no matter how strange to others or contrary to their faith) of ALL of the people within the constraints of fairness, freedom, protection and budget. Your conviction of your flavour of god should have no more bearing than my conviction that it is nonsense. A compromise is the result which is where we are at the moment, although that compromise is still too heavily weighted towards theists as is obvious in that some people are still treated as second class citizens because of the prejudices contained within many religions and religions still manage to gain privileged treatment, influence and protection.

Just to be clear thinking, it is not that I fully understand the physical scientific basis of evolution or think that that there is a full and irrefutable description of the natural creation of life. In fact I think there is probably more we do not know than we have so far discovered but what we have discovered is the best we can do by examining the world around us. No, the reason I plump for the physical explanation and have no belief in the theistic route is that in all the dancing on pinheads I have seen theists, including yourself, do I have not seen anything except wild speculation as to what 'might' explain things we do not understand with nothing more to back it up than a series of assumptions, construed inferences and some phraseology which even the upper echelons of the civil service would wonder at.

I hate that term 'clear thinking people' it's like that other arrogant and dishonest phrase 'right thinking people' to attempt to create the illusion of consensus while trying to make dissenters feel less than they are. An argument has really fallen when you are reduced to those tactics. Oh and it is a pet hate and winds me up lol.

I've got a good game we can all play, possibly on an Open Thread so we don't incur the Wrath of Will.

It's called 'Name your presuppositions'

What'll happen is that we'll take turns calling out our own (or others, if the other side is less that forthcoming) presuppositions about the nature of the universe, that is things that we take on faith as they're either a) impossible or b) next to impossible to prove. The ones with least presuppositions can be considered the most likely philosophy.

I'll start as a scientist and atheist (two unrelated things, by the way):

Evidence gathered through empirical methodology can be considered 'true' if upheld using the same techniques (or whatever LSV is complaining about, I lose track sometimes).

Now, I might jumping the gun here, but that is the only presupposition that someone like myself ultimately needs to concede to. The list of presuppositions that a theist needs to subscribe to is rather longer methinks.

Dave (@ 42)

"I could puff out my chest with patronising arrogance and misplaced smugness if I wanted, but I will leave it to the experts - after all some religious folk tell us pride comes before a fall. The very fact that you can dismiss people so readily..."

I don't suppose, Dave, that it has occurred to you that a certain Mr Keith Parsons is guilty of this kind of arrogance? Sure, you go ahead on your crusade against 'arrogance', but it would be helpful, once in a while, to pass judgments with a bit of consistency. For Mr Parsons to dismiss the study of perfectly legitimate questions is, as far as I am concerned, the ultimate in 'patronising arrogance and misplaced smugness'. And therefore I make no apology for telling it 'like it is'. But, please, Dave, carry on playing the 'humility card'; I enjoy the surreal irony of it!

"A compromise is the result which is where we are at the moment, although that compromise is still too heavily weighted towards theists as is obvious in that some people are still treated as second class citizens because of the prejudices contained within many religions and religions still manage to gain privileged treatment, influence and protection."

Hmmm. Interesting comment, Dave. (And to think that Christians are accused of a 'persecution complex' whenever we complain. Gee, we can't win, can we?!!)

Funny though, but, in a way, I actually agree with you. But what puzzles me is why your post is a response to what I wrote. I am struggling to find any evidence in what I wrote (or in fact in anything I have written on this blog) that suggests that I am treating anyone as a 'second class citizen'. Care to point me in the direction of any such comments I have made? All I am doing is simply exercising my 'secular' right to freedom of speech - something I notice you agree with, since you write: "You are welcome to your view."

I am exercising my right to say that I think the philosophy of materialism is not the result of clear thinking. That may indeed come across as 'arrogant'. I happen to think it is true. I am very happy to apologise for any 'arrogant' turn of phrase, but it would be helpful if certain atheists among us could try and reciprocate (although it is not really their arrogance that bothers me, but their total illogicality).

Natman - that's two presuppositions, your first one and the presumption that theists will have a longer list of presuppositions.

Personally, I think I have two basic presuppositions, that I exist and that that I can come to knowledge of truth.

Parrhasios - you should visit the doctor - bad case of sour grapes there. The validity of ordination is critical for an apostolic church - the fact that you think the ordination of women as bishops is "unimportant" says much about the decline of your ecclesial communion.

mccamleyc,

But how are you aware of your existance? And what do you class as 'truth'?

And my second 'presupposition' wasn't, it was based upon experience and empirically gathered information.

"But how are you aware of your existance? And what do you class as 'truth'?"

Good man, Natman.

Now that you asked yourself these questions, I'm not going to have to do it for you!

:-)

Natman,

Not sure exactly what you mean, but I guess I 'll have a go.

What I perceive through my physical senses is real.

The sum of all of our physical sensory perceptions and how we theorise, measure and verify those perceptions by our scientific methods is reality.

Don't think that is too different from yours, but I guess I have to have the first one to ensure I am not in some virtual reality lol.

See https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/01/18/world/europe/AP-EU-Ireland-Catholic-Abuse.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&src=twt&twt=nytimes

Vatican letter to priests in 1997 telling them not to report abuse cases to authorities.
And they want to make Pope JP a saint......

Dave - using information from physical senses lead people to believe the world was flat many years ago.......the information received from their physical senses lead them to conclude that they would fall off the edge if they went to the horizon.....

Mccamely, I hardly think it's a case of sour grapes. As someone from a Catholic family, raised C of E- and a moderate one at that- I too agree with Parrhasios. To join a Catholic Church, mired in all of its controversies- and practically sinking in Western Europe- shows more about their personal spiritual decline than anyone elses. They are the ones to be pitied. The Anglican Church is stronger for them going. It's more attune with the needs, expectations and social fabric of todays society which is broadly supportive of women in those roles.

But, Dave, that won't *ensure* you're not in some virtual reality.

Anyone watching Horizon last night? Helio's favourite, Max Tegmark was on - apparently we are a cosmic hologram!!

You've also got a problem with "The sum of all of our physical sensory perceptions..."


BTW, Natman, good idea - you shoulda charged 50p a go!!

Eunice,

I hate to contradict you, but the conception that the Earth was flat was quite limited to those who couldn't see the horizons and lacked an education (even if that was the majority). Amongst academics and seafarers it was known since ancient Grecian times that the world was round, knowledge gained from their experiences and sensory input.

Peterm2

Evidence of my own existance is irrelevant. Materialisitc methodology is still capable of providing proof of other things regardless of my existance. And as I said before 'truth' is what you can logically conjecture from said methodology.

Talking about 'being aware of one's own existence' ... errm, well, I actually have an awareness of my own consciousness. I have an awareness of my own sense of 'me' or 'self'. Try as hard as I can, I just cannot detect this through my five senses. I can't 'see' my consciousness, I can't 'hear' it, I certainly can't 'smell' it or 'taste' it, and as for 'feeling' it - sure, I 'feel' it, but not in the physical empirical sense in the way that I can 'feel' the computer that I am tapping away on. My consciousness is, dare I say it, invisible! Does that mean it is worthy of the Natmanesque 'pink unicorn' treatment, I wonder? (An invisible thing daring to exist! Shocking. It really shouldn't be allowed in our brave new materialistic society).

Now if these good folks who believe that reality can only be detected empirically are correct, then I would have to conclude that my consciousness does not exist. The trouble is, that I just cannot shake off the strong sense that it does!!!!

Of course there is another theory...

This theory states that empiricism is limited. And since our only epistemic relationship with matter is through empiricism, then it follows that the philosophy of materialism (i.e. limiting the whole of reality to matter) is rather suspect (to say the least!). In fact, from an epistemological point of view, such a philosophy is complete and utter fantasy.

Eunice,

That's the joy of learning and discovering. The whole point is that what you understand is the best you can with the information and tools to hand. As you cumulatively expand and test that knowledge so your picture of the world changes and being open to the possibility of changes and/or errors is what makes science so strong.

Peterm2,

No it won't but as I cannot perceive this virtual reality it is irrelevant and as I am not seeking an alternate life it serves no purpose to speculate. In fact the statement copes with it, if I cannot perceive it (ie have no evidence for it or reason to suspect it), it is not real. It's a bit like yer man's teapot or the invisible pink unicorn to me - a pointless speculation.

Could you expand on the sum of bit, not sure what you meant.

Natman


To whom will this proof be provided?

I really do hope you're not missing my point.

And I really do hate to ask, but would 'truth' ("-ed or not) be a....

and, emmm, logic...



ho hum

Dave

Neither you nor I nor any of us have access to the sum total of all our (collective) knowledge... so now we're in a position which *requires* community, and community requires *trust* (or as some of us say, faith.)

Natman: go on, you love to contradict me! :-) I know plenty of people knew the world was not flat in times gone by....I was making a simple point that without education and reading books, flying planes or sailing in ships etc and relying purely on sense perception one can look at the horizon and believe the world is flat, that it ends at the horizon as seen with ones eyes!

Dave: I agree with you. Only science might have a blindspot - and that is believing that it is the ONLY valid way of knowing about life, the world etc. So there is still plenty of room for it to expand.......

Natman, why are you asking me to justify my presuppositions? Was your point not to identify them as things we had to take on faith? That's whay you said in your post.

By the way, I think your presupposition isn't really just one, but contains other more fundamental presuppositions, including the ones I listed. You presuppose reality, objective truth and our ability to access that truth. Then you add a presumption that there is only one way to access that truth.

peterm2,

we as individuals do not have access to the total knowledge but we as a species have both accumulated and cross checked (peer reviewed) an immense amount of knowledge and we continue to refine, expand and challenge that knowledge. My point was that community was implied.

Trust and faith are not the same, faith is belief without evidence, trust is be earned through evidence. If you were going to bungee jump would you equate faith in the ropes with trust based on evidence of testing, I wouldn't. Faith is more like hope, or wish.

Eunice, I don't see that as a blind spot in science. Science does not claim to be the be all and end all, it simply allows us to make the best of what we have evidence for. Science does not play a role in what "might be" unless there are evidential pointers. Maybe the scientists here could tighten up my language but it was not my intention to say that science was any more than a tool to theorise, test and validate our physical reality. What I would say is that I don't know of any other way that has any resonance with me.

Maccamlyc,

It's not a presupposition if it's based upon other presuppositions. Yours involved other concepts even more basic than the ones you gave.

Mine is, as LSV likes to point out, probably self-refuting, in that it cannot be proven except by itself, it has no basis on any other presuppositions.

The existance of god is also like that when it's said that god exists because he's always existed. However, because people also assign human-like characteristics to gods, we also make assumptions about motive and ability.

I think you're idea to identify presuppositions was a good one but you've ruined it.

Can't believe I typed "you're" when I meant "your" - I could see it shimmering before me as I hit "post comment" but I couldn't make it stop.

mccamleyc,

"...but you've ruined it."

How so?

By clarifying what a presupposition is? If a presupposition is based on other suppositions, then it's not a presupposition.

You could call it a postsupposition perhaps :-)

Because it was an opportunity for people to examine their views and present their own presuppositions. But when people start judging them it's a different game. and notice people have't been flocking to share. Of course mostly because atheists and liberals like to pretend, including to themselves, they don't have any presuppositions.

mccamleyc (@ 65) -

"Of course mostly because atheists and liberals like to pretend, including to themselves, they don't have any presuppositions."

I agree. I think you've hit the nail on the head there, mccamley.

Strip out all the philosophical presuppositions from the materialistic view of reality and its 'explanations', and you will discover that nothing at all will be left. Strip away all 'beliefs' and you will not be left with atheism, but with total unconsciousness, since thought itself will become impossible. It's a pity some people just can't see this (or rather won't accept it).

Mccamleyc,

When the object of the exercise is to lay down presuppositions and you lay down concepts that clearly aren't, then should I just shut up and let it go? I'm sure if I started with the presupposition that 'there is no god', you'd be the first to accuse me of unfounded statements.

LSV,

"Strip away all 'beliefs' and you will not be left with atheism..."

Er, yes you will. Atheism is the base statement of everyone. I'm fairly sure you're a Zeus-atheist, and a Shiva-atheist, probably even a FSM-atheist. You're just not a specific-god-of-a-specific-form-of-christianity-atheist.

If you'd like to object to that, then I'll gladly accept your confirmation you believe in other pantheons.

Natman

MCC is correct, the ‘game’s’ a busted flush. I appears, now, that you thought you were playing a version of Name That Tune, and you thought you could do it in one, as if that would win it for you.

Of course I’m still waiting on an answer to my question in #56, but that’s no surprise, because any observer must always assume him/herself. We are one of our biggest presuppositions. (yes, plural.)


Dave

“Trust and faith are not the same thing”

They are in my world. :-)

I put my faith in something, someone.

So the next time an evangelical hands you a tract and tells you to ‘just believe’, tell him that he needs to sort out his theology. And if he asks you what you mean, tell him that even though you are not a Christian you know that he’s supposed to trust Jesus, not his ability to believe. Think of it as counter evangelism :-)

Glad we're agreed on the community thing.

Natman

"I'm sure if I started with the presupposition that 'there is no god', you'd be the first to accuse me of unfounded statements."

No, that's fine, go ahead. Next step, define 'I', then define 'god'. Or the other way round, I don't much mind.

And yes, I'm assuming I'm not mccamleyc, and I'm assuming he's assuming he's not me. And you're probably assuming that too. Unless you're assuming you're mccamley; but I assume not.

Now it's fun again!! :-)

Even if by some twist of fate we were all in agreement, humans would find some way to diverge opinion. I think LSV you have to accept that even if everyone was on the same page as you, eventually splits would occur. Humans are never satisfied. The author Samuel Johnson, in Rasselas describes how we are infact in a permanent state of dissatifaction. So whatever presupposition or material proof there is at one given point- the sands of opinion will have shifted at another. To echo a sentiment "There is no perfect life for us; our desires are so various and mutually incompatible" This is a hard lesson for us all and we'd do well to remember that those who can be united in common agreement one day can turn around and call each other heritical the next. Because once you accept the ground rules as theistic, you have no recourse to proof or anything material to back you up.

So if you ever find yourself in a minority (in a theistic reality)- like plenty of religious people have throughout human history.. you only have to look at the past to know that human behaviour, based solely on theistic presuppositions, towards those that held a more individualistic interpretation isn't great. I think you could almost count yourself lucky LSV that Atheists exist. Because I'm sure your freedom of speech is more guaranteed through this culture than ..let's say an Islamic Caliphate or a Roman Catholic equivalent

I've just finished reading the excellent 'the disenchantment of secular discourse' by Steven D. Smith. In this book Smith talks about how public discourse is impoverished by ' Rawlsian public reason' and then goes on to suggest that the extent to which public discourse works is because it 'smuggles' normative or undisclosed principles.

In the penultimate chapter of the book Smith is considering 'Science, Humanity and Atrocity', taking up Joseph Vining's (a professor of law) book Song Sparrow he describes Vining's understanding of what it means to believe something - essentially, a belief is more than propositional assent and would include things like how we live, what we desire etc . Later Smith writes;

Vining quotes a biologist who explains "love" as a "temporary chemical imbalance of the brain induced by sensory stimuli." Vining goes on to reflect:

"When presented in law with this sentence about love, there would be interest in what this same individual said at home, what he meant when heard to say "I love you" to his wife, child, friend, or sister. Putting the two statements together, the one made at home and the one made professional, as would be done in cross-examination on a witness stand, a lawyer or jury would conclude, I think, either that the word "love" in the one statement, made in class when teaching the penguin's love as a textbook example of a system operating in an adaptive way, means something different from "love" in the other statement at home; or if, the two words are meant to convey the same, that he does not believe what he is saying in class."
The disenchantment of secular discourse pg 207

This may not stand up to scrutiny but it is certainly worth reflection.

@Andrew

Hm. Either Vining didn't read the article where the quote came from or he somewhat missed the point.

Natman (@ 67) -

"LSV,

"Strip away all 'beliefs' and you will not be left with atheism..."

Er, yes you will. Atheism is the base statement of everyone. I'm fairly sure you're a Zeus-atheist, and a Shiva-atheist, probably even a FSM-atheist. You're just not a specific-god-of-a-specific-form-of-christianity-atheist.

If you'd like to object to that, then I'll gladly accept your confirmation you believe in other pantheons."

Well done, Natman! You've put this kind of argument umpteen times in a vain attempt to discredit Christianity: if there are many different ideas about 'God', then the existence of such a multiplicity of ideas undermines any belief in any idea of God.

Allow me to investigate this fascinating 'logic'.

Let us suppose the following dialogue:

Person A: "I believe that there is an ultimate intelligence behind reality".

Person B: "And I call that intelligence a 'pink elephant with fluorescent tusks'!"

Person A: "Oh no! Please don't say that!! Please please please withdraw that comment. Because if you call it that, then I am not allowed to believe in it! The great Professor Natman (may his sublime intellect forever shine like the noonday sun) has made it very clear that if you call 'an ultimate intelligence' by a silly name then it is not allowed to exist!!

Person B: "Ha ha! Oh no. I'm going to give it another name: the Zeus-Shiva hybrid with jingly bells. There. Got ya!"

Person A: "Oh no. How could you do this to me?! Every time you call it by a silly name you are driving it to non-existence. The Great Professor has told us so, and he is never wrong!!"

In other words, Natman, this dialogue shows you how utterly ridiculous your argument is. Perhaps I ought to ram my point home by giving a slightly more sober example.

Person A: "I believe that 2+2=4"

Person B: "Well I believe that 2+2=5"

Person C: "You unadventurous wimps. I believe that 2+2=5,678,000!"

Person A: "Oh dearie me. Because you two believe different things about 2+2, therefore, if the Great Professor Natman is right (and he is never wrong), then 2+2 cannot equal 4! Because differences of opinion, according to 'him who must never be contradicted', disqualify the validity of any opinion!"

In other words, just because I don't believe in Zeus or Shiva does not disqualify me from believing in the Christian God. In fact, I am a zealous and committed unbeliever: I don't believe in the philosophy of materialism (i.e. the belief that 'matter is all that exists'). So if 'matter' is 'god' (or 'the ultimate') to some people, then my rejection of materialism is actually a form of atheism (since the general word 'god' - i.e. 'that which is considered absolute and ultimate' - can be applied to anything, including matter itself!!).

Do try harder next time, Natman.

Grokesx

What point did Vining miss?

Oh dear LSV, what have you done! By spilling into mathematics you're vindicating Natman :p His arguments are for logic, evidence etc - as epitomised by the 2+2=4. There is emperical proof that you can arrive at the answer by adding the two known quantities. Belief in God might very well be 2+2=5. Religion (filtered through time and lost in translation) is more likely to be 2+2=5,678,000!

However much we feel spiritually connected and feel deep within us that there is more to life, the Universe etc,there is not yet any emperical proof of any higher sentient power or that the Universe is a patchwork quilt of consciousness. So although we feel what we know and know what we feel , those of us with a religious/spiritual bent have to concede that to the Atheist,empirical observation determines 2+2=4

Ryan -

I'll happily talk about logic if you like. I have reasons to believe that a certain view of God is more coherent than others, so Natman's argument is rather poor (to put it mildly).

On this blog I have put many logical arguments to show that the philosophy of materialism, which undergirds atheism, is not logical. In fact, it is an epistemological impossibility, since it relies on a claim that is self-refuting. By the way, I fail to see how there is even remotely any logical relationship between atheism and mathematical logic. In fact, our ability to do that calculation relies on reason being objectively valid, which is evidence of an ultimate reason. Materialism cannot provide this, since reason can only be subjective if it is the result of mindless instincts.

So your appeal to logic to support the claims of atheism is rather spurious, I'm afraid.

@Andrew

Because Heinrich's whole article is about reconciling the idea of love as a functionally adaptive phenomenom with all the crazy, wonderful, heroic things it makes us (and penguins) do. Which - judging from the quote you gave - is precisely the sort of thing Vining is complaining about.

LSV,

Hmmm, all I hear from the likes of you is this:

Person A: "I believe that there is an ultimate intelligence behind reality".

Person B: "And I call that intelligence a 'pink elephant with fluorescent tusks'!"

Person A: "Now you're being ridiculous, you've no proof that such a thing exists, in fact, you just sound silly and you're demeaning the debate."

Person B: "Wow, you're right, by your LSVesque logic skills, you've shown me that the only entity that ever existed, despite the lack of any evidence of any sort, even materialistic, is your exact, specific brand of Judeo-Christian God and not the millions of other gods that have ever existed. Please don't try to justify it, I'll take on faith that it's true. Praise the Lord!"

The fact of the matter is, once you accept the belief of a god, which god that is becomes a matter of debate and you have to accept that other gods, even other versions of your god, can exist also. If you insist that I cannot disprove your god, then neither can you claim to disprove the others. The method by which you claim not to believe in the other gods that have ever been believed in should then also be applied to your own belief. Anything else is pure hypocrisy.

Peterm2,

"To whom will this proof be provided?"

Does it matter?

Natman -

Please provide evidence to prove that the following are true:

1. The philosophy of materialism (i.e. that matter is all that exists).

2. The claim that reality is ultimately mindless.

Failure to provide satisfactory proof may result in the word 'hypocrisy' being used in a future post of mine.

Natman

Yes.

LSV,

1. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
2. See answer to 1.

Please provide evidence to prove that the following are true:

1. The philosophy of non-materialism (i.e. that matter isn't all that exists).

2. The claim that reality has consiousness.

Failure to provide satisfactory proof may result in the word 'hypocrisy' being used in a future post of mine. The definition of the term 'satisfactory', being a purely subjective word, will depend on the judgement of a panel consisting of a piece of cheese, a small lego robot and a twister wheel.

In addition - nice dodging of my question!

Peterm2,

Why?

LSV- re the calculation- I think it's all to do with having a known quantity vs unknown quantity.

Some Atheists would simply say from the empirically known facts we are not at a stage in human development to prove or disprove God, & err on the side of caution ,that until it is proven, they will suspend belief and be content to make do with the knowledge we have grasped.

Some theists would say that although there is no empirical proof, that there is an intangible "something" to belief in God- that although we cannot touch it, measure it,or see it -we are still hardwired to connect with it, in ways we still do not understand. Given that, a reasonable believer in God may err on the side of belief yet suspend the element of doubt for faith.

The problem comes when both extremes vehemently display their human failings by being resolute and staying put in their respective trenches, when not one of us knows for certain, either way, to be that vehement about it. Human history has shown that it's these extremes that de-stabilize society & that many times its borne out of an individuals pain, suffering, fear but above all ignorance to accept that none of us knows how any of this really came to be and we can't just simply super-impose our wills, desires and needs onto that

I've read the article and I'm not sure that Vining has missed the point.

Vining is suggesting that there is a disconnect in Heinrich's usage of the word. In the scenario quoted above this disconnect is either using the word in two different senses or a disconnect between what he says he believes and what he actually believes.

Heinrich may say 'love is an often temporary chemical imbalance of the brain induced by sensory stimuli that causes us to maintain focus on something that carries an adaptive agenda but, to use the scenario from Vining, this is not what he means (or believes) when he says 'I love you' to a person - wife, child, family, friends.

Vining wants to show that there is often a difference between what we say we believe and what we actually believe (actually taken to mean how we act, what we desire and so on)

In this case the needling point seems to be that Heinrich, given materialism and naturalism, must explain love in some such way as he does but does not (perhaps cannot) live up to his profession of belief.

Earlier in the chapter Smith writes of Vining:

His goal is not so much to demonstrate that totalistic science is self-refuting on a merely analytical level, but rather to show that even the scientists themselves who make totalistic claims do not and cannot fully believe in those claims. So in response to the defiant assertion that "I still believe it," Vining's message seems to be;"No actually you don't. You believe in science and the natural world, of course. We all do. But if you reflect candidly on your actions and commitments as a whole, even including your commitments to science, you will see that you do not and never did believe in naturalism-not as the whole story." pg 201

As I said before, the argument may not stand up to scrutiny - as yet I've only read Vining through Smith - but it is pause for reflection. Not just, I should add, for naturalists but for everyone.

Natman



You said evidence of your own existence was irrelevant.

Run with it from there.

Heinrich may say 'love is an often temporary chemical imbalance of the brain induced by sensory stimuli that causes us to maintain focus on something that carries an adaptive agenda but, to use the scenario from Vining, this is not what he means (or believes) when he says 'I love you' to a person - wife, child, family, friends.

Well, to me, Vining is just projecting his own bafflement at the scientific terminology. I've had a similar conversation on here before with LSV about the (possible) evolutionary origins of morality. If you try to get to grips with ultimate causes, the language seems alien, impersonal and abstract, but that doesn't mean the proximate effects are any less amazing, any less real, any less important or in any way not believed by sciency types.

And on a different note, it's a good rule of thumb to be wary of people who tell us what other people really mean and believe. It's usually a precursor to that tired old fallacy that should never be named.

LSV, RE:
Please provide evidence to prove that the following are true:

1. The philosophy of materialism (i.e. that matter is all that exists).
Something seems slightly internally problematic with a perspective that relies upon "Evidence" as a form of "Proof", and yet chooses to deny that reality is fundamentally grounded on the nature of things qua their dispositions to be sensorily measured.

Peterm, RE:
You said evidence of your own existence was irrelevant.

Run with it from there.
I think I may have lost the plot a little with this venture into personal identity, but can't he dissolve the distinct existence of the I as long as he's happy to accept the descent into Solipsism? That is, one accepts that all that there is is determined by evidence, that the sum total of actual evidence constitutes reality and that the representational content of evidence is individuated in terms of perceptual experience?

To be honest, I think science probably does actually do this much more often than its practicioners are happy to admit (though a la Kuhn, there's something to be said for the social aspect of theorising too). Not that that's in any way a problem, since explaining things in terms of evidence tends to be quite a useful methodology in a world where most people have sufficiently similar and biologically adapted sensory functions.

My existance (and anyone else's for that matter) is irrelevant, unless you subscribe to the concept that the universe ceases to exist without direct observation.

My witnessing of an event, or my understanding of the process are not necessary for it to have occured.

We use science and materialistic methodology because it works, it gives adequete explanations in a format we can understand and then use to manipulate the phenomenon for our own ends (as we do as tool users). The fact that it happens is already there, even without our understanding, stars burn, galaxies expand, living creatures evolve. They've all been doing this for billions of years without our understanding, why should the direction that I give my proof of understanding matter?

PaulR (# 86) -

"Something seems slightly internally problematic with a perspective that relies upon "Evidence" as a form of "Proof", and yet chooses to deny that reality is fundamentally grounded on the nature of things qua their dispositions to be sensorily measured."

I don't think so.

There is nothing problematic about questioning the claim that our knowledge of reality can only be arrived at by means of one particular highly questionable epistemological theory, namely, empiricism. I have noticed that, on this blog, the concepts of logic (reason) and empiricism seem to be conflated. Likewise 'evidence' seems to be defined in empirical terms; dear old "I have no presuppositions" Natman being a prime example.

But, as I explained in a previous post, consciousness itself is not perceived empirically. Reason itself is not perceived empirically. And to cap it all: empiricism itself is not formulated empirically!

In fact, the evidence of our senses is merely a picture in our brains. When I look at, let's say, a tree, I do not connect directly with the tree, but only with an image of the tree in my own brain. I assume that what I am seeing is actually there. It's a very good assumption. But, as the evidence of optical illusions proves, it does not provide absolute certainty.

So to say that reality should be 'fundamentally grounded' in empirical perception and quantification is rather suspect, to say the least.

And since the philosophy of materialism is dependent on strong empiricism (all knowledge derives from sense perception), as our only epistemic relationship with matter is through the senses, and since (strong) empiricism cannot be validated empirically (i.e. it breaks its own fundamental rule), then it follows that the philosophy of materialism is an epistemological impossibility. We can only claim that 'matter is all that exists' if we can prove that 'all knowledge derives from sense perception'. Since the idea that 'all knowledge derives from sense perception' does not itself derive from sense perception, then the whole claim of materialism collapses. The collapse of materialism does not, of course, 'prove' Christianity to be true, but it certainly makes a mockery of the arrogant and misguided claims of the current crop of 'new atheists'.

Now this is irrefutable logic. I take this, therefore, to be 'evidence'.

"dear old "I have no presuppositions" Natman "

Get your facts right, dear old LSV. I do have presuppositions.

Post #43

And I do love how you categorically claim the "collapse of materialism" (rather an 'arrogant and misguided claim') despite offering nothing to replace it and ignoring the strong position it still holds in the real world, which you don't seem to occupy.

If you're so confident of your claims, what is your alternative? If this alternative is so much better, why isn't it used or more widely known?

Why, in fact, are you avoiding providing a reply to post #78?

LSV,

"Since the idea that 'all knowledge derives from sense perception' does not itself derive from sense perception, then the whole claim of materialism collapses"

You miss the point, the statement "All knowledge derives from sense perception" shows that even the idea itself must (it is part of our knowledge) and in doing so refutes your claim that it does not. It is a self sustaining argument. The fact that I cannot prove it yet is irrelevant, it is up to you to disprove it.

Cue the Magic Roundabout music.

The rest of your claims based on your now proven false assumption fail.

You cannot 'know' whether we perceive conciousness (which is more of a philosophical construct to cover a number of mental processes rather than a thing in it's own right) empirically or not as science has not got that far in understanding how the brain works.

You appear to be postulating an inner 'god' designed to explain what has not been explained a bit like your external 'god' to explain things that have not yet been explained. Is this a pattern.

When you explain something, should you not be explaining your opinion or your belief not the thing itself which would require evidence.

Natman - to get back to our discussion. I really didn't want a fight with you. I thought your game was for us to state OUR presuppositions. That being the case you can't then say that's not a true supposition. If you presuppose there is no God, that's fine, at least we know the grounding of your thought because really, we can have endless attempts at "proving" all sorts of things but really for must of us it comes down to practical realities. Most of us couldn't actually prove 2+2=4 but we're perfectly happy to live with the presumption, and the presumption that people who are good at maths can "prove" it. You presuppose there is no God and live accordingly. I'm not sure if I presuppose a God, I don't think I do, but I can happily live with the doubt.

But I still think it would have been an interesting exercise for people to identify their own presuppositions without further judgment.

PaulR

Natman


The only thing I've been getting at with my comments is that we cannot overlook the existence of an observer as we seek to understand the world.

If no observers existed then there would be no one to observe what has been going on for billions of years, and then nothing would have been said.

For example, Paul, you said, "That is, one accepts that all that there is is determined by evidence, that the sum total of actual evidence constitutes reality and that the representational content of evidence is individuated in terms of perceptual experience?"

The sentence doesn't really work if we leave out the word 'one'.

The point is simple, we *do* exist; we are part of the existing things.

In #43 Natman said, "Evidence gathered through empirical methodology can be considered 'true' if upheld using the same techniques", and that this was the only presupposition he needed to make. I'm simply saying that this also presupposes someone called Natman.

Natman has more presuppositions than he presupposes, that's all.

Dave (@ 91) -

"You miss the point, the statement "All knowledge derives from sense perception" shows that even the idea itself must (it is part of our knowledge) and in doing so refutes your claim that it does not. It is a self sustaining argument. The fact that I cannot prove it yet is irrelevant, it is up to you to disprove it."

I'll take 'self sustaining argument' to mean 'circular argument'.

Oh, I get it...! What you seem to be saying is this: "we assume naturalism is true and therefore empiricism is the only valid epistemology and then when we encounter realities which cannot be perceived empirically (such as consciousness), we assume that such realities must fit into naturalism / materialism, because we are already committed to that philosophy!" If you dispute my interpretation of your words, then please clarify what you mean (with a coherent argument, of course).

It's a bit like a certain contributor on this blog coming out with "life must have arisen by purely natural means, because, hey, life exists!" (I could trawl through hundreds of posts to find the offending comment if you like, but my memory does not deceive me. And I think the offender knows who he is!)

You write: "The fact that I cannot prove it yet is irrelevant, it is up to you to disprove it."

Ha ha! Please substantiate that comment with some evidence. Why is it "up to me to disprove it"?? Who says?? I have put a perfectly logical argument to show that the fundamental claim of empiricism is not arrived at empirically. That is a logical argument that has never been refuted. Now unless you can provide me with the empirical evidence (e.g. the scientific experiment) that proves that "all knowledge derives from sense perception", then my argument stands. To respond to this with a circular argument is, frankly, ridiculous.

So the naturalists refuse to accept any burden of proof to substantiate their claims, view all evidence as inherently supporting their philosophy (even when it does not), and then moan on about 'religious' people's views lacking evidence. Frankly, you couldn't make this stuff up!

Natman -

If you think I'm dodging your question, then please cogitate on what I have just written. I have provided evidence to support my position, but since you refuse to accept it as 'evidence' (due to your own naturalistic prejudices and circular arguments) then what else can I say to you?

I reiterate my challenge to all naturalists:

Please show me *the scientific experiment* which proves that "all knowledge derives from sense perception". If you cannot provide this empirical evidence, then you are - by implication - admitting that the philosophy of materialism lacks any evidential basis (in other words, it's intellectually incoherent).

If materialism is debunked, then it follows that other points of view have legitimacy, and the claim of atheism (i.e. that spiritual ideas are irrational) is nothing other than deception.

There is not one shred of evidence to support the idea that matter has produced mind, or indeed that matter can produce mind. The existence of reason itself is strong evidence for the existence of an objective mind - i.e. an ultimate intelligence by which the universe has been created. In other words, 'reason' itself speaks of the reality of what Christians call 'God'. There is nothing irrational about that argument, but the idea that reason has derived from the mere movement of matter over a long period of time is, frankly, irrational, since, if that were true, there would be no objective basis to reason at all.

Your inability to derive thoughts (such as the idea that "all knowledge derives from sense perception") from empirical evidence is a further indication of the truth of my argument.

Following on from my last post...

Just to clarify one point in it:

"If materialism is debunked, then it follows that other points of view have legitimacy, and the claim of atheism (i.e. that spiritual ideas are irrational) is nothing other than deception."

The phrase "that spiritual ideas are irrational" should read "that all spiritual ideas are irrational".

(Since, of course, I agree that some spiritual ideas are indeed irrational).

I thought I'd better say this, before a certain person swoops in with his 'Zeus' and 'Shiva' comments!

Dave **What I would say is that I don't know of any other way that has any resonance with me.**

I feel you are doing yourself a disservice - eg do you use scientific evidence to acknowledge beauty? to feel love? Do you need a scientific experiment or scientific evidence to know whether you love a partner or not?? There are ways of knowing about life that are not based on science - although science will come to affirm what many have known for aeons.

Ryan **Humans are never satisfied.**
This is because they don't know who they are and are continually looking outside of themselves for answers and seeking stimulation or achievement or recognition or identification or comfort or love etc etc to fill the emptiness they feel inside and in order to not feel the emptiness. To 'know thyself' is key - for it is by knowing oneself that one can know God and all the 'proof' or 'evidence' is there - no believing, no faith, no trust required - it is known that God is love and 2+2=4. :-)

Natman: how does your understanding that matter is all that exists tie in with E=mc2??

The existence of reason itself is strong evidence for the existence of an objective mind

The existence of reason? Reason as a platonic entity hanging around the ether or reason as a mental faculty, a property of mind? If you are defining it as the former, well, it's another of those meaningless bare assertions you are so fond of, like logic affirms its own validity. If the latter, it can't serve as evidence of an objective mind because - well we've been there before. Self reference, self refutation, circular argument, arm waving and wishful thinking about covers it.

If you are defining reason as something else, do tell.

And you are still being coy, as has been noted, about the alternatives to empiricism, including your own peculiar version of rationalism that avoids all mention of what constitutes a priori knowledge.

So I might as well give this another shot:

Empiricism is the worst way of acquiring knowledge, apart from all the others. Discuss. Pretty please.

LSV,

I am so glad you got a new supply of pinheads to dance on for christmas.

When you understand that what you engage in is an argument about the meaning of words or the extrapolations of the meaning of words (all of which are human constructs) you will begin to understand why what you postulate is so hard to believe. You provide no evidence, only intellectual verbosity which actually doesn't even make sense.

Eunice,

I watched a programme last night which showed just how divine love is. It is a innate predisposition to cling to comfort and support, not food funnily, It was on BBC4 on Tuesday night I think. The interesting thing was that a guy had to have a part of his brain removed due to a tumour, after that he could feel no emotion including love but was perfectly active in every other way.

These things are what form our real understanding of us as humans, not nonsense like LSVs.

Dave (@ 98) -

Thank you for conceding the argument by admitting that you don't understand logic. You're most kind.

Of course, if you don't believe in logic, just say so. Then I'll know that it's not worth trying to argue with someone who can't handle 'the heat of the kitchen' of intellectual debate.

(Oh, by the way, if you're right, then I take it that you accept that all your atheistic claims are just 'human constructs' and 'intellectual verbosity', and therefore of no value. Fair's fair, me old china. Or can't you even grasp something as simple as that?)