The Problem with Atheism

Topic: The Problem with Atheism (Read 205343 times)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #500 – 2014-07-17, 19:44:41

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-17, 16:31:19

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-17, 04:08:10
but it's absolutely undeniable that the hand is the cause and the movement of the candle is the effect. Hence causes are not merely temporal.

It depends on what you mean by cause, I suppose, but this is akin to saying that if you put a candle on a table and an earthquake shakes the table and hence the candle is moved, then it is the table that is causing the candle to move. How do you train a table to do that?

Hawking affirms a chain of causality but you don't?

Funny, but I am with Hawking here - and more than he knows. Not only do I affirm the temporal chain of causality, I also affirm the simultaneous hierarchy of causality the way I described.

I'm with Hawking in one more sense. I agree that his conclusion follows from his premises. However, his premises - and consequently also the conclusion - are of insufficient scope to necessarily entail everything that he wants his argument to entail. This is most crucially so due to his narrow definition of cause.

In many European languages (including English) "cause" and "reason" are substantially overlapping concepts and this is exactly how "cause" is used in traditional theistic arguments.

Hawking's argument assumes that God is a being who set the universe going by giving a little nudge to the Big Bang and who stands idly by since then, whereas traditionally God has been understood as the ultimate cause in the simultaneous hierarchy of things. In terms of the simultaneous hierarchy it's easily seen how God is ever-present and constantly necessary to sustain both every little atom and the universe as a whole, whereas in terms of the temporal chain as described by Hawking one may indeed wonder what's the purpose of God.

I won't repeat what I already demonstrated. You didn't dispute any of it anyway.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-17, 16:31:19

Btw, isn't it Ghazali who says that God is what causes cotton to burn when you put a torch to it?

Yes, the same

This one is over your head, but there's no way to stop it now.

Ghazali's argument involves three important points. The first point is specifying the definition of agency. Aristotelians attribute agency to natural substances. Aristotelians say that when fire burns, it is an action (agency) of fire, whereas Ghazali connects agency exclusively to will and choice. Agents are necessarily conscious and volitional. If not, there's no agency involved. According to Ghazali, when one talks of fire burning, the linguistic expression tends to metaphorically impute agency to the inert mechanics of the process, and one should be careful to not blow the metaphor out of proportion.

The second point is the dispute on the necessity or conditionality of natural effects. Because Aristotelians affirm a kind of agency in natural substances, they also affirm that from certain natural causes the corresponding natural effects follow necessarily, as a law of nature, e.g. when cotton comes in contact with fire, cotton will necessarily burn, no exception. Whereas Ghazali always admits the possibility of intervention of agents with will and choice, including supernatural and miraculous, no matter how improbable. This is not at all an ad hoc assumption on Ghazali's part, but a consistent commitment to the rule that "dispositions vary [and] the principles of dispositions include strange and wondrous things" (I have the book right here).

Compare for example that when Lawrence Krauss says that quantum mechanics implies that the universe is very strange and anything can happen and *therefore* theists are wrong, then he is actually on decisively weaker ground than theists who may also affirm the strangeness of things, but who attribute this to the absolute possibility of will and choice. The difference is that Krauss, if he be consistent, is committed to utter random irrationality and under this there cannot be any "therefore", whereas under absolute will and choice there can be both incomprehensible strangeness and "therefore" side by side - which happens to be exactly the way the universe appears to us.

And the third point is scriptural authority. And I agree with Ghazali on all three points. Please go puke somewhere else

When you return, I hope to finally see a positive evidence-based case for atheism, devoid of references to the supernatural and immaterial.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #501 – 2014-07-18, 03:03:51

Put another way, "The Problem with Atheism" is that —no matter how "good" individual atheists may behave— bad behavior by atheists (…and others, too, of course) has no rational means of condemnation…

Please, atheists, feel free to come with anything you believe goes beyond Might Makes Right!

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #502 – 2014-07-18, 21:48:32

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-17, 19:44:41

When you return, I hope to finally see a positive evidence-based case for atheism, devoid of references to the supernatural and immaterial.

Simply admit it Eric, there is no scientific evidence that could ever satisfy you of anything. You no longer live in the natural world (other than out of necessity). You live and think in the fantasy world of the ‘super’ natural and, for the most part, reject what goes on in this world simply because it does not meet your most pressing need.

But besides that, philosophers of science have long pointed out that there is no proposal in science, however idiotic, that cannot be made immune from refutation by the addition of a protective bubble of supplementary hypotheses to shield its weaknesses.

Believers expect atheists and science to prove the nonexistence of a god who is determined to avoid leaving any evidence of his existence. Then, if science does come up with some new theory that inadvertently eliminates god, believers quickly wrap another supernatural protective belt around their god of choice, so that they don’t look like fools for believing.

Somewhere in that brilliant mind of yours Ersi, I know you have some doubt because it’s only logical that all people should have some doubt about god either way--I do, but simply not enough to say I am an agnostic. Just because science cannot prove, with data, the negation of god, does not imply that it is reasonable to believe in god. And just because scientific 'proofs' do not have the same level of rigor as mathematical proofs, does not mean that scientific conclusions cannot be extremely powerful (look around you). Science is constantly making judgments in the absence of data and acts on those judgments—and necessarily so for science to proceed.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #503 – 2014-07-19, 07:46:14

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-18, 21:48:32

Simply admit it Eric, there is no scientific evidence that could ever satisfy you of anything. You no longer live in the natural world (other than out of necessity).

Simply admit it that by "the natural world" you mean the world the way you specifically understand it and you acknowledge the true world (the way for example I understand it) only when cornered so tightly that you have no other option.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-18, 21:48:32

You live and think in the fantasy world of the ‘super’ natural and, for the most part, reject what goes on in this world simply because it does not meet your most pressing need.

Ditto applicable to you.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-18, 21:48:32

Believers expect atheists and science to prove the nonexistence of a god who is determined to avoid leaving any evidence of his existence.

No. Here's how it goes in my case. When puzzled over the concept(s) of god, I solve it on my own for myself and I make up my own mind. I don't really care what others think, scientists or atheists or philosophers or theologians. I only care about truth, but if truth is real in any relevant sense, then it cannot be that only I have discovered it. There must be some other sensible people too. It doesn't mean I have to accept what the other people say, but it means I have to do what the sensible people did: Think everything through properly and arrive at conclusions until I am genuinely convinced beyond any doubt, not just preliminarily or provisorily.

You are free to prove the nonexistence of gods and disprove gods as you like, but this time I asked you something much more modest: Prove your own brand of atheism/scientism in a positive sense. Meaning: Prove that whatever basic belief you have really explains everything, is internally consistent and thoroughly sensible and factual. I didn't ask you to disprove what you don't believe, but to back up what you believe. If you cannot do this, then your system is insufficient and you yourself doubt it and therefore you are not offering a rationally acceptable alternative to anyone.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-18, 21:48:32

...it's only logical that all people should have some doubt about god either way--I do, but simply not enough to say I am an agnostic.

Why should doubt apply only to beliefs about god? I think criticism should be applicable to any and all beliefs, with the purpose to examine, self-examine, correct, rectify, and ultimately arrive at a genuine conviction, i.e. minimise and eliminate doubt. Those puzzled about god(s) must make up their mind concerning god(s). Those holding to atheist or materialist or hedonist or utilitarian views should make up their minds concerning those other views beyond reasonable doubt. When this is done, we can discuss views, otherwise we are just being disingenuous, scared of our house of cards imploding or suspicious of each other's motives, and rational discussion cannot be had.

One pattern I have observed is that heavy denialists (such as yourself) some time or later say something like "You simply must doubt! Nobody can be sure of that thing!" which is yet another unwarranted belief. Truly, it's possible to be sure and certain and absolutely convinced of that thing and back it up with logical proof.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-18, 21:48:32

Just because science cannot prove, with data, the negation of god, does not imply that it is reasonable to believe in god. And just because scientific 'proofs' do not have the same level of rigor as mathematical proofs, does not mean that scientific conclusions cannot be extremely powerful (look around you).

Look at what you are saying here:

JS: Science cannot disprove A, but this does not imply that it is reasonable to hold A.
Question: If science has no say on A, then it must be some other means or method which makes A un/reasonable. What is that other method?

JS: Scientific conclusions have less rigor than mathematical proofs, but can still be extremely powerful.
Question: Does this "extremely powerful" mean more powerful than the more rigorous mathematical proofs? Why? How? If not, then what is the scope of "extremely powerful" and how do you examine that which lies beyond that scope?

And forget god(s) that you don't believe in. The topic is how we believe what we believe, whatever it is that we believe in. Seriously, it's not just the so-called believers who must justify their beliefs, but anyone harbouring any belief.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #504 – 2014-07-19, 14:46:51

Forgive him, ersi. He sees "science" as a unified front so doesn't see how me, as an atheist, differs from him, as some sort of militant n00b atheist in denial. So how you believe must be the same as what he wants to confont. His arguments are geared for an organized religion. I've suspected most to be top link Google trash.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #505 – 2014-07-19, 15:52:36

this kind of phenomena is

" When the Skin is presummed as the content , and the Content is presummed as the skin "

i hope the grammer is right , so that phenomena not happening in that phrase

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #506 – 2014-07-19, 17:09:33

Quote from: ensbb3 on 2014-07-19, 14:46:51

Forgive him, ersi. He sees "science" as a unified front so doesn't see how me, as an atheist, differs from him, as some sort of militant n00b atheist in denial. So how you believe must be the same as what he wants to confont.

Actually, I started to question God at about the age of 9, at which time I also began wondering why anything, including God, existed at all. I did this without any prompting and I kept it to myself for awhile because I was afraid people would think me weird(er). I became an atheist in my mind as I learned about evolution and science in JHS, but I didn't confide my beliefs with anyone until HS physics and quietly so even then.

In college, I saw all the major sciences fitting together as pieces in a puzzle and reinforcing one another to the point where I felt a certain absolute truth was becoming apparent to me, much like religious awakenings occur to others, I'm sure. I didn't parade my thoughts and beliefs around to others, not even to my wife and children, but I did have many serious philosophical and scientific discussions with some of my more intellectual friends about our existence and God--usually over a few imported beers of course.

I may have seemed a bit militant to some when I first came here, although I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'militant' as it smacks of suicide bombings and such when used in conjunction with religious beliefs. I am sure that you just use it to provoke and convince yourself of some superior atheistic status, which really only shows how juvenile (n00bie), you are, at least with insults.

I learn more about the meaning of life from the disabled and intellectually challenged kids I tutor than I do coming here and listening to the likes of you. I am mentally (IQ) capable of being an intellectual giant in philosophy and logic like Ersi, Oakdale, yourself and others and although I occasionally enjoy the mental exercise (even getting beat up at bit), I see life as having too many other wonderful things that I want to experience before I vanish forever. I am not saying that anyone is missing out on anything by being here more often than myself, I simply choose to spread myself more thinly at this stage of my life.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #507 – 2014-07-19, 18:29:57

I come from a Southern Baptist background. I can relate to most of what you say there.

Yes, I try to provoke. Yes, I play the militant atheist when the role 'needs' filled. But I understand ersi more than I may let on. I went thru a metaphysical phase. Before I accepted that how and why may be beyond my (our) reach. But in my more honest moments I've argued for the benefit of belief (religion) and even it's necessaity in the evolution of the mind. "Militant" would be to attack that assumption. (Not something I should have to explain.)

IQ is for people that wanna believe they're better. Leave it alone. The arguments against its meaning abound top-links for your amusement.

I always accept people are qualified with experience. You'll have to excuse the side that asks for verification. I'm probably best read in a monotone. Not really how I speak, but there is only necessary inflection in my verbal communication. I should work to apply it to my writing.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #508 – 2014-07-19, 18:55:08

Quote from: ensbb3 on 2014-07-19, 18:29:57

But I understand ersi more than I may let on. I went thru a metaphysical phase.

I think most of us did, although that's not the word I'd use.

Quote from: ensbb3 on 2014-07-19, 18:29:57

But in my more honest moments I've argued for the benefit of belief (religion) and even it's necessaity in the evolution of the mind.

At the very least it's not terribly detrimental.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #509 – 2014-07-19, 20:47:58

Quote from: ensbb3 on 2014-07-19, 18:29:57

But in my more honest moments I've argued for the benefit of belief (religion) and even it's necessaity in the evolution of the mind.

At the very least it's not terribly detrimental.
[/quote]
Probably more what I meant. The placebo effect is basically what benefit I see from most beliefs.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #510 – 2014-07-20, 01:07:58

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-19, 09:09:33

I am mentally (IQ) capable of being an intellectual giant in philosophy and logic like Ersi, Oakdale, yourself and others

I'm quite sure everyone got a good laugh out of that! (I certainly did…) Note, please: Were we -any of us- intellectual giants (of any sort), we'd likely not be posting on the web; and, certainly, not enjoying it if we did!

But since you profess the capability, please answer the simple question I've posed (for many decades…): What -beyond Might Makes Right™- justifies moral attitudes?
(Theists of a certain stripe think they have a pat answer… But their God is merely a mightier Might than others can claim!)

And, please understand, I am not "putting you on the spot" — I sincerely want to hear your answer… To me, it's not a "gotcha" question.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #511 – 2014-07-20, 20:13:20

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-20, 01:07:58

Note, please: Were we -any of us- intellectual giants (of any sort), we'd likely not be posting on the web; and, certainly, not enjoying it if we did!

My flattery runneth over, but perhaps you are just unmotivated intellectual giants.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-20, 01:07:58

What -beyond Might Makes Right™- justifies moral attitudes?

Physics.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #512 – 2014-07-20, 20:51:04

Ah, I see: You don't understand the question… Oh, well.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #513 – 2014-07-20, 23:40:30

Quote from: Sparta on 2014-07-19, 10:52:36

" When the Skin is presummed as the content , and the Content is presummed as the skin "

I'm not sure what you mean. Is this a "beauty is only skin deep" type statement or a "don't read a book by its cover" type thing..? Or am I not even close?

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-19, 20:07:58

What -beyond Might Makes Right™- justifies moral attitudes?

While on things I don't get:
Perhaps if you wanna elaborate on what justifies this as a question I'll play your game? Seems the reality of that stretches beyond the question's qualifier.

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-20, 20:13:20

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-20, 01:07:58
What -beyond Might Makes Right™- justifies moral attitudes?

Physics.

I don't get you at all. A waffling mess of inconsistencies... Except to bring up physics as often as possible.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #514 – 2014-07-21, 01:50:39

Put prosaically, ensbb3: The longest lasting (and still frequent) "complaint" against atheism is that it unmoors morality…
I'm always interested in what others take to be the basis of their (preferred) morality! But I like to clear the philosophical air, first, by stating the position that must be overcome before any other can reasonably be considered…

Do you think this is the "wrong" place for such a conversation?

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #515 – 2014-07-21, 02:52:57

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-20, 20:50:39

Do you think this is the "wrong" place for such a conversation?

Of course not.

(I just got back from vacation and feeling a little spunky is all)

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-20, 20:50:39

Put prosaically, ensbb3: The longest lasting (and still frequent) "complaint" against atheism is that it unmoors morality…

With equal candor; I'll say, It's not morality but tradition that's "threatened". Morality, at its base, is more a social instinct than derived attitude.

Is it morally justified to assert authority? Structure has social benefit. Is what's accepted as authority morally or traditionally derived? Religious quibbles are often over being told something is what it isn't.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #516 – 2014-07-21, 03:34:05

So: You would see human (social) morality as upon the same continuum as other primates? Differences not in kind but only in degree?

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #517 – 2014-07-21, 03:48:49

Can morality exist in primates? Naturally, we can agree what we call moral behavior does happen. But at this point we have to separate morality from ethics. A primate may not have the cognitive ability to step outside base instinct in the moment. Aggression for example.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #518 – 2014-07-21, 03:55:00

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-20, 01:07:58

What -beyond Might Makes Right™- justifies moral attitudes?

I didn't quite understand the question, but then I remembered that you were libertarian of the worst type - the Ayn Rand type - and then it made sense. For you any slightest hint of coercion, even worse, the slightest hint that can be interpreted as coercion, is Might Makes Right, whereas to normal people moderate temporary discomfort can serve educative purposes.

The justification of ethics is in its good motives and good outcomes, and the definition of good and bad are also an inevitable part of ethics. Good and bad can be defined in a number of ways, but I'd argue that as long as they are not defined in any consistent way, they are not really defined at all. The consistent way would be holistic, not merely coming from external authorities, but also from inside, from conscience. It would also mean not going too stubbornly against the mores of the current society, i.e. it would be traditional and evolutionary rather than reactionary or revolutionary.

Then again, ethics and morals are best taught by example, and the best example is provided by the authorities, such as by the parents to their children, and the officials to the regular folks. When the authorities lead by good example, their "coercion" is moral, but when they fail at good example, it's really detrimental coercion that they are doing.

Defined and described this way, ethics is not Might Makes Right, but a rational support for social functions and processes. It's not merely tradition, but also ways to relate to outsiders, and also ways to function outside the society by oneself, when nobody is looking. If it were only tradition, there would be a way to argue that there's no unified or unifiable ethics, but considering cross-cultural relations and individual conscience when nobody is looking, ethics can be seen as universal.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #519 – 2014-07-21, 05:35:54

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-20, 19:55:00

ethics can be seen as universal

As a category, perhaps. But the variety of particular views -in different places, among different peoples; at different times- would seem to mean that there is no universal morality; only the universal impulse to act and react, and sometimes to "add" a moral dimension to such…

I do consider myself a conservative, with libertarian leanings… (Ayn Rand was a remarkably simple-minded philosopher!) But that doesn't mean your memory is accurate: When you run out of easy pigeon holes, you might understand me a little better; before then, you might try to understand yourself a little better…

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #520 – 2014-07-21, 05:47:52

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-21, 05:35:54

...there is no universal morality; only the universal impulse to act and react, and sometimes to "add" a moral dimension to such…

Right, that's the atheist weak point: Moral dimension is "added", either superfluous burden or at best illusory useful fiction. Whereas in truth, for morality to mean anything, it cannot be considered even a useful fiction, but a reality. Hence the dimension is not added. The dimension is always there, but can be ignored, sidestepped or overpowered by other impulses the same way as you can sleep-deprive yourself by will, go hungry for a week or force yourself to eat spiders.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #521 – 2014-07-21, 11:51:50

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-21, 00:35:54

As a category, perhaps. But the variety of particular views -in different places, among different peoples; at different times- would seem to mean that there is no universal morality; only the universal impulse to act and react, and sometimes to "add" a moral dimension to such…

Ignorance of circumstance isn't added morality because you can realize why. Social structure is complicated. Ever more so because of culture. I can point out a wide variety of what we consider moral behavior in animals. That doesn't mean other things they do aren't moral, just the ethics are different.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-21, 00:47:52

Right, that's the atheist weak point: Moral dimension is "added", either superfluous burden or at best illusory useful fiction.

No idea what that means. But socially you're setting a line to cross and provoking a response. You'll judge me on how/if/why I cross it, based on how it makes you feel and/or learned response (based on how you've felt in the past).

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-21, 00:47:52

The dimension is always there, but can be ignored, sidestepped or overpowered by other impulses the same way as you can sleep-deprive yourself by will, go hungry for a week or force yourself to eat spiders.

To argue that you'll have to set a baseline for average behavior. Not everyone can even be next to a spider much less make themselves eat one.

Common among people who turn in on themselves... They don't understand other people. Yes, culturally they have been taught how to react. But in a case of meeting a random stranger from a random background, how much useful data they collect on how to relate is low and slow. Why is a line I'm not eager to cross. These same people wouldn't take criticism well.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #522 – 2014-07-21, 15:00:59

what if i told you

Excessive focus on moral ideas is symptom of mental illness .

it is OCD .

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #523 – 2014-07-21, 15:41:51

Quote from: Sparta on 2014-07-21, 10:00:59

it is OCD

Aka: DnD.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #524 – 2014-07-21, 18:54:47

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-20, 21:47:52

[...] that's the atheist weak point: Moral dimension is "added", either superfluous burden or at best illusory useful fiction. Whereas in truth, for morality to mean anything, it cannot be considered even a useful fiction, but a reality. Hence the dimension is not added.

That's a common mis-conception. When you say "for morality to mean anything" you likely mean "for your moral sensibilities to reign supreme"...

But let's back up a bit.

Is it moral to -accidentally, or even on purpose!- split an infinitive? To use "ain't"? Obviously, grammatical irregularity doesn't quite qualify as a reasonable cause of righteous indignation...
How about cussing? For some, yes; for others, no. Perhaps manners approaches morality...
Jews and Moslems are constrained by their religious teachings from eating pork. Surely, such is a moral issue: Offending God is a Big No-No! But Christians don't offend the God of the Jews or of the Moslems by having a bacon & egg breakfast... Do they?
Some would say Yes. Why?

Isn't the ability (or propensity) to take offense the main component of moral outrage? Note the common example of showing disrespect... I'd single out ersi's example of "officials" vs. "regular people" for special consideration!
It's arguably the case that morality evolved from the problems of authority, particularly of maintaining such.

There are some very widespread taboos (incest, murder, theft...) but none seems to be universally accepted. But are there any examples of social organization without hierarchy and authority?