Evasion is not an answer [Archive I]

Bill

September 2, 2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
So, I'm issuing a specific challenge here for anyone who is an atheist but not a pure materialist to step forward and clarify their position.

I would also like an explanation of how your "spirituality" answers my argument any better than pure materialism. And I've attempted to explain my position to you, all the while asking you to define what you mean by "materialism" (or "pure materialism" if you prefer). The rejection of "materialism" does not in any way imply "spirituality." If you believe that it does, then you are seriously ignorant of fundamental concepts in philosophy (which happens to be what I have suspected all along, and also gets down to the nub of why I've been asking you to define what you mean here).

Of course, I'm not an atheist, unless you are a Christian, or unless you adopt the common view among atheists that mere "lack of belief" constitutes atheism. In most other situations, I'm really an agnostic. I look for proof, one way or another, or else I'm quite comfortable to reply "I don't know." (If you are a Christian, I consider that the facts disproving the truth of the Christian religion are several times what would be necessary to be "good and sufficient" for sustaining unbelief in the Christian triune God, but that's another matter entirely.)

My view does not rely upon pure materialism because I believe that the whole idea of "emergent qualities" is not well explained by classical materialistic ideas. Perhaps there might be some new version of materialism that would meet my objections to classical materialism, but I have yet to personally hear of such a thing.

Let me begin my defense by introducing you to The Meta-Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.ditext.com/encyc/frame.html). That resource, in turn, links to several different discussions of materialism, but at this juncture, the only one I propose to discuss is the Philosophical Dictionary definition of materialism (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m2.htm#mat), which is: Belief that only physical things truly exist (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e9.htm#exist). Materialists claim (or promise) to explain every apparent instance of a mental phenomenon as a feature of some physical object. Prominent materialists in Western thought include the classical atomists (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a9.htm#atom), Hobbes (http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/hobb.htm), and La Mettrie (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/l.htm#lame). My view of materialism is that it is an outdated oversimplification that cannot be justified in the modern world. It dates from an era when the Law of Conservation of Matter reigned supreme (implying that matter was the most basic "stuff" of our universe), something we now know to be incorrect. WIth the understandings of Einstein and the Quantum realities, not to mention more recent unproven hypotheses like string theory, it seems to be far too simple an assertion to claim that everything is matter.

We would frankly be better off claiming that everything is energy. At least there we have some theoretical basis for making that claim due to the fact that in the earliest moments after the Big Bang there wasn't anything in existence that wasn't energy, and all matter that we have today is derived from some portion of that initial energy component.

But the never-ending arguments over classical materialism have generally to do with abstract ideas that, nevertheless, represent foundational concepts for our universe. Just how do you describe Einstein's formulation of the Law of Gravity (as a property of space/time) in materialistic terms? Just how can a law of nature be a material thing, anyway? That such laws have an existence independent of humans is not challenged by most rational people. So, we can't say that these laws are merely figmants of our imagination. So, just what are they?

So, at base I'm not prepared to commit to an ontology that relies upon strictly material things being the only things that truely exist, as classical materialism is defined, above.

Nevertheless, I am a metaphysical naturalist, which means that I advocate the philosophy of naturalism (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/n.htm#natm): Belief that all objects, events, and and values (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/v.htm#value) can be wholly explained in terms of factual (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/f.htm#fava) and/or causal (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/c2.htm#cause) claims about the world, without reference to supernatural powers or authority. Prominent naturalists include Clifford (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/c5.htm#clif) and Dewey (http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/dewe.htm). Quine (http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/quin.htm) proposed a naturalistic epistemology (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e5.htm#epis), understood as empirical study of the origins and uses of sensory (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/s4.htm#sentn) information. That is the concept that the Internet Infidels have agreed to defend, and the fact that I too agree that naturalism is a very defensible position is one of the primary reasons that I remain an Internet Infidel in spite of deep philosophical differences on any number of other matters.

Please particularly note the use of the word values (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/v.htm#value) in the above. That word, in particular, encompases morality. I believe that no reference to supernatural entities or authorities is necessary to "account for/explain the immaterial features of human experience, i.e., morality, logic, laws, etc."

I will be glad to explain further, but this is already a quite lengthy post, and I would prefer to first check to ensure that you fully and completely understand what I've posted herein.

== Bill

Bill

September 2, 2003, 10:25 PM

One of the hottest debates in philosophy over the past several decades has been the debate between two entirely naturalistic theories, once called "realism" and the other called "anti-realism." For an outline of what is involved in this debate, you might wish to blow your mind out on THIS PAGE (http://www.dur.ac.uk/philosophy.department/modules/scikandr/ROHP.HTM).

Personally, I lean towards the anti-realist view, which is by and large the realist view plus a recognition of the limits of human perception. (Anti-Realism in this sense is not really concerned with the debate about universals which generally pits realism against nominalism.)

But one of the reasons I mentioned string theory in my post, above, is due to THIS ABSTRACT (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001240/), which reads: String theory currently is the only viable candidate for a unified description of all known natural forces. This article tries to demonstrate that the fundamental structural and methodological differences that set string theory apart from other physical theories have important philosophical consequences. Focussing on implications for the realism debate in philosophy of science, it is argued that both poles of that debate become untenable in the context of string theory. On one side the claim of underdetermination of scientific theories, which represents a pivotal element of empiricism, looses its appeal. On the other side the dissolution of any meaningful notion of an external ontological object destroys the basis for conventional versions of scientific realism. String theory seems to suggest an intermediate position akin to Structural Realism that is based on a newly emerging principle, to be called the principle of theoretical uniqueness. An appreciation of string theory�s considerable impact on basic conceptions of philosophy of science can also contribute to a clearer picture of string theory�s status and relevance in a scientific context. In other words, the debate between realists and anti-realists might be ultimately resolved by forcing a change to an entirely new paradigm. We shall see what happens, but I, for one, won't be proclaiming too strong of a commitment to anti-realism. :D

== Bill

Howard

September 2, 2003, 10:31 PM

bd-from-kg

September 3, 2003, 12:11 AM

theophilus:

When challenging atheists ability to account for/explain the immaterial features of human experience, i.e., morality, logic, laws, etc., by purely naturalistic/materialistic standards...

Please clarify. What to you mean by �account for� and �explain�? And what do you mean by �morality� and �logic�? As for laws, what exactly needs to be �accounted for�? We have laws because they�re passed by a legislature, etc.
For example, a request to �account for morality� could mean:

(1) Explain why people sometimes act against their own self-interest (to help others, to adhere to a principle, or whatever).
(2) Explain why people have ideas like �right� and �wrong�, and perhaps why they consider certain things (such as helping the poor) to be especially �right� and others (like raping little girls) to be especially �wrong�.
(3) Explain how the notion that some things are �intrinsically right� and other �intrinsically wrong� could be true in the absence of God.

Similarly, a request to �account for� logic might mean:

(1) Explain why people�s thought processes often follow certain patterns (using rules of inference like modus ponens to arrive at a conclusion, for example).
(2) Explain why the specific rules widely considered to be valid laws or axioms of logic are so considered.
(3) Explain why the rules widely considered to be valid laws of logic really are valid, or how we could know that they are. (Ditto for modus ponens.)

xorbie

September 3, 2003, 03:20 PM

I think the answer is much simpler than the topic suggests. Everything you think, feel, experience, deduce, contemplate or imagine has a correspondent neural pattern in your brain. And while these patterns may not be discernible by our current technology, they are just as material as the nose on your face.
Ultimately, everything has a material explanation.

The problem, of course, is that purely subjective neural patterns, such as a dream or a conversation with an imaginary deity, register in the same way as those caused by objective reality. Some people can discern the difference between self-created neural patterns and real ones. Some people can�t.

I don't disagree, but this is not the full truth. Everything does indeed have a material explanation, but a thought and a nose are still qualitatively different. A nose has a physical manifestation in two distinct ways. A nose exists, and the perception of the nose physically exists (as you pointed out). But with an idea, there is no physical existence, only the perception of the idea exists, so to speak.

sodium

September 4, 2003, 12:43 AM

Well, I am a materialist, so I can't really speak for non-materialists, but I think the debate comes down to this.

A theist will usually make the case that if something like materialism were true, we really should be able to explain morality, and logic, etc. They shouldn't be mysterious, because matter isn't mysterious. I actually think these things are explained, but the non-materialist won't like my explanations.

The theist, of course, will explain these things by saying that God willed them to be, or some such thing. Of course that's not really an explanation, because we can't understand how this could occur. The important point is that in a non-materialistic world, we shouldn't be expected to actually understand these things.

But the non-materialist atheist can say, wait a minute! I'm just as willing to accept mysteries as you are. I can't really explain morality, but neither can you. If you say God wills it, I'll just say it's fundamental to the universe. Neither of us knows what it would mean for God to will a moral law, or a moral law to be fundamental to the universe. But we're really in the same boat.

Clutch

September 4, 2003, 07:02 AM

Whatever theophilus might mean -- if anything -- by his exhortation to "account for" or "explain" things like logic or morality, these are difficult issues that serious intellects, theistic and otherwise, have long been at pains to clarify.

It's a remarkable display of ignorance to presuppose that theists can give a good answer to questions like, e.g., "What justifies a logical law?", while atheists cannot. Nobody has a good (or at least, not an obviously good) answer to this question. The most simplistic theist will offer useless non-explanations, to be sure, but of course an atheist could offer useless non-explanations too, were that the point of intellectual inquiry.

Bill

September 4, 2003, 07:22 AM

Its two days later, and theophilus, who started this very thread here, hasn't returned to clarify what it is he is challenging us all on. Can't we call that "evasion" too?

== Bill

Bill

September 4, 2003, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by Clutch
It's a remarkable display of ignorance to presuppose that theists can give a good answer to questions like, e.g., "What justifies a logical law?", while atheists cannot. Nobody has a good (or at least, not an obviously good) answer to this question. I agree.

The Infamous "Alvin the Terrible" (Alvin Plantinga) spent literally years working on his magnum opus, Warranted Christian Belief (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195131932/thesecularweb/), the central issue of which is "what makes a belief warranted?" Plantinga uses Beysian probability theory to claim to prove that Christian belief is warranted, but of course, the whole issue with Beysian theory is the assumptions you make up before you start. If he couldn't do any better with the issue of "warranted belief" than to invoke a controversial Beysian probability analysis, then anybody would necessarily have to concede that the justification of a logical law would be a very difficult thing to do.

== Bill

Bill

September 4, 2003, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by sodium
But the non-materialist atheist can say, wait a minute! I'm just as willing to accept mysteries as you are. I can't really explain morality, but neither can you. If you say God wills it, I'll just say it's fundamental to the universe. Neither of us knows what it would mean for God to will a moral law, or a moral law to be fundamental to the universe. But we're really in the same boat. I'm by no means ready to accept answers like "its a mystery" and call that an answer! However, I think you need to recognize that human knowledge has certain natural limits, and we thus cannot proclaim any sort of a "truth" to exist when the existence of that "truth" transcends human knowledge. (Yes, this is part of my anti-realism bias.)

In other words, I see this as a bit of an ad hominum here: "I'm just as willing to accept mysteries as you are." No, I'm nowhere near as willing as a theist "to accept mysteries." I am, however, quite willing to accept "I don't know" as an answer, and I'm also willing to accept "we humans will never know" as an answer, because I believe that there are areas of knowledge which humans can never penetrate. It is, of course, an act of extreme hubris to claim that "someday" humans will "know everything." That can't happen, and so it won't happen.

As for your assertion that nobody "knows what it would mean for ... a moral law to be fundamental to the universe.," I think that is something of an overstatement. At least, I certainly do think that I know "what it would mean for ... a moral law to be fundamental to the universe."

If we roll the timeline of our space/time continuum back as far as we can reasonably comprehend, we are mere moments after the nearly incomprehensible t = 0 time of the so-called "Big Bang." At that point in time, there is nothing but energy that occupies the space/time continuum. The space/time continuum expands, and the energy cools down. From the cooled-down energy, matter begins to emerge.

But wait, you ask, why does the energy cool down rather than something else happen? And while we are at it, why does matter form from cooled-down energy, rather than the energy just remaining energy and getting cooler and cooler over time?

The answer to that is that certain processes are just "fundamental to the universe." We call those processes "natural laws." Given that the amount of energy was finite, and that it was fairly evenly distributed throughout the universe, and that it was free to move as the universe expanded, then the natural laws of the universe demanded that the energy would cool down as a consequence of "the way that things just happen to work" (which is another way of saying that these ways are "fundamental to the universe"). Bertrand Russell referred to things of this sort as "brute facts." They had no explanation. They just were.

For reasons related to Jim Still's explanation of Wittgenstein in The Mental Discomfort of "Why?" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html), there are just some questions that humans seem to naturally crave answers for, but which, due to the nature of the universe, humans quite simply cannot ever have answers for. The "problem of life," as discussed in Jim's essay (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html) is just one of those questions that humans logically cannot ever have an answer for. This situation is quite simply fundamental to the universe.

As a militant agnostic, I'm quite happy to accept the existence of unanswerable questions. But some atheists aren't (seemingly because they somehow feel obligated to have an answer for every conceivable question in order to justify their atheism; or some other similar motivation). And certainly, theists aren't (although that is essentially what they are doing when they declare some unanswerable question to be "one of God's mysteries").

But does it really resolve anything for a theist to stomp his or her foot and proclaim that "I can answer any question whatsoever, and the answer is 'God did it!'" Of course not! Only the ignorant among the theists would even presume to believe that such a response would be persuasive to anybody who was not already predisposed to accept whatever answer was proffered, no matter how ludicrous, just for the sake of having an answer.

But that process does seem to explain why we have theists in the first place. Humans live with enough fear in their lives that it really helps get us through our lives if we can latch onto some sort of an emotional support system. God and churches are just exactly what ought to be predicted as a ready meme to resolve our fears. "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me." What better explanation is there for why religion is so pervasive at all times and in all places? It must be fundamental to the universe. :D

== Bill

sir drinks-a-lot

September 4, 2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
When challenging atheists ability to account for/explain the immaterial features of human experience, i.e., morality, logic, laws, etc., by purely naturalistic/materialistic standards, I frequently get the response that not all atheists are materialists.

Apparently, the assumption is that since there are some atheists who are not pure materialists, my argument does not have to be answered.

One can be an Atheist without needing to account for or explain moreality, logic or laws. The only requirement for being an Atheist is a lack of belief in god(s).

Since Theists cannot explain anything any better than Athiests, what reason is there for believing?

Clutch

September 4, 2003, 03:42 PM

The OP is also a further example of a powerful trend hereabouts -- and possibly everywhere in online debate. To wit: Hurled challenges and confident assertions about the nature of logic, from people not obviously able to recognize a theorem were they to eat one for lunch.

Which logic, I wonder, does theophilus want explained? Which does he think God explains?

Is God an intuitionist? A dialethicist? A quantum logician? Theo must have some conception of logic in mind, after all. Surely he wouldn't issue a challenge and accusations of evasion, without having half a clue himself. Would he?

wiploc

September 4, 2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Clutch
Is God an intuitionist? A dialethicist? A quantum logician? Theo must have some conception of logic in mind, after all. Surely he wouldn't issue a challenge and accusations of evasion, without having half a clue himself. Would he?

I may have to come in on Theophilus' side here. I didn't understand any of your categories, and yet I still think I can do logic. Regular logic, if that's a category. :)
crc

Koyaanisqatsi

September 4, 2003, 05:37 PM

And notice how we're alwyas the one's who have to explain how things work as some sort of counter-argument to them not being able to explain how their gods "work."

It's apples and oranges; the "oh yeah?" defense. At least most atheists attempt to provide some sort of logical, rational explanation when it is decided by the atheist to bite on this evasionary bait. All theists ever do is say, "goddidit," as if that has any explanatory relevance (logically or illogically).

The fact that both "sides" (if you will) don't know all of the answers, does not ipso facto mean that one approach is more or less equivalent to the other in trying to determine those answers.

Ascribing undue meaning to what amounts to gibberish is of absolutely no help whatsoever in attempting to discover what "the" answers might be, especially when that gibberish was concocted by what amounts to five thousand year old nomadic, desert slaves desperately in need of personal salvation from the torment inflicted upon them by their oppressors, who, as a result of organization, have simply imposed those beliefs onto their offspring.

Indoctrination and inculcation only serve to shut down the inquisitive mind and close off many avenues of discovery that otherwise would not (and should not, IMO) be closed off, either directly or indirectly, especially not through irrational means like religious "faith;" the acceptance of something to be true in spite of the available evidence to the contrary.

As I've typed many, many times on these boards, science is an open-ended system that dynamically seeks to interpret, verifiy and falsify more and more data as it comes, regardless of the source (though that is, of course, a factor in the verification and falsification process). Theism, however, is a closed system and most of the offshoots of such beliefs closed their particular belief systems down some two to five thousand years ago.

Ok, fine. That's your choice to make, but if you'll pardon the rest of us, there are more things in heaven or earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy and we'd like to bloody well try to figure out what those things are or could be. It's no more complicated than that, so if you'd all just kindly stop proselytizing and chaining yourselves to graven images and declaring stem cell research to be against your god's will and pay your goddamned taxes like the rest of us, we'd all be able to get along just fine.

The only good thing Jesus ever allegedly said, IMO, was to not do as the hypocrites do and pray in silence. Perferrably within the confines of your own philosophical musings and not in our schools and scientific institutions. That's all we've ever asked. That's what your churches are for. Just keep your beliefs to yourselves and try to stop brainwashing your children and let thought be free.

Most of you theists have had at least two to five thousand years to turn this place into a moral utopia and judging from the most recent looks out the window, it ain't happening and that's why science is a preferred method of philosophy, IMO. Any scientist worth his or her salt would have ended such a dismal failure of an experiment thousands of years ago.

Paid for by the Thrill Kill Cult of Koy and the Committee to Elect Gary Coleman

Keith Russell

September 4, 2003, 06:03 PM

Jobar, my understanding is that the word 'atheist' refers to someone who denies the existence of any and all 'Gods'.

If you believe in a 'universe who is God' (as you say in your post, above) then I would describe you as a panetheist (as I understand the term)--not an atheist.

Do you disagree?

Is my understanding of either of these two terms incorrect, and if so, why?

Anyone else?

K

bd-from-kg

September 4, 2003, 06:12 PM

Clutch:

Is God an intuitionist? A dialethicist? A quantum logician?

OK, I'll bite. What's a dialethicist?

Clutch

September 4, 2003, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by wiploc
I may have to come in on Theophilus' side here. I didn't understand any of your categories, and yet I still think I can do logic. Regular logic, if that's a category. :)
crc Well, the point is not whether one can reason well, if that's what you mean by "doing logic". I suspect that's what you mean. The point is that there's, like, this whole field called Logic, with experts and everything, in which ill-informed challenges to "account for" this or that are effectively meaningless. Think of an analogous challenge to atheists to explain, say, solidity -- with no concession to or awareness of there being this community of physicists to whom the notion is vague, mostly outmoded, the leftovers resolved into a range of distinct and very specialized phenomena.

There are distinct logics that have been developed for different purposes, each defined by its axioms or inferences rules. So-called classical logic contains Excluded Middle and Non-Contradiction; intuitionistic logic is a substructural logic that does not have Excluded Middle as an axiom; quantum logic is a classical variant that does not include the distributivity of conjunction over disjunction -- that is, from (P and (Q or R)) you cannot conclude that ((P and Q) or (P and R)) -- and a dialethic logic is one in which Non-Contradiction is given up, or greatly qualified. That is, dialethicists hold that there are true contradictions. (If they're wrong, they're not crazy; there are interesting reasons for adopting this view.) A weaker form of dialethicism is paraconsistency, a sort of relevance logic which need not endorse the existence of true contradictions, but which disallows the classical inference called ex falso quodlibet: everything follows from a contradiction. (Sometimes "dialethic logic" and "paraconsistent logic" are used interchangeably, but the terms have mostly settled into the usage I've described.)

The typical simplistic apologetics appeal to logic presupposes that there is One True Logic; indeed, that this is a datum requiring explanation, and that only God's absolute mojo can explain it. But there is no such datum. Pluralism about logic is very widespread, and where there is monism about logic, there is widespread disagreement about what the One True Logic is.

Hence my point: To whinge that atheists must account for logic, as if there was some one thing to be accounted for, is simply to parade one's ignorance.

Jobar

September 4, 2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Keith Russell
Jobar, my understanding is that the word 'atheist' refers to someone who denies the existence of any and all 'Gods'.

If you believe in a 'universe who is God' (as you say in your post, above) then I would describe you as a panetheist (as I understand the term)--not an atheist.

K

Keith, look for my first post on this page (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61074&perpage=25&pagenumber=2) and follow the links I provide there. I've addressed this subject a lot. If you want me to address it further though, feel free to start a new thread on the subject.

Theophilus- as others have noted, you appear to be making a far worse evasion than any you accuse us of. Will you not at least say that you have read our answers to you, and are thinking about them? You really owe us an apology, I think- though I don't expect to get it...

Jack the Bodiless

September 5, 2003, 04:42 AM

When challenging atheists ability to account for/explain the immaterial features of human experience, i.e., morality, logic, laws, etc., by purely naturalistic/materialistic standards, I frequently get the response that not all atheists are materialists.

Apparently, the assumption is that since there are some atheists who are not pure materialists, my argument does not have to be answered.
That's a rather odd assumption, considering that atheists ("materialist" or otherwise) HAVE repeatedly answered this challenge, without evasion.

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Howard
I think the answer is much simpler than the topic suggests. Everything you think, feel, experience, deduce, contemplate or imagine has a correspondent neural pattern in your brain. And while these patterns may not be discernible by our current technology, they are just as material as the nose on your face.

I love it when naturalist/materialists make these kinds of statement. "We don't believe in God because there's no evidence." However, it's okay to believe in things that "may not be discernible to our current technology," because we know they're true anyway.

Ultimately, everything has a material explanation.

Including this statement, huh?

Well, that's simply begging the question, isn't it. What property of matter taught you this?
"Everything has a material explanation;" what known property of matter can account for immaterial concepts, i.e., do atoms (or quarks) think; do they use logic; is matter good or evil?
Just asserting that "ultimately" everything has a material explanation is no answer at all. It certainly isn't as good as the "God hypothesis" and isn't as honest as saying "we don't know and will never know."

The problem, of course, is that purely subjective neural patterns, such as a dream or a conversation with an imaginary deity, register in the same way as those caused by objective reality.

The problem is, from a materialist standpoint, you have no basis for knowing which is real or which is true.

Some people can discern the difference between self-created neural patterns and real ones. Some people can�t.

Correction, since there is no objective standard, i.e., no one can stand outside themselves, some people "believe" they can discern the difference.

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by sir drinks-a-lot
One can be an Atheist without needing to account for or explain moreality, logic or laws. The only requirement for being an Atheist is a lack of belief in god(s).

Yes one can, but he cannot say anything about these matters; he cannot assert logic as a compelling standard; he cannot assert his morality or any morality as being normative.

Since Theists cannot explain anything any better than Athiests, what reason is there for believing?

This is simply nonsense. However unsatisfying it may be to you, having the revelation of God in nature and scripture gives us a firm foundation for knowledge.

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Bill
And I've attempted to explain my position to you, all the while asking you to define what you mean by "materialism" (or "pure materialism" if you prefer). The rejection of "materialism" does not in any way imply "spirituality." If you believe that it does, then you are seriously ignorant of fundamental concepts in philosophy (which happens to be what I have suspected all along, and also gets down to the nub of why I've been asking you to define what you mean here).

Of course, I'm not an atheist, unless you are a Christian, or unless you adopt the common view among atheists that mere "lack of belief" constitutes atheism. In most other situations, I'm really an agnostic. I look for proof, one way or another, or else I'm quite comfortable to reply "I don't know." (If you are a Christian, I consider that the facts disproving the truth of the Christian religion are several times what would be necessary to be "good and sufficient" for sustaining unbelief in the Christian triune God, but that's another matter entirely.)

My view does not rely upon pure materialism because I believe that the whole idea of "emergent qualities" is not well explained by classical materialistic ideas. Perhaps there might be some new version of materialism that would meet my objections to classical materialism, but I have yet to personally hear of such a thing.

Let me begin my defense by introducing you to The Meta-Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.ditext.com/encyc/frame.html). That resource, in turn, links to several different discussions of materialism, but at this juncture, the only one I propose to discuss is the Philosophical Dictionary definition of materialism (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m2.htm#mat), which is: My view of materialism is that it is an outdated oversimplification that cannot be justified in the modern world. It dates from an era when the Law of Conservation of Matter reigned supreme (implying that matter was the most basic "stuff" of our universe), something we now know to be incorrect. WIth the understandings of Einstein and the Quantum realities, not to mention more recent unproven hypotheses like string theory, it seems to be far too simple an assertion to claim that everything is matter.

We would frankly be better off claiming that everything is energy. At least there we have some theoretical basis for making that claim due to the fact that in the earliest moments after the Big Bang there wasn't anything in existence that wasn't energy, and all matter that we have today is derived from some portion of that initial energy component.

But the never-ending arguments over classical materialism have generally to do with abstract ideas that, nevertheless, represent foundational concepts for our universe. Just how do you describe Einstein's formulation of the Law of Gravity (as a property of space/time) in materialistic terms? Just how can a law of nature be a material thing, anyway? That such laws have an existence independent of humans is not challenged by most rational people. So, we can't say that these laws are merely figmants of our imagination. So, just what are they?

So, at base I'm not prepared to commit to an ontology that relies upon strictly material things being the only things that truely exist, as classical materialism is defined, above.

Nevertheless, I am a metaphysical naturalist, which means that I advocate the philosophy of naturalism (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/n.htm#natm): That is the concept that the Internet Infidels have agreed to defend, and the fact that I too agree that naturalism is a very defensible position is one of the primary reasons that I remain an Internet Infidel in spite of deep philosophical differences on any number of other matters.

Please particularly note the use of the word values (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/v.htm#value) in the above. That word, in particular, encompases morality. I believe that no reference to supernatural entities or authorities is necessary to "account for/explain the immaterial features of human experience, i.e., morality, logic, laws, etc."

I will be glad to explain further, but this is already a quite lengthy post, and I would prefer to first check to ensure that you fully and completely understand what I've posted herein.

== Bill

I apologize for lack of clarity. I am referring to materialism (lower-case "m") in a generic way. I have tried to use naturalist/materialist but have not been consistent.

The point is, if there is no immaterial dimension, i.e., spirituality, then everything must have a material explanation. A material explanation cannot include more than what is "known" about the properties of nature.

Atheists use terms and concepts which cannot possible be justified as arisng from properties of matter; in this, they are borrowing from somebody else's worldview.

A materialist/naturalist worldview can provide no authoritative statement about any aspect of human experience because the very explanations themselves would have to be explained materially; you'd be lost in an infinite circle of explanation.

Merely asserting an unknown mechanism as an explanation would be ridiculed if it were offered by a theist. Yet, atheists regularly make such assertions: "morality is just a human construct; logic is just conventional." None of this is known.

In demanding an explanation for morality, logic, etc. I am not specifying particular moral standards; I am asking for an ontological explanation.
Saying that somewhere in the distant evolutionary past, men developed this idea through an unknown mechanism always assumes the existence of some value. That begs the question of values.
Saying that they have "survival" value assumes that there was a value already in place. What is the naturalistic explanation for the existence of values.
Also, such evolutionary explanations cannot justify the enforcement of any value system. Morality is not merely a set of agreed to standards. Morality is based on the immaterial idea that there should be standards, that we are under obligation to behave in certain ways - what we "ought" to do.

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Bill
One of the hottest debates in philosophy over the past several decades has been the debate between two entirely naturalistic theories, once called "realism" and the other called "anti-realism." For an outline of what is involved in this debate, you might wish to blow your mind out on THIS PAGE (http://www.dur.ac.uk/philosophy.department/modules/scikandr/ROHP.HTM).

Personally, I lean towards the anti-realist view, which is by and large the realist view plus a recognition of the limits of human perception. (Anti-Realism in this sense is not really concerned with the debate about universals which generally pits realism against nominalism.)

But one of the reasons I mentioned string theory in my post, above, is due to THIS ABSTRACT (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001240/), which reads: In other words, the debate between realists and anti-realists might be ultimately resolved by forcing a change to an entirely new paradigm. We shall see what happens, but I, for one, won't be proclaiming too strong of a commitment to anti-realism. :D

== Bill

Well, this debate is relevant only to those who already have a naturalistic presupposition. Neither answer provides an explanation of human experience as it is lived.
How do the properties of string theory account for the existence of morality as a concept. How does string theory account for the existence of concepts at all?

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Clutch
The OP is also a further example of a powerful trend hereabouts -- and possibly everywhere in online debate. To wit: Hurled challenges and confident assertions about the nature of logic, from people not obviously able to recognize a theorem were they to eat one for lunch.

Which logic, I wonder, does theophilus want explained? Which does he think God explains?

Is God an intuitionist? A dialethicist? A quantum logician? Theo must have some conception of logic in mind, after all. Surely he wouldn't issue a challenge and accusations of evasion, without having half a clue himself. Would he?

I am not asking for an explanation of "a" logic. I am asking for an explanation, from a naturalist foundation, of the existence of the concept of logic. What property of matter gave rise to the concept of logic?

I think there is also some rule here about making ad homenim statements. Perhaps that only applies to theists.

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Jobar
Well, all right. Theophilus, I am an idealist. I view the world as more idea-like (or better, information-like) than matter-like. I am also a monist; I think that despite the fact that the universe appears to be made up of vast numbers of different things, at root all things are but parts of a singular whole, as a diamond can have many facets.

Really, I have said this in several other places, though I don't recall specifically addressing it to you.

However, I am still an atheist, as far as you are concerned, because I do not believe in any being apart from the universe who is God.

I can't answer all questions put to me concerning the nature of reality; I believe in idealistic monism as a strong opinion and not a faith. I may change my belief if the facts warrant.

You ask us to account for/explain the immaterial features of human experience, i.e., morality, logic, laws, etc. Theophilus, there is a difference between abstract and immaterial. I do not consider those things immaterial. They are informational models of concrete human reality; guidelines developed by human evolution and human thought. I see no need to invoke 'spirituality' to explain any of these.

Thanks for your response.
However, how do you apprehend the "ideas" behind our experience?

In saying that abstract entities are "informational models of concrete human reality," implies that there was some way of assessing the nature of "concrete human reality." I thought this was the whole point of philosophy; to develop a consistent, coherent system of understanding and explaining the nature of reality, knowledge, morality.
This seems to me to be the problem with all naturalist explanations; they assume/require some inexplicabel knowledge before a system can be developed.

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by bd-from-kg
theophilus:

Please clarify. What to you mean by �account for� and �explain�? And what do you mean by �morality� and �logic�? As for laws, what exactly needs to be �accounted for�? We have laws because they�re passed by a legislature, etc.
For example, a request to �account for morality� could mean:

(1) Explain why people sometimes act against their own self-interest (to help others, to adhere to a principle, or whatever).
(2) Explain why people have ideas like �right� and �wrong�, and perhaps why they consider certain things (such as helping the poor) to be especially �right� and others (like raping little girls) to be especially �wrong�.
(3) Explain how the notion that some things are �intrinsically right� and other �intrinsically wrong� could be true in the absence of God.

Similarly, a request to �account for� logic might mean:

(1) Explain why people�s thought processes often follow certain patterns (using rules of inference like modus ponens to arrive at a conclusion, for example).
(2) Explain why the specific rules widely considered to be valid laws or axioms of logic are so considered.
(3) Explain why the rules widely considered to be valid laws of logic really are valid, or how we could know that they are. (Ditto for modus ponens.)

I've tried to clarify this in other answers
I am asking for a naturalist explanation for the existence of the concepts of logic, morality and natural laws as authoritative, determinitive entities.
Logic, whatever system is in view, is not merely asserted as a "way" to think; it is asserted as the standard by which we are obligated to think, i.e., there is a moral component to the concept of logic.
Moral systems all assume that there is some obligation to behave in certain ways; certain types of behavior are wrong. How did such an idea arise naturalistically?
Natural laws are based on the idea that nature behaves in predictable, regular ways. Where did that idea come from? If thougt ultimately reduces to the material functioning of chemical/biological brain activity, which particular brain event gave rise to the idea of such regularity and why do all men share it?

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Clutch
Whatever theophilus might mean -- if anything -- by his exhortation to "account for" or "explain" things like logic or morality, these are difficult issues that serious intellects, theistic and otherwise, have long been at pains to clarify.

It's a remarkable display of ignorance to presuppose that theists can give a good answer to questions like, e.g., "What justifies a logical law?", while atheists cannot. Nobody has a good (or at least, not an obviously good) answer to this question. The most simplistic theist will offer useless non-explanations, to be sure, but of course an atheist could offer useless non-explanations too, were that the point of intellectual inquiry.

It's only ignorance if I cannot give a consistent, coherent answer. What justifies morality, logic, etc., is that they are features of the created order as a reflection of the Creator's nature.
Now, that may not be satisfying to your desire for intellectual and moral autonomy, but it is certainly consistent and coherent.

Your "intellectual inquiry" is based on the unjustified assumption that your intellect (whatever that may be) is sufficient to arrive at true knowledge.

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Bill
Its two days later, and theophilus, who started this very thread here, hasn't returned to clarify what it is he is challenging us all on. Can't we call that "evasion" too?

== Bill

Shame on you. Whatever these other people may thing, you and I have been around this issue several times. For you to suggest that I have not been clear is inexcusable.

Clutch

September 8, 2003, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
I am not asking for an explanation of "a" logic. I am asking for an explanation, from a naturalist foundation, of the existence of the concept of logic. What property of matter gave rise to the concept of logic?

I think there is also some rule here about making ad homenim statements. Perhaps that only applies to theists. I can't see where I argued ad hominem. Diagnosing argumentum ad ignorantiam involves the ascription of ignorantiam, after all.

The fact is, demanding an explanation for the "existence of the concept of logic" is no more well-founded than just demanding an explanation for "logic". There's simply no reason, given what you've said, to think that there's any special problem for an atheist here; in order to make good on there being such a problem, you need to explain just what you mean by "logic", and why exactly you think the very concept of it presents a problem for atheism, materialism, or whatever. My point was that there is no one concept of logic, and that anyone who knew much about logic would know this. Maybe your challenge about logic, whatever it is, does not require much background knowledge of the field of logic itself. But the proof of the pudding, &c.; only when you make sense of the hitherto-opaque challenge would that be believable.

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Bill
The answer to that is that certain processes are just "fundamental to the universe." We call those processes "natural laws." Given that the amount of energy was finite, and that it was fairly evenly distributed throughout the universe, and that it was free to move as the universe expanded, then the natural laws of the universe demanded that the energy would cool down as a consequence of "the way that things just happen to work" (which is another way of saying that these ways are "fundamental to the universe"). Bertrand Russell referred to things of this sort as "brute facts." They had no explanation. They just were.

But this is just evasion. The only honest answer would be "we don't know and have no way of knowing."
This is just like saying "God did it," which is routinely asserted here as the extent of the Christian answer.

sir drinks-a-lot

September 8, 2003, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by theophilus Yes one can, but he cannot say anything about these matters; he cannot assert logic as a compelling standard; he cannot assert his morality or any morality as being normative.

The Atheist and Theist usually agree on the use of logic as a "compelling standard" - I don't know how to justify logic, I only know from experience that it is useful for understanding the world. Theists do not add anything to the picture by saying that God is somehow a justification for logic. If you really want to assert that God is a justification for logic, the Athiest can make similarly arbitrary assertions.

Originally posted by theophilus
However unsatisfying it may be to you, having the revelation of God in nature and scripture gives us a firm foundation for knowledge.

According to your worldview, or course. But then again, according to your worldview, God Exists. Starting with that premise, it is not too surprising that you are able to conclude His existence! What demonstratable knowledge have Theists attained that Athiests would not have been able to attain?

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
And notice how we're alwyas the one's who have to explain how things work as some sort of counter-argument to them not being able to explain how their gods "work."

It's apples and oranges; the "oh yeah?" defense. At least most atheists attempt to provide some sort of logical, rational explanation when it is decided by the atheist to bite on this evasionary bait. All theists ever do is say, "goddidit," as if that has any explanatory relevance (logically or illogically).

But this is a hopelessly circular answer. Your attempt to provide a "logical, rational, explanation," assumes that logic and rationality are the standard by which truth is known. I'm asking you how you know that in the first place; you cannot use logic and rationality to justify themselves. What known properties would have given rise to such notions?

The fact that both "sides" (if you will) don't know all of the answers, does not ipso facto mean that one approach is more or less equivalent to the other in trying to determine those answers.

This discussion has nothing to do with which side has "all the answers;" it has to do with the possibility of there being any answers at all. Your objection is pointless.

Ascribing undue meaning to what amounts to gibberish is of absolutely no help whatsoever in attempting to discover what "the" answers might be, especially when that gibberish was concocted by what amounts to five thousand year old nomadic, desert slaves desperately in need of personal salvation from the torment inflicted upon them by their oppressors, who, as a result of organization, have simply imposed those beliefs onto their offspring.

You're still begging the question of how you know gibberish from truth.

Indoctrination and inculcation only serve to shut down the inquisitive mind and close off many avenues of discovery that otherwise would not (and should not, IMO) be closed off, either directly or indirectly, especially not through irrational means like religious "faith;" the acceptance of something to be true in spite of the available evidence to the contrary.

What a teriffic description of what goes on in our state supported universities on a daily basis.
I assume, then, that you would not object to the teaching of creationism (at least intelligent design) in our public schools.

As I've typed many, many times on these boards, science is an open-ended system that dynamically seeks to interpret, verifiy and falsify more and more data as it comes, regardless of the source (though that is, of course, a factor in the verification and falsification process).

You also assume (a faith position) that science is adequate to this task. How do you know that? How do you know that science has the correct starting point, i.e., naturalistic/materialism?

Theism, however, is a closed system and most of the offshoots of such beliefs closed their particular belief systems down some two to five thousand years ago.

Well, I can't speak for all theists, but you'll have to acknowledge that if God is the creator and the Bible is his authoritaitve revelation, that it is the sole and adequate foundation for knowledge.
Again, that may not be satisying to you, but then you must explain the foundation for your knowledge by which you judge it to be false.

Ok, fine. That's your choice to make, but if you'll pardon the rest of us, there are more things in heaven or earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy and we'd like to bloody well try to figure out what those things are or could be.

Nice poetry, but how could you possible know that? To assert that something exists is to assert knowledge of that thing.

It's no more complicated than that, so if you'd all just kindly stop proselytizing and chaining yourselves to graven images and declaring stem cell research to be against your god's will and pay your goddamned taxes like the rest of us, we'd all be able to get along just fine.

So what? Is there some entrinsic value to us all "get(ting) along?" Why not kill each other?

[/B]

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Clutch
The typical simplistic apologetics appeal to logic presupposes that there is One True Logic; indeed, that this is a datum requiring explanation, and that only God's absolute mojo can explain it. But there is no such datum. Pluralism about logic is very widespread, and where there is monism about logic, there is widespread disagreement about what the One True Logic is.

I love it when you guys make these broad statements about "typical apologetics appeal."

Unfortunately, I'm not making an appeal to logic, nor am I assuming there is "one true logic," (although I believe there is). I'm asking for an explanation for the existence of the concept of logic and a reliable, normative standard for thought. Don't quibble about "which" logic I may mean.

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Jobar
Theophilus- as others have noted, you appear to be making a far worse evasion than any you accuse us of. Will you not at least say that you have read our answers to you, and are thinking about them? You really owe us an apology, I think- though I don't expect to get it...

I "owe" you an apology? Is that a moral obligation? If so, how do you justify that?
From whence came your morality and why should I be bound by it?
You see, you guys assume these concepts which you can't justify and yet you're not willing to live in a world without them.

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by sir drinks-a-lot
The Atheist and Theist usually agree on the use of logic as a "compelling standard" - I don't know how to justify logic, I only know from experience that it is useful for understanding the world.

But how do you "know" that your experience of the world is true. You assume this from the outset.

Theists do not add anything to the picture by saying that God is somehow a justification for logic. If you really want to assert that God is a justification for logic, the Athiest can make similarly arbitrary assertions.

It is not arbitrary and we didn't just make it up. If God is the creator, then all creation would be a reflection of his nature. If the Bible is God's word, it establishes logic as a reliable means of understanding (God speaks in propositions).

According to your worldview, or course. But then again, according to your worldview, God Exists. Starting with that premise, it is not too surprising that you are able to conclude His existence! What demonstratable knowledge have Theists attained that Athiests would not have been able to attain?

Atheists have attained no knowledge because they have no objective basis for any knowledge. All atheist knowledge is conjecture and speculation.
I don't say that atheists have no knowledge, but that, as atheists, they have no foundation for confidence in their knowledge.

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Clutch
I can't see where I argued ad hominem. Diagnosing argumentum ad ignorantiam involves the ascription of ignorantiam, after all.

The fact is, demanding an explanation for the "existence of the concept of logic" is no more well-founded than just demanding an explanation for "logic". There's simply no reason, given what you've said, to think that there's any special problem for an atheist here; in order to make good on there being such a problem, you need to explain just what you mean by "logic", and why exactly you think the very concept of it presents a problem for atheism, materialism, or whatever. My point was that there is no one concept of logic, and that anyone who knew much about logic would know this. Maybe your challenge about logic, whatever it is, does not require much background knowledge of the field of logic itself. But the proof of the pudding, &c.; only when you make sense of the hitherto-opaque challenge would that be believable.

It is only your mind that is opaque - argumentum ad ignoratiam.

Clutch

September 8, 2003, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
It is only your mind that is opaque - argumentum ad ignoratiam. Well, posting this in reply to my carefully argued post, on a thread that you have called "Evasion is not an answer", is enough to shatter the old irony meter.

But the invitation remains open. If you can give any reason to think that there is a problem for atheism to be wrung out of the field of logic, I'll certainly take it seriously. Until you do, however, there simply is nothing to take seriously in what you've said.

Wyz_sub10

September 8, 2003, 04:43 PM

Clutch: Hurled challenges and confident assertions about the nature of logic, from people not obviously able to recognize a theorem were they to eat one for lunch.

theophilus: I think there is also some rule here about making ad homenim statements. Perhaps that only applies to theists.

Clutch: I can't see where I argued ad hominem. Diagnosing argumentum ad ignorantiam involves the ascription of ignorantiam, after all.

theophilus: It is only your mind that is opaque - argumentum ad ignoratiam.

The original comment wasn't an "ad hom", per se. But it could be perceived as an insult.

But just so we're all clear, no direct insults allowed - attack the idea, not the person.

And for the more clever among us, no sly, indirect, backhanded insults either. Please confine critiques to the argument.

This is not directed at Clutch or theophilus, specifically. But as the issue came up, we might as well take the opportunity to remind everyone.

There are no separate rules for theists, atheists, agnostics or Movementarians.

Everyone is expected to play nice. If you feel you've been wronged (or someone else has been wronged), please report the post to a mod or PM a mod. We try to keep on top of posts, but it's not always possible to be the 1st, 3rd or 10th person to see an inappropriate remark.

sir drinks-a-lot

September 8, 2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
The only honest answer would be "we don't know and have no way of knowing."
This is just like saying "God did it," which is routinely asserted here as the extent of the Christian answer.

They are not the same at all. The first is a honest admission of ignorance, the second is an arbitrary assertion about the nature of reality.

sir drinks-a-lot

September 8, 2003, 04:56 PM

OK, Theo. Question for you:

How do you justify logic?

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
Everyone is expected to play nice. If you feel you've been wronged (or someone else has been wronged), please report the post to a mod or PM a mod. We try to keep on top of posts, but it's not always possible to be the 1st, 3rd or 10th person to see an inappropriate remark.

It's comforting to know that you're out there looking after us all.

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by sir drinks-a-lot
OK, Theo. Question for you:

How do you justify logic?

Well, I think I've answered that.

Logic (morality and natural "laws") are features of the created order. It is a reflection of the nature of the creator and his eternam purpose in creation.

That purpose depends on us being able to "know" him. Hence, true knowledge of reality is not only possible, it is inescapable.

BTW, when you're thinking about the different "types" of logic, which type of logic are you using?

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by sir drinks-a-lot
They are not the same at all. The first is a honest admission of ignorance, the second is an arbitrary assertion about the nature of reality.

No, they are both the inescapable conclusion of the worldview which underlie them.

Naturalism - knowledge is impossible.

Christian theism - knowledge is inescapable.

Bill

September 8, 2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
I apologize for lack of clarity. I am referring to materialism (lower-case "m") in a generic way. I have tried to use naturalist/materialist but have not been consistent.

The point is, if there is no immaterial dimension, i.e., spirituality, then everything must have a material explanation. A material explanation cannot include more than what is "known" about the properties of nature.

Atheists use terms and concepts which cannot possible be justified as arisng from properties of matter; in this, they are borrowing from somebody else's worldview.

A materialist/naturalist worldview can provide no authoritative statement about any aspect of human experience because the very explanations themselves would have to be explained materially; you'd be lost in an infinite circle of explanation.

Merely asserting an unknown mechanism as an explanation would be ridiculed if it were offered by a theist. Yet, atheists regularly make such assertions: "morality is just a human construct; logic is just conventional." None of this is known.

In demanding an explanation for morality, logic, etc. I am not specifying particular moral standards; I am asking for an ontological explanation.
Saying that somewhere in the distant evolutionary past, men developed this idea through an unknown mechanism always assumes the existence of some value. That begs the question of values.
Saying that they have "survival" value assumes that there was a value already in place. What is the naturalistic explanation for the existence of values.
Also, such evolutionary explanations cannot justify the enforcement of any value system. Morality is not merely a set of agreed to standards. Morality is based on the immaterial idea that there should be standards, that we are under obligation to behave in certain ways - what we "ought" to do. theophilus:

Every single defect you find for "naturalist/materialist" worldviews are equally defects for "theist" worldviews. The only distinction is that theists claim, without justification, that the theist God is somehow an adequate explanation while "naturalist/materialist" explanations are not. Plainly and simply, that is pure propaganda on the part of the various theist worldviews.

As Jim Still makes clear in his essay The Mental Discomfort of "Why?" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html) any explanation is, by the very nature of being an explanation, unable to satisfy the requirement of being "an ontological explanation." As that essay clearly demonstrates, ontological explanations are formally impossible to obtain. This is true because of the nature of the limiting question, "why?"

Basically, theophilus, you have asked the formally unanswerable question. Theist explanations are satisfactory only by adopting the theist agreement to accept them as being satisfactory. In any sort of a formal logical sense, God cannot be an explanation any more (or less) than materialism can be.

As Laplace is reported to have stated to Napoleon, with respect to the need for God as an "explanation" (in his case, for celestial mechanics), "Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis." William of Ockham likewise would discard God as violating his rule: "plurality should not be posited without necessity." God is an unnecessary entity. There is no need for God because God is no more of "an ontological explanation" than is anything else, including naturalism or materialism.

== Bill

Wyz_sub10

September 8, 2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
It's comforting to know that you're out there looking after us all.

Whether it's comforting or not, it's what we strive to do. I cannot speak for the other moderators of this forum, but I have never tolerated insults, irrespective of the source.

That is not to say any member here will be treated with kid gloves. Both theist and atheist should expect to to have their ideas applauded or ridiculed. If one's comments are genius, people will say so. If they are foolish, people will say so.

But no individual should be directly insulted or harrassed.

If you have any concerns, you are always welcome to PM me to discuss or you can start a thread in 'complaints'.

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Clutch
Well, posting this in reply to my carefully argued post, on a thread that you have called "Evasion is not an answer", is enough to shatter the old irony meter.

But the invitation remains open. If you can give any reason to think that there is a problem for atheism to be wrung out of the field of logic, I'll certainly take it seriously. Until you do, however, there simply is nothing to take seriously in what you've said.

Your answers continue to demonstrate that you either don't understand the challenge or you think that evasion and obfuscation are meaningful arguments.

It doesn't matter which "type" of logic you have in "mind" (an interesting concept); it is the existence of logic "as a concept" for which I'm asking a naturalistic explanation.

So, you seem to be slipping (get it? Clutch, slipping. A little automotive humor).

Spenser

September 8, 2003, 05:18 PM

I'm curious Theo. Even if everyone here cannot justify everything you want justified to your satisfaction, aren't you simply left with God of Gaps? Is that really a strong argument for the existence of your God?

PS Speaking of evasion I don't believe you ever answered me here. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61029&perpage=25&pagenumber=5)

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Bill
theophilus:

Every single defect you find for "naturalist/materialist" worldviews are equally defects for "theist" worldviews. The only distinction is that theists claim, without justification, that the theist God is somehow an adequate explanation while "naturalist/materialist" explanations are not. Plainly and simply, that is pure propaganda on the part of the various theist worldviews.

Bill. I'm surprised and disappointed that at this late date you should still fail to grasp the nature of my argument. Your statement is based on a naturalist assumption - "theists calim without justification, etc." This assumes naturalism as the standard of justification, i.e., begs the question. The theist claim is only "without justification" if it is false, and how you would know it is false is the issue under dispute, i.e., you haven't independently validated your standard of proof.

As Jim Still makes clear in his essay The Mental Discomfort of "Why?" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html) any explanation is, by the very nature of being an explanation, unable to satisfy the requirement of being "an ontological explanation." As that essay clearly demonstrates, ontological explanations are formally impossible to obtain. This is true because of the nature of the limiting question, "why?"

This is only true if Christianity is false. BTW, is Jim Still an authority on this? How did he obtain that position? How do you know he's correct?

Basically, theophilus, you have asked the formally unanswerable question. Theist explanations are satisfactory only by adopting the theist agreement to accept them as being satisfactory.

It is only formally unanswerable from a naturalisitc position and since you haven't validated that position re logic, etc., you have no basis to say what is or isn't answerable.

In any sort of a formal logical sense, God cannot be an explanation any more (or less) than materialism can be.

Well, this is just silly. Follow this.

1. God created the universe for his own purpose.
2. That purpose requires that his creatures have knowledge of Him, themselves and the nature of reality.
3. Therefore knowledge is not only possible but unavoidable in God's created order.

Bill

September 8, 2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
Well, this debate is relevant only to those who already have a naturalistic presupposition. Neither answer provides an explanation of human experience as it is lived.
How do the properties of string theory account for the existence of morality as a concept. How does string theory account for the existence of concepts at all? Again with reference to Jim Still's essay (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html), as Bertrand Russell asserted to Father Copleston in their famous BBC radio debate, there are simply some things which are brute facts, and asking "why?" for brute facts is to violate the foundations of language, as Wittgenstein showed (as per Jim Still's essay (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html)).

For instance, why does gravity attract me to the Earth rather than repel me from it? I answer that the laws of nature just work that way. You pursue with a further limiting question of well, why do the laws of nature "just work that way?" The atheist asserts that it is simply a brute fact: there is not and there cannot be any sort of an "explanation" of "why?" in that context. To have an answer to "why?" in that context would require us to step outside of the system within which we find ourselves, and we quite simply cannot do that. It is formally impossible.

The theist merely adds the unnecessary extra entity of "God" as the purported "explanation" of "why?" things are one way and not another. But that merely displaces the problem to equally unanswerable questions about God. So, why did God make the laws of nature that way as opposed to some other way? The theist answers, "well, that's what God wanted to do." But that isn't an answer to "why?" That is, instead, another assertion of "what."

Formally, a "what" cannot ever answer a "why?" They are ontologically different categories. And the very nature of the limiting question of "why?" makes this true. Each answer to the "why?" question with a "what" answer merely begs for another question of "why?"

So, theophilus, why did God want things to be this way rather than that way? At some point, you will give up on making up answers to this unanswerable series of questions and you will assert something like "you can't possibly be held to knowing the mind of God," but that is just as much of an evasion as you accuse atheists of perpetrating.

Again, theophilus, God is an unnecessary entity. God is only an answer by the theist convention of never questioning anything about God. That convention is not a logical limit. The limit is inherent in the nature of limiting questions. You are thus guilty of exactly what you accuse atheists of being guilty of. You have merely added this extra unnecessary entity you call God into the argument.

== Bill

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Spenser
I'm curious Theo. Even if everyone here cannot justify everything you want justified to your satisfaction, aren't you simply left with God of Gaps? Is that really a strong argument for the existence of your God?

That's not my theology. God sustains and orders all the particular events of his creation down to the smallest detail.

PS Speaking of evasion I don't believe you ever answered me here. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61029&perpage=25&pagenumber=5) [/B]

Well, there are so many of you and only one of me that I often get lost.
The POE is a meaningless discussion unless you can establish a naturalistic justification for identifying things as good or bad and an independent, authoritative standard of such by which not only men, but God should be judged.

Bill

September 8, 2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
I am not asking for an explanation of "a" logic. I am asking for an explanation, from a naturalist foundation, of the existence of the concept of logic. What property of matter gave rise to the concept of logic? Logic is an emergent property of human minds. (Frankly, there is good reason to believe that even non-human minds can employ at least rudimentary forms of logic.) Why is it an emergent property of human minds? Well, again, that goes back to The Mental Discomfort of �Why?� (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html) and your answer is no better than any other because no answer can adequately respond to that sort of a limiting question. I think there is also some rule here about making ad homenim statements. Perhaps that only applies to theists. No, the ad hominum rule applies equally to atheists and theists. However, the attack was upon your argument and your failure to remain and defend it after posting it. That doesn't qualify as an ad hominum because it was directed at the argument rather than at you, personally.

By the way, if you knew that you would be absent for this long, you should not have posted such a challenge as a sort of "parting shot." Doing so left you open for exactly that sort of criticism.

== Bill

Bill

September 8, 2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
This seems to me to be the problem with all naturalist explanations; they assume/require some inexplicabel knowledge before a system can be developed. As opposed to theist explanations which assume/require some inexplicable god(s) before a system can be developed? :D

Again, theophilus, we are all on an equal footing here with respect to our ability to offer up satisfactory ontological explanations. No ontological explanation can ever be satisfactory in any sense due to the matters discussed in Jim Still's essay (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html).

== Bill

Koyaanisqatsi

September 8, 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by theophilus : It doesn't matter which "type" of logic you have in "mind" (an interesting concept); it is the existence of logic "as a concept" for which I'm asking a naturalistic explanation.

In other words, where does thought come from? Is that what you're trying to ask?

"Logic" is nothing more than a tool of cognition; a set of rules derived from human experience, interaction and reflection. Technically, of course, there is no "it" to "exist" in any substantive form anymore than mathematics and Clutch is, of course, correct; there are many different forms of logic, each with different rules to follow.

So, the "naturalistic explanation" for the abstract existence of a cognitive tool called, in general, "Logic" is that it was created by our brains in response to our experiences and observations living in the paradigm we live in over however many centuries we've been able to self-reflect and be self-aware.

If you want a more technical explanation of where human thought came from, I suggest you read up on emergent qualities of intelligence as the result of operantly conditioned "yes, no" feedback loops that grow in complexity over a child's formative years; i.e., "how the human brain functions" and simply apply that model to humanity as a species for your answer.

Ask a child the "logic" of sticking their finger in a toaster and you'll get a blank look. Ask a teenager the "logic" of sticking their finger in a toaster and you'll get an answer (assuming the teenager has been paying attention in school and knows what the word "logic" means and/or entails). Ask a logician the "logic" of sticking their finger in a toaster and you'll probably, once again, get a blank look, since to a logician, logic is a set of formal rules that allow one to derive a sound conclusion from the valid premises provided.

Specific enough for you yet?

sir drinks-a-lot

September 8, 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
No, they are both the inescapable conclusion of the worldview which underlie them.

Naturalism - knowledge is impossible.

Christian theism - knowledge is inescapable.

When you say "inescapable conclusion", what do you mean? Are you speaking of a logical conclusion? If so, how do you justify the logic you are using to reach this conclusion?

Why do you think logic is even worthwhile?

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Bill
Again with reference to Jim Still's essay (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html), as Bertrand Russell asserted to Father Copleston in their famous BBC radio debate, there are simply some things which are brute facts, and asking "why?" for brute facts is to violate the foundations of language, as Wittgenstein showed (as per Jim Still's essay (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html)).

Two points:
1. How did Berty know that some things are "brute facts?"
2. How do you know he was correct.

You didn't answer my question about Jim Still; is that an evasion?

For instance, why does gravity attract me to the Earth rather than repel me from it? I answer that the laws of nature just work that way. You pursue with a further limiting question of well, why do the laws of nature "just work that way?" The atheist asserts that it is simply a brute fact: there is not and there cannot be any sort of an "explanation" of "why?" in that context.

You know better than this. To assert that the "laws of nature, etc." is to assume that there are laws of nature and that you know what they are. There are no "laws" of nature; there are only descriptions of physical phenomenon and, as Hume showed, there is no "rational" basis for assuming any cause or that these phenomenon will continue to occur uniformly.

To have an answer to "why?" in that context would require us to step outside of the system within which we find ourselves, and we quite simply cannot do that. It is formally impossible.

It's worse than that; any answer to any question requires you to step outside the system, i.e., you can't give answers to anything.

The theist merely adds the unnecessary extra entity of "God" as the purported "explanation" of "why?" things are one way and not another. But that merely displaces the problem to equally unanswerable questions about God.

Nonsense! God as creator is a sufficient ground for a terminal answer to "why."

So, why did God make the laws of nature that way as opposed to some other way? The theist answers, "well, that's what God wanted to do." But that isn't an answer to "why?"

That's because you're looking for an answer outside God for why he would do something, i.e., you're looking for an answer that satisfies your autonomous judgement, but you haven't validated your judgement.

You continue to recognize the Creator/creature distinction.

So, theophilus, why did God want things to be this way rather than that way? At some point, you will give up on making up answers to this unanswerable series of questions and you will assert something like "you can't possibly be held to knowing the mind of God," but that is just as much of an evasion as you accuse atheists of perpetrating.

The answer is that God does that which is consistent with his nature for his own purposes and that his purposes are perfect.

The advantage of my answer over yours is that you can't even answer the "what" question.

Again, theophilus, God is an unnecessary entity. God is only an answer by the theist convention of never questioning anything about God.

Again, you're just begging the question that there is some independent standard by which questions about God can be asked.
[/B]

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by sir drinks-a-lot
When you say "inescapable conclusion", what do you mean? Are you speaking of a logical conclusion? If so, how do you justify the logic you are using to reach this conclusion?

I mean philosophically inescapable.
I justify logic as a necessary feature of the created order.

Why do you think logic is even worthwhile?

I answered this earlier.

God's purpose in creation requires that his creatures "know" him. Therefore, knowledge is inescapable for his purpose to be realized. Logic is the created nature of thought wihch makes knowledge possible through communicaiton. God's revelation makes knowledge certain.

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
In other words, where does thought come from? Is that what you're trying to ask?

No, I'm asking for a material explanation for the exsitence of logic as an organizing principle for thought. Dog's think, but they don't think about logic.

"Logic" is nothing more than a tool of cognition; a set of rules derived from human experience, interaction and reflection.

Are you suggesting that logic did not existe prior to this "reflection?" Then what system of thought guided their thinking? How did they know that what they were thinking was correct. What property of matter would have suggested to the non-logical, evolving brain that "a cannot be non-a, etc?"

Technically, of course, there is no "it" to "exist" in any substantive form anymore than mathematics and Clutch is, of course, correct; there are many different forms of logic, each with different rules to follow.

You haven't helped yourself here; you've just raised the problems of math and existence.

So, the "naturalistic explanation" for the abstract existence of a cognitive tool called, in general, "Logic" is that it was created by our brains in response to our experiences and observations living in the paradigm we live in over however many centuries we've been able to self-reflect and be self-aware.

Whoa, boy! Our brains "created" logic? What system of thought did our brains use to accomplish this remarkable feat? Again, what experience produced the "thought" of the law of contradiction?

If you want a more technical explanation of where human thought came from, I suggest you read up on emergent qualities of intelligence as the result of operantly conditioned "yes, no" feedback loops that grow in complexity over a child's formative years; i.e., "how the human brain functions" and simply apply that model to humanity as a species for your answer.

Ask a child the "logic" of sticking their finger in a toaster and you'll get a blank look. Ask a teenager the "logic" of sticking their finger in a toaster and you'll get an answer (assuming the teenager has been paying attention in school and knows what the word "logic" means and/or entails).

Ask a chicken the "logic" of pecking a button because he's learned that he gets feed when he does that. You fail to recognize the ontological nature of logic as a prerequisete to rationality.

Bill

September 8, 2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
I've tried to clarify this in other answers
I am asking for a naturalist explanation for the existence of the concepts of logic, morality and natural laws as authoritative, determinitive entities. Human experience is the best answer we have to answer the question of why "logic, morality and natural laws {are} authoritative, determinitive entities." In all of human history, valid logic, compelling moral rules, and verified natural laws have never let mankind down. Thus, we operate according to the idea that these entities are foundational, even though we know (through employing reasoning and logic) that they cannot be foundational; and that, in fact, nothing we can ever know about can possibly be foundational.

But just as the Law of Gravity cannot be asserted as a merely subjective law (in spite of the fact that it is clearly relative to one's own position and velocity with respect to some other mass), so too morality cannot be asserted as a merely subjective law (in spite of the fact that morality is clearly relative to the human condition, and probably several other qualifiers).

There is, quite frankly, a limit to human knowledge that we must necessarily admit. That limit prevents us humans from ever claiming access to anything that is truly "foundational." But, to all intents and purposes, there are many things about our existence which might as well be foundational even though they can never be proven to be foundational. That is a difficult enough concept for atheists to grasp. Theists basically seem to throw up their hands and assert that they prefer to believe in God rather than to admit that there is no good foundation for anything we humans might consider to be true. Logic, whatever system is in view, is not merely asserted as a "way" to think; it is asserted as the standard by which we are obligated to think, i.e., there is a moral component to the concept of logic. Yes, but that moral component for logic comes from morality rather than from logic.

As a case in point, take the famous essay by William Clifford, The Ethics of Belief (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html) (1877). The essence of his essay is that people are morally obligated to always demand good and sufficient evidence before entertaining any particular belief. Logic is a belief. The moral foundation for logic thus comes from morality, not logic. Moral systems all assume that there is some obligation to behave in certain ways; certain types of behavior are wrong. How did such an idea arise naturalistically? Morality is an evolved meme. It arose because the group of humans or pre-humans which first developed the meme obtained better survival for their kind than did other competing groups of humans or pre-humans who did not adopt the meme of morality.

Frankly, morality is a good idea that fosters group empathy and reliance and makes the existence of larger and larger groups of humans or pre-humans possible. Without morality, humans would be limited to the control of what we could maintain by force against others, and to acting only in those groups which had a tight bond of familial relationships (the other source of the "bonding motivation"). So, it is fairly easy to see morality as an advancement in the human condition, and thus a favorable evolution in human thinking. Thus, its no wonder that the idea of morality has survived. Natural laws are based on the idea that nature behaves in predictable, regular ways. Where did that idea come from? That idea comes from human experience, and in particular, the careful recording of human experience. Keppler discovered his orbital laws of motion due to his ability to analyze the carefully-kept records of astronomical observations from several different astronomers, including Tycho Brahe. This is just one example of how we find the "predictable, regular ways" in which nature behaves. If thougt ultimately reduces to the material functioning of chemical/biological brain activity, which particular brain event gave rise to the idea of such regularity and why do all men share it? Well, I won't pick nits here and claim that not all "men" share that idea (there clearly are exceptions).

The human brain is a product of evolutiion. As Terrance Deacon points out in The Symbolic Species (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=625), the main evolutionary difference between humans and our primate cousins is our mental ability to think symbolically. There is obviously a genetic mutation that lies at the base of that development. But, as is the case for all evolutionary processes, "natural selection" chose to favor that genetic mutation and to ensure that it propagated throughout the entire human species (actually, this mutation is what defines the human species).

Of course, symbolic thinking is the basis of logic, and logic plus memory is all that is needed to formulate "the idea of such regularity." (Many species have memory; it is thus a much earlier mutation in brains.)

== Bill

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Bill
Logic is an emergent property of human minds. (Frankly, there is good reason to believe that even non-human minds can employ at least rudimentary forms of logic.) Why is it an emergent property of human minds? Well, again, that goes back to The Mental Discomfort of �Why?� (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/w_why.html) and your answer is no better than any other because no answer can adequately respond to that sort of a limiting question. No, the ad hominum rule applies equally to atheists and theists. However, the attack was upon your argument and your failure to remain and defend it after posting it. That doesn't qualify as an ad hominum because it was directed at the argument rather than at you, personally.

Again with the question begging. The concept of the "emergent property" assumes a naturalistic explanation for rationality. It then seeks to find an explanation for that undemonstrated assumption. Besides, you don't know any more about the emergent properites of mind than you do about the inherent properties of matter because you are part of the system you're trying to examine.

By the way, if you knew that you would be absent for this long, you should not have posted such a challenge as a sort of "parting shot."

Well, aside from the epistemological problem of "knowing" I would be absent this long, I did not plan that absense. Besides, it gave you all some time to reflect which, unfortunately, wasn't profitable used.

Besides, how did you "know" that I hadn't died?

sir drinks-a-lot

September 8, 2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by theophilus

God's purpose in creation requires that his creatures "know" him. Therefore, knowledge is inescapable for his purpose to be realized. Logic is the created nature of thought wihch makes knowledge possible through communicaiton. God's revelation makes knowledge certain.

How did you arrive at these conclusions, and how are you sure that they are correct?

sir drinks-a-lot

September 8, 2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by theophilus

I don't say that atheists have no knowledge, but that, as atheists, they have no foundation for confidence in their knowledge.

Neither do Theists, although they won't admit it. :)

Let's look at a concrete example. Imagine am standing in downtown Cleveland tomorrow morning with a nickel in my outstreched hand. If I remove my hand, wht do you expect will happen to the nickel? Both the Theist and the Atheist will agree that the coin will fall. The Atheists might say "The coin will fall because it has mass, and from past experience, I know that objects with mass will be drawn towards the center of the Earth by gravity", and the Thist might say "The coin will fall because it has mass, and from past experience, I know that objects with mass will be drawn towards the center of the Earth by gravity, and I am certain of this because this is how God made the world."

Of course, neither one is certain of the outcome - the coin may fall, it may remain suspended, it may become a falcon and fly off into the sky.

How has the Theists assertion that logic is justified by God added anything?

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Bill
Human experience is the best answer we have to answer the question of why "logic, morality and natural laws {are} authoritative, determinitive entities." In all of human history, valid logic, compelling moral rules, and verified natural laws have never let mankind down.

Come on, this is getting boring. Utility doesn't explain ontology.

Thus, we operate according to the idea that these entities are foundational, even though we know (through employing reasoning and logic) that they cannot be foundational; and that, in fact, nothing we can ever know about can possibly be foundational.

That's not at all the nature of human experience. Most people never give morality a thought; but they know that certain things are right and others wrong.

But just as the Law of Gravity cannot be asserted as a merely subjective law (in spite of the fact that it is clearly relative to one's own position and velocity with respect to some other mass), so too morality cannot be asserted as a merely subjective law (in spite of the fact that morality is clearly relative to the human condition, and probably several other qualifiers).

There is no physical compulsion relative to morality. A person may break all kinds of moral norms with no physical consequence.

There is, quite frankly, a limit to human knowledge that we must necessarily admit.

This assumes that there is knowledge beyond our comprehension. How do you know this? You'd have to have some idea of such knowledge to make such a statement, thereby falsifying your statement.

That limit prevents us humans from ever claiming access to anything that is truly "foundational."

It only prevents those who found knowledge on naturalism.

But, to all intents and purposes, there are many things about our existence which might as well be foundational even though they can never be proven to be foundational.

This is pure subjectivism and the opposite can be equally held.

That is a difficult enough concept for atheists to grasp. Theists basically seem to throw up their hands and assert that they prefer to believe in God rather than to admit that there is no good foundation for anything we humans might consider to be true.

Well, we may "lift our hands," but we don't throw them up. It is your naturalism that leads to despair, not theism. Only because you try to evaluate theism from within your naturalistic framework would you even make such a statement.

Yes, but that moral component for logic comes from morality rather than from logic.

So? Where does the morality come from?

As a case in point, take the famous essay by William Clifford, The Ethics of Belief (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html) (1877). The essence of his essay is that people are morally obligated to always demand good and sufficient evidence before entertaining any particular belief.

This is a classic case of special pleading. First, it begs the question of moral "obligation," and it provides no "good and sufficient evidence" for believing this statement. He merely asserts it as a truism, thereby defeating itself.

Logic is a belief. The moral foundation for logic thus comes from morality, not logic. Morality is an evolved meme. It arose because the group of humans or pre-humans which first developed the meme obtained better survival for their kind than did other competing groups of humans or pre-humans who did not adopt the meme of morality.

This is all fantasy (and you criticize me for believing in God?). What "good and sufficient EVIDENCE do you have for believing this? You are not consistent. You begin with a position and then look for justification, never examining whether the explanations are consistent with each other.

Frankly, morality is a good idea

A "good" idea? You cannot even speak of morality without assuming it.

that fosters group empathy and reliance and makes the existence of larger and larger groups of humans or pre-humans possible.

Circularity again. This assumes that these were "good" values. Where did such values come from?

Without morality, humans would be limited to the control of what we could maintain by force against others, and to acting only in those groups which had a tight bond of familial relationships (the other source of the "bonding motivation").

So, this value must have pre-existed morality and, therefore, cannot be used to explain the emergence of morality. You haven't explained why people should have cared about survival, individually or in groups.

So, it is fairly easy to see morality as an advancement in the human condition, and thus a favorable evolution in human thinking. Thus, its no wonder that the idea of morality has survived. That idea comes from human experience, and in particular, the careful recording of human experience.

You've explained exactly nothing. You've just dug yourself into a deeper hole.

Keppler discovered his orbital laws of motion due to his ability to analyze the carefully-kept records of astronomical observations from several different astronomers, including Tycho Brahe.

Keppler discovered his laws because he believed that creation reflected the order of its creator. There is no such foundation for belief from a naturalistic framework. Everything is chance and flux.

This is just one example of how we find the "predictable, regular ways" in which nature behaves.

This is just one example of the atheist borrowing the product of a Christian worldview.

The human brain is a product of evolutiion.

What "good and sufficient EVIDENCE" do you have for such a statement? When have you observed the evolution of the human brain.

As Terrance Deacon points out in The Symbolic Species (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=625), the main evolutionary difference between humans and our primate cousins is our mental ability to think symbolically.

Same question as above. When did Terrance Deacon observe the evolution of any brain?

There is obviously a genetic mutation that lies at the base of that development. But, as is the case for all evolutionary processes, "natural selection" chose to favor that genetic mutation and to ensure that it propagated throughout the entire human species (actually, this mutation is what defines the human species).

Popycock. Natural selection can't "favor" or "choose" anything. It is not even a force. You ascribe volition to a non-entity. "Obviously" requires demonstration; where is your demonstration. You cannot claim the current status as evidence that your after-the-fact fairy tale is true.

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by sir drinks-a-lot
Neither do Theists, although they won't admit it. :)

Are you even reading what I'm saying before making these silly responses? Theism is based on the objective revelaiton of the creator God; naturalism is based on unknown and unknowable "forces." Forgetting for the moment which is or isn't true, you must see that there is an infinite difference.

Let's look at a concrete example. Imagine am standing in downtown Cleveland tomorrow morning with a nickel in my outstreched hand. If I remove my hand, wht do you expect will happen to the nickel? Both the Theist and the Atheist will agree that the coin will fall. The Atheists might say "The coin will fall because it has mass, and from past experience, I know that objects with mass will be drawn towards the center of the Earth by gravity"

but the atheist would be completely unjustified in saying this. All he "knows" is that all his PAST experiences have been such. He has no basis at all for believing or predicting that the future will be consistent. His only honest response would be "I don't know."
The law of gravity is not a known entity (have you ever seen it; touched it?); it is merely a description of phenomenon and has not predictive value.

and the Thist might say "The coin will fall because it has mass, and from past experience, I know that objects with mass will be drawn towards the center of the Earth by gravity, and I am certain of this because this is how God made the world."

Well, this theist would not be a Christian. The Christian would (should) say that the coin will fall because the creator is a God of order, not chaos and that he ordains and governs all things within his creation toward the fulfillment of his purpose. If things operated randomly, we could never know anything and knowledge is essential to God's creative purpose.

Of course, neither one is certain of the outcome - the coin may fall, it may remain suspended, it may become a falcon and fly off into the sky.

Wron, only the naturalist is uncertain, based on his system. The Christian is certain, based on his system.

How has the Theists assertion that logic is justified by God added anything?

It has added everything.

theophilus

September 8, 2003, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by sir drinks-a-lot
How did you arrive at these conclusions, and how are you sure that they are correct?

By revelation, i.e., the created order and the Bible.

Clutch

September 8, 2003, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
Your answers continue to demonstrate that you either don't understand the challenge or you think that evasion and obfuscation are meaningful arguments. Gosh, could it be the first one? The second one didn't sound very good.

You have indeed identified the very soul (an interesting concept!) of my observation. I don't understand the challenge. I could not have put it more pithily.

Now, perhaps I'm just pretending not to understand it. I could assure you that's not the case, but if you were inclined to doubt my sincerity anyhow, my assurance wouldn't do much good, sadly. Still, suppose we're charitable to at least this extent: you believe me when I say I don't understand the challenge.

So maybe I don't understand it because I'm a dunce. I hope that's not it -- I mean, that's even worse than your second option! -- but it should at least be displayed as a potential explanation.

Perhaps I'm not a dunce, but am being deliberately obtuse for reasons that I'm hiding even from myself. I can't rule this out, either, and I don't think Freud was a complete dope, so it's got to remain a live option.

Still, here is what seems to be the state of play from the perspective of my fallible, merely conscious mind: I don't understand the challenge because there isn't one yet. It seems to me for all the world like you are just gesturing to "logic" (or, latterly, "the concept of logic"), and more or less saying "Hmm? Hah? See? Explain that if you can!"

And from this, I can no more decoct a coherent challenge to my atheism than if you had said pickles, or fish, or saganaki cheese melts instead of "logic".

So of course you are free to choose any of the first three explanations as grounds for not presenting any clearer a challenge. But if you assume that you are dealing with mostly sincere, mostly self-aware agents, then the obvious next move in the dialectic would be for you to explain more clearly just what you think your challenge amounts to.

For instance, what would be really useful (and would, from your perspective, leave me no wiggle room) would be an argument that started with the premise

1. There is logic.

... and then, by a series of valid inferences involving other uncontroversial premises...

2. ...
3. ...
.
.
.

...eventually produced the conclusion

C: There is a god.

I mean, that would really make the challenge a challenge for me, because I think (1) is true in least a few different senses, whereas I can't see any good reason to assert (C).

In the meantime, though, you are correct that I do not understand what you have called a challenge. Presumably your intent was not to produce a challenge that was incomprehensible to (being charitable again) mostly sincere and mostly self-aware interlocutors. To all appearances, this puts the ball in your court.

sir drinks-a-lot

September 8, 2003, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
By revelation, i.e., the created order and the Bible.

Why did you choose to believe the Bible and not the Koran or another Holy Book?

wiploc

September 8, 2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
In demanding an explanation for morality, logic, etc. I am not specifying particular moral standards; I am asking for an ontological explanation.

You want us to defend our explanations, but you won't defend yours. Do you really believe that the fact that god can punish us means that we have a moral obligation to do what he says? Why? Do you really believe that positing a division between creator and created is sufficient to justify one of them getting to rule over the other? And why do you get to pick which one rules over the other? Or do you have a reason, a logical justification for your choice? You keep asking us to explain, but you never explain.

Also, such evolutionary explanations cannot justify the enforcement of any value system. Morality is not merely a set of agreed to standards. Morality is based on the immaterial idea that there should be standards, that we are under obligation to behave in certain ways - what we "ought" to do.

But you give no reason that we "ought" to follow a god's morality. You never justify the enforcement of his value system. You keep saying that we can't do it, but you can't do it yourself.
crc

Bill

September 8, 2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by theophilus
It's only ignorance if I cannot give a consistent, coherent answer. What justifies morality, logic, etc., is that they are features of the created order as a reflection of the Creator's nature.
Now, that may not be satisfying to your desire for intellectual and moral autonomy, but it is certainly consistent and coherent. Perhaps, but they are "consistent and coherent" solely through the convention of theistic fiat. The primary theistic fiat is the commandment that "thou shalt not question God." With that commandment in mind, it becomes impermissible to ask "why God?" That is an illustration of one reason why theism becomes "consistent and coherent." In the absence of the several theistic fiats, the theist is in no better shape than is the atheist, and is in worse shape at least to the extent of needing to necessarily also justify "why God?" Your "intellectual inquiry" is based on the unjustified assumption that your intellect (whatever that may be) is sufficient to arrive at true knowledge. Well, I won't speak on behalf of the original author, but on behalf of myself, I don't assert that my intellect "is sufficient to arrive at true knowledge." I only assert that my intellect is sufficient to arrive at better knowledge today than was known when the theistic worldviews were created some thousands of years ago. Thus, I have no doubt whatsoever that my worldview, based upon modern science as it is, will necessarily be a more truthful worldview than any theistic worldview created over a thousand years ago would be (this claim is thus made equally with respect to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, at a minimum).

== Bill