Autumn Reading for Jerry and friends

_{Vincent Torley

October 20, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Japanese maple leaves.

Over at Why Evolution is True, Professor Jerry Coyne has been busy at work. He has not only outlined a scenario that would convince him of God’s existence, but he has written an article entitled On P. Z. Myers on evidence for a god with a point-by-point rebuttal of P. Z. Myers’ assertion (backed up by eight supporting arguments) that there was no amount of evidence that could convince him of the existence of any kind of God. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, so I would like to congratulate Professor Coyne. Let me hasten to add that Professor Coyne is still a convinced atheist. As he writes: “To me, the proper stance is, ‘I haven’t seen a smidgen of evidence for God, so I don’t think he exists. But I suppose it’s a theoretical possibility.'” In the final paragraph of his post, Coyne declares: “I’m writing this post simply to continue a conversation that I don’t think has yet run its course…”

Well, Professor, I’m something of a magpie. I collect good articles. The 200 or so articles I’ve listed below are the “creme-de-la-creme” so to speak, of what’s available on the Web. Taken together, they make a strong cumulative case, on philosophical and empirical grounds, that God does indeed exist, and that the benefits of religion vastly outweigh the multitude of harms inflicted in its name. (There’s even a case where an amputee gets healed! Curious? Thought you might be.) I’ve also included some good articles on God, morality and evil, which will interest you. The arguments for the immateriality of the mind are also significant: they serve to undermine the materialist argument that there can never be a good argument for the existence of an immaterial Intelligence, since all the minds we know of are embodied and complex. Interested? Please read on.

Table of Contents

Section 1 – Philosophical Arguments for God’s existence
Section 2 – Miracles
Section 3 – The Attributes of God
Section 4 – God, Morality, Goodness and Evil
Section 5 – Arguments for the Immateriality of the Mind
Section 6 – Mysteries of the Christian Faith (The Trinity, the Incarnation and the Atonement)
Section 7 – Religion: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

For the list of articles, click here.

Enjoy!

Comments

Molch: I don't have a lot of time just now to take up what is again a rather personalised, loaded response, so I will pick up one slice of the cake that has in it all the ingredients of the problem:
Belief (warranted credibly true or not) is fundamentally different from knowledge. Look it up in the dictionary. The conclusion that A = B is fundamentally different from the knowledge that A = B.
1 --> Let's start with the Oxford English Dictionary's version of he classic philosophical definition of knowledge:
Philosophy: true, justified belief . . .[OED 2001]
2 --> In short, we know what is believed true on warrant -- we accept it as true [= believe it], and we have good reason for that belief [= it is warranted as credibly true]. (And, I have used warrant because of the now classic Gettier counter-example problem to subjective justification.) 3 --> So, in epistemology [the relevant discipline on this] knowledge is a subset of belief. Belief that has warrant and is certainly -- or, in many practical situations -- credibly true. 4 --> Of which last scientific knowledge (as opposed to knowledge claims made in the name of science) is a classic case in point. 5 --> And, indeed, one may conclude A = B without knowing that A = B, if one has not got good warrant. That was one of my key points you accept but present as though it were a refutation. (But, one suspects your atheistical conclusions are not held by you to be poorly warranted; never mind what has been shown above about the gaps in atheistical reasoning.) _________________ I trust this will be enough to spark a re-think. Later, when I have more time. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

molch, Let's get this discussion back on track here. "Like I pointed out in the discussion with CY, I am not here to discuss my world-view, or his, or yours. I entered the discussion to challenge his somewhat strange and in my eyes inconsistent standard for adopting a world-view." I'm sorry, but this statement appears rather contradictory. You're not here to discuss my worldview, but you are challenging my worldview? Maybe you could fix that a little so I understand exactly why you've come to this thread. I don't believe you've captured the essence of how I have formed my worldview. I personally believe that worldviews are important not simply as an intellectual exercise, but in order for us to understand our place; our significance in the world. I personally find atheism utterly lacking in any coherent accounting of the basic questions most of us find ourselves asking - why are we here? why does such a universe exist rather than not? How did the universe come to be? It seems now that the true atheist answer - after many years of intellectual debating and considering the evidence, is approaching an unavoidable nihilism due to it's premise. Such a nihilism is now dismissing the very logic upon which humans have based their reasoning and inquiry (including science itself) for millennia. As TG pointed out in his last post, when the populist atheists are now claiming the absurd - such as that the universe created itself out of nothing, what would you truly expect from us? The new atheists have been making charges against Christianity in particular over the past decade or so, which when you weigh such charges against the utter absurdity of the new cosmological speculations coming from Stephen Hawking and others, it makes even the ill-founded assertions regarding Christianity sound pretty good. You say that you're not here to discuss your worldview, but your worldview is what this thread is concerned with. "any comments to my 61 & 62?" Yes, "Note that I replaced the word 'know' from your sentence, and replaced it with the word 'conclude'." Christians have a peculiar way of looking at this exercise in semantics, and yes the difference does matter. But from the Christian's perspective we have experienced the presence of God in our lives. So God's reality is not something we merely "conclude," but we "know" as well as we can know. So I can see from your perspective why you would make such a distinction, but from a Christian perspective it is different. If you haven't had the Christian perspective, how would you know? So you're way of looking at it from an atheist perspective is perfectly fine as far as it goes. But to say that a Christian cannot "know" based on his/her own experience of the presence of God, is again, to beg questions. Now this brings up a related issue, which you mentioned; how does the Christian deal with other faiths, which also make claims of a transcendent reality? As I mentioned, Christian apologetics IS concerned with other religious truth claims, and such claims are weighed both for their internal consistency and their consistency with the reality we find in the world around us. Also, what Christians perceive as quasi-Christian belief systems, which claim the scriptures as their foundation, are weighed for their consistency with the scriptures themselves. I won't get into the specifics of this, and perhaps you are aware of some examples. But my overall point is that not all truth claims are coherent with the parts of reality that are plain and clear to most of us. Many atheists, for example, are quite fond of the "flying spaghetti monster" analogy when making charges against religion - Christianity in particular. This analogy falls flat when considering that Christianity has an epistemological history, which has been examined quite extensively. So when you ask why one and not the other, or what's the difference between Christianity's truth claims and that of any other religion; we are strongly supported by Christianity's epistemological history, as well as a propensity of evidence from a number of disciplines. Furthermore, Christianity's basic focal point is an historic event, which if it could be shown to be untrue, would topple the entire belief system. Not all religions have that unique quality such that if the central figure were shown to have not existed, or not done what is claimed of him, would falsify the entire faith. Christianity is rather unique in that respect.0 The problem atheism has with Christianity does not appear to stem from Christianity being unreasonable if God does truly exist, although there are such arguments, but with the very premise that God does not exist. Again, this is a negative, which at best can only be adhered to as a possibility - it is possible that God does not exist. I personally believe that Dawkins is way off base when he suggests that God's non-existence is "probable." Because the atheist has not personally found evidence for God's existence does not imply that God probably does not exist. Where does the probability come from other than the atheists own lack of experience? For the Christian, God does exist, and as such, the Judaeo-Christian scriptures are quite consistent with that reality. If you have some familiarity with Hume at all, his argument against miracles is completely incoherent if the existence of God is a given. So he too was begging questions with his argument. However, within his argument, he made some valid points regarding some claims of miracles. His overall problem is that he ruled out all miracles, rather than simply those, which could not be verified through reasonable means. He ruled them out because they did not fit within his own criteria of verifiability, which of course is fallacious, since he is being inconsistent with his own premise that what we know must be experienced: Hume believed that one can only know what is related to one's own direct experience. I would agree with this. So for him to validly rule out all miracles, he would of necessity be able to share the experiences of all those making claims of miracles, and rule them out based on other explanations. For the Christian, God is known through direct experience. I would guess that your view is that God cannot be known in this way (or at least that it is doubtful - perhaps not?), because He is necessarily immaterial. But if that is your view, even that would be an assertion, and that you yourself could not know, because based on the same premise, you have not experienced Him. Let's put this in human terms. I know my mother. It would be logically incoherent for you to say "You cannot know your mother, because I haven't experienced her." This seems to be in short, what the atheist position is regarding knowledge of God. Let's revisit what I stated earlier - atheists state: "We have not found evidence that there is such a God, so it is probable that such a God does not exist." This type of "conclusion" to use your terminology is therefore inconsistent with the billions of people who claim to have direct experience of God in their lives. Is that not evidence? It may not be the type of direct evidence such as you having your own experience of God, but it is none the less evidence, which should be met with at least some consideration, even if there is much that you can dismiss based on the internal consistency of such a claim or belief. Otherwise, your atheism is partly founded on a belief that the billions of people who claim to have experienced God's presence are all wrong or "delusional." "I can take this paragraph you wrote and replace the words Christianity and Christian with e.g. Buddhism and Buddhist, the word Jesus with Buddha, and your list of Christian Faith versions and derivatives with Theravada, Mahayana, the traditions of Pure Land, Zen, Nichiren Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Shingon, Tendai, Shinnyo-en, etc. and it sounds just as convincing or unconvincing (take your pick) as an argument to adopt a particular belief system as your original version." Well that may be true. It would certainly be true if my point is concerned with the number of adherents to Christianity vs. the number of adherents to Buddhism, but that's not what I'm referring to. I'm talking about Christianity's intrigue and let's add impact, particularly among Western cultures - but if you want to get into it, I would say that Christianity has had more of an impact throughout the world than has Buddhism. I'm not saying this out of some sort of spite for Buddhists, but the fact remains that one will find Christians in more countries around the world in larger numbers than one will find Buddhists. With the exception of a few population pockets in countries where religion is tolerated, Buddhists for the most part are concentrated in Eastern Asia. But Christians have been in Asian countries in large numbers for centuries, even where Christianity has not been tolerated. It is estimated that there are more Christian believers in China for example, than there are in France or Germany. Furthermore, Christianity has had an impact around the world, and that impact continues to increase in relation to the values, which cultures adopt - particularly with civic law, human rights, health care and technology, much of which have their basis in Western Christian (and to some extent, secular) culture - not all, but much. So I fail to see your point in switching the sects. "why do you require an atheist to look into every argument for the truth of the Christian faith, when he/she has already concluded that deities are not likely to exist, and the Christian faith is one of a multitude of beliefs that include deities?" For the simple reason that Christianity teaches that atheism can and should be eliminated through right reason and respectful challenging of it's foundations. This hasn't always been a part of the Christian apologetic by any means, but it is what is taught in scripture - tolerating the views of others, while attempting to persuade them through reason, example and respect. It seems, on the other hand, that atheists believe theism should be eliminated through intolerance - by labeling a huge portion of the world's population as "delusional," "unscientific" and in some cases, "evil." It would be quite tolerable in our world if atheists left well enough alone and respected the views of those who believe in God. But atheism's most prominent spokespersons have been less than tolerant, and we have a right to ask for a reason for their desire to eliminate faith if they're going to include believers in such an agenda towards an even more intolerable nihilism. Beliefs have consequences.CannuckianYankee_{October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

A man walks into a room with a friend and notices a red ball sitting on the table. He says, “Look, there is a red ball sitting on the table. I wonder how it got there.” His friend responds: “Are you kidding me? Obviously, someone put it there.” For all rational people, that is the end of the discussion. Now blow up the ball so that it fills the entire room. Has the argument changed? No. The answer is still the same. The only thing that has changed is the size of the ball. Obviously, someone put it there. Now blow the ball up to the size of a city. Has anything about the argument changed yet? No. Now blow the ball up to the size of the earth--to the size of the solar system--to the size of the Milky Way Galaxy--to the size of the universe. Nothing has changed. Obviously, someone put it there. Why is it that the atheist/agnostic will acknowledge that the presence of small red ball on the table requires an intelligent agent but cannot recognize the fact that the presence of a super large red ball also requires an intelligent agent. That’s easy. His desire that the agent not be there clouds his judgment and causes him to deny the obvious. Atheist/agnostics always deny the obvious [someone put it there] and affirm the impossible [something can come from nothing]. The two practices are inextricably tied to one another.StephenB_{October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

CY: any comments to my 61 & 62?molch_{October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Just like the KF I know and love: putting words in my mouth and then attacking what he just made up: ”So, Molch, your assertion just above of an “obvious” entailment of a symmetrical challenge to theism fails” Here is what I actually said: “a wise thinker will never claim to KNOW that there is no God.” …which obviously also entails the opposite end of that bargain.” In the context of the actual discussion I was having with CY, you might have glimpsed that what I was talking about here were the truth claims of the multitude of alternative worldviews we were discussing (i.e. there is no Tao, there is no Karma, there is no Boddhisattva, there is no [insert whatever concept you want]). But I guess I am expecting too much by asking for contextual reading. “and this error shows that your reasoning has not been as soundly instructed as you imagined.” Well, at least your comments are good for a chuckle – feel free to question my reasoning all you wish without knowing anything about my reasoning, I’ll be content with questioning your reading comprehension… “I have concluded” in the context of worldview warrant, is to imply a claim to warranted, credibly true belief, i.e. to knowledge.” That’s nice that you think that. I disagree. Belief (warranted credibly true or not) is fundamentally different from knowledge. Look it up in the dictionary. The conclusion that A = B is fundamentally different from the knowledge that A = B. “It may not be politically correct to point to such circumstances, but alas, they are well warranted. Cf e.g. here on the story of a 9 y.o. child bride taken from her dolls, and other related concerns. Sorry to be so painfully specific, but such details are necessary given your attempt at personal attack.” You want some “painfully specific details” why calling Christianity “troubled” might be “well warranted”? “In short, my point 9 in 54 above was indeed a highly compressed summary remark but that did not mean that it has no warranting context that should have been immediately accessible to one discussing worldview choice across major systems of thought on a reasonably informed basis.” Let’s see – how about some highly compressed summary remark that I find Christianity an ethically highly questionable, internally inconsistent cult for a barbaric god, and Alvin Plantinga outdated and far from the mark in addressing the problem of evil. After all, these views have a lot of warranting context, as someone as well versed in Christian apologetics as you should know. And after saying this, I’ll expect you to have a fair-minded, productive discussion on the merits of different world-views… “Nor, have you taken up the issue that on inference to best explanation, to reject the set of evidence pointing to theism leads to commitments that have very strong challenges on difficulties.” I am sorry that it irks you that I don’t feel like debating the roots and reasonings behind my world-view with you. If I want to do that, I go to much more intellectually and philosophically challenging places than here. Like I pointed out in the discussion with CY, I am not here to discuss my world-view, or his, or yours. I entered the discussion to challenge his somewhat strange and in my eyes inconsistent standard for adopting a world-view. “Unfortunately, this is a classic tactic of those caught up in selectively hyperskeptical systems: divert, distort, deride, dismiss.” Thanks for summarizing your pervasive debating technique so beautifully. That’s exactly why I find discussions with you neither productive, nor educational, nor enjoyable. Have fun deriding the next customer!molch_{October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Is this a great thread or what? :-) CY @ 57 " I’m asking atheists to answer the very basic questions I’ve asked above – if there is no god, how do you in essence, account for the universe and the things and phenomenon within?" In "The Grand Design" (in which he claims that there is no Design) Hawking accounts for it like this on page 180: "That's why empty space is stable. Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can." And later on the same page: "Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the the universe exists, why we exist." And Daniel Dennett explains in "Breaking The Spell" on page 244 that: "It (the universe)… does perform a version of the ultimate bootstrapping trick; it creates itself ex nihilo." So there you have it. From two of the intellectual leading lights of "the new atheism." Unbelievable. The irrationality is staggering.tgpeeler_{October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

CY: Thanks for some kind words. Such help restore the atmosphere from polarisation. Let us see how Molch or others of like ilk will respond onwards to the issues above, and the responses to the specific stridently dismissve claims made above. I note that the "no evidence" claim is in fact a manifestation of selective hyperskepticism, Cliffordian evidentialism form, probably filtered through the likes of Sagan's blunder: extraordinary claims require ~~extraordinary~~ ADEQUATE evidence. (Note, the thread is on readings for the likes of a Mr Coyne and co, providing a considerable body of that evidence that Molch et al would dismiss.) GEM of TKI PS: I have had to add Mr Coyne's unfortunately rather over the top remarks in his USA Today article to my excerpt of the classic Lewontin a priori materialismremarks, in my IOSE summary module; including some links to onward readings. I have also taken on some excerpts in Mrs O'Leary's new thread, here (no 7).kairosfocus_{October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

molch, KF (and the rest of the choir) Another issue is regarding other faiths. I should point out that Christianity is evangelical. The Christian desires to share his/her faith with others so they too can come to salvation. The field of apologetics is not only concerned with presenting evidence and a coherent argument for the truth claims of Christianity, but also with comparative analysis of other faiths, which counter Christian truth claims.CannuckianYankee_{October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

KF, Thanks for your clarifications - based on reason and on the literature. I was thinking of a similar answer to molch regarding the inability to reasonably conclude a negative, and that is: The atheist certainly has a disadvantage in asserting that there is no God, for any evidential example of God would disprove such an assertion. This is why atheists are now saying such things as "I see no evidence that there is a God." There really is no such thing as a hard atheist anymore. Such positions have been eliminated through a painstaking interaction with the logical issues. All they are really saying now is that an example, which would show that there is a God is not present (to them). Such claims are typical of materialist claims - as in question-begging. Except that it makes a meager attempt at avoiding the begging of questions by implying that the evidence has not reached them - rather than that there is no evidence. It would seem to me many (not all) atheists are of the opinion that believers must present them with the evidence. Such is not the case. The evidence is present to them in "the things that are made." It's another issue of materialism discounting what even the atheist has determined as "designoid," or having the appearance of design. Such would be for any reasonable person not invested in materialism, evidence for a designer. But atheists believe they can escape this implication through a tricky a priori metaphysical assumption. The Christian theist on the other hand is not so burdened. All we have to do is show a reasonable propensity of evidence for God's existence. I believe we have that in the abstract arguments from logic and first principles, the testimony of scripture, the testimony of nature and the cosmos, and the testimony of several millennia of believers and the true work of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Not only that, but we have 2,000 years of philosophical debate on the merits of Christianity, beginning with the early Church fathers, and continuing to this day, which offer ever strengthening insight into the truth of Christianity - the focal point of modern history.CannuckianYankee_{October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

F/N: Mrs O'Leary's remarks in her new post here provide additional reasons and context on why Molch should reconsider what he did above, and how: a turnabout accusation rhetorical tactic.kairosfocus_{October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: As I just noted, Molch has played the card of the trifecta fallacy, then has claimed that he needs not address the substance, having in his mind discredited the man. Unfortunately, this is a classic tactic of those caught up in selectively hyperskeptical systems: divert, distort, deride, dismiss. One hopes he will reconsider his slamming of the door, and that he will similarly reconsider the issues on the merits. For, there are some serious unanswered questions on the table for evolutionary materialistic atheists. (And even if he does not address them, we should bear them in mind.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

Molch: Pardon, a few correctives seem to be needed. First, it is a commonplace in epistemology that there is a strong assymetry in warrant between grounding a universal negative and grounding a positive assertion. For instance, no number of observations of white swans can show beyond doubt that a black swan does not or cannot exist. Just so, a finite, fallible creature with bounded rationality faces a bind when trying to assert a universal negative. Save, where a contradiction can be shown, i.e the positive assertion leads to a reductio. That is what a-theologians in the past generation thought they had in the modernised form of the traditional problem of evil. But by the 1970's Plantinga demolished that hope on their part. Of course, a simple trip to Australia and an observation of the famous Black Swan of that continent, suffices to demolish the universal negative. One exception demolishes a universal negative. And, as you may note from the above, there are several cumulatively strong lines of evidence pointing to a specific exception to the universal negative claim: "there is no God." (Also, onlookers: to present the claim "I have concluded" in the context of worldview warrant, is to imply a claim to warranted, credibly true belief, i.e. to knowledge.) So, Molch, your assertion just above of an "obvious" entailment of a symmetrical challenge to theism fails, and this error shows that your reasoning has not been as soundly instructed as you imagined. As to your attempted atmosphere-poisoning ad hominem-laced red herring and strawman caricature on Islam, I will simply note that a well-informed critical survey [e.g. cf here] of the circumstances surrounding the historical origins of Islam as a view related to and derivative of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, sadly, abundantly warrant my summary terms. (It may not be politically correct to point to such circumstances, but alas, they are well warranted. Cf e.g. here on the story of a 9 y.o. child bride taken from her dolls, and other related concerns. Sorry to be so painfully specific, but such details are necessary given your attempt at personal attack.) When it comes to the problem of the one and the many for pantheistic and related systems of thought [which you tried to dismiss by attacking me in your remarks on my brief point no 9 (see how if you are brief you can be misconstrued and if you are detailed, you are derided for prolixity . . .)], it is a well-known, even commonplace observation that in such systems a common claim is that "one is the number of truth and two, that of error." That is, unity swallows up diversity. Inter alia, this leads to enormous challenges addressing the reality of evil and pain, cf the tendency to infer to Maya, a world of illusion to describe our experienced world, and the linked concept of Karma. (Cf the discussion here as an introduction.) Similarly, there are challenges for such views relating to the diversity issue implied by the logical principle of non-contradiction. (A telling case in point comes up here, on cosmology of origins. Note the in extenso quote from R. K. Lahiri in section A, including his remarks on logical disagreements.) In short, my point 9 in 54 above was indeed a highly compressed summary remark but that did not mean that it has no warranting context that should have been immediately accessible to one discussing worldview choice across major systems of thought on a reasonably informed basis. There were no just grounds for the resort to personal attack you made. Similarly, I note that you have simply failed to address the severe, specific worldview challenges of evolutionary materialism [cf my recent UD post here and especially the continuation here], in light of first principles of right reason and the self-referential question of the credibility of the mind on such premises. Nor, have you taken up the issue that on inference to best explanation, to reject the set of evidence pointing to theism leads to commitments that have very strong challenges on difficulties. So, perhaps it would be well advised for you to reconsider the issues regarding the potentially deleterious impact of selective hyperskepticism on worldview choice/ conclusions. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 29, 2010
October
10
Oct
29
29
2010
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

It's interesting that the fall from grace is illustrated in the Bible as Adam and Even eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That indicates to me that in a state of grace, there is no knowledge of good or evil, so to characterize existence in heaven as "all good" seems at least a semantic misnomer. Please note that I haven't claimed heaven doesn't exist - I believe there is an afterlife - but I don't see how any concept of good can exist without the concept of not-good (principle of identity), and I think the Bible's description of what facilitated the fall bears this out. It might be that in a state of grace one no longer divides existence up into good and evil, but sees it rather as the manifest perfection of god's creation. I have often thought that to know something is like letting the genie out of the bottle (or out of pandora's box), and that said knowledge cannot be "removed" except as a violation of one's free will. This represented a difficulty for achieving any "heaven" state of grace afterward; how can one just "forget" about good and evil? I think, however, that the perspective supplied by grace, which is willingly pursued and accepted, might move one beyond "knowledge of good and evil" and into a perspective that transcends that mortal dichotomy and into the perfect (godly) perspective.William J. Murray_{October 28, 2010
October
10
Oct
28
28
2010
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

Hi vivid - I completely agree with KF's #6 which you cite; I thought that was obvious from my earlier posts; it is exactly by exercises of comparative difficulties and inference to best explanation of the experienced world that I have arrived at my present worldview. I also agree with this statement of his in #10: "No worldview is demonstrative relative to universally acceptable premises" ...which is related to this from #2: "Now, too, the fraction of what is knowable that any one individual or group can actually know to demonstrative or even moral certainty, is so small that a wise thinker will never claim to KNOW that there is no God." ...which obviously also entails the opposite end of that bargain. I don't agree with much else KF has to say in 54. It's anybody's guess why he assumes that I claim to KNOW that there is no god. I don't, never did, never will. I have CONCLUDED that there is no god. I trust you see the difference, even if he doesn't. I am not inclined to discuss 54 any further with KF, since I don't get much enjoyment or education out of discourse with someone who parades his pervasive arrogance in sweeping dismissive statements such as #9, or by calling Islam a "troubled side-branch of Judeo-Christianity". But I am happy to engage in further discussion with you, vivid, as I find time!molch_{October 28, 2010
October
10
Oct
28
28
2010
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

Greetings molch I second KF's suggestion especially when he writes kf "6 –> In this light, worldviews are responsibly held on the premise of reasonable faith, having done some comparative difficulties — in effect a grand abductive exercise of inference to best explanation of the experienced world. So, we take commonplace facts, well-warranted first truths and principles of right reason, and we assess worldviews across the main families, and then winnow down to the particular variety of the best so far as one can see." Vividvividbleau_{October 28, 2010
October
10
Oct
28
28
2010
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

wmurray re 42 "IMO for good to exist as good, everything that is non-good must also exist. No “X” can exist without “not-X” in order for X to be identifiable. God can no more do away with evil, IMO, than god can do away with good" I dont think that the existence of good requires the existence of non good or evil. Good makes the existence of non good possible but I dont think it does so by necessity. Vividvividbleau_{October 28, 2010
October
10
Oct
28
28
2010
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Molch & CY: I suggest you might find the remarks at 54 above helpful. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 28, 2010
October
10
Oct
28
28
2010
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee: "Let’s face it – Christianity is certainly a belief system that holds interest for many people – Christian and non-Christian. I would say that in the history of the world there has never been a belief system, which holds more intrigue. There are many forms of religious belief that are inspired by the Christian scriptures – we have Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarianism, Christian Science, 7th Day Adventism, Bahai faith, Islam, The Unification Church, Christian Deism, New Age Christianity, and all kinds of other belief systems, which have a certain religious interpretation of who Jesus is. We also have Christianity as the focal point of history as in our dating system. For billions of people, the message of Christianity means something very important, and yet there are so many contradictions between them as to what is really important, and what is true. It almost seams as though there’s so many varieties of beliefs based on Christianity that it would be difficult to define what the actual truth of Christianity is." I can take this paragraph you wrote and replace the words Christianity and Christian with e.g. Buddhism and Buddhist, the word Jesus with Buddha, and your list of Christian Faith versions and derivatives with Theravada, Mahayana, the traditions of Pure Land, Zen, Nichiren Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Shingon, Tendai, Shinnyo-en, etc. and it sounds just as convincing or unconvincing (take your pick) as an argument to adopt a particular belief system as your original version.molch_{October 28, 2010
October
10
Oct
28
28
2010
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee: "I was agreeing that one does not need to look into every alternative claim in order to know the truth of a particular claim. Do you not believe this?" When it comes to worldviews, I do indeed believe that "one does not need to look into every alternative claim to conclude the truth of a particular claim." Note that I replaced the word "know" from your sentence, and replaced it with the word "conclude". But it seems that you don't actually believe that when it comes to people NOT sharing your view. If you really did believe that, then why do you require an atheist to look into every argument for the truth of the Christian faith, when he/she has already concluded that deities are not likely to exist, and the Christian faith is one of a multitude of beliefs that include deities? "There are reasons outside the scriptures for why I hold them as truth." Ok. Sorry I misinterpreted you there. "The scriptures make sense of the world, the universe and my experience. Atheism does not." Well, your conclusions in that respect are obviously opposite to mine. It explains why you are a Christian and to some degree why I am an atheist. So that's completely fine by me.molch_{October 28, 2010
October
10
Oct
28
28
2010
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

molch, "In other words, you have examined the Christian scriptures, and you take their account of how the world is as the truth value and measure everything else against it." Not at all. That's not what I'm saying. There are reasons outside the scriptures for why I hold them as truth. The scriptures make sense of the world, the universe and my experience. Atheism does not.CannuckianYankee_{October 28, 2010
October
10
Oct
28
28
2010
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

molch, "In fact, I said almost the exact opposite of what you imply: Although I have certainly not had the time in my life to examine every single possible alternative and argument." What you implied was that I hold a higher standard to the atheist than myself because I obviously have not looked into every other religion in order to determine whether Christianity is true. I was agreeing that one does not need to look into every alternative claim in order to know the truth of a particular claim. Do you not believe this?CannuckianYankee_{October 28, 2010
October
10
Oct
28
28
2010
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee, Thanks for your detailed reply. It seems you are misunderstanding my point. You say: “I would agree that it is not necessary to look into everything that comes down the pike before committing to what one can reasonably determine to be true.” In fact, I said almost the exact opposite of what you imply: Although I have certainly not had the time in my life to examine every single possible alternative and argument, I indeed “have a habit of examining both the rigorous arguments and the rigorous philosophical critiques of those arguments for all sides before making my mind up about something as important as a philosophical worldview”. And I assumed that you had done the same. The arguments that you consider as the most important issues in your worldview are arguments for the Christian god that I am very familiar with and have examined and answered to my satisfaction. If you are actually interested in my views on these issues, I would move the conversation to private e-mail, because it would certainly explode the scope of this blog. The arguments and critiques themselves are not what I am concerned with in the current discussion. You say: “The way I look at it is this (and I gather much of this from scripture’s historical record): […] Such a record exists to this day in the scriptures of the Old and New testaments. […] It’s easy to ask “well, have you considered all the other religions?’ But all that is beside the main issues. […] How do you really account for the scriptural record without making assertions about what you believe actually occurred as opposed to what the scriptures themselves report?” In other words, you have examined the Christian scriptures, and you take their account of how the world is as the truth value and measure everything else against it. You are of course entitled to do so. But you are not entitled to expect me or anyone else to put any weight on your belief that the truth about the world according to the scriptures, traditions and truth-finding methods of all the other belief systems of the world are any less true, especially if you have not, as becomes clear from your writing, actually examined those scriptures, methods, arguments, and their criticisms.molch_{October 28, 2010
October
10
Oct
28
28
2010
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

molch, "I simply assumed that you, holding a “true” belief in the Christian god and thereby rejecting a huge variety of competing views, must have done the same in respect to said variety of available worldviews?" Yes. I would agree that it is not necessary to look into everything that comes down the pike before committing to what one can reasonably determine to be true. That said, there are certain issues to atheism, which fail to consider what I find as THE most important issues. Those issues for me are: If there is no god, then why do we as humans value anything? If there is no god, then why is the universe not completely chaotic? In other words, where does order come from? If there is no god, how does one account for the absurdity of infinite regresses of causes? If there is no god, why is there belief in god at any level? It seems to me that ancient people believed in god or gods because such a god exists. In my view, polytheism is a corruption of monotheism. Monotheism is not an evolved higher form of polytheism. Atheists often begin with the assertion that monotheism evolved out of polytheism, and much of their argument stems from such an assertion. The way I look at it is this (and I gather much of this from scripture's historical record): There is one God, who interacted personally with the first humans. This God created everything that exists. A certain event caused by the first humans brought about a significant change in God's relationship with humans, such that He no longer interacted or made His presence known to humans except in certain special circumstances connected with His overall plans for them. Eventually humans developed religions based on what was known and passed on about this God. Many of those religions developed into polytheistic belief systems, which incorporated physical representations of their deities. At the same time, God continued to interact with a select group of humans, who recorded both His interactions and his actions among humans. Such a record exists to this day in the scriptures of the Old and New testaments. Now for the sake of argument here, it does the atheist no good to argue against a belief system (namely Christianity), which has as it's foundation what I've illustrated above as if such events did not occur, by making the assertion that Christianity and monotheism somehow developed out of polytheism. I realize that you haven't made that assertion, but most of the atheists I come across do make it. In other words, I'm challenging atheists to follow the whole argument and not make assertions where none is warranted. The same goes for the positive arguments for God's existence. I'm asking atheists to answer the very basic questions I've asked above - if there is no god, how do you in essence, account for the universe and the things and phenomenon within? It's easy to ask "well, have you considered all the other religions?' But all that is beside the main issues. How do you really account for the scriptural record without making assertions about what you believe actually occurred as opposed to what the scriptures themselves report? I have never encountered a coherent answer to this from atheists, even as I continue to look at both sides of the question. And that is part of the reason I am as certain as I can be that theism and Christianity are true. Let's face it - Christianity is certainly a belief system that holds interest for many people - Christian and non-Christian. I would say that in the history of the world there has never been a belief system, which holds more intrigue. There are many forms of religious belief that are inspired by the Christian scriptures - we have Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarianism, Christian Science, 7th Day Adventism, Bahai faith, Islam, The Unification Church, Christian Deism, New Age Christianity, and all kinds of other belief systems, which have a certain religious interpretation of who Jesus is. We also have Christianity as the focal point of history as in our dating system. For billions of people, the message of Christianity means something very important, and yet there are so many contradictions between them as to what is really important, and what is true. It almost seams as though there's so many varieties of beliefs based on Christianity that it would be difficult to define what the actual truth of Christianity is. But if you follow what scripture actually says about this phenomenon, it's right in line. Jesus said a lot of things, but one thing he never said is that his teaching would be so compelling that everyone would believe. On the contrary, Jesus predicted that many forms of belief based on his life would arise. Even Paul warned against angels preaching "another gospel," and what do we see happening with other religions based on Christianity? Many of them begin with a visit from an "angel." So I don't believe God has left us without a coherent testimony of the truth such that we can't tell the difference. We can tell the difference, but such an ability comes through faith in Him, and not from questioning the very basis for His existence. That certainly won't lead to any satisfactory conclusion other than that life is meaningless.CannuckianYankee_{October 27, 2010
October
10
Oct
27
27
2010
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee, there are always populist arguments from any side of any debate that usually don't hold much water on close inspection. We agree that these kinds of arguments don't make a good foundation for building a solid and defensible worldview (most importantly defensible before yourself). I have a habit of examining both the rigorous arguments and the rigorous philosophical critiques of those arguments for all sides before making my mind up about something as important as a philosophical worldview. Considering your rather strong standard for someone to hold a "true" atheist view, i.e. the belief that there are no deities, I simply assumed that you, holding a "true" belief in the Christian god and thereby rejecting a huge variety of competing views, must have done the same in respect to said variety of available worldviews?molch_{October 27, 2010
October
10
Oct
27
27
2010
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

Molch, Thanks for your response. Of course you are correct. I should have qualified my statement by pointing out that these are the popular arguments we see coming from the new atheists, and not the more rigorous attempts coming from philosophers. I have met many atheists, and most of them prefer the populist arguments, which do not address the positive theist ones. I have also met atheists who have looked more carefully at the stronger arguments, and while they have not been entirely convinced, neither have they come up with what in my view is a coherent argument against. For example, the cosmological argument is often challenged by some sort of "who created God" argument. Sound familiar?CannuckianYankee_{October 27, 2010
October
10
Oct
27
27
2010
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

Molch and CY: While I am still busy with a constitutional crisis, I chanced to see your exchange. I think a few balancing words are in order, given the all too common fallacy of selective hyperskepticism and the contrasting key method of philosophical, worldview analysis inquiry: comparative difficulties. (I also -- in that light -- draw attention to a 101 survey of some relevant arguments on worldview options and the reality of God here, and on the core, historically and experientially [as in there are people who have had had -- and still have -- life changing encounters and relationships with the Living God, e.g. a certain Blaise Pascal] anchored positive warrant for the Christian view here and in App. 2 the same page.) On step-by-step points: 1 --> The first problem with an outright declaration of atheism is that it pretends to a degree of knowledge that is simply not accessible to finite, fallible, too often ideologically biased and closed-minded thinkers such as we are. (Wiser atheists become agnostics of one sort or another: we don't know, we have doubts,and maybe objections. But, we are open to listen seriously to responses to our questions, instead of resorting to habitual distractions, distortions, demonisations and dismissals.) 2 --> Now, too, the fraction of what is knowable that any one individual or group can actually know to demonstrative or even moral certainty, is so small that a wise thinker will never claim to KNOW that there is no God. So, as just noted, a little epistemological humility is called for. 3 --> And if one would trot out the so-called problem of evil as a knock down contradiction in theism, then one simply shows s/he is about 40 years out of date. 4 --> The next issue is with the term "proof." For, demonstrations are relative to premises, ultimately clusters of first plausibles, and if one does not like a conclusion, one can simply reverse the argument and dismiss one or more now objectionable premises. Perfectly valid. But maybe, not so sound. 5 --> If instead we understand "proof" to be a loose term for warrant in light of credible first principles of reason and evidence, then the point underscored by Greenleaf in the first linked -- and by Plato and Aristotle long before -- comes to bear: warrant comes in degrees, and we should strive not to have inconsistent standards for what we are inclined to accept and what we are inclined to reject, for claims of a given kind; e.g. matters of fact can only be warranted to moral certainty, and these days mathematical proofs have to reckon with Godel. That is, we should not be selectively hyperskeptical. 6 --> In this light, worldviews are responsibly held on the premise of reasonable faith, having done some comparative difficulties -- in effect a grand abductive exercise of inference to best explanation of the experienced world. So, we take commonplace facts, well-warranted first truths and principles of right reason, and we assess worldviews across the main families, and then winnow down to the particular variety of the best so far as one can see. 7 --> On such an approach [cf Section G in the first linked, on WCTs] we easily see that radical relativism and its fellow travellers are incoherent, and that worldviews that lead us to amorality are inconsistent with our experience of the world as morally bound creatures. That cuts a pretty wide swath across worldviews. 8 --> further to this, as I have argued in my recent UD post on naturalism, that worldview is evolutionary materialistic [what knee-jerk adherence to "science" and rejection of "the supernatural" boil down to]. Consequently, it is exposed to the charge of worldview-level question-begging bias, and is self-referentially incoherent through undermining the credibility of the minds needed to think evolutionary materialist thoughts and believe them well warranted. (It is also inherently amoral as it has no foundational is that can ground ought; as was pointed out by Plato in The Laws Bk X, 2,300+ years ago.) 9 --> Pantheistic systems -- yet another wide swath -- run into serious difficulty handling he vexed problem of the one and the many, i.e. unity and diversity in our common world. 10 --> Against that backdrop the rhetorical gambit that piles up philosophers who produce arguments that the classical or updated theistic arguments are not demonstrative, and/or that one does not like some particular premise or other are rather dated. No worldview is demonstrative relative to universally acceptable premises, so the whole approach is wrong: fallaciously selective hyperskepticism, in one phrase. 11 --> And the question as to what view best explains the world shapes a very different context for looking at the theistic arguments, especially cosmological, ethical and teleological ones, including the modern design argument. (Which in the end is why the late, former leading philosophical atheist in the world, Flew, became a former atheist. [And that transformation was about 20 years in the building, based on ways he was already thinking in the mid '80's, when Thaxton et al first stirred the pot with TMLO.]) 12 --> Moving over to the positive side of the ledger, the authenticity of the Judaeo-Christian tradition [with Islam a somewhat troubled side-branch] rests on history [cf the linked above for starters], and on the reality of people coming to know God for themselves. 13 --> For us Christians, there are millions in the world today and across time who have come to know God in the face of the risen, living Christ, in positively life transforming, miraculous ways. We have come to know God as you know your mother [can you PROVE that there is a real independent person, mind and loving spirit there in that body?], and it has changed our lives. 14 --> Nor are we all delusional -- the impact of that knowing God in personal encounter has had utterly transforming and positive impact on our world. 15 --> Sure there are many bad moments in our lives, and in the history of cultures influenced by Christian faith, but that is to be expected in a world where we at our best struggle to be virtuous. (All the one-sided hateful, lurid litanies by the New Atheists and fellow traveller village atheists are besides the point, especially after we have heard the moans of the ghosts of 100+ million victims of atheistical regimes over the past century.) _______________ So, the bottom-line is whether we will play at selective hyperskepticism, or get serious about worldview choice on comparative difficulties. When we get serious, the balance of intellectual credibility takes on a very different colour than many are wont to assume. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 27, 2010
October
10
Oct
27
27
2010
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee @ 45 & 26: you have an interesting view of atheists. I might be the kind of atheist you have not met before. And I think I am in good company. “But honestly, if anyone wants to be a true atheist and deny God, they really have to contend with all the arguments for His existence, and not simply the carefully constructed so as to avoid the positive, denialist arguments.” Well, a lot of philosophers HAVE contended with those positive arguments for the existence of deities. I am surprised that you seem utterly unaware of the rich philosophical literature criticizing them. As far as the arguments you mentioned are concerned, I tried it out: you can simply google each one of them and usually have to go only so far as Wikipedia to find a list of philosophers that have discussed and criticized the argument in question. So, if you are truly interested, you can find the sources without much trouble and read them... And, like I said, I might be different from all the other atheists that you know, but I have personally spent quite some time contending with these arguments myself. So far, I haven’t encountered any that convinced me after serious philosophical, logical and scientific investigation. Of course, given the large variety of religions that incorporate deities in their belief systems, I can’t claim that my investigation has been exhaustive – I continue to read and engage religious and philosophical texts of a great variety, because I enjoy philosophical questions about the world, honest philosophical discourse, and I enjoy changing my mind. But since you have such a stringent standard for all the atheists out there, and you seem to be a true believer in the Christian god and deny Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Wicca, Lamaism, Jainism, Secular Humanism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shamanism, Shintoism, Judaism, etc. etc. etc., I assume that by your own standard, you must have contended with all the arguments for their truth?molch_{October 27, 2010
October
10
Oct
27
27
2010
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

In the first paragraph I mean: ... because such things necessarily exist conceptually as the opposite of or contextually "not" what one is identifying.William J. Murray_{October 27, 2010
October
10
Oct
27
27
2010
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Collin, Whether or not one can directly experience the contextual "not-X" isn't imnportant. For example, I cannot directly experience "not-gravity"; but that doesn't mean that "not-gravity" doesn't exist, or that it cannot be imagined and then pursued. One can easily imagine a state where no matter exists, and pursue the development of such a state, because such things necessarily exist as the opposite of what one is identifying. In the post I was responding to, #7 by vjtorley, he stated: "Heaven is free from evil, or even the possibility of evil." and " Having attained it [the goodness of God], they are no longer free to turn away from God; their love of God is by now fixed and unchangeable, as their wills have been confirmed in grace." However, if one experiences matter, or gravity, how can one eliminate the potential to imagine and pursue non-gravity, and non-matter? If someone says "A", how can "not-A" be removed from the equation as a necessary contextual, contrasting implication? Identifying "mass" always carries with it the concept of more mass, or less mass; infinite mass, or no mass; more gravity, less, infinite, zero; good - more good, less; infinite, none. That's just the logical necessity of a characteristic. If good exists, and is identifiable, not-good must be at least an imaginable condition.William J. Murray_{October 27, 2010
October
10
Oct
27
27
2010
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

Collin # 48: "I cannot sense “not-matter.” But that does not mean that matter does not exist." Interesting, but what is around or next to matter that is not matter? Are we not able to sense it? If "good" becomes relative when would the "less good" (maybe the soup kitchen helper) become "evil" compared to a better good (the free medical giver) and who could judge? :-)alan_{October 27, 2010
October
10
Oct
27
27
2010
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply