Gobsmackingly Stupid Things Atheists Say, Example 8,264

_{Barry Arrington

June 13, 2016

Intelligent Design}

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

Jason Rosenhouse writes:

We certainly do not know a priori that piles of bricks do not form images of imaginary unicorns, and it is not logically impossible that they do.

UPDATE:

I decided I could not resist adding Example 8,265 from the some post:

I do not know how the chemical reactions and electrical firings inside my head lead to mental images, but there is copious evidence that they do and zero evidence that anything non-physical is involved

Wow. How does Rosenhouse deal with all of the evidence contrary to his position? Easy peasy. Fiat. Just declare that it does not exist.

Turns out the hard problem of consciousness is not so hard after all. All David Chalmers needed to do was call up Jason Rosenhouse and the conversation would have gone something like this

Dave: Hey, Jason, I have all of these observations that I cannot fit into monist categories. The observations are so puzzling that I have coined a term, the “hard problem of consciousness.”

Jason: Do tell.

David: Yep. I have all of this evidence. How do I deal with it Jason?

Jason: Easy. The evidence does not exist.

David: I’m pretty sure it does.

Jason: Nope. You are wrong. It does not exist.

David. Well, OK then. I’m glad we talked. That’s a load off my mind.

In all seriousness, this is a persistent problem that materialists don’t seem to be able to understand, far less overcome. They genuinely seem to believe that evidence that does not persuade them is “non-evidence” instead of “unpersuasive-to-me-evidence.” See here where I discussed this in depth. Especially amusing is the smug certitude with which Rosenhouse and his ilk dismiss all evidence contrary to their position as if it does not exist. It must be nice to live in a bubble of incurious certitude where one’s beliefs are never challenged because anything that could possibly challenge them does not, by fiat, exist. Nice, but boring.

Comments

I won't say my atheism is identical to Seversky's but it is pretty bloody close; well put sir! Barry I agree there is zero evidence for anything else being involved. I agree because any other evidence would be, by default, physical evidence, it would leave a physical finger print. Here's my question: How do you detect or determine non-physical evidence, which by defintion is not there?rvb8_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

It actually is logically impossible that matter should form anything at all. That's why we have the two different terms matter and form. When Rosenhouse speaks of piles of bricks he's already speaking of matter that is informed. IOW, he's question-begging. And that, my friends, is illogical.Mung_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Seversky @11: Thank you for taking time to answer the questions in a thoughtful and rather complete way. I’ll leave most of this conversation to others, but just a couple of quick drive-by things that jumped out at me:
If there is no deity or some other intelligent agency behind it all then what we think of as material reality is all there is, so in that sense atheism entails “materialism”.
Let me make sure I understand. If by “no deity or some other intelligent agency” you mean nothing other than the physical and the material, then your statement is definitely true. However, it is also tautologically true, by definition: If there is nothing but the material, then everything is material. I think there are some atheists, at least in the sense of denying the existence of deity, who nevertheless hold that there is something beyond the physical and the material. Do you feel that this is a rational position an atheist could take? Does it mean they are more properly agnostic, rather than atheist?
The other problem is that an omniscient God with demonstrated foreknowledge of the future completely undermines the concept of free will.
No. This is definitely not true. See my comments here, where this very issue has been discussed in detail (ironically, not because of the proposition from atheists, but by theistic evolutionists) – let me repeat, I truly hope some readers here will appreciate the irony of this claim being brought up both by atheist materialists and some theistic evolutionists: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bakers-dozen-thirteen-questions-for-dr-hunter/
For me, the “supernatural” is an empty concept. If, for example, ghosts exist in some form in our universe then they are a natural, albeit very elusive, phenomenon. They would have a “nature” which could be studied, at least in principle. Science could observe and try to explain them. The same would be true of a deity that interacted with our universe in some way. Even if these phenomena reside in some domain outside our Universe, it would just mean that the natural world is more than just our observable Universe.
I think this is a reasonable point, and I largely agree. As long as we are careful not to equate "non-material" with "supernatural." Like you, I personally don't like the latter term and find it rather unhelpful.Eric Anderson_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

@seversky In essence what you write is very plainly a systematic rejection of the validity of subjectivity. Subjectivity you entertain as a questionmark, what is it? Objectivity you accept without question, as axiomatic. Fact is allowed, opinion maybe. We pretty well know what subjectivity is, because we talk in subjective terms in common discourse, and broadly we use the logic of free will with those subjective terms. So it means you are saying everybody is wrong to say "I love you" and such, because they use the sceintifically "wrong" logic of free will with those words. Words like: "I love you", "the painting is beautiful", "I believe in God", on a fundamental level they all use one and the same logic of subjectivity. And obviously you have no "sincerity?" or "honesty?" in dealing with your "responsibility?" on this issue of how you regard subjectivity, because you disregard subjectivity, and only deal with the tools for facts, like accuracy and evidence.mohammadnursyamsu_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Seversky, try the Smith two tier controller model as a first approach. Further understand that a mechanism driven and controlled by mechanical necessity and blind chance indeed cannot have rational responsible freedom of action. But then consider that the implied premise of all our arguing above is that such is real. Where, to reject such freedom at once lands us in grand delusion and utter incoherence as a result. So, we have reason to believe that brain and cns facts do not exhaust all the material facts. KFkairosfocus_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

JDH @2 "nothing seems more self contradictory to me..." I wish this site had an up-voting mechanism because I would up-vote that point 1000 times. Much (if not all) hangs on whether we truly have free will; without it there is no morality (nor need for any) and nihilism is the ultimate end of a mind that believes that free will is an illusion. I have always felt that the concept of a conscious mind trying to "decide" if it has free will or not is the height of insanity. What is determining the next word(s) that I will type? Materialism? Really? To quote St. Paul in Romans: "professing themselves wise, they became fools". I used my free will to select that particular verse...reductio_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Seversky - Please bear with me while I try to explain something to you. You said
The other problem is that an omniscient God with demonstrated foreknowledge of the future completely undermines the concept of free will.
Let me try to explain with all humility what I think the problems are with your statement. I will of course use my favorite example - the book "Flatland". In Flatland a 3-d sphere injects himself into the 2-d world of Flatland whose occupants are 2-d polygons and circles. Of course, the sphere is quite aware that in reality he is a sphere occupying a small amount of the 2-d world of Flatland. The Flatlanders themselves however see him differently. They would describe him as a circle who can contract and expand up to a maximum size at will. He can also completely disappear and then reappear in a completely different place. He also has the ability to view what happens in walled off areas without being there. There is no way that the sphere could describe what "up" means to a flatlander and no way he could explain "how" he was able to do all that he could do, he would only be able to demonstrate it. You as a time bound object which can only live in one time declare that the presence of an omniscient God with demonstrated foreknowledge of the future completely undermines the concept of free will. I agree that to a TimeLander like yourself, such a statement seems perfectly airtight. There is no way that a God can move "up" to see what is on the other side of time's wall. You should know that one of God's attributes is that He inhabits Eternity. We have no idea what that means and no way of understanding what direction we move in to see the future. He inhabits that world. It is not there is an inherent contradiction between God knowing the future and free will, it is just that he already lives able to observe both places. The fact that you can't see this does not mean that it is not objectively possible in eternity for God to "tell the future", it does mean that you as a TimeLander will have to take it by faith. I feel sorry for you if this small-mindedness which causes you to believe that the omniscience of God and free will are contradictory concepts. It will keep you from gaining entrance to that great day when our faith will be made sight and we will be brought into the realm of the eternal. "we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." I feel sorry because if you continue to accept the untruths you have been taught and the corollaries you have deduced, you will miss it.JDH_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Seversky, consider this statement from Rosenhouse
I do not know how the chemical reactions and electrical firings inside my head lead to mental images, but there is copious evidence that they do and zero evidence that anything non-physical is involved
Agree or disagree that there is zero evidence?Barry Arrington_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

JDH @ 2
Please can somebody who is an atheist answer these honest questions from me?
I can give you my thoughts but bear in mind other atheists may take a different view.
1. Doesn’t atheism require materialism. To refuse materialism means there exists at least one entity that does not obey methodological naturalism. That means there exists at least one moral agent that is able to take actions based on transcendent moral ideas. This would seem to me to define that there is at least one god.
As I understand it, "materialism" is considered an obsolete concept in philosophy, the preferred term now being "physicalism". Apparently, the reason is that "materialism", very simply put, referred to a concept of everything being made up of little lumps of hard stuff. "Physicalism" refers to our current understanding of the nature of physical reality as developed by physics. It means understanding that matter and energy are the same "stuff" in different forms, that time and space are elastic in relativity theory and there is a whole lot of weirdness going on at the quantum level. What science deals with is what we can observe, using "observe" in its broadest sense, assuming that it's not all a Matrix-like simulation. We started with what was in front of us and have been working our way outward ever since. If there is no deity or some other intelligent agency behind it all then what we think of as material reality is all there is, so in that sense atheism entails "materialism". If you want to argue that there is a deity behind it then you need to provide good reasons and ideally, evidence, for why we should believe that. None of this denies that the origins of the Universe, why there is something rather than nothing, why the Big Bang went "bang" when it did, the source of the "laws" that make an ordered universe possible at all are all profound mysteries. Offering God as an explanation doesn't help in the scientific sense because, although it suggests a "who", it still doesn't tell us anything about "how", which is what interests science.
2. Nothing seems more self contradictory to me than to have someone consider whether or not they have free will. If they are considering the question, they are admitting they have it. What’s wrong with this statement?
There is no doubt that we all experience the feeling that we are exercising free will throughout our lives. On the other hand, it would be irrational to deny that we are the products of history. We inherited our genes which shape us physically and perhaps in other ways from our parents. There were familial, social and cultural influences which bore on us from the moment we were born. All this happened long before we were aware of it. To that extent you could say were are determined so perhaps the question should be how much free will do we have? The other problem is that an omniscient God with demonstrated foreknowledge of the future completely undermines the concept of free will. When Jesus told Peter that he would deny Him thrice before the cock crowed, He didn't say "There's a pretty good chance you will..." or "There's a 95.24% probability that you will...". He said "You will". And he did. Peter had no choice in the matter, no free will.
3. If materialism is false, and you have to allow for the supernatural, isn’t the creation of the world by God the simplest answer for the apparent design observed in nature?
For me, the "supernatural" is an empty concept. If, for example, ghosts exist in some form in our universe then they are a natural, albeit very elusive, phenomenon. They would have a "nature" which could be studied, at least in principle. Science could observe and try to explain them. The same would be true of a deity that interacted with our universe in some way. Even if these phenomena reside in some domain outside our Universe, it would just mean that the natural world is more than just our observable Universe.
4. Doesn’t the belief that Darwinism is a superior answer to the observed design of nature depend upon the believer’s evaluation of abstract ideas and the believer’s choosing of a theory of materialism that negates his ability to choose?
To me, "Darwinism" is used as a pejorative epithet for evolutionary theory in biology or evolutionary thinking in other fields to which someone objects, usually - although not always - on religious grounds. The current theory of evolution has moved some way beyond Darwin's original. It's considered the best available explanation as far as it goes but it's still being developed, still a work-in-progress. It's not some Eternal Truth handed down from on high, inscribed on tablets of stone. And, yes, there is still the problem of reconciling our experience of free will with the deterministic nature of the observable Universe or the Christian concept of God.Seversky_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

I would generally err on the side of doubt. If it is simple to prove that bricks (I'd want a specification for what "brick" means here) do not naturally assemble themselves into "images" (do you mean "statues"?) of "imaginary" unicorns (as opposed to the real ones?), then it must surely be simple to either cite a source for this fact or go through a simple but competent proof the assertion is true. You can get DEEPLY into illogic and falsehoods by asserting a commonly held belief as the foundation for your specific argument. This can of course be ignored if it's 2 o'clock in the morning and you're just arguing with a guy in a bar. But then I assume from all of the other attacks on Atheism that you intend a more formal disproof.mahuna_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

JDH writes,
Please can somebody who is an atheist answer these honest questions from me? 1. Doesn’t atheism require materialism
The answer is no. I would be glad to discuss this further at http://jdkdiscussion.blogspot.com/.jdk_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Another statement by Jason Rosenhouse concerning ID: --------------------------------------------------- "What I care about is whether its defenders have a reasonable argument to make. If they do, then any worries about demarcation criteria, religious implications, or political agendas are beside the point. Since they do not, we can just end the discussion right here." http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2016/06/10/id-isnt-science-but-thats-the-least-of-its-problems/ ----------------------------------------------------- All together now; chant; while bowing the knee to the golden whale-calf of Darwin. Design is not design. Design is not design. Darwin's common sense told him, there's no intelligence in life's design.' Darwin purposefully designed a theological straw God to keep the Judaeo-Christian God out of his "Origin." Christian disciples of Darwin help keep an idol by feeding it shredded scripture. Thus, atheists have little to fear. No matter how many 'stupid' comments atheists may make; they cannot be more 'stupid' than the actions of such fellow Christians.mw_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

JDH
Nothing seems more self contradictory to me than to have someone consider whether or not they have free will. If they are considering the question, they are admitting they have it. What’s wrong with this statement?
JDH, your statemenet seems reasonable to me. The intellect provides the target (moral truth) and the will shoots the arrow (the decision to follow or not follow). What would be the point of a target if you had no arrow to shoot?StephenB_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Barry: [T]he physical chemicals in the brain are incapable of producing the mental images in the mind. There is a vast, unbridgeable ontological gulf between physical things and mental things. Therefore, we can rule out, in principle and a priori “chemicals” as a cause of “thoughts.” Jason:
Skeptical readers might want some justification for that “vast, unbridgeable, ontological gulf” remark.
That’s easy, Jason. A cause cannot give what it does not have to give. Material nature does not have the juice to produce non-material abstractions. If it isn’t in the cause, then it will not be found in the effect. .
We certainly do not know a priori that piles of bricks do not form images of imaginary unicorns, and it is not logically impossible that they do. It is instead an empirical fact that they do not, one we feel confident about precisely because we thoroughly understand their physical and chemical structure.
What the ????. Jason, this is even more insane than your first comment. If you don't know, logically, that bricks CANNOT form abstract images, how do you propose to show that they DO NOT form abstract images by considering their physical and chemical structure? How large is your sample size of formed bricks? What form does your sample take? How do you establish causation between the formation of bricks and the emergent abstract image?StephenB_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Barry @ 3, I think intentionality defined narrowly as “aboutness,” or thinking of or about something, sometimes may not be same as freewill. For example, when a thought just “pops in your head.” For example, just now I started thinking of Karen Carpenter dressed in green satin sitting by a fireplace singing “Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire.” Where did that come from? I wasn’t listening to the Carpenters or any music and it’s not close to Christmas, yet for some reason that’s what I began to think about. It definitely was not something I deliberately (or intentionally, using the other definition) chose to think about. It’s weird, but I’m sure it happens to other people. (At least I hope it does.) I guess you might call thoughts like that “unintentional intentions.”john_a_designer_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Same old sophomoric regurgitations. This guy needs to stick to his specialty. And his toadies are even more ridiculous. If they only knew.mike1962_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

JDH:
2. Nothing seems more self contradictory to me than to have someone consider whether or not they have free will. If they are considering the question, they are admitting they have it. What’s wrong with this statement?
This is very interesting. A subject (you) is considering an object (in this case a proposition). Certainly this implicates subject-object duality. It also implicates "intentionality," the idea that our thoughts have an "aboutness." Subject-object duality and intentionality certainly have implications for free will, but I have never considered whether they are the same thing. Readers, thoughts?Barry Arrington_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Please can somebody who is an atheist answer these honest questions from me? 1. Doesn't atheism require materialism. To refuse materialism means there exists at least one entity that does not obey methodological naturalism. That means there exists at least one moral agent that is able to take actions based on transcendent moral ideas. This would seem to me to define that there is at least one god. 2. Nothing seems more self contradictory to me than to have someone consider whether or not they have free will. If they are considering the question, they are admitting they have it. What's wrong with this statement? 3. If materialism is false, and you have to allow for the supernatural, isn't the creation of the world by God the simplest answer for the apparent design observed in nature? 4. Doesn't the belief that Darwinism is a superior answer to the observed design of nature depend upon the believer's evaluation of abstract ideas and the believer's choosing of a theory of materialism that negates his ability to choose?JDH_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

When your argument requires you to take refuge in whatever is not absolutely logically impossible, it's best to abandon that argument.William J Murray_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply