In a meaningless world, does truth always have value over delusion?

_{scordova
July 6, 2013

Atheism, Philosophy, Religion

3}_{Categories
Atheism
Philosophy
Religion}

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

I care about truth if there is a God. But why should I care about truth if there is no God? In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case.

Two thousand years ago, someone echoed those sentiments:

What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Paul of Tarsus
1 Cor 15:32

There was an exchange between KeithS and I in another thread, and he fired off this comment:

Your comment epitomizes one of the biggest problems with Pascal’s Wager. It doesn’t ask the question “What is most likely to be true?” It only asks, “How can I get the best payoff?”

That’s anathema to anyone who truly cares about truth.

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s Wager;Comment 100

To which I responded:

But why should I care about truth if there is no God? In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case.

Why, logically speaking should an atheist care about truth in a meaningless universe? Perhaps the logical answer is no answer. If you say, truth has a better payoff, well, then you’ve just put payoffs ahead of truth! Right back where you started.

Further KeithS wrote:

Because the value of truth doesn’t depend on the existence of God.

To which I responded:

Value means PAYOFF! What is the payoff if there is no God?

I recall Dawkins in a debate with Lennox was asked about how humans can live their lives in a meaningless world. Dawkins said, “we create our own meaning”. Other atheists have repeated that statement such KeithS:

Life is full of meaning even without God. We create our own meanings, whether you realize it or not.

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s wager; Comment 59

to which I responded:

[the phrase] “we create our own meaning” is pretty much to me “we concoct our own unproven falsehoods to make us feel better”.
…
this whole “we create our own meaning” is worse than the religious ideas you are criticizing. You “know” there is no meaning, but you’ll pretend there is anyway. Reminds me of Coyne who “knows” there is no free will but he’ll pretend there is anyway.

And that is what continues to puzzle me about the atheistic variety of Darwinists (not Christian Darwinists). They seem to find much purpose in life in proving life has no purpose!

[posted by scordova to assist News desk with content and commentary until 7/7/13]

Comments

Read my response to StephenB, and then let’s see if you can come up with a rebuttal. I am still waiting for almost two days for your rebuttal o0f my post 215. Over that period of time on this thread alone you have posted over 30 times to others. I am not interested in your response to StephenB I am interested in you responding to post # 215. Vivid
vividbleau_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

vividbleau, The one you are trying to make. Does your question have a point?keiths_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

Read my response to StephenB, and then let’s see if you can come up with a rebuttal.
No no. You said I was attempting to make a logical argument what logical argument are you referring to? Vividvividbleau_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

CentralScrutinizer, Having a bad day?keiths_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

keiths #369, What does it matter, Mister Keiths? You're STILL gonna die like any other dog. Then what will it matter. Haha :) :) :) What a jackassCentralScrutinizer_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

vividbleau, Read my response to StephenB, and then let's see if you can come up with a rebuttal.keiths_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

You are attempting to make a logical argument, but your conclusion cannot be absolutely certain.
And what logical argument is that? Vividvividbleau_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

Another amusing case of someone complaining that I'm ignoring them at precisely the time I am actually composing a response to them!keiths_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

vividbleau, You are attempting to make a logical argument, but your conclusion cannot be absolutely certain. See my response to StephenB above.keiths_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I notice that you are ignoring this comment of mine:
Pot, kettle, black, Vividvividbleau_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

In other words, he has access to the LNC itself
Excellent we are making progress!!! The sly demon has access to an IT. Vividvividbleau_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

Phinehas,
Again, you assume a universal “us” where it is not warranted. When you say it is a mistake for “us” to claim absolute certainty, surely the “us” only refers to those who have not been granted absolute certainty by God and does nothing to preclude the open possibility that there exist those who have been granted absolute certainty by God.
Don't forget, this discussion started with my challenge to DonaldM:
To claim absolute certainty is to say that one could not possibly be wrong, that the probability of being incorrect is 0.0 and the probability of being correct is 1.0. I can’t think of any statement for which I would be willing to make such an extreme claim. Can you?
Whether anyone has ever been or could ever be absolutely certain of something is not the issue. It's whether you, me, DonaldM, etc., can legitimately claim absolute certainty of anything. You and I agree that we can't, because the "sly demon" is a possiblity. I actually think that an omnipotent God cannot bestow absolute certainty upon us, even if he wants to. I'll comment on that later, but it is irrelevant to the original question, which was whether we, on this thread, could justify any claim of absolute certainty. We can't.keiths_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I notice that you are ignoring this comment of mine:
The key word is “logically”. I agree that if a) we could be absolutely certain that the rules of logic were correct; and b) we could be absolutely sure that we were applying them correctly; and c) we could be absolutely certain that our premises were correct; then d) we could be absolutely certain of our conclusions. The problem, of course, is that we can’t be absolutely certain of a), b), and c), because we know we are cognitively fallible.
Are you absolutely certain of a), b), and c)? On what basis? Are you cognitively infallible?keiths_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

VB:
I am still awaiting an answer as to what the sly demon has access to?
Oh. I get what you are asking now. Nice question. :) The sly demon has access to whatever does and doesn't exist that is and is not causing you to think and not think what you are and are not thinking. In other words, he has access to the LNC itself, which I think we've all agreed is fundamentally necessary to the kind of logic needed to determine whether or not a sly demon can have access to something that both does and does not exist at the same time and in the same way. Absurd? The sly demon would like you to think and not think so!Phinehas_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

SB: Show me how an evil agent can deceive a non-existent person. I am still waiting for your answer. Take me from point A to point B. Don’t just keep saying that the journey is possible. Tell me exactly what the sly deceiver does (and to what) such that a metaphysically non-existent person can be deceived. Phinehas:
How? You’d have to ask Descartes demon. I can hardly be expected to explain the methods of an omnipotent and omniscient deceiver, can I?
Yes, you should be able to explain the methods of a process that you claim is possible. I could easily make my own case for a certain kind of deception. If, for example, I wanted to argue that an evil agent could deceive an existing human being, I would simply say that the deceiver filled the victim's mind (brain, consciousness, cognitive capacities, etc.) with false ideas. Or, I would say that the deceiver designed the victim's cognitive capacities such that they could only conceive certain kinds of thoughts and that those thoughts would not correspond to the extra-mental realities around him. Other scenarios are readily available. So, even if I don't think these things happened, I can show how they are logically possible. However, if the person is non-existent, that is, if there is no victim to be victimized, that is, if there is no one available to be deceived, then it is obvious (or it should be) that no deception is going to take place. If you think differently, then you should be able to create a scenario of some kind that can justify you claim. It should tell you something about your position (and keiths' position) that neither of you can provide such a scenario even through the exercise of your wildest imagination. It should also tell you something about your position that I knew you could not provide a scenario even before I issued the challenge. Descartes' whole point was that he could, in fact, begin with a premise about which he is absolutely certain, namely, his capacity to think, and he concluded that he can also be absolutely certain that he exists. So, the greatest doubter in history is absolutely certain that [a] he exists and [b] that he can think. Appealing to Descartes' supernatural deceiver, then, cannot help you. Not even Descartes thought that a supernatural deceiver could deceive a non-existent person.StephenB_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

Have you noticed a pattern developing? Trust me. It’s turtles all the way down!
Yes you already said that
It’s turtles all the way down, and if a sly demon has access ...
I am still awaiting an answer as to what the sly demon has access to? Vividvividbleau_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

Phinehas #353:
Does this mean you will now retract the following?
I’m yet to find a Christian (or a Darwinist for that matter, religious people in general) who doesn’t become irrational when being challenged, so maybe it’s a generalization but it’s supported by my experience.
:)
Well, not really, maybe I didn't make explicit what I meant when I said "being challenged", I meant being challenged on their religion (particularly on the concept of free will), which I don't think is the case on this discussion about certainty. But I'm open to change my mind :)Proton_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

VB: May I present: The Turtles... I am typing this. Perhaps you only think you are typing this because a demon is tricking you into thinking exactly that! Ok, well then I think I am typing this. Perhaps you only think you think you are typing this because a demon is tricking you into thinking exactly that! Well then, I think I think I am typing this. Perhaps you only think you think you think you are typing this because a demon is tricking you into thinking exactly that! Well then surely I think that I think that I think I am typing this. Have you noticed a pattern developing? Trust me. It's turtles all the way down!Phinehas_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
It was Kant’s error to believe otherwise. Apparently, you follow him and believe that our mental formulations can determine extra mental reality. Or, it may be the case that you have fallen into radical fideism, which is an equally unfortunate error.
If I've made errors, then I will be happy to address them as my own, but I won't be trying to defend someone else's errors. Nor will I concern myself with labels or any kind of philosophical guilt by association. What I am saying either stands on its own merits or it doesn't.
Show me how an evil agent can deceive a non-existent person. I am still waiting for your answer. Take me from point A to point B. Don’t just keep saying that the journey is possible. Tell me exactly what the sly deceiver does (and to what) such that a metaphysically non-existent person can be deceived.
How? You'd have to ask Descartes demon. I can hardly be expected to explain the methods of an omnipotent and omniscient deceiver, can I? I can't take you step by step through how God caused the Big Bang to happen either (other than to say He spoke and it was so), but surely you are not suggesting that this means such a thing is impossible, are you?
I can’t imagine why you think you have a point if you cannot defend it and will not even try.
I can't really speak to any limits on your imagination. :) Determining whether or not you think I have a point is certainly your privilege. I'm OK if you think I don't. I will point out, however, that there are others on the thread who appear to believe I am both trying and succeeding at making some pretty decent points. I really am perfectly content letting each reader make their own determination on this.Phinehas_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

LT:
If I understand his rejoinder: Even if I received divine knowledge, my personal knowing of that knowledge could never be anything other than human. I couldn’t get beyond my own tools and processes of cognition. I would therefore have to accept that anything I thought to be true and right, no matter my conviction, would require me to adopt at least some skepticism and humility.
Hmm. That's not at all what I got from his rejoinder...but if that is what he meant... Even if I received divine knowledge, my personal knowing of that knowledge could never be anything other than human. As a human, can you really declare the above to be true? How might a human know enough about divine knowledge and its capabilities to know that it cannot override one's human fallibilities when it comes to personal knowing? I couldn’t get beyond my own tools and processes of cognition. Again, how can a human know enough about what an omnipotent God can and cannot cause to happen cognitively to conclude that the above must be true? Can one get beyond their own tools and processes of cognition enough to declare that one cannot get beyond their own tools and processes of cognition?Phinehas_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Phinehas,
Non-existent things routinely have an apparatus. Nothing often has something. And no faculties or apparatus are necessary for deception to occur. Does the above seem absurd to you? Me too!
Obviously, you do not think it is absurd or you would not allow for the possibility, which you clearly do.
But perhaps that sly demon is so sly that he has us convinced that the above is absurd when it really makes perfect sense.
How we know things and the extent to which we can know them (epistemology) is related to but distinct from how things are and must be (metaphysics). The latter takes logical precedence over the former. It was Kant's error to believe otherwise. Apparently, you follow him and believe that our mental formulations can determine extra mental reality. Or, it may be the case that you have fallen into radical fideism, which is an equally unfortunate error.
If a sly demon has access to the foundations of thought such that he can make the absurd seem reasonable and that which makes perfect sense seem absurd, then, as I said before, all bets are off.
Show me how an evil agent can deceive a non-existent person. I am still waiting for your answer. Take me from point A to point B. Don't just keep saying that the journey is possible. Tell me exactly what the sly deceiver does (and to what) such that a metaphysically non-existent person can be deceived. I can't imagine why you think you have a point if you cannot defend it and will not even try.StephenB_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

What makes you believe that cognitive activity must be present for deception to occur?
I dont believe I know with absolute certainty that cognitive activity is present. I know with absolute certainty that "I" think "I" think "I" am typing this.
Some possibilities: - it is self evident - it is common sense - it is absurd to think otherwise - it is true by definition
No to all the above although it is absurd to think otherwise but no to that as well.
But if a sly demon has access to all of your logic and thinking processes, is it not possible that the sly demon could convince you that: - something is self evident when it isn’t? - something makes sense when it doesn’t? - something is absurd when it isn’t? - something is true by definition when it isn’t?
Yes to all the above.
As I’ve said above, if a sly demon has access to the foundations of thought such that he can make the absurd seem reasonable and that which makes perfect sense seem absurd, then all bets are off. Anything can be questioned,
Except that cognitive activity is present that cannot be questioned.
and answering that question requires thought and reason, which can themselves be questioned.
I am absolutely certain that cognitive activity is present.“I” am absolutely certain that “I” think I think “I” am typing this. Now there may be no I, the I maybe an illusion, an hallucination, a dream, in the matrix, a brain in the vat, whatever,it does not matter. It does not change that I am absolutely certain that cognitive activity is present."I" am absolutely certain “I” think I think “I” am typing this. I don’t know whether my thoughts are correct, they may not be my thoughts, there may be no such thing as thoughts,doesnt change a thing.
It’s turtles all the way down, and if a sly demon has access to all of the turtles, then we will continue to descend into this epistemological pit forever.
What does the sly demon have access to? Vividvividbleau_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Phinehas @352 - I think keiths has answered my objection reasonably. If I understand his rejoinder: Even if I received divine knowledge, my personal knowing of that knowledge could never be anything other than human. I couldn't get beyond my own tools and processes of cognition. I would therefore have to accept that anything I thought to be true and right, no matter my conviction, would require me to adopt at least some skepticism and humility.LarTanner_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Proton @351: Thanks! Does this mean you will now retract the following?
I’m yet to find a Christian (or a Darwinist for that matter, religious people in general) who doesn’t become irrational when being challenged, so maybe it’s a generalization but it’s supported by my experience.
:)Phinehas_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

KS and LT:
The issue in this thread is whether it is a mistake for us to claim absolute certainty, not whether it is possible in principle for God to transfer truth directly into our minds. Since we know that human cognition is fallible, and since we can’t reliably determine when we are making a mistake or when we are being deceived, there is no way for us to guarantee that any particular thought we may have is true. Likewise, even if God “inserts” a true thought into our minds, we can’t know with absolute certainty that his has happened. It might be a trick, or we might merely be mistaken. Either way, we can’t be certain that the thought is true. If you can’t guarantee that a thought is true, you can’t be absolutely certain of it.
Again, you assume a universal "us" where it is not warranted. When you say it is a mistake for "us" to claim absolute certainty, surely the "us" only refers to those who have not been granted absolute certainty by God and does nothing to preclude the open possibility that there exist those who have been granted absolute certainty by God. You continue to use "we" and "us" throughout your post in this same faulty way. On the one hand, you use it to refer to a limited set and then turn right around and pretend that it's application to that limited set is actually an application to a universal set. This is not warranted. LarsTanner has hit the nail on the head, and what you've written does not change that.Phinehas_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

I think Phineas #348 and #350 put the issue to rest.Proton_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

vividbleau:
The sly demon can only deceive where cognitive activity is present. The sly demon does not refute the absolute certainty that cognitive activity is present indeed it affirms it.
What makes you believe that cognitive activity must be present for deception to occur? Some possibilities: - it is self evident - it is common sense - it is absurd to think otherwise - it is true by definition But if a sly demon has access to all of your logic and thinking processes, is it not possible that the sly demon could convince you that: - something is self evident when it isn't? - something makes sense when it doesn't? - something is absurd when it isn't? - something is true by definition when it isn't? As I've said above, if a sly demon has access to the foundations of thought such that he can make the absurd seem reasonable and that which makes perfect sense seem absurd, then all bets are off. Anything can be questioned, and answering that question requires thought and reason, which can themselves be questioned. It's turtles all the way down, and if a sly demon has access to all of the turtles, then we will continue to descend into this epistemological pit forever.Phinehas_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Hi LarTanner,
Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but regarding item #4 in your list: If we grant the existence of God, do we not also have to grant God the power to enable humans to transcend the limits of human cognition, even temporarily? Or, as a variation on this same question, could not such a god theoretically transfer her own knowledge into a human being such that the resulting thought — translated from god-think to human-think — would assuredly be true?
Phinehas has asked a similar question above. A longer answer is forthcoming, but here's a shorter answer for the time being: The issue in this thread is whether it is a mistake for us to claim absolute certainty, not whether it is possible in principle for God to transfer truth directly into our minds. Since we know that human cognition is fallible, and since we can't reliably determine when we are making a mistake or when we are being deceived, there is no way for us to guarantee that any particular thought we may have is true. Likewise, even if God "inserts" a true thought into our minds, we can't know with absolute certainty that his has happened. It might be a trick, or we might merely be mistaken. Either way, we can't be certain that the thought is true. If you can't guarantee that a thought is true, you can't be absolutely certain of it.keiths_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
If something doesn’t exist, it doesn’t have anything, including an apparatus. Nothing has nothing.

To be deceived, one must be have some faculty to receive the deception.
I understand that you believe the above to be true. So do I. However, this still does not preclude the possibility that a sly demon may have convinced us that these things are true, while the actual truth may be: Non-existent things routinely have an apparatus. Nothing often has something. And no faculties or apparatus are necessary for deception to occur. Does the above seem absurd to you? Me too! But perhaps that sly demon is so sly that he has us convinced that the above is absurd when it really makes perfect sense. If a sly demon has access to the foundations of thought such that he can make the absurd seem reasonable and that which makes perfect sense seem absurd, then, as I said before, all bets are off.Phinehas_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

StephenB,
We now have two examples where absolutely certainty is established and cannot be rationally questioned:
You're repeating your mistake, so I'll repeat my rebuttal. Just replace 'logically' with 'rationally' to match your quote:
The key word is “logically”. I agree that if a) we could be absolutely certain that the rules of logic were correct; and b) we could be absolutely sure that we were applying them correctly; and c) we could be absolutely certain that our premises were correct; then d) we could be absolutely certain of our conclusions. The problem, of course, is that we can’t be absolutely certain of a), b), and c), because we know we are cognitively fallible.
keiths_{July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply