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

keiths:
Tell us which numbered statements in my argument are wrong, and why.
Barb:
A. All of them. B. Because you deny the fundamental law of logic.
Lol. I haven't denied any laws of logic, much less "the fundamental law", whatever you think that is. I've just said that we can't be absolutely certain, beyond any doubt, that the laws of logic are correct. It's also interesting that you think all of my statements are wrong, since the very first one is:
1. It’s possible that God exists. (or Satan, or demons, etc.)
Until today, I had no idea you were an atheist! Please keep posting, Barb. It's nice to have some comic relief in the midst of these otherwise serious discussions.keiths_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Barb, I think I've proven my argument is far from poor. You like to tell people they're irrational or illogical, when the one falling prey of such type of thinking is yourself, and do so so confidently.Proton_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

vividbleau: I am sure you know by now that Keiths argument boils down to “because I say so”
Special Relativity is a bit difficult to grasp, is not intuitive, but it does not lead to contradictions within space-time and that is the important point with regards to the LNC. One has to look at a question "does this object have these properties?" from the stand point of all the properties of space-time itself. And while there are no contradictions, the answer can be unknownable. Not one bit of SR or GR violates the LNC.CentralScrutinizer_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

keiths:
To do so he would have to provide us with absolute certainty that our reasoning is correct. But he doesn’t provide us with the absolute certainty that he isn’t deceiving us, so we can’t be absolutely certain that our reasoning is correct.
I believe you are making a mistake in equivocating between a limited and specific "us" (you and me and some others) to a universal "us" that includes everyone, everywhere, at every time. I am not saying that every single person in the universal set that is "us" currently has absolute certainty. Rather, I am saying that if an omnipotent and omniscient God is taken into consideration, it is illogical to rule out the possibility that any single person in the universal set of "us" might in fact already be absolutely certain, or might become absolutely certain, including the Prophets, the Apostles, StephenB, and perhaps some day even me and you.Phinehas_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Phinehas, Thank you for that.
...the only way I’ve ever been able to rise above the epistemological morass that I fall into when starting from man’s fallibility...
The morass isn't as bad as you think. Some things are still more probable than others, even if nothing is absolutely certain. Nothing horrendous happens when you give up absolute certainty; it's just that the probability needle doesn't point directly at 1.0.
...is to abandon that as a starting point and to start instead with an omniscient and omnipotent God and work my way backward to fallible man. From there, a lot of things that I see in human behavior start to make more sense.
As the thread continues, I hope to persuade you that this doesn't help. :) Absolute certainty is still a mistake.keiths_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Phinehas
But could an existent person be deceived into thinking that a non-existent person cannot be deceived? Could an existent person be deceived into believing that only an existent person can be deceived? Could an existent person be deceived into thinking that the above is obvious and incontestable?
Perhaps its time that the law of the excluded middle became more inclusive.StephenB_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Proton, you don't refute logical fallacies. They mean nothing, and add nothing to the discussion at hand. They only show that the person using them (namely, you) hasn't quite got a handle on this whole "internet debating" thing or has a poor argument to begin with.Barb_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Barb, Because keiths brought it [the Bible] up.. I said that the Bible was irrelevant to the discussion, because we can’t be absolutely certain of its truth. …to deflect from the fact that he can’t logically defend his position. keiths:
I’ve defended my position. Can you defend yours?
I've done that repeatedly in this thread. You're simply not reading my posts.
Tell us which numbered statements in my argument are wrong, and why.
A. All of them. B. Because you deny the fundamental law of logic. Or bail out like tgpeeler, and then wonder why we roll our eyes when you claim to be defending rationality. Please. Someone who claims to not be sure who he even is or that he might possibly be a brain in a vat has absolutely no business criticizing anyone else when it comes to rationality.Barb_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Even though I think keiths is wrong in the end, I am going to defend his argument to a certain point. I grappled with the same thinking about 20 years ago in a college philosophy course when first introduced to Descartes and his deceptive demon. I didn't know much about philosophy, but even then I didn't find his, "I think, therefore I am," very satisfying at all as a solution to the deceptive demon. For, I thought, if I were a really powerful and sly demon, I might convince Descartes that thinking requires existence, when the fact of the matter might very well be that non-existent things think all the time. You think that makes no sense? Of course you don't. And that's exactly what a sly demon might want you to think. Of course, I don't think there is a sly demon convincing me that thinking requires existence, and neither does keiths. But as a thought experiment, I think it holds up (or falls apart, depending on how you look at things) quite well as an argument against absolute certainty...until you consider the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent God. I'm no great philosopher, but the only way I've ever been able to rise above the epistemological morass that I fall into when starting from man's fallibility is to abandon that as a starting point and to start instead with an omniscient and omnipotent God and work my way backward to fallible man. From there, a lot of things that I see in human behavior start to make more sense.Phinehas_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

Phinehas, It's amusing that at the very moment you posted this...
To be fair, I did address your argument, which you acknowledged, and then… *crickets*
...I was busy writing a response to you. Oops. If you haven't noticed, there are a lot of people responding to me in this thread, and your comments aren't always my highest priority.keiths_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

Unless we can be absolutely certain of the correctness of our cognition
However as I have pointed out which stands unrefuted by you we can be absolutely certain that cognitive activity is present. Vividvividbleau_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

Phinehas, Thank you very much for your point-by-point response to my argument. I encourage others here to follow your lead.
If God exists, then it is possible that he has the power to provide us with absolute certainty regarding Truth.
To do so he would have to provide us with absolute certainty that our reasoning is correct. But he doesn't provide us with the absolute certainty that he isn't deceiving us, so we can't be absolutely certain that our reasoning is correct.
If he has the power to provide absolute certainty, then he might be exercising that power right now.
He's not exercising that power right now, because all of us know that our reasoning is imperfect. We make mistakes some of the time, and we don't always know when we are making them. Thus any thought we have might be mistaken. We can't be absolutely, 100.0% certain that it is correct.
Being omnipotent, he can supervene our humanity so that we can reliably determine his Truth with absolute certainty.
Yes, he could do that. But we know that he isn't doing that, as I explained above. The same pattern applies to the rest of your comment, so I won't belabor the obvious. The crucial point is: Unless we can be absolutely certain of the correctness of our cognition -- and we can't -- then we can't be absolutely certain of the truth of any of our thoughts.keiths_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

I’m merely gainsaying your unsupported assertion
Here's a recent support for my assertion (comment #35 mainly and then Barb's response). 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.Proton_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Central
You simply do not understand what you’re talking about. You need to do some careful study. But I’ll repeat it again, in case you missed it. No consequence of Special Relativity leads to a contradiction. All SR says with regards to synchronization of two events is that within different time frames it is impossible to know. There is no implication that LNC fails whatsoever.
I am sure you know by now that Keiths argument boils down to "because I say so" Keep up the good work Vividvividbleau_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
I am saying that a non-existent person cannot be deceived. Only a person who exists can be deceived. This is obvious and incontestable.
But could an existent person be deceived into thinking that a non-existent person cannot be deceived? Could an existent person be deceived into believing that only an existent person can be deceived? Could an existent person be deceived into thinking that the above is obvious and incontestable? :DPhinehas_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

I’m arguing that absolutely certainty isn’t justified, and of course that applies to my argument itself. I’m almost certain, but not absolutely certain, that my argument is correct.
You think you think you are right but you may be wrong and I am supposed to accept your argument even though you are not 100% certain it is a correct argument. Got it!! Vividvividbleau_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

keiths: Before special relativity, people thought that the meaning of “simultaneous” was self-evident, and that it was not possible for two events to be both simultaneous and not simultaneous, since this would violate the LNC. They were wrong. Their certainty was unjustified. It is possible for two events to be both simultaneous and not simultaneous, just not in the same reference frame.
You simply do not understand what you're talking about. You need to do some careful study. But I'll repeat it again, in case you missed it. No consequence of Special Relativity leads to a contradiction. All SR says with regards to synchronization of two events is that within different time frames it is impossible to know. There is no implication that LNC fails whatsoever.CentralScrutinizer_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

keiths, I appreciate the fact that, unlike many of your colleagues, you do not try to interject a series of irrelevant distinctions and categories into the discussion in an futile attempt to escape refutation by obfuscating the subject matter. However, you have stated that no one has found a flaw in your arguments, and that is simply not the case. As I pointed out, it is not logically possible to deceive someone who doesn’t exist into believing that he does exist. You must first exist in order to be deceived. The following comment did not address the issue:
Of course we think we exist, but even that thought might be mistaken. Your assumption is that thoughts always belong to a thinker. Do you know that with 100.0% certainty?
I am, in this case, not assuming that a thought belongs to a thinker, although that would certainly be the case. What I am saying is even more fundamental than that: I am saying that a non-existent person cannot be deceived. Only a person who exists can be deceived. This is obvious and incontestable. So, if you disagree, please answer the relevant question: How can a non-existent entity that has no thinking apparatus with which to form either true or false impressions be deceived?StephenB_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

Er... Maybe Barb ISN'T interested...Phinehas_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

keiths:
Tell us which numbered statements in my argument are wrong, and why.
To be fair, I did address your argument, which you acknowledged, and then... *crickets* Maybe Barb is interested in taking the time to address your points if she suspects it would also end in... *crickets* :)Phinehas_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

And in case there is anyone reading this who is still making the same mistake as tgpeeler, before he vamoosed:
So your response to my post is to ignore the salient point, that you say we can NEVER be certain, which is to make a certain statement. Figures.
I'm arguing that absolutely certainty isn't justified, and of course that applies to my argument itself. I'm almost certain, but not absolutely certain, that my argument is correct. Is this really so difficult?keiths_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Proton:
Is that a concession?
Nope. I'm merely gainsaying your unsupported assertion, which, as I said, is entirely appropriate as a refutation of such.Phinehas_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

Barb,
Because keiths brought it [the Bible] up..
I said that the Bible was irrelevant to the discussion, because we can't be absolutely certain of its truth.
...to deflect from the fact that he can’t logically defend his position.
I've defended my position. Can you defend yours? Tell us which numbered statements in my argument are wrong, and why. Or bail out like tgpeeler, and then wonder why we roll our eyes when you claim to be defending rationality.keiths_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

CentralScrutinizer and William, Before special relativity, people thought that the meaning of "simultaneous" was self-evident, and that it was not possible for two events to be both simultaneous and not simultaneous, since this would violate the LNC. They were wrong. Their certainty was unjustified. It is possible for two events to be both simultaneous and not simultaneous, just not in the same reference frame. Before relativity, people were certain about simultaneity and its relation to the LNC. Their certainty prevented them from questioning their beliefs. Fortunately, Einstein wasn't certain and his lack of certainty led to a huge advance in human knowledge. Absolute certainty is a mistake. It gains you nothing of value, and it keeps you from questioning things that you think are certain, but aren't really. Physicists, pre-relativity, were mistakenly certain. Let's learn from their mistake, rather than repeating it.keiths_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

Your logical fallacy (hasty generalization) is noted and summarily ignored.
Ignoring is easier than refuting it seems.Proton_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

All that religious people do is bend their logic and observations to fit the religious text of their choice with no regard to common sense or empirical observations.
I waffled between ignoring this and refuting it. I landed on the following as the most appropriate refutation: Nah-uh.
Is that a concession?Proton_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Proton writes,
I fail to see why a debate about the truth of the Bible is even happening.
Because keiths brought it up to deflect from the fact that he can't logically defend his position.
All that religious people do is bend their logic and observations to fit the religious text of their choice with no regard to common sense or empirical observations.
Your logical fallacy (hasty generalization) is noted and summarily ignored.
What happened to the spirit of ID? “Follow the evidence where it leads to”?
Ignoring one of the foundations of knowledge, the LNC, leads to incomprehension, for one thing.
Of course both Darwinists and Christians prefer to maintain their worldview than to follow evidence, observation and logic thinking, but this is the reason this debates go nowhere.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.Barb_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler,
No thanks. Not my job to reason with an irrational person. I’ve said more than enough already. Good day.
If I'm as irrational as you say, it should be trivial to find a flaw in my argument. So much for your premise. It's interesting that when it comes time for you to be rational, it's suddenly "not my job".keiths_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

No thanks. Not my job to reason with an irrational person. I've said more than enough already. Good day.tgpeeler_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Well, I didn't say that it violated it. I have never said that anything violated the LNC. I have merely argued that for some things, other logics seem to do a better job. I see logic like I see math - as a tool, not as a series of claims about the world. But I agree that William's formulation seems to cover my example.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply