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

_{Salvador Cordova

July 6, 2013

Atheism, Philosophy, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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

No, it doesn't, William. I could be dead, and still make that statement, presumably. It tells me nothing about the world, or whether there is one. Hence solipsism. I am not a solipsist, but I do accept that "I exist" in itself tells me nothing about the world.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, I am sorry, but the expose of your usual enabling of abuse [you linked a case that objected to apparent passive support of censorship by Matzke . . . albeit I think the citation from the slogan over the entrance at Concentration Camps was overdone, there are many cases of censorship -- remember, defamation such as by false accusations of lying does not have "free speech" protection -- that do not go so far, but are bad enough] is simply not comparable to your personal enabling of slander by OM, and it seems also now false accusations of lying -- not mere statement of disagreement or reply claiming error, but false accusation of lying made by KS and sustained in the teeth of cogent correction. THAT is the context for your remarks just above ans it is not pretty. I suggest you think again, very carefully, about what you have been enabling. KFkairosfocus_{July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

@kf and Liddle: UD is a full of slanders by Trinitarians and Darwinists alike. Again: observe the hypocracy.JWTruthInLove_{July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

Good grief, G. What on Earth are you on?Alan Fox_{July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

Words are imperfect tools in an attempt at communication. I leave to the fair reader to decide who is making the better effort.Alan Fox_{July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

JWT and AF et al, I suggest, for record, you kindly cf 659, 660 and 667 above where KS has made it utterly plain that his deliberate policy has been to spread and sustain slanders and smears even in the teeth of cogent correction, and to thereby misinform and poison; kindly cf here for a very explicit, point by point corrected case. KS has manifested outright incivility and the reported dressing of slander up in claimed martyrdom simply underscores the shamelessness, deviousness, and calculated, cynical manipulation involved. If any objector site wishes to uphold and enable such slander backed up by turnabout accusations, that tells us even more, on just what we are dealing with in our civilisation. KFkairosfocus_{July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

It seems that Dr. Liddle doesn't want to address her apparent self-contradiction. She said:
I am certain that I exist. I just don’t think that “I exist” is an objective truth about the world.
If you are certain "I exist" is a true statement, and if "the world" is defined as "what exists", then haven't you made a truth claim about "the world"? That you, whatever you are, exist, whatever that means, in the world, whatever the world is?William J Murray_{July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

And slanders like this directed at "Darwinists", are evidently deemed acceptable behaviour at UD. I defy anyone to slide razor-blade between the two. However, because both sites are hosted in countries in which freedom of speech are valued, my guess is that both are completely legal. And quite right too.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

F/N: Let us just remember, slanders like this directed at design supporters, are evidently deemed acceptable behaviour at TSZ. KFkairosfocus_{July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

@Alan Fox: Banning keiths was an unintelligent coward’s move (I suspect a trinitarian)… and now keiths can play the martyr-card. However keiths KNOWS that this fact doesn’t prevent him from answering questions. So, keiths: Please answer vividbleau’s questions.
Where would you like him to respond? He has already opened a thread at TSZ Shall I just relay the questions? Confirm what it is you want asked and I'll oblige.Alan Fox_{July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT}

@ JWTruthInLove I think you need to register before accessing the members' list. The forum is accessible to guests.Alan Fox_{July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT}

@Alan Fox: Banning keiths was an unintelligent coward's move (I suspect a trinitarian)... and now keiths can play the martyr-card. However keiths KNOWS that this fact doesn't prevent him from answering questions. So, keiths: Please answer vividbleau's questions.JWTruthInLove_{July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

@Alan Fox: Click on the Members Button on the Antievolution forum page.JWTruthInLove_{July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT}

Barb, if free will is the ability to make choices (and I agree that that is a sensible definition) then there isn't a neuroscientist who would disagree with you (certainly not this one). But that isn't to "reduce the decision-making process to only the neurons in your brain". Neurons don't make decisions, people do. And people are far more complex than neurons, and have properties that neurons don't have (wholes can have properties not possessed by their parts and vice versa). The brain, which itself far more than "neurons", is itself merely a subsystem of the entire organism, which includes, importantly, both sensory and motor systems - in other words systems that enable the organism to collect information and act on that information, having simulated the outcomes of alternative courses of action, and weighed them up against outcomes of value. In other words, organisms are highly sophisticated choosers - free to make any one of a wide range of options, and modify those options in light of results so far. Whether that means they are Intelligently Designed or not is another matter, but their decision-making capacity certainly cannot be "reduced to neurons in the brain"! Neurons play a part of course, but so do many other components, and the system's ability cannot be "reduced" to any one, or even any one subset.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT}

JWTruthInLove
Your forum is broken. Why should I waste time on your lies and failures?
Your link works fine. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7305;st=9510#entry224948 Here's the main page. TSZAlan Fox_{July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

LarTanner RE 697. Are you like Keiths going to ignore me? Vivid
Perhaps, in view of Uncommon Descent's reversion to type in banning KeithS (without explanation - how cowardly?) and the lack of any developments in the "science" of 'Intelligent Design', we could all use a good dose of ignoring. KF certainly could do with a rest. My scrolling finger could do with a break from BA77. Do I see a trend developing? Overwhelming Evidence, ISCID, ARN, Telic Thoughts, Young Cosmos? If you don't want reasonable discussion you risk the same fate. Not that there would be anything wrong with that! ;)Alan Fox_{July 19, 2013
July
07
Jul
19
19
2013
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

EL: While it is extremely limited, there is now agreement that there is at least one self-evident truth accessible to each of us. That we cannot be deceived that we are self-aware entities. Directly, this means that self-evident, certainly knowable truth is possible, by personal and direct awareness. Now, the further issues enter, as WJM shows by highlighting that we are aware of the other, that is that we are limited entities. And, shocker, the possibility that we may in part be deluded brings to bear another, far more wide-reaching candidate to be in the same class, namely Royce's proposition that error -- actual error -- exists. We can go the abstract proposition route, but that has been laid on previously. A different route, start by constructing natural numbers by successive collection of sets, a purely mental operation accessible to the self aware. {} --> 0. {0} --> 1, {0,1} --> 2, etc. Symbolise as |. ||, ||| . . . where | is a singleton "counter." (All this can be abstractly done.) Then, do addition operations: 2 + 3 = 5, etc. Now, state instead 2 + 3 = 6. Do the counter versions, and see the divergence on comparing and striking [a substitute for undoing the join.) || + ||| --> ||||| vs || + ||| --> |||||| The mismatch shows that error exists can be certainly shown, even to a potentially deluded self aware agent. (I have of course done a simplistic case, a more realistic case would be to add a stack of three to five digit numbers mentally, as place value notation can be built up the same way. I exclude my dad from this exercise as an old fashioned computer [the human kind] who still knows algorithms for exactly adding 3-digit columns of any length and who used to mentally check calculators just to be sure they were right.) The reality of error can be certainly known, at minimum by constructed example. Now, are we deluded, mistaken, to perceive an external world? [Quite a collective delusion if so. Matrix world or Plato's cave stuff.] At the quip level, one would be able to deride such a person, but there is a more serious set of matters. Part of our incorrigible self-awareness is that the world extends beyond the limits of our persons and we interact with it, starting with basics such as nutrition. Could all of this be delusional, and are we locked up behind an ugly gulch between the inner self-aware world and anything beyond, if such exists so that we can know nothing on the other side -- if there is one? (The wag will say, stop participating in the delusions of breathing, eating and drinking for long enough and the answer will be plain enough. But, that is rather drastic and final.) My first step is to say that F H Bradley had a point: he who imagines the external world to be unknowable necessarily implies a knowledge claim beyond the gulch and defeats him or herself. and if the identity cluster of laws of thought is doubted, simply the existence of the natural numbers and distinct identities and properties suffices to ground these laws of thought. At least, on pain of utter confusion. Making the choice coherence and sense over confusion, we have no good grounds to reject the laws of thought. So, we see that we have no good grounds for rejecting that some things about the apparent external world are real, though we may have some mistakes mixed in. When we come to that red ball on the table, we see no good reason to reject world partition, and the application of laws of thought to that apparent external world. But we do not just encounter passive objects, we encounter evident persons, who have capacity to surprise us, and with whom we communicate and interact. To deny the reality of that interaction leads to a situation where the onlooker can reasonably respond, sorry, I too am self aware and expect that to be respected. (This brings up the AI debates, and the key answer is that a real person is creative and designing, i.e. the test of design is sufficient to be morally certain of separate personhood.) Now, I am aware that this sort of discussion may seem silly to those of us who -- quite rightly -- act on common sense, and will accept correction if they find themselves mistaken, but see no good reason to hold themselves hostage to those caught up in the overgrown skepticism that haunts our civilisation. To such, I say, try to understand how hard it is to get out of a quicksand by oneself. The most powerful single step is to adopt a principle: any scheme of thought that implies widespread, cross-the board delusion of our sense of awareness and senses, as well as reasoning, is self defeating. If you don't want to outright reject it, regard it as having the burden of proof -- which brings out the self defeating nature, as a general delusion makes a reasoned conclusion on evidence or reasonable first principles impossible. So, it is a trap. Instead, require that claims of widespread delusion or deception (especially requiring conspiracies) show cause. This is liberating. Now, worldviews. Obviously, actual self evident truths are not enough to build a working worldview, which is going to require a reasonable faith, taking things on trust that at least provisionally allow us to build a coherent, empirically supported world view. Factual adequacy, coherence, explanatory economy and power. Take the risk of trust, the risk of induction, the risk of explanation, being open to correction. But, do not surrender truly foundational and self evident truths. Without these we cannot think or communicate and cannot reasonably explain. KFkairosfocus_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

@Barb Sorry for the -very- late response:
Theism and materialism (not applied to origins) are not contradictory in any way.
Yes, they are. Theism posits that God exists. Materialism posits that the cosmos “is all there ever is, was, or will be.” No supernatural entities exist. There is a quite evident contradiction here.
Read bold.... There's no contradiction Barb. Don't rush to try to prove me wrong or you only prove you don't read carefully.
So only smart people have free will and the rest doesn’t?
Smart people recognize that they have free will.
Non-answer, I didn't ask what smart people recognized, did you read what I asked?
you’re trying to reduce the decision-making process to only the neurons in your brain.
That's what empirical evidence suggests CLEARLY. The one going against it is you.
Many people utilize both emotion (“follow your heart”, “do what feels right”) and logic/brain function when making decisions.
Disney movies quotes as an argument? LOL Please do show evidence that the feeling of "following your heart" is not something that origins in our brain.
Look at some reformed gang members who counsel children about the dangers of gangs.
The only way your arguments work is if you choose only the EXCEPTIONS. But they're called EXCEPTIONS for a reason: because they are not the rule. You always use the exceptions (again and again) to try to find an escape hatch to the OBVIOUS correlation between bacgkrounds and choices we've discussed before multiple times. Barb, you can't keep feeding on exceptions to keep your beliefs alive. You'll eventually have to accept the truth and stop grasping at straws.
I have explained this before: my definition of free will is the ability to make choices.
So, what Barb DEFINES as true becomes the absolute, undeniable and unquestionable truth of the universe? That's the craziest argument I've ever seen someone use. EVER. "I define X as ABC, therefore X is ABC. Contrary evidence is irrelevant. End of the argument." LOL!!
Like I said, you are basing your argument on an a priori assumption that free will doesn’t exist. You are guilty of the same fallacious argumentation
Thanks for admitting that you are, in fact, commiting a fallacious argument! And as I said already, I'm not commiting that same fallacy, because "free will doesn't exist" is a conclusion based on my observations (the correlation I mentioned, etc), not a premise. I arrived to the conclusion "free will doesn't exist" through examination of the evidence, I never assumed it from the start because I have no religious motives to do so. You, on the other hand, didn't arrive to your opinion "free will exists" by following observational evidence. You already assumed it was true because of your religious ideas. Hence, circular reasoning. More nonsense below, read my responses in bold:
Our personalities might depend on the condition of our brain, but does that mean that no one can ever change their personality? (I never said that, I said the contrary, that changes in the brain can produce changes in personality) Can a person known for being mean-tempered and angry change their behavior? It’s certainly been done before (I never said it didn't and it doesnt help your case anyway). And it’s one more piece of evidence that free will exists (relying on the exceptions again? Even when this particular "exception" does nothing to help you?). Our personalities aren’t set in stone (I said the exact opposite). The brain is an amazing organ and a very malleable one (I never said that it wasn't, and it doesn't help your case in any way, what are you trying to prove?).
It seems you're just saying random stuff, what you write makes no sense.
It’s certainly been done before. And it’s one more piece of evidence that free will exists.
Does a "fallacy of exception" exist? Because it seems you breath it to stay alive... Exceptions are not the rule Barb! If you count on exceptions to prove free will, then that means that RULE indicates that free will doesn't exist. Which is exacly what the correlation I talked about strongly suggests.
I did. (offer empirical evidence)
I don't see the empirical evidence that proves my correlation argument wrong. If you mean your "proof" is those exceptions you brought up, then try again.
I think human behavior is too complex to be oversimplified to misfiring of neurons in the brain.
Nice to have an opinion. I also have one: That the Designer made the brain complex enough for us to hold every feeling possible that anyone has ever experience or will experience, meaning, the brain is already "divine", material as it is, without the need for an extra "free will module" put in there. Of course it's an opinion, but unlike yours I have evidence backing it up: The correlation between background and choices is already very obvious, and that's just one line of evidence, a second line of evidence which supports this correlation, but independent of it, is the fact that brain damage (or brain splitting) can produce changes in behaviour (proving behaviour depends on the physical state of the brain). Put those lines of evidence together and free will is conspicuous by its absence.
Misfiring of neurons might account for some birth defects or mental illnesses, but it certainly doesn’t explain the actions of, say, Stalin or Lenin or Hitler.
Relying on exceptions again?
Neuroscience still hasn’t ruled out free will
I guess that you pray that it never does. However the main line of evidence against free will (the correlation) has nothing to do with neuroscience, but on direct observation available to anyone, and hence, can't be denied. Barb I'm only keeping this up because you replied to my comments, but don't see how you can provide anything that can save your case. Constant reliance on exceptions, circular reasoning, non-answers... how long can you keep it this up?Proton_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

LarTanner RE 697. Are you like Keiths going to ignore me? Vividvividbleau_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Stephen: Good!Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Andre
Dr Liddle So when people make claims on your blog that break the law of causality, for example; something can com from nothing, or morals evolved from non-morals, or perhaps that life can come from non-life do these anti-scientific ideas get moved into the guano folder too? Or is the folder based on what you think is true? Just wondering……
No, Andre. The only posts that are moved are posts that I think break the site rules, which are designed (heh) to try to make sure that discussions don't break down (too often) because of assumptions that the other "side" is not posting in good faith. Basically, that means posts that accuse other people of lying, having an "agenda" or whatever. I err on the light-handed side, and remind in preference to moving stuff, but no post is moved because I don't agree with it. It's rather one-sided on the ID question, but I do appreciate that people like Sal, WJM, Robert, blas, and a few others post there from fairly often, and everyone is welcome. I have to manually set OP posting privileges, but if people want to post an OP, they only have to ask.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth:
Meaning 1: Is it even remotely possible that you (Lizzie) could think you (Lizzie) exist when you (Lizzie) did not, in fact, exist? NO
Right. We are in sync. (at least on that point)StephenB_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle So when people make claims on your blog that break the law of causality, for example; something can com from nothing, or morals evolved from non-morals, or perhaps that life can come from non-life do these anti-scientific ideas get moved into the guano folder too? Or is the folder based on what you think is true? Just wondering......Andre_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Oh, and JWTIL, I also do ban users, including spammers, and people who post malware or porn.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

Yes indeed JWTIL, it is my blog, and so I set the rules, and usually I make the decision as to whether a rule has been broken. However there are a couple of other members who also have post-moving powers. And there is a section of the site for moderation where people can argue if they think something has been moved unreasonably. If you find a post you think should not have been moved, I am very prepared to move it back if you make a good case. I am never certain I am right :) And sometimes an otherwise good post can contain a rule-breaking comment, so I move it. Nothing to stop people reposting it without the rule breaking part.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

@Liddle
Posts in Guano are perfectly visible – they are not suppressed, merely moved.
Are you the only one to decide which posts are unwelcome and which are not? I agree that there ist a lot of waste in Guano, but not everything.JWTruthInLove_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

@Patrick
If JWTruthInLove isn't a coward he'll come here.
Your forum is broken. Why should I waste time on your lies and failures? Antievolution says:
Can't query the data from 'member_profiles' Reason: Error writing file '/var/tmp/MY29DnEs' (Errcode: 28) Query: SELECT MEMBER_NAME, MEMBER_ID, MEMBER_POSTS, MEMBER_JOINED, MEMBER_GROUP, MEMBER_EMAIL, HIDE_EMAIL, MEMBER_LEVEL, AOLNAME, ICQNUMBER FROM ib_member_profiles ORDER BY MEMBER_NAME ASC LIMIT 0, 11 This error was reported at: Sources/iDatabase/Driver/mySQL.pm line 269.
JWTruthInLove_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Ah, cross-post! I spent too long trying to edit my post to be as unambiguous as I possibly could!Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Stephen (sorry, I'm answering these in the wrong order)
My question is to you, Elizabeth Liddle: Is it even remotely possible that you do not exist? Please provide your answer in a simple declarative sentence, preferably with a yes or no.
I think your question is ambiguous. But I will answer both the possible meanings of your question. Meaning 1: Is it even remotely possible that you (Lizzie) could think you (Lizzie) exist when you (Lizzie) did not, in fact, exist? NO Meaning 2: Is it even remotely possible that I (Stephen) could think you (Lizzie) exist when you (Lizzie) did not, in fact, exist? YESElizabeth B Liddle_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth
No. I am certain I exist. What I am saying is that you (or keiths) cannot be certain that I exist.
OK, I got it. Thanks. You can ignore #705. You agree with me and KF on the critical question. We agree that there is at east one fact about which we can be absolutely certain.StephenB_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply