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

I have not said that I am not certain I exist. I am certain that I exist. I just don’t think that “I exist” is an objective truth about the world. That’s because “I” is one of these odd words in language that refers only to the speaker. So for me to say to myself “I do not exist” would be meaningless. In the absence of anyone to do the existing, the statement cannot be made, and so it is necessarily false, if made. Therefore I am certain that I exist, but for rather different reasons than I am certain that you exist. I am not 100% certain that you exist. Your existence is a truth (probably) about the world, of which I cannot be 100% certain. My own existence is not a truth about the world, it is a simply a necessary condition for me to be able to comment on it at all. So no, I don’t entirely agree with keiths. I do agree with him that we cannot be 100% certain whether statements about the world are true; it’s that I do not regard self-referential statements about our own existence as “truths about the world”. Nor do I regard the LNC as a statement about the world. It is simply a necessary condition for intelligibility.
If "what exists" = "the world" (the sum of everything that exists), then "I exist" is in fact a statement about the world. If you are certain that you exist (which you just said you are), then you are certain about at least one true statement about the world (everything that exists) - that you, whatever you are, exist, whatever that means, in the world - whatever "the world" is.William J Murray_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth: "I’m not uncertain that I exist." This seems to be a changed position. Are you "fairly certain" or absolutely certain about what you just said? It would really help if you would just answer the question as asked: Do you agree with keiths [a] (One cannot be absolutely certain that he/she exists)(it is remotely possible that you can think you exist even when you do not) or do you agree with me [b] (There are many things we cannot be absolutely certain about, but our existence is not one of them. We can be absolutely that we exist. It is not possible for a non-existent person to think he/she exists) Elizabeth, all you have to do is choose [a] or [b].StephenB_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

So, I gather now that you mean you are “fairly certain” that you cannot tell KF that you exist when you don’t, but you are not absolutely certain. That would be keiths position.
No. I am certain I exist. What I am saying is that you (or keiths) cannot be certain that I exist.
Your position, then, would be the same as keiths. You think there is a remote possibility that you do not exist. Thank you.
Nope.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

their = there, d'oh.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

JWTruthInLove
That’s a lie. Fräulein Liddle puts unwelcome posts into Guano. Instead of banning users she bans ideas.
Posts in Guano are perfectly visible - they are not suppressed, merely moved. And that being the case, perhaps you'd like to find an idea in Guano that has been banned. A few may be expressed there, but none that are not perfectly welcome main posting area. Posts go their if they break the site rules about assuming that others are posting in good faith.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Stephen, this conversation is becoming like 3D chess with multiple players. What is it you think I agree with keiths about? Can you repeat it, or summarise what you are asking, and what you think I've said? I have not said that I am not certain I exist. I am certain that I exist. I just don't think that "I exist" is an objective truth about the world. That's because "I" is one of these odd words in language that refers only to the speaker. So for me to say to myself "I do not exist" would be meaningless. In the absence of anyone to do the existing, the statement cannot be made, and so it is necessarily false, if made. Therefore I am certain that I exist, but for rather different reasons than I am certain that you exist. I am not 100% certain that you exist. Your existence is a truth (probably) about the world, of which I cannot be 100% certain. My own existence is not a truth about the world, it is a simply a necessary condition for me to be able to comment on it at all. So no, I don't entirely agree with keiths. I do agree with him that we cannot be 100% certain whether statements about the world are true; it's that I do not regard self-referential statements about our own existence as "truths about the world". Nor do I regard the LNC as a statement about the world. It is simply a necessary condition for intelligibility. If we allow X to be both A and ¬A at the same time and in the same sense, we might write some evocative poetry, but we won't do much in the way of reasoning.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

@keiths:
You're banned! Now answer our questions, dammit!
So are you going to ansswer vividbleau's questions or cowardly hide behind antievolution's walls?JWTruthInLove_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

@keitKZ:
In contrast to UD, we welcome dissenters here at AtBC and at The Skeptical Zone.
That's a lie. Fräulein Liddle puts unwelcome posts into Guano. Instead of banning users she bans ideas.JWTruthInLove_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

At least keiths is up front about his convictions. He thinks it is remotely possible that he doesn't exist and that a non-existent person can be deceived. Elizabeth, in her charmingly indirect way, agrees with keiths, but she is unwilling to come right out and say so. Meanwhile, Kantian Naturalist, who has had four days to weigh in on this matter, is now conveniently unavailable for comment.StephenB_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Lar
Well, if we’re talking about ‘answering’ post 469 – I can’t tell – I wouldn’t answer either.
No it was not about 469. Kieths did not answer either.
That post is a waste of time because all the commenter needed to do was read with slightly more subtlety than my 5-year-old has.
Read what? Vividvividbleau_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

SB: Also, I look forward to an answer from Kantian Naturalist, which I trust will be equally creative. Kantian Naturalist:
I’ll be traveling for the next week or so and will have limited Internet access. So you’ll simply have to carry on without me.
On a scale of 1 to 10 for creativity, I will give that one about a 6. How much time does it take to say that you are absolutely certain that you exist are that you are not?StephenB_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

since I strongly suspect keiths is a solipsist at heart, then if keiths goes we all go: Solipsist Humor from Plantinga ,,, Plantinga also told of an accomplished academic who was a well-known solipsist (I forget the guys name). And Plantinga thought it would be fun to meet a real life solipsist, so he went to visit him. He was treated fairly well considering he was only figment. I mean, it’s not a given that a solipsist would feel the need to be polite to his imaginary friends. After a brief conversation, Plantinga left and on the way out one of the man’s assistants said, “We take good care of the professor because when he goes we all go.” http://www.fellowtravelerblog.com/2011/05/13/solipsist-humor-from-plantinga/bornagain77_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth
Clearly I cannot tell you “I exist” if I don’t.
SB: I gather by “clearly,” you mean that you are absolutely certain of it. Correct?
No, but I’m fairly confident. Do you see a flaw? If not, do you think others might
There is no flaw when I ask you what you mean when you use a word. The flaw would be when you use a word in a flawed way in order to create the temporary impression that you are sure of something that you are not sure of at all. So, I gather now that you mean you are "fairly certain" that you cannot tell KF that you exist when you don't, but you are not absolutely certain. That would be keiths position. Your position, then, would be the same as keiths. You think there is a remote possibility that you do not exist. Thank you.StephenB_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

Well, if we're talking about 'answering' post 469 - I can't tell - I wouldn't answer either. That post is a waste of time because all the commenter needed to do was read with slightly more subtlety than my 5-year-old has. If he was banned, and I have no evidence of this (it just wouldn't surprise me if the ol' perma-moderation trick was being used as it was on me before), then it's sad and sadly telling.LarTanner_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

@LarTanner?
vividbleau, Perhaps he was banned by UD administrators?
So what? Even if he is banned (and there's no evidence that he is banned) he can still answer vividbleau's question on the antievolution-site, if he's not a coward: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7305;st=9510#entry224933JWTruthInLove_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

vividbleau, Perhaps he was banned by UD administrators?LarTanner_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

Keiths are you ignoring me again? I answered your question yesterday. Vividvividbleau_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Stephen
I gather by “clearly,” you mean that you are absolutely certain of it. Correct?
No, but I'm fairly confident. Do you see a flaw? If not, do you think others might?Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

KF, read my post carefully again. We are not in disagreement.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

I'll be traveling for the next week or so and will have limited Internet access. So you'll simply have to carry on without me.Kantian Naturalist_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

blockquote failed. 1st para is cirted.kairosfocus_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle: On the other hand if I do tell you “I exist” – you cannot be absolutely certain that that it is true. You might be imagining it; the post might have got put in moderation and only have been published posthumously. Pardon me but I am not asking about your interaction with me or another, I am speaking to your self awareness as an "I" or self, which as SB also just highlighted, is a metaphysical issue. As the diagram posted today has highlighted. Consider me a dream voice if you will, but ask and answer yourself by contrast with a rock on the ground, whether you or the rock can be deceived about being a self aware entity, regardless of whether you are deluded or not about just what you are, person walking around of brain in vat imagining it is a person walking around, etc. I put it to you that neither you nor the rock can be deluded, the rock because it is not self aware, you because once you are aware that is certain. And much follows form that, not that I really expect you to be willing to face it. KFkairosfocus_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth to kairosfocus "Clearly I cannot tell you “I exist” if I don’t." I gather by "clearly," you mean that you are absolutely certain of it. Correct?StephenB_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Also, I look forward to an answer from Kantian Naturalist, which I trust will be equally creative.StephenB_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

Lizzie, I appreciate your attempt to answer the question, but I really do need a final answer in some intelligible form. Existence is not a subjective concept nor is it a problem of language formulation. Being is in the ontological/metaphysical realm. Please take my word for it. Also, I didn't ask you about dead people or anyone else. Nor is it a question of other people's perception of your existence. 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.StephenB_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

KF:
EL: The issue is not whether you are subjectively convinced that you exist but that as a self aware entity, this is a point of undeniably certain knowledge, however deluded you may be as to exactly what you are. From that a lot follows. KF
I can't make much sense of this, KF. Clearly I cannot tell you "I exist" if I don't. Therefore, to tell you "I don't exist", is rather like telling you "this statement is a lie". They are a self-referential paradoxes, and don't make any sense. On the other hand if I do tell you "I exist" - you cannot be absolutely certain that that it is true. You might be imagining it; the post might have got put in moderation and only have been published posthumously. So "I exist" is, I suggest, not an absolute objective truth about the world but rather an existential assertion that cannot be asserted unless it is true! It's not an absolute, objective, truth, because independent objective observers (you; the person that just me saw drop dead immediately after posting this) may disagree, and therefore you cannot be 100% certainty of its truth.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

EL: The issue is not whether you are subjectively convinced that you exist but that as a self aware entity, this is a point of undeniably certain knowledge, however deluded you may be as to exactly what you are. From that a lot follows. KFkairosfocus_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

I'm not uncertain that I exist. My point is not that it's certain, but that it's negation is incoherent.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Dr Liddle Is it because science can't measure them that you are uncertain?Andre_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

Andre:
These things can not be measured by science!
I agree :) (See what happens when I try to give up smileys?)Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply