|
This website is so ass-backwards it's funny (pg. 28)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Alex |
| Alright well, when the "shut the ups" start I put you on ignore, there is no reason to start with things like that, I guess my points sort of got to you, and I'm sorry. Not to mention all you've really tried to do is bait me into a poo-slinging match that I will not participate in, sorry bud. |
|
|
| Lira |
All right, I know Alex is outnumbered, but I lost count of how many people are on this debate.
Alex, how many people are you currently discussing with? I feel like joining in, but I don't know whether I should pick the side I agree with, or whether it would be more fun to join you and see if I could justify this belief.
Hmm..... |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
Alright well, when the "shut the ups" start I put you on ignore, there is no reason to start with things like that, I guess my points sort of got to you, and I'm sorry. Not to mention all you've really tried to do is bait me into a poo-slinging match that I will not participate in, sorry bud. |
nice cop-out.
btw, weren't you just saying all i was doing was using the socratic method a couple of posts back? the socratic method = baiting someone into a poo-slinging match? interesting. |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
All right, I know Alex is outnumbered, but I lost count of how many people are on this debate.
Alex, how many people are you currently discussing with? I feel like joining in, but I don't know whether I should pick the side I agree with, or whether it would be more fun to join you and see if I could justify this belief.
Hmm..... |
Well I don't mind, it's not really like we're ever going to determine beyond a shadow of a doubt whether God exists or not :p
Maybe this existence of God thing (which is where it started) needs to go to a different argument than that of Morality, but I wouldnt mind still discussing morality hehe, still got lots to say. Lets wait and see what Renegade busts out with. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
Well I don't mind, it's not really like we're ever going to determine beyond a shadow of a doubt whether God exists or not :p
Maybe this existence of God thing (which is where it started) needs to go to a different argument than that of Morality, but I wouldnt mind still discussing morality hehe, still got lots to say. Lets wait and see what Renegade busts out with. |
I think it would be pleasant to discuss it with someone who knows their Theology and seems to enjoy debating.
I'm going to meet a a very religious grad student of psychology who happens to be a very good friend of mine (and incidentally, I bet we're going to talk about this), and I hope I can bring something new to the table when I come back :) |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I think it would be pleasant to discuss it with someone who knows their Theology and seems to enjoy debating.
I'm going to meet a a very religious grad student of psychology who happens to be a very good friend of mine (and incidentally, I bet we're going to talk about this), and I hope I can bring something new to the table when I come back :) |
That's cool, should be interesting to hear the results of the conversation hehe. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
That's cool, should be interesting to hear the results of the conversation hehe. |
I meant to talk him about it but, alas, his ex-girlfriend showed up and we just did some small talk. The sole fact that we mentioned Pastafari was enough to make her head dizzy :p
Anyway, what I'm about to do may seem somewhat silly, but is something that should help us keep track of what is going on. I'm going to slice this post into five different parts, as I'd like to revamp 5 arguments against the existence of God (some have been put forth by other posters, reason why I want to "revamp" them, rather than go through the somewhat painful process of gathering all that has been said and start up from there). Because I know I may fail to make an argument stronger, if any of this looks too awfully familiar to anything you've already said, and your answer has not changed, don't hesitate to quote yourself. I really don't want to waste anyone's time, and I think this broader approach to this discussion will let us focus on the bigger picture, instead of focusing way too much on details.
Criticism #1: The Cosmological Argument
There are plenty of different versions of the Cosmological Argument, and I'd like to divide them in two groups. The most popular version, I guess, goes like this:
- Lots of things in nature are caused;
- Nothing, unfortunately, is a cause of itself;
- An infinite regress of essentially ordered efficient causes, however, is impossible and somewhat absurd;
- But, there must be nonetheless a first uncaused cause, a Prime Mover:
to which everyone gives the name of God , says Aquinas.
All right. Let's work with a more elaborate version? I don't think I'm changing the nature of the argument, so just bare with me for a moment:
- The world as a whole is contingent;
- If that's the case, then there should be an external cause (or resting place, or whatever).
- But, if this external cause were another event or set of events, it would require its own cause, which would lead to an infinite regress of events;
- The world must have an external cause that isn't either an event or a set of events, as they'd require their own causes;
- This external uncaused entity is God.
The problem with these arguments, however, is that:
- Why suppose that an external cause/event is required for every single state of affairs?
- More importantly, and still related to (a), why suppose that the natural world itself isn't self- or non-contingent? Why are these attributes only of some supernatural world/entity?
I think the question (b) goes straight at the heart of this problem, and I believe it is popular among atheist because of - surprise! surprise! - science. There's very little in common with all different fields of scientific enquiry, but one of the most common principles is that it should use natural events to explain other natural events.
I think it is unfair, however, to apply scientific thought to religion (and vice-versa). If we're going to criticise religion, it must be either under a religious perspective, or a perspective that makes sense under a religion viewpoint.
Can you argue against the fact that our beliefs influence our actions and the way we understand the world? If not, we've got our starting point. If you believe that God created the world, there are two possible consequences: (a) Either you believe the supernatural world can intervene on the natural world, or (b) you just believe that God created the world, things "matured", so to speak, and things are the way they are without God's intervention.
If (a), how can you distinguish supernatural interventions from actions caused within the natural world? Given the absurdly higher probability of natural events having natural causes, why bother with supernatural entities? And, if (b), there's an even greater problem. If things are the way they are without any external help, so to speak, why should the beginning of the world - if there is one - be an exception? Why can't the world be its own first cause?
The Cosmological Argument, the way I see it, fails.
Criticism #2: The Ontological Argument
There's also the ontological argument. I'm sorry, Alex, but as a student of linguistics, I just find this argument absurd. There are lots of things that we can think of - and that are present in language - but refer to absolutely nothing at all.
Anyway, here's St. Anselm's take on this issue:
Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived... And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone; for suppose it exists in the understanding alone; then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.
Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.
Descartes made a similar a prioristic argument claiming that if we could imagine common properties of any triangle just by its definition, then there's a property to all triangles that can be discovered by deduction (namely, that all internal angles add up to 180 degrees).
We could dwell on this for ages (as some have), but I think Hume's reply to this kind of argument pretty much renders them obsolete:
- The only way to prove something a priori is if its opposite implies a contradiction;
- If something implies a contradiction, then it is inconceivable;
- Everything can be conceived not to exist;
- Nothing can be proved to exist a priori.
Criticism #3: The Teleological Argument
This is quite popular among creationists, as we can see in the following passage by William Paley:
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for any thing I know to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I know the watch might have always been there.
Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch, as well as for the stone? For this reason and for no other: viz., that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose.
I think we all know why this argument is so popular nowadays: Darwinists found a way to explain how fauna and flora became the way they are, and there's little need for an intelligent designer now. But, like I said above, I think science and religion shouldn't have to interfere with one another, so I'm not going to base my reply on Darwinism here.
The problem with Christianity here is that what they claim the world requires is a bit of an overkill. If there's a watch, you need a watchmaker. That's the least you need. When you see a watch, it's not wise to think it was made by a genius alien scientist. But, how little does the creation of the world call for? You certainly do not need a Christian God for that. The world-maker could be something with limited knowledge, power, wisdom, and goodness (i.e. not God). Specially a world wherein the problem of evil is present.
How far is it honest to argue for the existence of God under this perspective? There should be a more consistent way out.
Criticism #4: The Moral Argument
Like I said before, there are primatologists, such as Frans De Wall that can tell you some really interesting things about primates and morality. Before elaborating any further on this, I'd like to make it clear that I don't think morality is exclusive to human beings. I'm aware of how difficult a position this is, but I find it dishonest to do otherwise.
Anyway, other primates have an idea of equality, and tend to have some rough concept of what fairness is. To deny that is to go against hard empirical facts... and, if you want to go with an explanation that is unscientific (like I said, religion and science need not go hand in hand), you could just say that the notion of morality was imprinted on all creatures by God. If we accept the fact that morality could be hard-wired (or innate), why not? This is pretty much the most consistent position one could have.
But, this brings us quite a few problems. If we're judged by our behaviour, and good has blessed other animals with His wisdom, shouldn't other animals be judged as well? Can gorillas go to heaven or hell? Before it gets too silly, the best question here would be: why would God give other species "carte blanche" to do what they want and we don't benefit from that? In order to maintain a human "specialism" (i.e. we're special, they aren't, deal with it), you'd need to believe that there's something inherently different about us, and that there's no continuum among the different species. Well, this is so (meta)physically inconsistent that the results would be probably fathomless.
But, what if there's no objective truth? No objective morality? Post-logical positivist science learnt that there's no such thing as an objective point of view. So, a non-objective world is conceivable. "So, what?", you may ask, "religion and science shouldn't be compared, you said that yourself!". True that. But, morality is supposed to have been handed down to us by God. Can you really use morality as a proof that God exists?
Defence #1: Why religion is OK, despite the criticism
Unlike other atheists, I'm not going to simply bash religion and claim it's worthless. I don't think it is. You want to be a Christian/Muslim/whatever? Great! Does that make you happier? Excellent!! Does that make you a better person? Tubular!!! But you should stop trying to justify your beliefs. You're not religious because it is logical. Science is logical, religion needn't be. Science tries to be coherent (although it stills falls short... sort of), but religion needn't be. That's what faith is all about! It's about you, as an individual, feeling that you're headed towards the right direction. That it is true for you, you know?
The problem begins when you start to confuse the two. Religion without science is divine, science without religion is powerful, and Einstein isn't a bloody theologian!
And the problem ends when you keep in mind that you should revise your beliefs it they hurt your relationship with other people. People are more important than ideologies. If any idea gives you justification to hate, dismiss or hurt other people, remember you're a fallible creature. Be happy, but play safe. |
|
|
| Renegade |
Well this thread has certainly moved a bit since I last checked it... :eyespop:
Alex, I obviously can't respond to everything you've posted while I've been away, so I'm going to pick and choose with my replies a bit. I'll start at the top and work my way down, but it may take me a couple of days to catch up completely.
Anyway:
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
Just think about it: Intrinsically-valuable, thinking persons do not come from impersonal, non-conscious, unguided, valueless processes over time. A personal, self-aware, purposeful, good God provides the natural and necessary context for the existence of valuable, rights-bearing, morally-responsible human persons. That is, personhood and morality are necessarily connected; moral values are rooted in personhood. Without God (a personal Being), no persons - and thus no moral values - would exist at all: no personhood, no moral values. Only if God exists can moral properties be realized. |
Actually, "thinking persons" do come from "non-conscious, unguided, valueless processes over time". We can observe it in the growth of a person from embryo to adulthood and we can observe it in the slow development of human cognition over the course of our evolutionary history. Even consciousness itself emerges from physical processes within the brain that are, in themselves, completely impersonal and unconscious. Now it is certainly true to say that these processes are "guided" in a sense (by genes, natural selection and neural architecture respectively), but they are also blind, valueless and entirely contingent upon the determinism of physical laws. Therefore, this version of the ontological argument fails because Darwinism provides a sound, empirically demonstrable explanation for the contingent emergence of personhood and - to that extent - precludes the possiblity of God as a necessary being (at least in this context).
| quote: | In reference to naturalistic or the evolutionary theory of ethics/morals based on survival:
| quote: | | Ethical awareness has only biological worth. Such an approach leaves us with the following problems: First, can we even trust our minds if we are nothing more than the products of naturalistic evolution, trying to fight, feed, flee, and reproduce? Charles Darwin had a "horrid doubt" that since the human mind has developed from lower animals, why would anyone trust it? Why trust the convictions of a monkey's mind? The naturalistic evolutionary process is interested in fitness/survival-not in true belief; so not only is objective morality undermined so is rational thought. Our beliefs-including moral ones-may help us survive, but there is no reason to think they are true. Belief in objective morality or human dignity may help us survive, but it may be completely false. The problem with skepticism (including moral skepticism) is that I am assuming a trustworthy reasoning process to arrive at the conclusion that I cannot trust my reasoning! If we trust our rational and moral faculties, we will assume a theistic outlook: Being made in the image of a truthful, rational, good Being makes sense of why we trust our senses/moral intuitions. |
|
Okay, two parts to this: the first is "Why trust the convictions of a monkey's mind?", the second is "If we trust our rational and moral faculties, we will assume a theistic outlook".
Firstly, our convictions - no matter how big or small - are all created by the same brain: the same "monkey mind" as the author puts it (the use of that phrase tells me that the author has an antipathy towards - and ignorance of - evolutionary thought which far exceeds the abstract ethical concerns he's voiced here). One can rightly question how we could ever trust a primate's mind to form accurate logical or ethical judgements, but one would therefore also have to question the capacity of the primate's mind to make other, more immediate judgements as well (such as whether fire is hot, or whether that stone before us actually exists). Many philosphers have actually made solipsistic arguments against the fidelity of such judgements (Descartes and Berkley most prominently), but such arguments are famously impossible to live by as a universal maxim (just ask Samuel Johnson, who broke his foot in the act of kicking a rock as a refutation of Berkley's claim that we can't know with any certainty whether or not it exists). The author can complain that an animalian brain is incapable of making "true" judgements, but he is proven wrong every time an animal (including a human) demonstrates - with unfailing consistency - the capacity to avoid committing to an action that would cause it harm. Species of animal for which there might be any ambiguity about their capacity to make accurate judgements have doubtless already been culled from the tree of life by Darwinian selection.
More relevent to the discussion, the author then asserts that "our beliefs-including moral ones-may help us survive, but there is no reason to think they are true" but the same principles I just mentioned still apply. The evolutionary development of reason and morality is less about our "fitness" in terms of navigating the physical world (the above sense of the term) than it is about our "fitness" to succesfully navigate the social world into which we are all born. (No surprise, then, that those children who are born into a non-social context - i.e. victims of extreme neglect and abuse - display severly compromised abilities to reason and to act morally. If such faculties are - as you assert - necessary, innate, god-given properties of personhood, am I right to infer that victims of such extreme abuse cannot properly be called "persons"?). The development of our capacity for reason and morality has nothing to do with survival in the sense of our capacity to outrun lions or catch our dinner, but rather our survival in terms of being able to adjust to structured society sufficiently to produce progeny.
Look at it like this: a human who lacks the capacity to understand the internal states of others (what we might call the capacity to "empathise", a prerequisite for moral behaviour) is unlikely to form social bonds. A human who is indifferent to social sanction or for whom the decision to act with malice comes just as naturally as the decision to act compassionately will find himself socially ostracised and he is therefore put at a significant disadvantage in terms of the likelihood of passing on his genes to the next generation (which are responsible for his moral disposition, or lack thereof, in the first place). It is for that reason that moral judgements need to be as accurate for a human being as judegements concerning physical well-being: inaccurate judgements in both cases threaten the likelihood of the continuation of the germ-line. Complete indifference to the suffering of others is simply not a successful survival strategy.
We have all inhereited those genes from our ancestors that allowed them to successfully navigate the moral ambiguities of social life and to therefore pass their genes on down the germ-line to each of their decendents (including us). If their capacity to reliably act morally was compromised at all (i.e. if there was "no reason to think [such judgements] are true") then we simply wouldn't be here. For that reason, we don't need an "image of a truthful, rational, good Being" to "make sense of why we trust our senses/moral intuitions", because the success of our ancestors and the intuitions that we have inherited from them are proof enough that such intuitions work and that we are right to trust them.
More to come in a bit. |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Renegade |
I agree.
(The article I posted was a bit stupid after all, I didn't read it in it's entirety)
I feel as though I've played the devil's advocate a little too much in arguing for the sake of the more hardcore fundamentalist position on the Moral argument. While I still believe the science is a bit questionable in some instances I have to agree that it is sound in many others and, as stated before I do believe that science has explained many of the ways our morality has evolved as well as how our reasoning has evolved.
That being said, I don't agree with the naturalist position on everything nor do I agree with Scientism. My belief in objective morality still stands and while I'm still learning and reading more I don't think it's going to change because I don't think that the science really negates the possibility of it in it's entirety.
Now I want to know something, Renegade and Lira, do you believe that Science and Religion are in opposition of each other?
Do you believe they can co-exist and Science can still prosper?
More specifically do you believe that Science is the sworn enemy of religion and vice versa or do you believe that in fact the two can synergize and that the real problem is Theism vs Naturalism or Supernaturalism vs Naturalism?
I know more militant atheists like Dawkins, Atkins and Hitchens want to have religion abolished because they believe it "stands in the way" of science and progress but do you guys agree with this position?
(I liked Lira's idea of trying to lead this thread in a newish different direction, and by the way Lira I like that you took the time to look up those arguments but your "defense" of religion was rather weak and a bit condescending :p) |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
Now I want to know something, Renegade and Lira, do you believe that Science and Religion are in opposition of each other? |
No, I don't even think they're part of the same intellectual enterprise, to begin with, so they're neither in opposition nor in accordance with each other.
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
Do you believe they can co-exist and Science can still prosper? |
Yes, I do.
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
More specifically do you believe that Science is the sworn enemy of religion and vice versa or do you believe that in fact the two can synergize and that the real problem is Theism vs Naturalism or Supernaturalism vs Naturalism? |
Neither. I think the problem with religion is not the tension between theism and naturalism, but the inability of religious fundamentalists to undergo "paradigm shifts" the way science can, and the apparent ignorance of the fallibility of human nature within the discourse of many more religions, specially regarding the authority of canonical texts.
Insofar as religion restricts itself to being a malleable normative belief system consisted of matters unrelated to a description of the natural world, I don't see a problem. It should be malleable because society has been changing faster than ever, and it must adapt to this new era; normative because it ought to contain a system of rules, rather than an attempt to describe what actually is the case as this may lead to a potential misunderstanding; and it shouldn't try to be a description of the natural world because it's not the proper tool for doing that.
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
I know more militant atheists like Dawkins, Atkins and Hitchens want to have religion abolished because they believe it "stands in the way" of science and progress but do you guys agree with this position?
|
No, I don't. I think it's great that there's finally a popular atheist movement in vogue, and that we've got the chance to speak up, but I don't think their approach is as effective will eventually lead to a better understanding between any of the parts involved (i.e. it doesn't seem to improve the dialogue between atheists and theists at all).
I think one ought to choose the life that suits best his needs. If a person thinks a religious life is the life worth living, I couldn't care less whether or not it "stands in the way" of science (specially when it doesn't :p).
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
(I liked Lira's idea of trying to lead this thread in a newish different direction, and by the way Lira I like that you took the time to look up those arguments but your "defense" of religion was rather weak and a bit condescending :p) |
I'm all ears :) |
|
|
| Alex |
Well I just thought the remark about "you're not religious because it's logical".
See, I don't think that is really true at all. Yes I agree Science is logical but I also think that Science has made some of it's most significant advances in trying to reveal God's plan so to speak. From Galileo to Bacon this is obvious in my opinion.
To say religion is not logical and that Science is (I can only assume this statement is meant to somehow be scientific) is itself illogical because to compare the two is in itself not logical. You answered all the other questions in a manner that doesn't seem to draw battle lines between Science and Religion therefore why compare them in the manner you did :p I don't know, it just didn't make much sense to me. |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Neither. I think the problem with religion is not the tension between theism and naturalism, but the inability of religious fundamentalists to undergo "paradigm shifts" the way science can, and the apparent ignorance of the fallibility of human nature within the discourse of many more religions, specially regarding the authority of canonical texts.
|
Concerning your last remarks about religions in the plural and canonical texts... :p There are 3 "religions" (more specifically denominations) that use the canon, none of which consider all the texts in the canon to be infallible. (Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics)
It is a misconception that Jews have a canon, Protestants do to an extent but theirs has been changed from that which was adopted by the ecumenical councils. |
|
|
|
|
