The philosophic problems of God

nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
The philosophic problems of God

There's a couple of new theists on the boards. Some are mostly just trolling, and some are a little more sincere, though no less arrogant. During debates with these new theists, though, I've noticed a common theme: an appeal to God as the ultimate generic answer to all unanswered questions. In fact, in one thread, God was essentially defined as the ultimate answer to every unanswered question.

So, I would like to address why an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent God is a philosophically bankrupt concept.

It's simple, really, and can be summed up in a single sentence: This God presents an unworkable epistemology.

First, let me state that I think philosophy has served its purpose, by creating (or discovering) the single effective epistemology: science. Science obsoleted all other epistemologies, as it is the only one that demonstrably and provably produces correct results. There is no other known epistemology that is effective at all, let alone as effective as science.

Now, this isn't to say that science is perfect. Science doesn't really prove things, per se. It's very good at disproving things, though. Once an hypothesis or theory has been disproven,  that concept is no longer valid nor accepted. This is important when many ideas compete to explain a set of data. If you can disprove all but one, you have a good candidate for the correct idea.

It's also good at increasing confidence in hypotheses and theories that appear to be correct. Even though our confidence in a concept may never quite reach 100%, we can converge on absolute certainty to within acceptable bounds, to where our confidence and absolute certainty are indistinguishable. (Take, for example, the theory of evolution through natural selection.) The ontology derived from application of the scientific method has many theories that are so close to certain that they are indistinguishable from certain; there are many more theories that are accepted, but not necessarily unassailable; and there are quite a few that are still heavily debated (I'm looking at you, string theory). Further, there are huge areas of ignorance or near-ignorance, such as we have with the origins of the universe.

The demonstrable success of science as an epistemology gives me hope that we will be able to illuminate these dark swaths of ignorance. As I try to base my beliefs on evidence, I point to the historical success of science to not only fill in our ignorance, but to point to hitherto unknown areas of ignorance.

The metaphysics derived from the scientific method is naturalism, a universe which is comprised solely of matter, energy, and the relationships between them. As this metaphysics is derived from the epistemology of science, it is the only metaphysics with a solid foundation.

Now that you know my bias, I will present the exact opposite epistemology:

God.

The problem with an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent God as creator of the universe is simple. Once you assume the universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient God, you can no longer assume anything about reality. And by that, I mean anything. You can't even assume that reality itself exists.

Reality could be nothing more than a figment of God's imagination. Or, perhaps God created the universe ten seconds ago, with the appearance of antiquity (fossil light from distant galaxies lensed by gravity, for instance). Or perhaps God hasn't created the universe yet, but intends to Any Time Now, and all this that you think is happening at the moment is really just a memory of the "you" created in an hour, simply because God wanted you to have a history.

All of these options are equally valid. The metaphysics based on the epistemology of God is completely undefined, as all potential options of an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent God are limitless.

One might say that science works, and what we observe about the universe is true, including its great antiquity; but that God merely set things in motion. From an epistemological standpoint, that option is no more valid an any other potential option. Choosing any option is completely arbitrary.

If you choose to believe that God created this universe at the Big Bang, and that naturalism has essentially prevailed (with only minor meddling), you do so by corrupting the essence of the one epistemology which is known to work. You introduce the ultimate wild card: "God did it."

And by introducing "God did it," you throw out any claim to a known reality. The epistemology of God doesn't support a knowable, coherent metaphysics.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:8. To be

Paisley wrote:

8. To be without faith is to be without hope. And to be without hope is to be in a state of despair. The only thing you have to offer is despair.

Making this assertion to a collection of people who actually do lack thsi faith you speak of, and are therefore in a far better position than you to know that it is not correct, makes you a joke.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:

8. To be without faith is to be without hope. And to be without hope is to be in a state of despair. The only thing you have to offer is despair.

Making this assertion to a collection of people who actually do lack thsi faith you speak of, and are therefore in a far better position than you to know that it is not correct, makes you a joke.

The bottom line is that you have no ultimate hope.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley! Welcome back. I've

Paisley! Welcome back. I've missed you.

Paisley wrote:

Several points...

1. You ramble way too much. 

Hey, thanks for the constructive criticism. Can you tell me where, specifically, I'm rambling? I'd like to "cut the fat," as it were.

Quote:

2. Epistemology is the "study of knowledge." More specifically, it is determining what contstitutes knowledge." Traditionally, "knowledge" has been defined as "justified true belief." The bottom line is that we don't know anything with absolute certainty, barring "conscious-awareness." 

The epistemology of science itself is predicated on the fact that all data (objective measurements of the various aspects of reality) are certain, but the conclusions we draw from studying the data is not certain. Our conclusions (hypothesis and theories) are contingent on new measurements, new observations of relationships between the various aspects of the universe (the relationships between energy and matter, for instance).

So, though we don't know anything (other than our measurements) with absolute certainty, we can know things that approach certainty.

Your statement here glosses this over. You seem to be attempting to equate "lack of 100% certainty" with complete uncertainty, which is not the case. For instance, our knowledge that life evolved via the mechanism of evolution through genetic variability and natural selection is almost 100% certain. Not quite 100%, but close enough to be considered certain. We also know that there is no data to support the concept of intelligent design. As ID doesn't make any predictions, it is of course impossible to find data that counters the idea ("disproves" it, though even disproof can't be 100% certain).

I just realized: we can know with certainty that intelligent design as currently formulated is not science at all. So there are some things that are knowable with certainty.

Quote:

3. Contrary to the popular viewpoint of members on this forum, atheists do not have a monopoly on science.

I never claimed we did.

All I said was, an epistemology based on God is an epistemology based on uncertainty and unknowability. You can take nothing for granted, as God can do anything.

Further, as God  is a universal explanation, God is epistemically void. "God did it" can answer most any question of existence; "God wants it that way" can answer any question of meaning; "God desires you to act a certain way" can answer any question of morality. Filling in the blanks is left as an exercise for the religious leaders.

Quote:

4. I may be willing to concede (for the sake of argument), that science operates under the working assumption of metaphysical materialism. But science itself does not make metaphysical pronouncements. To say otherwise is to misrepresent science. Certainly, science has never proven its working assumption - namely, that matter constitutes ultimate reality. (Actually, it's quite the opposite. The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics undercut materialism).

This was recently discussed this in another thread. It's funny you should bring it up again.

Science operates under the working assumption that we can objectively observe reality. That's it. The metaphysics of materialism arises from the application of science, not vice-versa.

You cannot derive a realistic epistemology from a proposed metaphysics. The metaphysics must be based on a working epistemology. Otherwise, your metaphysics doesn't have a method of validation. You can construct an internally-consistent and perfectly wrong metaphysics, and the epistemology you derive will similarly be internally consistent, and perfectly wrong. Yet you can validate this wrong metaphysics with this flawed (and internally-consistent) epistemology.

A metaphysics is useful only inasmuch as it is congruent with reality. The only way to tell if it is congruent with reality is by comparing it against reality. There is exactly one epistemology that allows you to do this: science.

Quote:

5. Science leads to technological innovation and as such has a utilitarian function. But science does not provide humanity with "meaning and values."

Science can help guide the development of objective "meaning and values."

But, even if that is so, how do you propose to derive "meaning and values?" God can't do that, either. At least, not effectively nor consistently.

Quote:

6. "Metaphysical naturalism" is not interchangeable with materialism or physicalism. 

7. Theology is traditionally defined as "faith seeking understanding." The difference between believers and unbelievers is that believers have faith.

Faith in what, exactly?

"Faith" can't lead to understanding. Faith leads to intellectual blindness and willfull ignorance.

Knowledge leads to understanding. And so far there is only one epistemology that measures knowledge against reality: science.

Quote:

8. To be without faith is to be without hope. And to be without hope is to be in a state of despair. The only thing you have to offer is despair.

Really? How is that? I thought "hope" was nothing more than a desire for something in the future. Personally, I find the concept that we are learning more about reality more hopeful than the idea that we are placing our future in the hands of a being that may or may not exist, and if it does exist, may or may not be how we imagine it.

What "faith" offers isn't hope. It's the calmness of ignorance, the tranquility of thoughtlessness, the removal of the burden of the responsibility that knowledge and understanding brings.

 

Anyway, you didn't address the core thesis: that introducing "God" into an epistemology essentially voids that epistemology, as God can do anything. Nothing can be certain about reality, as it becomes maleable in the hands of God. You've attempted to undercut science as an epistemology, but you did nothing to indicate that you can even have an epistemology with God.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I'm damn anxious to hear

 I'm damn anxious to hear Paisley's lecture on quanta.  I had no idea he was a theoretical physicist.  Perhaps Deludedgod will be so kind as to critique the lecture...

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:

8. To be without faith is to be without hope. And to be without hope is to be in a state of despair. The only thing you have to offer is despair.

Making this assertion to a collection of people who actually do lack thsi faith you speak of, and are therefore in a far better position than you to know that it is not correct, makes you a joke.

The bottom line is that you have no ultimate hope.

The ultimate bottom line is that hope is all you have - a belief that offers 'ultimate hope' is not true because of that, but it does make it attractive to people already in despair and of uncritical mind. IOW it is metaphysical prozac.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:IOW it is

BobSpence1 wrote:

IOW it is metaphysical prozac.

Best. Line. EVER.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
2. Epistemology is the "study of knowledge." More specifically, it is determining what contstitutes knowledge." Traditionally, "knowledge" has been defined as "justified true belief." The bottom line is that we don't know anything with absolute certainty, barring "conscious-awareness."

So, though we don't know anything (other than our measurements) with absolute certainty, we can know things that approach certainty.

How can you know that your knowledge is approaching certainty?

nigelTheBold wrote:
Your statement here glosses this over. You seem to be attempting to equate "lack of 100% certainty" with complete uncertainty, which is not the case.

No, I'm simply stating what is the definition of knowledge as it has been traditionally defined in philosophical discourse. The only thing that constitutes true knowledge is "conscious-awareness." I know with absolute certitude that as I write this statement that I am consciously aware. "Conscious-awareness" is axiomatic (self-evident). Everything else is a matter of belief. That's why knowledge has been defined in philosophy as "justified belief." So, what is at issue here is whether or not my belief in God's existence is rationally justified. That's the epistemological issue at hand.

nigelTheBold wrote:
For instance, our knowledge that life evolved via the mechanism of evolution through genetic variability and natural selection is almost 100% certain. Not quite 100%, but close enough to be considered certain. We also know that there is no data to support the concept of intelligent design. As ID doesn't make any predictions, it is of course impossible to find data that counters the idea ("disproves" it, though even disproof can't be 100% certain).

The foregoing is an example of your rambling. I'm not arguing for or against ID. So, why are broaching the subject matter? It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
3. Contrary to the popular viewpoint of members on this forum, atheists do not have a monopoly on science.

I never claimed we did.

True, you never explicitly stated it. But the sentiment is implied in your comments.   

nigelTheBold wrote:
All I said was, an epistemology based on God is an epistemology based on uncertainty and unknowability. You can take nothing for granted, as God can do anything.

I said that theology has been traditionally defined as "faith seeking understanding." The believer has faith - an implicit trust that everything in life is working out for a greater good.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Further, as God  is a universal explanation, God is epistemically void. "God did it" can answer most any question of existence; "God wants it that way" can answer any question of meaning; "God desires you to act a certain way" can answer any question of morality. Filling in the blanks is left as an exercise for the religious leaders.

Science cannot answer "why there is something rather than nothing." Science cannot address morality. To argue otherwise is to make a case for the existence of God.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
4. I may be willing to concede (for the sake of argument), that science operates under the working assumption of metaphysical materialism. But science itself does not make metaphysical pronouncements. To say otherwise is to misrepresent science. Certainly, science has never proven its working assumption - namely, that matter constitutes ultimate reality. (Actually, it's quite the opposite. The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics undercut materialism).

This was recently discussed this in another thread. It's funny you should bring it up again.

Science operates under the working assumption that we can objectively observe reality. That's it. The metaphysics of materialism arises from the application of science, not vice-versa.

I will agree that science operates by observing objective phenomena. But science has NOT proven that materialism constitutes ultimate reality. Metaphysics is beyond the purview of science.

Historically speaking, the philosopher Decartes set up the parameters for the scientific enterprise. It was initially based on Cartesian dualism (i.e. the duality of the physical vs. the spiritual). Science was concerned with the physical and religion with the spiritual. That is why I was willing to concede for the sake of argument that science works under the assumption of materialism.

nigelTheBold wrote:
A metaphysics is useful only inasmuch as it is congruent with reality. The only way to tell if it is congruent with reality is by comparing it against reality. There is exactly one epistemology that allows you to do this: science.

I understand metaphysics to be the philosophical endeavor to fashion a coherent worldview in which we can interpret every element of our experience.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Science can help guide the development of objective "meaning and values."

What? Please explain how science can determine objective "meaning and values."

nigelTheBold wrote:
But, even if that is so, how do you propose to derive "meaning and values?" God can't do that, either. At least, not effectively nor consistently.

If God shares in our experience, then God can appreciate our joys and sorrows.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
6. "Metaphysical naturalism" is not interchangeable with materialism or physicalism. 

7. Theology is traditionally defined as "faith seeking understanding." The difference between believers and unbelievers is that believers have faith.

TheBold]Faith in what, exactly?

Only a belief in God can ground a belief in ultimate hope. If you don't have ultimate hope, then you must believe your whole life is ultimately an exercise in futility. This is the logical conclusion of your worldview.

nigelTheBold wrote:
"Faith" can't lead to understanding. Faith leads to intellectual blindness and willfull ignorance.

I trust that you did not vote for Barack Obama.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Knowledge leads to understanding. And so far there is only one epistemology that measures knowledge against reality: science.

No one lives his life based on the scientific method. The whole notion is completely absurd.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
8. To be without faith is to be without hope. And to be without hope is to be in a state of despair. The only thing you have to offer is despair.

Really? How is that? I thought "hope" was nothing more than a desire for something in the future. Personally, I find the concept that we are learning more about reality more hopeful than the idea that we are placing our future in the hands of a being that may or may not exist, and if it does exist, may or may not be how we imagine it.

Your worldview does not offer you ultimate hope. Quite the opposite. Based on your worldview, your fate is simply to cease to exist. Your life  has no ultimate meaning and no ultimate value. This is the main reason why atheistic materialism will never be able to compete in the market place.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Anyway, you didn't address the core thesis: that introducing "God" into an epistemology essentially voids that epistemology, as God can do anything. Nothing can be certain about reality, as it becomes maleable in the hands of God. You've attempted to undercut science as an epistemology, but you did nothing to indicate that you can even have an epistemology with God.

I think there is something that I can say for certain about reality. It never ceases to be. And everything you have based your "faith" on is contingent and impermanent.

Also, you are making a basic error in your theological understanding. God is not omnipotent, at least not in the sense you are thinking. God cannot override free will.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
And, big surprise, Paisley

And, big surprise, Paisley ignores the post requesting that he demonstrate his expertise.

 

Go figure.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The

BobSpence1 wrote:
The ultimate bottom line is that hope is all you have - a belief that offers 'ultimate hope' is not true because of that, but it does make it attractive to people already in despair and of uncritical mind. IOW it is metaphysical prozac.

Sorry, but I will insist that you acknowledge the logical conclusions of your worldview (i.e. atheistic materialism). If you're without hope, then you're already in a state of despair by default.

Atheistic materialism is a spiritually-impoverished worldview by definition.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Atheistic materialism

Quote:
Atheistic materialism is a spiritually-impoverished worldview by definition

Please explain who you've derived this definition from the single premise, 'I do not believe in God'.

 

Also, please explain how no spirtuality = no hope.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:How can you

Paisley wrote:

How can you know that your knowledge is approaching certainty?

That's easy.

I use the example of a sodoku puzzle. When you start, you don't know the solution to the whole puzzle. There are many squares that you can't fill in at first; you must deduce the solution to the squares for which you have sufficient data to answer. Then, that gives you more data, and you are able to fill in yet more squares, until eventually the puzzle is filled.

You know your answers are correct as you attempt to fill in other squares. If you mess up, you end up with contradictions, with squares that make no sense with the given data. If you don't, the puzzle moves forward, and you are able to complete the puzzle.

Just to clarify, this is an example. I like to use examples rather than explicit references to philosophers, as I've only a rudimentary formal education in philosophy (the basics: Plato and Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, and so on). So forgive me if I ramble a bit, as I try to offer examples. I don't mean to imply that you engage in sodoku or anything; I just mean to use it as an example of what I mean.

Back to sodoku: I see that reality works in a way similar to sodoku puzzles. Sodoku puzzles are based entirely on logic, and work because logic works. The universe is the same: the rules that are defined by the natural processes of the universe fit together the same way a sodoku puzzle fits together.

Now, before you go off on a tangent about how sodoku puzzles are designed, let me state: they are not. The particular arrangement is of the puzzle was designed, but the multitude of possible puzzles are built by algorithms. Very simple algorithms, actually. And, the arrangement is defined by mathematical necessity, so saying the arrangement was "designed" is a bit of a stretch, as well.

So, how do we know that our knowledge approaches certainty? Because it all fits together with both what we have observed in the past, and what we observe today. I would like to say that it will fit with what we observe in the future, but there's always that small bit of uncertainty.

That's how our knowledge approaches 100% certainty. By observation. By data. By measuring the world around us, and seeing that it fits with our understanding.

Sorry about the ramble. It's just my natural style of writing, I reckon. I have to say I find your style terse with no real meat, like gnawing on a bone, only without the bone.

Quote:

No, I'm simply stating what is the definition of knowledge as it has been traditionally defined in philosophical discourse. The only thing that constitutes true knowledge is "conscious-awareness." I know with absolute certitude that as I write this statement that I am consciously aware. "Conscious-awareness" is axiomatic (self-evident). Everything else is a matter of belief. That's why knowledge has been defined in philosophy as "justified belief." So, what is at issue here is whether or not my belief in God's existence is rationally justified. That's the epistemological issue at hand.

I even question conscious-awareness. "I think, therefore I am," is quite pithy and all, but lacks any substantive justification. "Conscious-awareness" is axiomatic because we've defined it that way. That's like saying a circle possesses "roundness," only "roundness" is more clearly defined.

But, that's irrelevant to the point.

If "knowledge" is justified belief, what justifies your belief in something which we can't ascertain? Or are you claiming that knowledge is itself insufficient, and faith is necessary?

Quote:

The foregoing is an example of your rambling. I'm not arguing for or against ID. So, why are broaching the subject matter? It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Sorry: I didn't think you were for intelligent design. You seem more intelligent and thoughtful than that. That's partly why I used it as an example. I thought it was common ground, which would allow me to make a point with no worries of misunderstanding. I guess I was wrong; you seem to want to take issue with everything I say.

I was rambling to say that we have pieces of knowledge that approach 100% certainty. I thought it a good example. But, I guess not: you still take issue with the idea that we can know things with increasing certainty.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
3. Contrary to the popular viewpoint of members on this forum, atheists do not have a monopoly on science.

I never claimed we did.

True, you never explicitly stated it. But the sentiment is implied in your comments.

True. I guess I have been implying that science and atheism are related. Mostly that's because science has never provided evidence to support a claim of theism. So far, science supports an atheistic worldview, not a theistic worldview.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
All I said was, an epistemology based on God is an epistemology based on uncertainty and unknowability. You can take nothing for granted, as God can do anything.

I said that theology has been traditionally defined as "faith seeking understanding." The believer has faith - an implicit trust that everything in life is working out for a greater good.

And what is it we're supposed to understand? What is this "greater good?"

I take issue with faith for many reasons. One is that it's always defined in impotent terms like "greater good," without a decent indication of what this "greater good" might be. Faith seems to accept prettily-dressed nothing as something, and make a very big deal about it.

You have all these very nice-sounding words, but they mean absolutely nothing.

On the other hand, I have a greater good. I strive to make life better. Not just for me, and not just for my loved ones, but for everyone. Why? Because if everyone has a better life, I and my loved ones have a better life. It's as simple as that. I'm able to define what it is for which I strive. It might not be an "ultimate" anything, but it's something. You seem to have ultimate nothing.

And you still haven't provided a coherent epistemology based on the metaphysical assumption of an all-powerful God. Which is the point of the original post.

Quote:

Science cannot answer "why there is something rather than nothing." Science cannot address morality. To argue otherwise is to make a case for the existence of God.

Science may not be able to answer why there's something rather than nothing right now. That's largely because our puzzle is still largely blank. We don't even know the extent of the puzzle. That certainly doesn't mean science will never be able to answer that question, though.

Not that I have faith it will. I simply don't know if we'll be able to answer that question, or even if it's a meaningful question.

Science can address morality. And it has. To say otherwise is to overlook huge chunks of evolutionary psychology. And so I argue otherwise, yet I see no case for God.

Quote:

I will agree that science operates by observing objective phenomena. But science has NOT proven that materialism constitutes ultimate reality. Metaphysics is beyond the purview of science.

That's partly because metaphysics is basically nonsense. It's a bunch of people looking for mystery where there is no mystery. It's people who like to play word-games. Metaphysics attempts to answer the fundamental questions of existence while ignoring the only evidence of existence we have: our own senses.

There is only one bit of metaphysics that makes sense: either we can trust our own observations of reality, or reality is a farce. That's it. And once you introduce an all-powerful God that meddles in the universe, you introduce the farce. We can no longer trust our own observations.

There is no other metaphysics.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
A metaphysics is useful only inasmuch as it is congruent with reality. The only way to tell if it is congruent with reality is by comparing it against reality. There is exactly one epistemology that allows you to do this: science.

I understand metaphysics to be the philosophical endeavor to fashion a coherent worldview in which we can interpret every element of our experience.

Sort of. You can fashion a coherent worldview that is entirely coherent, and entirely wrong. "God" is one such worldview. It's entirely coherent: you can blame anything on God, including "Morality is that which God wishes you to do," or, "The world is like it is because God likes it that way." It's entirely coherent.

And entirely meaningless.

There is only one viable worldview: the one that is congruent with reality. And we have only one tool to help us determine whether something is congruent with reality: the scientific method.

If you have anything else, I'd love to hear it. A desire to have an "ultimate meaning" doesn't cut it. That's wishful thinking at best, and self-delusion at worst. Unless you have some way to prove that "ultimate meaning" is congruent with reality, your metaphysics is merely comfortable self-delusion.

And as a side-note: feel free to use the scientific method. I certainly don't claim that atheists have a monopoly on it. In fact, if you were able to use the scientific method to support a claim of God, I'd be orgasmic.

Not that you'd want to see that.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Science can help guide the development of objective "meaning and values."

What? Please explain how science can determine objective "meaning and values."

Seriously? That's easy! In fact, you already know the answer. You just don't like it.

Our "meaning" is to collectively pass on our genes. That's it. That's the only objective meaning we really have.

Our "values" are based on how to best pass on our genes. As it turns out, that also plays to our own best interests. The best way to pass on our genes is to have a stable, comfortable, non-chaotic, cooperative society. That works for me, because I like comfort and safety and stability.

If you look for deeper meaning, there really isn't any. What difference would it make if everyone suddenly became sterile, and we all just died out peacefully within 100 years? None. Not one iota of difference, except to the other species of our planet.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
But, even if that is so, how do you propose to derive "meaning and values?" God can't do that, either. At least, not effectively nor consistently.

If God shares in our experience, then God can appreciate our joys and sorrows.

That's a great statement, one I can totally agree with. If I were to believe in God, that's the God I would want to believe in.

You completely did not answer the question. How can the philosophic assumption of an all-powerful God allow you to derive effective, consistent meaning and values? Is this God an S&M God? Is he a top, or a bottom? What does he find joyful? Suffering, or love?

How can you be sure?

Quote:

Only a belief in God can ground a belief in ultimate hope. If you don't have ultimate hope, then you must believe your whole life is ultimately an exercise in futility. This is the logical conclusion of your worldview.

You're bringing it around to this again. You seem to be stuck on this one thing: that atheists live in futility. It's not the logical conclusion of our worldview. Here's why:

Life can be an end to itself.

The same experiences you say God shares with us is sufficient reason to want to live in the first place. My life has been joyful, exuberant, terribly sad, wonderfully unpredictable, and sometimes absurd. (Experiences in life can be absurd. It doesn't mean life is absurd.) I've loved my life, and hope to continue to enjoy it.

Do you consider going to a movie a waste of time? How about listening to good music? (I'll assume you enjoy one or both of these activities, just to speed my rambling along.) Is it "ultimately futile" to watch a movie, or listen to music? If it isn't, then why not? If it is, then why do you do it?

If the point of a movie or music is the transient enjoyment of the experience, then why can't the meaning of life simply be for the transient enjoyment of living?

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
"Faith" can't lead to understanding. Faith leads to intellectual blindness and willfull ignorance.

I trust that you did not vote for Barack Obama.

Yes, I did. Partly because I didn't have to have simple faith in Obama; I had watched him, and judged him of fair character. I had also watched McCain, and judged him lacking. I had further judged Palin as a total fuck-up, and considering McCain's age, the chance of her becoming President was more than slim.

My judgement wasn't based on empty slogans, but actual observation, real data. If I had to vote on "faith," rather than knowledge, it might as well have been a coin toss.

Given two strange names on a ballot, could you choose the better leader based on "faith?" Or would you rather know something about both of them?

Quote:

No one lives his life based on the scientific method. The whole notion is completely absurd.

Why? What's absurd about it? Simply because you couldn't imagine doing it yourself?

You are right. We as individuals have too many uncertainties in our day-to-day lives to make every decision using the scientific method. The tedium would be tremendous. Instead, we make judgements based on the knowledge in our heads (much derived from the application of the scientific method by others, of course), and often come to the wrong conclusion.

Quote:

Your worldview does not offer you ultimate hope. Quite the opposite. Based on your worldview, your fate is simply to cease to exist. Your life  has no ultimate meaning and no ultimate value. This is the main reason why atheistic materialism will never be able to compete in the market place.

You have a fascination with "ultimate." It's as if you find life not worthwhile in-and-of itself, that there must be something more.

In my recollection, you haven't once tried to defend that assertion, other than trying to claim that the atheist worldview is "absurd," because it doesn't offer "ultimate meaning." In whichever way you couch it, that's a tautology. "Life has ultimate meaning, because if it didn't, it wouldn't have ultimate meaning."

And last I looked, reality wasn't contingent on capitalism.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Anyway, you didn't address the core thesis: that introducing "God" into an epistemology essentially voids that epistemology, as God can do anything. Nothing can be certain about reality, as it becomes maleable in the hands of God. You've attempted to undercut science as an epistemology, but you did nothing to indicate that you can even have an epistemology with God.

I think there is something that I can say for certain about reality. It never ceases to be. And everything you have based your "faith" on is contingent and impermanent.

Also, you are making a basic error in your theological understanding. God is not omnipotent, at least not in the sense you are thinking. God cannot override free will.

And again, you did not address the core thesis. You offer one thing that God "cannot" do: override free will.

Is this God all-powerful? Or is it all-powerful with that one caveat? Or did it create the universe and get out of the way? Or what?

And again: how do you know?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Sub Zero
Posts: 2
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
 (I'm looking at you,

 

(I'm looking at you, string theory).

 

what exactly is the string theory? i looked it up but it remains unclear to me, plz explain or reply with a link to a site with a good explanation.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Sorry, but I

Paisley wrote:

Sorry, but I will insist that you acknowledge the logical conclusions of your worldview (i.e. atheistic materialism). If you're without hope, then you're already in a state of despair by default.

Atheistic materialism is a spiritually-impoverished worldview by definition.

This is what I mean. You insist on using this one argument. That's all you present.

And strangely, it goes against all observation. I have despaired in my life, though not often. And never for long. I once loved a woman, and we ended up not together, and I despaired greatly, and thought life was not worth living. Isn't that what despair is? The point at which you decide life is not worth living?

And then I started having fun again, and life has been worth living ever since. Go figure.

I'd like a show of hands of atheists here who are currently despairing, and don't want to continue with life. Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? No?

So I'd have to say you fail the first test: your assertions are completely contrary to reality. This means one of two things: your assertions are incorrect, or reality is incorrect.

Guess which I choose?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Sub Zero wrote: (I'm

Sub Zero wrote:

 

(I'm looking at you, string theory).

 

what exactly is the string theory? i looked it up but it remains unclear to me, plz explain or reply with a link to a site with a good explanation.

Hey, Sub Zero! I'm honored your first post is in reply to me. Welcome!

"String theory" is a misnomer, as it is actually a set of theories, and they really aren't theories at all yet, as they haven't been tested. They attempt to combine quantum mechanics and general relativity, in an attempt to make gravity an aspect of quantum mechanics. Here's the Wikipedia link, as a general introduction.

Aaaanyway, string theory began to be accepted back in the '80s, when I was in high school. I remember reading Discover and Scientific American articles, which made it seem like it was going to be simple and all-encompassing and the first real step to a Grand Unified Theory. Then it turned out that it's much more complex than they thought, and there are several competing variants of string theory, which may all be aspects of M-theory, which also hasn't been tested.

Currently, there's a huge debate about whether or not it's worth pursuing string theory. Right now, it gets a lot of funding, leaving other competing hypotheses with scant funding. Since we're not a lot closer to a coherent, provable theory than we were two decades ago, string theory is losing its luster among some physicists these days.

Hope that helps.


 

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Atheistic materialism is a spiritually-impoverished worldview by definition

Please explain who you've derived this definition from the single premise, 'I do not believe in God'.

In Paisley's defence, he did say, "Atheistic materialism." This differs from your run-of-the-mill atheism by further claiming that the material world (i.e., the universe) is the totality of reality. (Hah! I rhymed!) So, he is correct, as atheistic materialism precludes the spiritual (which is outside the universe, or as we know it, reality). So all us atheistic materialists are spiritually-impoverished, along with faery-impoverished, Baal-impoverished, Thor-impoverished, an Cthulhu-impoverished.

It's like saying, "All you folks who don't believe in fantasy are magick-impoverished."

Quote:

Also, please explain how no spirtuality = no hope.

I can also answer this one, as I am wisdom incarnate.

"No spirituality == no hope" because if you don't have ultimate purpose, you can't have hope. It's just that simple.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Sub Zero
Posts: 2
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
oh ok thanks, yea im

oh ok thanks, yea im actually new to forums altogether. i like the discussions ive read on this forum site, including many of the posts youve made.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:

Sorry, but I will insist that you acknowledge the logical conclusions of your worldview (i.e. atheistic materialism). If you're without hope, then you're already in a state of despair by default.

Atheistic materialism is a spiritually-impoverished worldview by definition.

This is what I mean. You insist on using this one argument. That's all you present.

If you continue to bash faith, then I continue to use this argument. Why? Because the choice is between hope or despair.

They say that "hope springs eternal" for a very good reason. My worldview justifies eternal hope, yours does not. It's that simple.

nigelTheBold wrote:
And strangely, it goes against all observation. I have despaired in my life, though not often. And never for long. I once loved a woman, and we ended up not together, and I despaired greatly, and thought life was not worth living. Isn't that what despair is? The point at which you decide life is not worth living?

Yes, that's why faith trumps skepticism when it comes to living life.  If you didn't BELIEVE that somehow things would work out, then you would have despaired and succumbed.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:If you

Paisley wrote:

If you continue to bash faith, then I continue to use this argument. Why? Because the choice is between hope or despair.

They say that "hope springs eternal" for a very good reason. My worldview justifies eternal hope, yours does not. It's that simple.

I don't have eternal hope. I don't need eternal hope. All I have is short-term hope, that life will continue to be fun. There's no guarantee. So, I reckon I basically agree with you: I don't have eternal hope. I just have my life, this one shot at a life well-spent, enjoying myself, and maximizing the enjoyment of life for those around me. That's the best for which I can hope.

Then again, you don't have an eternal guarantee, just a hope. It's not necessarily eternal either. If I'm right, your hope will snuff out when you do. But I guess you won't realize it. It's an odd form of Pascal's wager.

That leads us to the question you have left unanswered: what is the epistemical basis of your hope? What guarantee of knowledge can you get from God?

 

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Isn't that what despair is? The point at which you decide life is not worth living?

Yes, that's why faith trumps skepticism when it comes to living life.  If you didn't BELIEVE that somehow things would work out, then you would have despaired and succumbed.

I believed that things would work out because my life has been good before the (rather short) bad times. The physical evidence supported that supposition. But my belief that things would (or, at least, could) get better had nothing to do with God. It was about the value I knew to be intrinisic in life, the joy that was yet to be extracted, which I knew, even in my darkest hours, to be worthwhile. It had nothing to do with belief. It had to do with knowing.

Even when I was at my most despairing, I loved life.

And yet I don't believe in God.

So, how do you reconcile this with your assertion that the atheistic worldview is one of despair?

That is yet another question you have left unanswered.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:If you

Paisley wrote:

If you continue to bash faith, then I continue to use this argument. Why? Because the choice is between hope or despair.

Hello again, Paisley. Man are you a sucker for punishment. Your assertion that there is no middle ground between hope and despair is a false dichotomy. There are times when neither hope nor despair are experienced by people.

Paisley wrote:
They say that "hope springs eternal" for a very good reason. My worldview justifies eternal hope, yours does not. It's that simple.

It's that simple to hope and not think. Your worldview may justify hope, but it does not provide a good explanation for reality. Reality happens to be physical.

Paisley wrote:
Yes, that's why faith trumps skepticism when it comes to living life.  If you didn't BELIEVE that somehow things would work out, then you would have despaired and succumbed.

But Nigel didn't have to believe in something immaterial in order to believe that things would work out.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Several

Paisley wrote:

Several points...

1. You ramble way too much. 

2. Epistemology is the "study of knowledge." More specifically, it is determining what contstitutes knowledge." Traditionally, "knowledge" has been defined as "justified true belief." The bottom line is that we don't know anything with absolute certainty, barring "conscious-awareness." 

3. Contrary to the popular viewpoint of members on this forum, atheists do not have a monopoly on science.

4. I may be willing to concede (for the sake of argument), that science operates under the working assumption of metaphysical materialism. But science itself does not make metaphysical pronouncements. To say otherwise is to misrepresent science. Certainly, science has never proven its working assumption - namely, that matter constitutes ultimate reality. (Actually, it's quite the opposite. The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics undercut materialism).

5. Science leads to technological innovation and as such has a utilitarian function. But science does not provide humanity with "meaning and values."

6. "Metaphysical naturalism" is not interchangeable with materialism or physicalism. 

7. Theology is traditionally defined as "faith seeking understanding." The difference between believers and unbelievers is that believers have faith.

8. To be without faith is to be without hope. And to be without hope is to be in a state of despair. The only thing you have to offer is despair.

This was Paisley's first response to the topic post. Although I like how our conversation has progressed, I'd like to emphasize a couple of points:

 

1. I'm really drunk right now, and enjoying the fuck out of life. I enjoy the fuck out of life even when not drunk, but I also like being drunk. Speaking of which, has anybody seen IAGAY in a long while?

2. As epistemology is the "study of knowledge," exactly where does God fit in the study of knowledge? That is the premise of the TP, and I don't believe this or subsequent Paisley posts have addressed the thesis: that God has no supportable epistemology.

3. I really like science. It gives me a chubby.

4. Science makes all kinds of metaphysical pronouncements. For instance, the fact that inductive logic leads to propositions testable via deductive logic is absolutely awesome. This indicates that the universe defines a set of interlocking constructs that make up all facets of reality, including the explicit and the emergent.

5. Philosophers all seem to suffer from science envy. It just leads to "technological innovation." What innovation whatsoever has non-science-based philosophy ever given? I mean, besides leading to science itself, which is cool and all.

6. Has anybody read Paisley's post in the "Christians and materialism" thread, where he states "That there is a direct correlation between materialism as a metaphysical worldview and materialism as a lifestyle should be obvious to anyone who has given the subject matter a moment of thought?"

7. If "knowledge" is "justified belief," then what is faith? Unjustified belief?

8. Why is it that theists always equate hope with the immaterial? What the fuck are they smoking? Hope is nothing more than a desire for things to work out a specific way in the future. The best way to make things work out a specific way is by taking material action with the design of a material outcome. And what the fuck does hope have to do with reality, anyway?

As an appendix, I'd like to offer:

A. At no point does Paisley address the core thesis:

A1: To have a valid metaphysics, you need a valid epistemology, and

A2: There is no valid epistemology based on God.

B. I'm probably rambling, but I'm finding it hard to care. Either you'll read, or you won't.

III: I'm really fuckin' drunk. On CHRISTMAS EVE! Wait: It's CHRISTMAS now.

IIIa: Is that sacrilege, or does it merely make baby Jesus whimper a little in his sleep?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:IIIa: Is

nigelTheBold wrote:

IIIa: Is that sacrilege, or does it merely make baby Jesus whimper a little in his sleep?

No, but it does please Freyr that you celebrate on this day. Now if you could just eat some ham later he would be even happier (only sacrificing a boar could please him more). Merry Norse winter solstice everyone! Don't forget to fill your shoes with hay and leave them outside so that Seipnir will eat it and Wotan will give you gifts in return.

But in all seriousness, merry Christmas everyone. I too have been drinking with family members, so don't take any of this seriously. Holidays rock.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
 I love this thread. Thanks

 I love this thread. Thanks Nigel & Paisley ! Please continue.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I love this thread.

 

Quote:
I love this thread. Thanks Nigel & Paisley ! Please continue.

I've been enjoying it myself.  In fact, Nigel, I'd like to thank you for jumping into this with both feet.  The fact that I have just been reading and enjoying it rather than jumping in with nitpicky clarifications says a lot.  After all, I'm the king of nitpicky.  Great writing!

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"no faith" is not despair

Paisley wrote:

To be without faith is to be without hope. And to be without hope is to be in a state of despair. The only thing you have to offer is despair.

"To be without faith" is to be without hope in something specific, such as an afterlife, or that there is some powerful entity that has a benign purpose in mind for human beings.

Whereas 'despair' is to be without hope of any kind, so it is not quite the same thing. This is where your logic is faulty.

We find other things to look forward to, from the 'little' things of life, such as enjoying the company and conversation of friends, to contemplating the more marvellous aspects of life and the Universe, the hope of being able to make some positive contribute to the lives of our friends, family, and maybe the broader society, so that at the end, we can take our leave of life with the thought that our existence has not been without some point. Even if our contribution was little more than to lighten the mood of our companions, make them smile more than they otherwise might have, share the burden of the troubled times, and so on.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I've always found people

 I've always found people who need "deep meaning" to be a terrible bore.  One of the things I love about my personal philosophy is that very small things have real meaning.  To some, chatting with a friend over a beer is a "pointless" waste of time.  To me, it is what being human is about.  Sure, we can place weight on actions based on circumstances, so it would be irresponsible of me to chat and drink beer when taxes are due, but you get the point.

To me, nothing I do is meaningless.  From the mundane to the profound, everything that I do is part of my life experience, and therefore, part of me.  What could be more meaningful than the creation of myself?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
God barrier

Paisley seems to have the same problem that many believers in god have, they cannot understand a world or concepts that do not involve god as the ultimate answer to it all. No god no hope, no god no happiness, which is always utter crap. some of the most common responses I get with believers are are you happy? I say yes, they say without god your not TRUELY happy. Do you have hope, yes I do, without god you don't really have hope you have false hope. It's all just a matter of playing with words really and just utter ignorance on their part.

Paisley cannot understand the concept of people wanting to have or to be capable of pursuing matters that aren't strictly material in the sense that he presents it. For example those that are happy pursuing intellectual pursuits or those that seek to make their communities better or safer in which there really is no material gain other than the sense of safety and security. These are in a sense immaterial gains without the need for spritual or supernatural crap added on. I have friends the love to rock climb, not because they gain anything material out of it other than the trill and great emense feeling of freedom while they rock climb. There are side benefits to it...they are healthy and freaking rock solid but in the end that wasn't why they continue to rock climb.

The universe is a material world but there are imaterial pursuits that you paisley cannot seem to grasp of the simple concept of.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Paisley

latincanuck wrote:

Paisley seems to have the same problem that many believers in god have, they cannot understand a world or concepts that do not involve god as the ultimate answer to it all. No god no hope, no god no happiness, which is always utter crap. some of the most common responses I get with believers are are you happy? I say yes, they say without god your not TRUELY happy. Do you have hope, yes I do, without god you don't really have hope you have false hope. It's all just a matter of playing with words really and just utter ignorance on their part.

Paisley cannot understand the concept of people wanting to have or to be capable of pursuing matters that aren't strictly material in the sense that he presents it. For example those that are happy pursuing intellectual pursuits or those that seek to make their communities better or safer in which there really is no material gain other than the sense of safety and security. These are in a sense immaterial gains without the need for spritual or supernatural crap added on. I have friends the love to rock climb, not because they gain anything material out of it other than the trill and great emense feeling of freedom while they rock climb. There are side benefits to it...they are healthy and freaking rock solid but in the end that wasn't why they continue to rock climb.

The universe is a material world but there are imaterial pursuits that you paisley cannot seem to grasp of the simple concept of.

Quibble: Not "can not" but "will not". I do not doubt that Paisley possesses the necessary intellectual faculties to understand fully the arguments placed before him or her. However, faith being what it is, he or she obviously does not posses the emotional fortitude necessary to examine the evidence and arguments.


God must exist. Without God, everthing held to be true is falsified. A material universe means one os fully responsible for one's own actions, that the bad things that happen to you aren't caused by evil, that one can not control the world you find yourself in - no prayer will stop the tornado from destroying your home.

The equivocation of materialistic and material is a symptom of that. Paisely needs a spiritual realm to be more real and more important than the physical world so that no matter what happens in the physical world, Paisley is safe in the "higher plane" of spirit.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:The

latincanuck wrote:
The universe is a material world but there are immaterial pursuits that you paisley cannot seem to grasp of the simple concept of.

I don't have problem with immaterial pursuits. However, I would think that an atheist would since his world consists only of the material. I would argue that "atheistic immaterialism" is an oxymoron.

Quote:
immaterial: 1 : not consisting of matter

(source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: immaterial)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immaterial

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley please please educate yourself

You just contradicted yourself completely with atheistic material, and I have proven you completely wrong, if you have no problem with immaterial pursuits then why can't an atheists have immaterial pursuits?. Why does it have to be strictly material? Just because the world and universe is material, it does not mean we cannot derive pleasure and/or meaning from immaterial means, such as intellectual goals or idealogical goals. Actually many people do derive pleasure and actually make money off of immaterial means, professors teaching students, mathamaticians, various fields of science, to heck even the chruch. Atheist immaterialism isn't an oxymoron, it's no more of an oxymoron than christian materialist. yes some christians are in pursuit of the spritual, then there are others that are after materialism, just like there are atheists that pursue immaterial goals, as there are others that are purely materialistic (although I have found many more christians to be materialistic than atheists)


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Quibble: Not

JillSwift wrote:
Quibble: Not "can not" but "will not". I do not doubt that Paisley possesses the necessary intellectual faculties to understand fully the arguments placed before him or her. However, faith being what it is, he or she obviously does not posses the emotional fortitude necessary to examine the evidence and arguments.

Without faith there is no trust and without trust there is no love. Faith is not a weakness of character, but a strength. Faith is indispensable in virtually all aspects of life. 

JillSwift wrote:
God must exist. Without God, everthing held to be true is falsified. A material universe means one os fully responsible for one's own actions, that the bad things that happen to you aren't caused by evil, that one can not control the world you find yourself in - no prayer will stop the tornado from destroying your home.

Correction. In a world where only the material is real, there is no personal responsibility because the idea of personal reponsibility presupposes "free will." In the deterministic worldview that is atheistic materialism, every thought you think, every choice you make could not have been otherwise. So, I will kindly ask you to be consistent with your viewpoint and resist the temptation to lay a guilt trip on me for not taking personal responsibility. According to deterministic materialism, I could not have acted otherwise.

Incidentally, I am a "he," not a "she."

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Without faith

Paisley wrote:
Without faith there is no trust and without trust there is no love. Faith is not a weakness of character, but a strength. Faith is indispensable in virtually all aspects of life.
This oft-repeated equivocation of yours is tiring. There is faith as in the definition "I have faith he will deliver" and faith as in "I believe despite no evidence or contrary evidence".


Paisley wrote:
Correction. In a world where only the material is real, there is no personal responsibility because the idea of personal reponsibility presupposes "free will." In the deterministic worldview that is atheistic materialism, every thought you think, every choice you make could not have been otherwise. So, I will kindly ask you to be consistent with your viewpoint and resist the temptation to lay a guilt trip on me for not taking personal responsibility. According to deterministic materialism, I could not have acted otherwise.
Pais-Pais, your equivocation of "deterministic" and "pre-determined" is just as silly as you equivocation of "material" and "materialistic".

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Jillswift

Paisley cannot even grasp the concept that there are atheists that have immaterial pursuits even though paisley even said there are immaterial pursuits, I still would like to see him/her tell me that mathamaticians are in a material pursuit or how various intellectual pursuits are material, yet there are a vast amount of atheists that do live off and get pleasure from immaterial pursuits, yet he still cannot wrap his/hers little mind that atheists are not strictly materialistic has he presents them to be.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:You just

latincanuck wrote:
You just contradicted yourself completely with atheistic material, and I have proven you completely wrong, if you have no problem with immaterial pursuits then why can't an atheists have immaterial pursuits?. Why does it have to be strictly material? Just because the world and universe is material, it does not mean we cannot derive pleasure and/or meaning from immaterial means

The worldview of atheistic materialism precludes immaterial pursuits because according to the atheist only the material is real and the immaterial doesn't exist. Duh!

And I would argue that the term "atheistic immaterialism" is most definitely an oxymoron because immaterialism is the philosophical view that the physical exists only as a mental perception. In other words, the physical world does not exist independent of conscious-awareness.

Quote:
immaterialism : a philosophical theory that material things have no reality except as mental perceptions

(source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: immaterialism)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immaterialism

 

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:And I would

Paisley wrote:

And I would argue that the term "atheistic immaterialism" is most definitely an oxymoron because immaterialism is the philosophical view that the physical exists only as a mental perception. In other words, the physical world does not exist independent of conscious-awareness.

Dude. Some atheists can be just as stupid as some theists, and accept the "immaterial" (that is, things for which no observations exist). So it's not an oxymoron. Atheism is just the opposite of the belief in a God. Some atheists believe that the universe has a fantastic element, too.

So this claim is also false.

[edit] stupid mistakes fixed.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote: The

Paisley wrote:

 

The worldview of atheistic materialism precludes immaterial pursuits because according to the atheist only the material is real and the immaterial doesn't exist. Duh!

And I would argue that the term "atheistic immaterialism" is most definitely an oxymoron because immaterialism is the philosophical view that the physical exists only as a mental perception. In other words, the physical world does not exist independent of conscious-awareness.

Quote:
immaterialism : a philosophical theory that material things have no reality except as mental perceptions

(source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: immaterialism)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immaterialism

Oh boy, at what point are you going to understand that not every atheist believes that the world is strictly materialistic? The concept of immaterial pursuites refutes your entire arugment which you already said you have no problems, It's like saying all believers believe in the exact same god, they are all the same in belief, you know that's not true, just as your statement about atheists being materialists only is not true. damn it I just had to do a facepalm when I read your response, either your being completely fucking ignorant or just being plain dumb I cannot make up my mind which one.

 

 

 


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:I was

nigelTheBold wrote:
I was looking for Topher's version in response to Chuck, desertwolf9, and L0ather. But I couldn't find it (after about 10 seconds of searching -- who's got that kind of time?!?), so wrote my own thoughts down.

Ummm what thread was this? When?

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote:nigelTheBold

Topher wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
I was looking for Topher's version in response to Chuck, desertwolf9, and L0ather. But I couldn't find it (after about 10 seconds of searching -- who's got that kind of time?!?), so wrote my own thoughts down.

Ummm what thread was this? When?

I honestly don't recall. That's why I couldn't find them. I know this same topic comes up again and again, and I remembered that DG and Hamby and, to the best of my recollection, you have all made statements similar to the OP: that introducing God makes absolute knowledge impossible. I might've been attributing to you something that was written by somebody else.

I didn't spend much effort in the search, to be frank. I'm pretty lazy that way.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I say "currently"

Quote:
I say "currently" because I see our knowledge of the universe as a big ol' sodoku puzzle. You can't just blindly start filling in squares with numbers. When you start, it's not even possible to fill in some square until you've filled in others.

Of course, it's worse than that, since we don't even know the boundaries of knowledge. It's more like, you don't even know the unfilled squares exist until you fill in other squares. And then you get people speculating about what might go into those unfound squares: "Maybe it doesn't take numbers at all. Maybe it takes letters of the alphabet. Oh! Maybe it takes dragons or magic nose goblins instead of letters!"

I really, really like this analogy, actually.

I think if a creationist ever comes around, I might use a version of it on them:

 

If we imagine our knowledge of the universe as a big sodoku puzzle, you could imagine what Charles Darwin discovered in his day about natural selection as the digit that made all of the other answers related to biology make sense.

But it goes further than that.

Imagine we were doing this soduku puzzle, and then we discover one day that there was an entirely new dimension to the puzzle that we hadn't known about. Imagine we were working with what we thought was a flat square... and then, suddenly, we realize it's actually a cube. this has the potential to essentially turn all of our previous work inside-out. We have to re-check all of our old answers against this new dimension, since everything needs to fit together.

And guess what?

Against all odds, Darwins basic premise remains the correct answer. It fits-in precisely as we would expect it to with the whole new dimension (cellular biology / genetics), despite the original proponents of the theory having no idea that said dimension even existed.

 

Kind of takes 'blind testing' to a whole new level. Eye-wink

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940