Ante Up!

[wanstronian]

I don’t think there is a philosophical argument good enough to convince a skeptic of the existence of God.

However, through the mist of the philosophical debate shines a far more simple argument, one that is often overlooked by the religious, and misinterpreted or ignored by the non-religious. It can be seen in this picture:

http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/785/78568.png
*source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, via schools-wikipedia.org/images/785/78568.png

It is the simple fact that less than 3% of the world population is atheistic, and there is no reason to assume that this number is higher than it was 50, 100 or even 800 years ago, nor is there reason to assume that it will be higher 20, 50 or 150 years from now.

Enlightenment theories of how religion would dissapear in the ‘age of reason’, of how people would come to a ‘more natural’ understanding of the world, how scientific knowledge would degrade religion to mere mythical fairytales, how the concept of God would die within the next centuries or even decades, along with the secularization thesis, all proved to be wrong. Organized religion may have declined in some parts of the world, it may have taken other forms, believe and religion itself is very much alive today. The number of atheists worldwide isn’t growing, as the New Atheist movement wants us to believe.

The only argument the atheist has to counter this more than obvious fact, is that since religious groups all believe in different gods there can’t be one true God.

I don’t think many atheists would make this argument. They might point out that with such a variety of religious beliefs worldwide, there’s no way of knowing which one is the correct one; and if you can’t know that, you can’t know whether any of them exist.

But beside the fact that this logic is flawed since it is possible that one group believes in the true God while the others don’t, the argument doesn’t address the core of my argument, namely that the vast majority of the worldwide population somehow has evidence to believe in a supernatural Being.

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to state that since so many people believe in one god or another, that somehow constitutes evidence for a supernatural being. Once upon a time, virtually everybody believed the sun orbited the earth.

The fact that different religious groups have different images of who and what this Being is, does not counter the argument itself.

It doesn’t counter the argument, because there’s not really an argument to counter! It’s the fallacious “Argumentum ad Populum.”

The question can now be raised: isn’t it a bit pretentious for such a small group to loudly demand scientific evidence for something that, even without direct scientific or even philosophical proof, seems so obvious to the rest of the world?

Not at all - what makes you think that a majority belief gives a phenomenen dispensation from scientific enquiry? What an irrational view to hold!

 

[JohnDamian]

I’ve tried to read this before - it’s a nightmare! It’s full of what I suspect to be specific philosophical terms, coupled with 13th Century (or whatever) flowery wording.

For a philosophical layman like myself, it’s impossible to tell whether it proves anything at all! I spent an evening trying to read it; as far as I could make out, it seems to be a sophisticated version of the Cosmological argument, but I’m happy to concede I can’t understand it well enough to comment.

I don’t think that esoteric philosophical language should be necessary to provide proof of a truth claim such as the existence of God. Hence it should be reasonably easy for someone well-versed in philosophical linguistics to interpret and reproduce Scotus in plain language so that it can be assessed on it merits.

Has anybody done this, do you know?

I don’t know that anyone has ever simplified it – but Richard Cross gives a reasonable commentary in “Duns Scotus on God”. Also; William of Ockham gives a sound analysis of it in “I Physicorum” and the “Quodlibeta”

But sadly; it is impossible to convery complex philosophical ideas into simple English; it is hard enough to translate scholastic thought from Latin into English let alone in a form readable by a layperson.

It is indeed a from of Cosmological argument; which does go somewhat into depth; it is really ideal for people who have felt that other Cosmological arguments are unsatisfactory – the most popular that are thrown around are those of Aquinas and Algazel; which whilst short and simple make many fatal mistakes and assumptions that cannot be permitted in critical philosophy.

 

[wanstronian]

I don’t know that anyone has ever simplified it – but Richard Cross gives a reasonable commentary in “Duns Scotus on God”. Also; William of Ockham gives a sound analysis of it in “I Physicorum” and the “Quodlibeta”

But sadly; it is impossible to convery complex philosophical ideas into simple English; it is hard enough to translate scholastic thought from Latin into English let alone in a form readable by a layperson.

It is indeed a from of Cosmological argument; which does go somewhat into depth; it is really ideal for people who have felt that other Cosmological arguments are unsatisfactory – the most popular that are thrown around are those of Aquinas and Algazel; which whilst short and simple make many fatal mistakes and assumptions that cannot be permitted in critical philosophy.

I struggle to understand how any logical proof needs to be phrased in esoteric language to be valid. If the philosophical ideas on which the proofs are based are themselves valid, then they should be expressable in plain language.

I don’t know much about philosophy (sounds like a Sam Cooke song…), but it does sometimes appear to make its own truth up to a certain extent. If I’m right, and if this is what’s happening here, then Scotus will objectively be no more successful than Aquinas.

I’ll have to abstain: It’s too obfuscated for me to be capable of analysing it, so I don’t know whether it proves anything or whether it’s as flawed as all the other versions of the Cosmo argument. In the absence of a plain language version, I’m forced to disregard it.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

They might point out that with such a variety of religious beliefs worldwide, there’s no way of knowing which one is the correct one;

That again is a flawed logic. Why do you think it follows that there can’t be ways of knowing which one is the correct one?

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to state that since so many people believe in one god or another, that somehow constitutes evidence for a supernatural being. Once upon a time, virtually everybody believed the sun orbited the earth.

This is just another example of the argument that more (scientific) knowledge will lead to a decline in religious belief. I already showed that this kind of argument is invalid, since it has been proven wrong by history.

Not at all - what makes you think that a majority belief gives a phenomenen dispensation from scientific enquiry? What an irrational view to hold!

I did not say that religion gets dispensation from scientific enquiry. I am all for enquiry, scientific and philosophical. But the point is that if hard scientific evidence or irrefutable philosophical arguments are not found, yet the vast majority of the world population (including many scientists) think they have enough proof of a supreme being to believe in it, it would be necessary for skeptics to rethink their demand for scientific or philosophical evidence.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey: And matter is something that we know to exist, so it is far more likely to have “done it” than some supernatural being that no one can demonstrate the existence of. Thanks for playing.

The fact that we know matter exists proves absolutely nothing about whether it has produced mind.

Mind is a more adequate explanation because we know it exists with far more certainty than we know matter exists. Not only that. We know mind can control matter whereas there is no evidence that matter knows anything or acts purposefully! All the most important things in life are intangible. So there is no doubt which is the primary reality…

 

[R_Daneel]

But sadly; it is impossible to convery complex philosophical ideas into simple English; it is hard enough to translate scholastic thought from Latin into English let alone in a form readable by a layperson.

I have to concur with wastronian’s comment on this. There is nothing more abstract than higher mathematics, calculus, probability theory, operations research, multi-dimensional vectors and matrices, and the like. It uses concepts which are not readily found in everyday conversations, limts of sequences, and all sorts of “esoteric” stuff. Yet, as a former math professor, I can assure you that all those, seemingly very hard to grasp concepts can be explained in simple, everyday terms. I know that, because it was my job to do it.

So, no, I don’t accept that philosophical arguments must be “cloaked” in weird language, while having sentences running ten lines. In my eyes this practice is used to cover up the lack of substance, to hide the fact that the author has nothing to say. The sad part is that most people get intimidated by the unreadable essays, and out of fear that they will be looked down upon, do not dare to declare: “the emperor has no clothes!”

Just look at this randomly selected paragraph:

The fifth argument for infinity is based on the eminence [of God]. Anything to which infinity is not repugnant, is not simply perfect unless it is infinite. For instance, if the tenth degree of some perfection is not repugnant to a certain thing, then it is not simply perfect unless it possesses the tenth degree. But to being qua being infinity is not repugnant, as will be proved. Therefore, the most eminent and most perfect being will be infinite.

Sheer gobbledegook.

Adding a short anecdote: “Hemingway was asked once how can he write such beautiful, yet sort sentences with such incredible power to transmit his ideas. He answered: I write standing up”. Something I would advise those writers of philosophical essays to emulate.

 

[JohnDamian]

So, no, I don’t accept that philosophical arguments must be “cloaked” in weird language, while having sentences running ten lines. In my eyes this practice is used to cover up the lack of substance, to hide the fact that the author has nothing to say. The sad part is that most people get intimidated by the unreadable essays, and out of fear that they will be looked down upon, do not dare to declare: “the emperor has no clothes!”

Philosophers use complex language because certain words have certain meanings in certain situations. For clarity; these particular words are used, rather than everyday speak. I shall have a look at that citation you gave and give an explanation as to why these particular words were used; and not others. Incidentally; please don’t read this explanation out of context as it is the 83rd argument from de esse dei, and is not intended to “stand alone” (this is more directed at other readers than at you R Daneel or wanstronian).

The fifth argument for infinity is based on the eminence [of God].

This discusses the ontological necessity for God to be infinite; based upon the fact that God is taken to be (as Ockham puts it) “God is that than which nothing is more noble and more perfect” (Quodlibeta). So in simple language we could replace this sentance with the following;

The fifth argument that God is infinite rests upon God being defined as “That than which nothing is more noble and more perfect”; in this fifth argument we will discuss why, if God is “That than which nothing is more noble and more perfect”; that God must be infinite.

Anything to which infinity is not repugnant, is not simply perfect unless it is infinite.

This sentance discusses the fact that any object or “thing” which infinity is not absurd for is not perfect unless it is infinite. It also discusses this perfection in simple; rather than complex terms; we would see the following in simple language;

Any object or thing which can be infinite; must be infinite in order for that thing to be perfect. This is because any thing which can be infinite is made more perfect by the act of being infinite; in ontological terms – therefore; whatever is fully perfect and fully able to be infinite; must be fully infinite to be fully perfect.*

*Object in this context means “the thing towards which the mind tends.” – even in trying to explain this simple passage I am encountering difficulty expressing it simply; without damaging the meaning.

For instance, if the tenth degree of some perfection is not repugnant to a certain thing, then it is not simply perfect unless it possesses the tenth degree.

Here Scotus gives an example of why the preceeding sentance must be correct.

If the tenth degree of volume (let us say here; ten kilograms) is possible in an object; that object cannot be perfect unless it possesses (at least) this tenth degree of volume. For example; if we take an object to be a Gold Bar; the Gold Bar would be more perfect if it were ten kilograms; than that it were one kilogram; thus for the Gold Bar to be fully perfect; it must be at least ten kilograms – and indeed be infinite kilograms. Please note that hear we are discussing perfection in quantitative terms; and not by qualities; which are themselves maximised in quantity in Scotus thinking; because adhering to Aristotle he believes there is something one and single in any species that binds that species to itself.

Here; by explaining further I encounter the problem of having to justify Scotus teachings on individuation (that which makes a thing itself) to make sense of what is being said; it turns out that the more that is explained; the more that must be qualified and expanded on – by trying to make a thing more simple; we often have to make a thing more complex by introducing foreign justifications to the argument. This is particularily the case with analogies; which themselves require explanations in order to not be ambiguous.

But to being qua being infinity is not repugnant, as will be proved.

Here Scotus makes referance to his further arguments justifications. He explains here that “Being qua being” or “Being understood as Being” can be infinite; this is important to his concluding sentance; as if being can be infinite; then to be perfect being must be infinite; in Scotus argumentation. In simple language we get;

When we understand being as itself; we can see that being can be infinite; I make this argument with referance to my later justifications; and not standing alone.

Therefore, the most eminent and most perfect being will be infinite.

This concluding statement argues that whatever is most eminent; which is taken to mean whatever is highest in being will be infinite. In simple terms we get;

Therefore; whatever is the most high and perfect being; will necessarily be infinite; because being can be infinite; and to be perfect being must be infinite; therefore if a perfect being exists; it is by definition infinite.

I hope that cleared it up somewhat – it is not “sheer gobbledegook” each word has specific and definate meaning; as we would expect in any critical subject.

However your opinion of Scotus is one shared by many throughout the ages; when the Protestants took over Oxford in 1535 they destroyed the majority of his works; Richard Layton recounts happily in his letters to Thomas Cromwell “We have found in the great quadrant court full of the leaves of Dunce, the wind blowing them into every corner”.

 

[JDaniel]

I have to concur with wastronian’s comment on this. There is nothing more abstract than higher mathematics, calculus, probability theory, operations research, multi-dimensional vectors and matrices, and the like. It uses concepts which are not readily found in everyday conversations, limts of sequences, and all sorts of “esoteric” stuff. Yet, as a former math professor, I can assure you that all those, seemingly very hard to grasp concepts can be explained in simple, everyday terms. I know that, because it was my job to do it.

So, no, I don’t accept that philosophical arguments must be “cloaked” in weird language, while having sentences running ten lines. In my eyes this practice is used to cover up the lack of substance, to hide the fact that the author has nothing to say. The sad part is that most people get intimidated by the unreadable essays, and out of fear that they will be looked down upon, do not dare to declare: “the emperor has no clothes!”

Just look at this randomly selected paragraph:

The fifth argument for infinity is based on the eminence [of God]. Anything to which infinity is not repugnant, is not simply perfect unless it is infinite. For instance, if the tenth degree of some perfection is not repugnant to a certain thing, then it is not simply perfect unless it possesses the tenth degree. But to being qua being infinity is not repugnant, as will be proved. Therefore, the most eminent and most perfect being will be infinite.

Sheer gobbledegook.

Adding a short anecdote: “Hemingway was asked once how can he write such beautiful, yet sort sentences with such incredible power to transmit his ideas. He answered: I write standing up”. Something I would advise those writers of philosophical essays to emulate.

That had to be a rarity for him!

God bless,
jd

 

[yppop]

I have to concur with wastronian’s comment on this. There is nothing more abstract than higher mathematics, calculus, probability theory, operations research, multi-dimensional vectors and matrices, and the like. It uses concepts which are not readily found in everyday conversations, limts of sequences, and all sorts of “esoteric” stuff. Yet, as a former math professor, I can assure you that all those, seemingly very hard to grasp concepts can be explained in simple, everyday terms. I know that, because it was my job to do it.

RD
Your just the guy I’ve been looking for. Please explain in simple, everyday terms: the “Axiom of Choice”; or “Reimann’s hypothesis”, or “Godel’s numbering”, or the “Banach-Tarski paradox”. Looking forward to your explanations.
Thanks,
Yppop

 

[R_Daneel]

Philosophers use complex language because certain words have certain meanings in certain situations. For clarity; these particular words are used, rather than everyday speak.

I certainly agree that clarity is of utmost importance. And I appreciate your effort to translate Scotus’ words into everyday language.

I do not want to derail this thread by going into a conversation about it, so let me just make a short remark: “That than which nothing is more noble and more perfect” is a very problematic assertion. It has two unwarranted assumptions: one is that “perfection” can be defined in the abstract and objective sense, and two, that it is necessarily true that the sub-attributes of perfection can manifest themselves in one entity. And I am not even talking about “noble”…

However your opinion of Scotus is one shared by many throughout the ages; when the Protestants took over Oxford in 1535 they destroyed the majority of his works; Richard Layton recounts happily in his letters to Thomas Cromwell “We have found in the great quadrant court full of the leaves of Dunce, the wind blowing them into every corner”.

I think that is a horrible thing to do. To destroy someone’s works cannot be condoned under any circumstances, be it the destruction of the Bible by communists or the destruction of the Library of Alexandria… by Christians.

 

[R_Daneel]

Your just the guy I’ve been looking for. Please explain in simple, everyday terms: the “Axiom of Choice”; or “Reimann’s hypothesis”, or “Godel’s numbering”, or the “Banach-Tarski paradox”. Looking forward to your explanations.

Wonderful. It will take time and you will have to spend some serious money. (After all I am retired now, and my time is precious.) Are you willing to make the investment?

 

[inocente]

Not at all - what makes you think that a majority belief gives a phenomenen dispensation from scientific enquiry? What an irrational view to hold!

LongJohnSilver gave a much better version of my argument (from post #14). The empirical evidence points to systems of belief being wide-spread from prehistory, and that they are not dying out in a scientific age. It can then reasonably be asked whether they serve an evolutionary purpose.

Sure, some atheists believe in astrology or luck, but apart from that there is something else going on, some kind of need we have. Regardless of whether any particular god or agency actually exists, we as a species are not excluded from survival mechanisms. We have different capabilities and needs from transistors or zombies, and concentrating on specific ends of belief rather than the big picture doesn’t do much to explain.

To say, as some do, that atheists alone are not indoctrinated or have out-evolved the rest of us, that they alone see the light and have the one true simple and rational answer sounds suspiciously like all other evangelical high priests of new religions. As an ex-atheist myself, I’ll take a bet that atheism is no more able to explain the depth of what it is to be human than any other faith.

 

[yppop]

Wonderful. It will take time and you will have to spend some serious money. (After all I am retired now, and my time is precious.) Are you willing to make the investment?

RD,
“Time and serious money” doesn’t sound like it will lead to an explanation in “simple, everyday terms”. Sounds like you are going to suggest a book or two? So why don’t you pick one of the four concepts I proposed you explain and name a pertinent book; I may already have it. I have some understanding of all four math concepts I asked you about (as you probably know they are related in someway), I am just interested in seeing in how you can explain any one of them “simply, in every day terms”.

At what level did you teach math? You say you are a former math professor, does that mean you taught at the college level: undergrad? advanced level?

Could you be a bit more specific? How much time? How much money?

Yppop

 

[colmcille1]

. And matter is something that we** know** to exist, so it is far more likely to have “done it” than some supernatural being that no one can demonstrate the existence of.

AntiTheist,
Can you expand upon this? Is this “knowledge” both scientific and philosophical?
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Betterave]

RD,
“Time and serious money” doesn’t sound like it will lead to an explanation in “simple, everyday terms”. Sounds like you are going to suggest a book or two? So why don’t you pick one of the four concepts I proposed you explain and name a pertinent book; I may already have it. I have some understanding of all four math concepts I asked you about (as you probably know they are related in someway), I am just interested in seeing in how you can explain any one of them “simply, in every day terms”.

At what level did you teach math? You say you are a former math professor, does that mean you taught at the college level: undergrad? advanced level?

Could you be a bit more specific? How much time? How much money?

Yppop

Also, does he have to pay up front; or only if you deliver?

 

[JohnCS]

I think athiests and scientists are flawed in their reasoning because they leave out the most important question. In a murder case, the “why” is just as imporatant as the murder weapon or a confession. It is nearly impossible to get anywhere without determining a motive. Likewise, in anything else, the “why” should hold great importants, yet athiests and scientists routinely leave it out. They describe what happens, how it happens, when it happens, etc. but they never get to the why. I think that is very telling. They can’t answer the why because the answer goes against what they want to believe. Why do birds lay eggs? They can answer how and for what purpose, but they can’t answer why… the only answer is: because that is how it is. The reason that they never admit that answer is because then they will have to face the follow up question of “why is that the way it is?” The only logical answer is because someone somewhere had to decide to make it that way. I always ask the why when discussing athiests and for some reason they never have an answer for me. You would think that people who claim to be searching for the truth would at least consider the most important question… Why? I’m sure this is not what the OP was looking for, but oh well.

God bless,

John

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I think athiests and scientists are flawed in their reasoning because they leave out the most important question. In a murder case, the “why” is just as imporatant as the murder weapon or a confession. It is nearly impossible to get anywhere without determining a motive. Likewise, in anything else, the “why” should hold great importants, yet athiests and scientists routinely leave it out.
John

Scientists have methodological reasons for leaving it out, and this is simply because science as an activity does not have the ability to determine the why. Some atheists mistakenly think that this is a good excuse to ignore the question of why because they confuse rational thinking with a popular method of investigation, when in actuality the method is only as such because it has an epistemological limitation and has nothing to do with how one ought to think about the world or philosophy or how one ought to apply reason in reference to objective knowledge. Science is a method for obtaining a particular kind of knowledge (physical knowledge) and is not a philosophy about of how we should treat all objective knowledge and neither is it a replacement of all philosophy concerning objective knowledge; but rather it is an additional branch to the methodical tree of human knowledge. Many Atheist however confuse science as being some kind of ultimate messiah of knowledge and that it is the only way we can obtain true objective knowledge. This tragic confusion is summed up in the word “Scientism”, which was never “science”; but rather it is a flawed metaphysics which concerns itself with asserting that the ultimate nature of reality and knowledge is physical. “Scientism” is a passionately held belief, a faith drawing its reasoning from a flawed understanding of science and metaphsyics.

 

[wanstronian]

I think athiests and scientists are flawed in their reasoning because they leave out the most important question. In a murder case, the “why” is just as imporatant as the murder weapon or a confession. It is nearly impossible to get anywhere without determining a motive. Likewise, in anything else, the “why” should hold great importants, yet athiests and scientists routinely leave it out. They describe what happens, how it happens, when it happens, etc. but they never get to the why. I think that is very telling. They can’t answer the why because the answer goes against what they want to believe. Why do birds lay eggs? They can answer how and for what purpose, but they can’t answer why… the only answer is: because that is how it is. The reason that they never admit that answer is because then they will have to face the follow up question of “why is that the way it is?” The only logical answer is because someone somewhere had to decide to make it that way. I always ask the why when discussing athiests and for some reason they never have an answer for me. You would think that people who claim to be searching for the truth would at least consider the most important question… Why? I’m sure this is not what the OP was looking for, but oh well.

God bless,

John

The problem here is that there’s no reason to suspect that “why” is even a valid question. To assume otherwise is to engage in circular reasoning, because to assume there’s a “why” is to assume that some entity made a decision. So you’re setting up your desired conclusion as a premise to the argument, which is clearly a fallacious approach. “Why” only becomes a valid question once the creator becomes proven. In the absence of evidence for such an entity, the question of “why” doesn’t even arise.

So “that’s just the way it is,” far from being the “just so” story that many theists claim it is,is actually the only rational answer in the absence of evidence for an intelligent creator. Once a creator is proven, the question becomes valid, but not until.

Atheists/scientists don’t fail to answer this question because they’re afraid of the consequences, they fail to answer it because it isn’t a valid question. There’s no ulterior motive.

 

[JohnCS]

The problem here is that there’s no reason to suspect that “why” is even a valid question. To assume otherwise is to engage in circular reasoning, because to assume there’s a “why” is to assume that some entity made a decision. So you’re setting up your desired conclusion as a premise to the argument, which is clearly a fallacious approach. “Why” only becomes a valid question once the creator becomes proven. In the absence of evidence for such an entity, the question of “why” doesn’t even arise.

So “that’s just the way it is,” far from being the “just so” story that many theists claim it is,is actually the only rational answer in the absence of evidence for an intelligent creator. Once a creator is proven, the question becomes valid, but not until.

Atheists/scientists don’t fail to answer this question because they’re afraid of the consequences, they fail to answer it because it isn’t a valid question. There’s no ulterior motive.

Hello,
I think you are mistaking the “why” I am talking about. I am not talking about the "why’ the world was created, I’m talking about the why things work the way they do. For instance, gravity: When science explains why gravity works, they are not truly explaining why it works, they are explaining how it works. The whole large body of mass pulling idea only explains how. I want to know WHY large bodies of mass have gravity. There are obviously laws at work, who or what made those laws. Who says that large bodies need to have gravity? Why when light reflects do we have the different colors. It can be explained how it happens, but why does it happen that way? Why does a light when its refracted have all of the colors of the rainbow? The only answer is “because that is how it is.” This isn’t circular at all. When I tell my 7 year old something, she always asks why. If I let her she will ask why all the way up to the point where I have to say, “because I said so”. Do yourself a favor and ask why anything is the way it is, and melt it all the way down. Every answer you get, ask “why is that the answer”. Eventually you will have to get to “because someone made it that way”.

 

[JohnCS]

Scientists have methodological reasons for leaving it out, and this is simply because science as an activity does not have the ability to determine the why. Some atheists mistakenly think that this is a good excuse to ignore the question of why because they confuse rational thinking with a popular method of investigation, when in actuality the method is only as such because it has an epistemological limitation and has nothing to do with how one ought to think about the world or philosophy or how one ought to apply reason in reference to objective knowledge. Science is a method for obtaining a particular kind of knowledge (physical knowledge) and is not a philosophy about of how we should treat all objective knowledge and neither is it a replacement of all philosophy concerning objective knowledge; but rather it is an additional branch to the methodical tree of human knowledge. Many Atheist however confuse science as being some kind of ultimate messiah of knowledge and that it is the only way we can obtain true objective knowledge. This tragic confusion is summed up in the word “Scientism”, which was never “science”; but rather it is a flawed metaphysics which concerns itself with asserting that the ultimate nature of reality and knowledge is physical. “Scientism” is a passionately held belief, a faith drawing its reasoning from a flawed understanding of science and metaphsyics.

Thanks, I agree and probably should have mentioned much of that in my post. I really need to work on my articulation.

God bless,

John