Atheists - a question

[tdgesq]

You do understand the point I was making about my foot popping off, right? My point was that even if induction fails, for [all] I know my trying to do what I would normally do will still give me the results that I want, though perhaps in a way that I would never expect.

I noted the change you made in the later post. I do understand your point. The problem is that even if induction fails, for all you know acting contrary to the way you have in the past will now give you the results you want. Why choose one over the other? I think you attempt to give an answer to this below.

I gave several reasons why I think it is rational, could you give some details as what your objections are? I would point out that all I really have to do is show that I’m not irrational to act as if induction will continue to hold. At worst, I’m non-rational. But so what?

You can’t really mean what you wrote here. The word “rational” is defined as consistent with or based on or using reason. The prefix “non” literally means “not.” Therefore, when you say that you are being non-rational, you are really saying that you are not being rational; that you are not using reason. If that is what you really mean, please step up to the microphone. Btw, the definition of “irrational” is “not consistent with or using reason.” The same definition as “non-rational.”

We all make non-rational choices all the time. If an ambidextrous student raises a hand in class, is it rational for him to raise one hand rather than the other? Is it irrational for me to choose butterscotch over vanilla ice-cream if I’m indifferent between the two? I was acting as if induction held long before I ever made a conscious decision based upon induction, it is natural for me to do so, and so why should I stop?

So the answer is habit, just as Hume claimed. It is a habit that you continue to act as if induction will hold. But habit and reason are not mutually exclusive as you suggest. I happen to have been ambidextrous, and I can tell you that when I was in grade school, I raised my left hand because I generally held my pencil in my right hand. There were only certain times when I would write with my left hand, certain letters that I could more easily draft with my left hand. You see, I had a reason for why I raised my right hand. After a while I’m sure it became a habit. I certainly didn’t think about it every time I did it, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t have a reason for adopting that particular habit.

No theory can “account” for causality, unless by “account” you mean stipulate it or something just as arbitrary. Anyway, no one can account for the validity of inductive reasoning because inductive reasoning isn’t valid. It is just useful so long as induction holds. Anyone who does accept induction can consistently reason inductively.

My head is spinning. This looks like a general challenge to give a reason to believe that induction will hold, since you don’t have one. I’ve already given some answers, but will address this below.

FONT=Arial]
I have not assumed that it will continue to hold in the arguments I provided. Where exactly do you think I have done that?

If this is not what you have assumed, then make all your decisions about acting in the future by picking at random. Use a random number generator to assist you. The very fact that you continue to act as if induction will hold speaks louder than words about your assumptions. Try using the random number generator for a while. You don’t have any reason not to.

 

[tdgesq]

How could God cause the laws of causality if there was no causality before he caused it to exist? You have to understand, my point is that it makes NO SENSE to evoke God’s power to “cause” anything if there is no causation. Even God can’t ensure that the causal relationship between his willing things and the world being as he wills it to be will continue to hold; either that relationship continues to hold or it does not.

Efficient cause is predicated on time and space. There is no change outside of time. Furthermore, laws are not material objects, they are immaterial. What is nonsense is to say that immaterial laws could be the product of an efficient cause that occurred outside of time. God’s creative act in this regard was not a function of efficient cause. Yet we know from the Kalam Cosmological Argument that the universe had a beginning. The infinite regress that you seem to be so fond of is impossible, because an actual infinite cannot exist. This is what turned Antony Flew from an atheist to a deist.

I don’t know what it means for something to be conscious, and thus to be God, if it exists outside of all time. But putting that aside, for all you or I know, God is outside of time, but his will isn’t always done within time, because his causal powers happen to not always work within time.

Wait just a second, given that God created the universe and it’s laws. Are you saying you find it more likely than not that he isn’t in control of those laws? He claims that he is in divine revelation. Of course you don’t subscribe to any of this, preferring instead to hold onto a non-rational aka irrational view about induction.

I request no exception; I explained the non-inductive reasons I have to continue to act as if induction will hold. You need to explain specifically what is wrong with them, for I have no idea. Remember, so long as it isn’t actually irrational but only non-rational for me to act as if induction will hold, you can’t rightly accuse me of irrationality.

You don’t get to in one breath claim that you have reason to act as if induction will hold and then in the next say that it is a non-rational act, without reason. That is a contradiction. How much more specific can I be? More importantly, my worldview accounts for the possibility of the uniformity of nature, yours does not.

 

[MichaelLewis]

Please show me where I said He didn’t cause. I don’t see that here.

(I had asked:
“What can it mean for him to create something without causing it?”)

Well, you wrote: “He created causality along with everything else.” Obviously, if he created causality, he couldn’t have caused it to exist, for there was no causality until he created it. (Otherwise, what was he creating?)

As I’ve said before: if you want to discount the principle of causality, I insist you present an example of something without a cause.

I don’t think anyone can ever be justified in proclaiming “there is no cause” with respect to any particular phenomenon (though some quantum physicists would disagree). The most we can say is “I can’t find a cause for this phenomenon.” My point is that there isn’t much to our concept of causation. A cause-effect relationship is nothing more than a species of regularity: every time A happen, B happens. No one has ever (to my knowledge) come up with a more robust notion to attach to “cause”. We’ve found this notion to be very useful, given the order actually exhibited in the universe, and the postulation that it will continue to hold. But the very notion of causation ASSUMES this order. When you talk of the origin of an ordered universe, you must give up talk of causation unless the ordered universe is created within another ordered universe with its own regularities. Perhaps God occupies an ordered universe where everything he wills happens. That’s fine, but we still have unexplained order; everytime God wills something, it happens.

Non-causality works nice in word games, but is totally unapplicable to the real world.

It is the theist who uses the cosmological or design arguments (and other arguments for theism that rely upon causation) who is playing word games, if anyone is. **I **am not making positive claims about the origins of the universe. I want to restrict the use of “causality” and “power” to the only context where they make sense; to the observable world. Many of you theists, on the other hand, seek to alter words which are commonly used to either describe regularities or to explain some regularities in terms of other regularities to explain the origin of regularity itself! If you want to use such common-sense, human words in a novel way, you owe us some account of what you mean by them in the context in which you use them.

Could you give me a non-circular, non-pragmatic reason to suppose they won’t continue to hold?

I can’t even give you a pragmatic reason to suppose they won’t continue to hold, but I have given you pragmatic reasons to suppose for practical purposes that they will continue to hold, which is the best we can do, for we have no deductive reasons to suppose they will continue to hold, and inductive reasons are circular. If you are suggesting that since we have no reason to suppose they will stop, we are justified in believing they will continue to hold, you are using induction and therefore are making a circular argument if you don’t supplement it with a pragmatic argument.
(cont…)

 

[MichaelLewis]

Please elaborate. I’m totally clueless as to what you mean by “using inductive reason out of context”, or “reasoning presupposed order, it cannot speak to the origins of order”.
.

1. Many theists argue that various things external to God (order, matter, energy, morality, etc.) must have a cause, God must be that cause, and so God must exist.
2. We say that one state of affairs (A) causes another state of affairs (B) if it is the case that, all things being equal, Whenever (A) occurs, (B) occurs. (This is a simplification, of course, for we do distinguish between correlations and causal relationships within theories, but in any case the strongest relationship between two states of affairs which we can conceive of is a constant conjunction between them.) We say that a theoretical object or principle, such as gravity, “causes” an event to occur when the theory predicts the event’s occurrence by explaining it in terms of such theoretical objects or principles. Theories themselves are developed in response to observed conjunctions between events. They allow us to form generalizations which we can apply to new situations.
3. If we have a causal explanation for a state of affairs, then, we are showing how that state of affairs fits into a pattern.
4. We can only causally explain patterns, then, in terms of other patterns. If a regularity has a causal explanation at all, it must be explained in terms of some other regularity. Some regularities, then, must be simply taken for granted. Theists choose to take the regular co-incidence between God’s will and the existence and circumstances of the universe for granted. This doesn’t really answer any questions about the origins of the universe or its regularities, however. It just changes the question from “Why does the universe exist, and why does it have the properties it has?” to “Why does God’s will that the universe both exist and have the properties that it has correspond with the actual universe’s existence and its properties?” In both cases, you have regularities that you might want to explain, but there is no way to explain them without postulating MORE regularities or giving a circular explanation that explains the regularities in terms of the events that constitute them (For example: Stones fall when released from my hand because of gravity. / Gravity is that which causes stones to fall from my hand.)
5. So, God’s existence explains the regularities we observe only by giving us a whole new set of regularities to explain. Even granting God’s existence, we still have no ultimate explanation as to why the universe exists or why it exists as it does, and we have God’s existence to explain as well. So, far from answering questions, God’s existence and power just leave us with more questions.
6. We ought to accept that there aren’t always answers, “why” questions must stop at some point. Our notions of “cause” and “power” only make sense when applied to problems within an ordered universe. They can do no honest work in metaphysics.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What do you say to atheists who believe God is a human invention? Thank you so much.

I would say, “No, man is a creation of God.”

The next 15 minutes are a lot tougher, however.

 

[MichaelLewis]

You can’t really mean what you wrote here. The word “rational” is defined as consistent with or based on or using reason. The prefix “non” literally means “not.” Therefore, when you say that you are being non-rational, you are really saying that you are not being rational; that you are not using reason. If that is what you really mean, please step up to the microphone. Btw, the definition of “irrational” is “not consistent with or using reason.” The same definition as “non-rational.”

“Irrational” is a derogatory term, and one of the definitions of “irrational” in my American Heritage Dictionary equates it with “illogical” which is defined as “contradicting or disregarding the principles of logic”. I am doing neither. It is consistent with reason and logic to not use reason or logic under some circumstances. It is sometimes consistent with reason to make arbitrary, non-rational choices. This brings to mind the “Buridan’s Ass” thought experiment: A donkey is equidistant between two identical bales of hay. He starves to death because he has no reason to move toward one bale as opposed to the other.

So the answer is habit, just as Hume claimed. It is a habit that you continue to act as if induction will hold. But habit and reason are not mutually exclusive as you suggest. I happen to have been ambidextrous, and I can tell you that when I was in grade school, I raised my left hand because I generally held my pencil in my right hand. There were only certain times when I would write with my left hand, certain letters that I could more easily draft with my left hand. You see, I had a reason for why I raised my right hand. After a while I’m sure it became a habit. I certainly didn’t think about it every time I did it, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t have a reason for adopting that particular habit.

Some habits begin with reasons and others don’t. Are you actually claiming that we always have a reason for doing anything that we do? Do we never make arbitrary choices?

If this is not what you have assumed, then make all your decisions about acting in the future by picking at random. Use a random number generator to assist you. The very fact that you continue to act as if induction will hold speaks louder than words about your assumptions. Try using the random number generator for a while. You don’t have any reason not to.

I have offered reasons that do not rest upon the assumption that induction will continue to hold for acting as if induction will continue to hold. I will reformulate them, since apparently I wasn’t clear enough the first time around:

1. While there is no non-pragmatic reason to assume that induction will hold, there is also no reason to assume that it won’t. There is no non-arbitrary non-inductive plan of action I can adopt. In fact, any “plan” I might make will assume that at least some regularities will continue to hold. I can’t even operate your random number generator if I don’t assume my fingers will respond to my attempts to move them to turn it on, or that my eyes will look to the numbers generated if I try to focus on them. I might as well go limp, for I can follow no plan of action if I don’t assume induction will continue to hold.
2. It is natural for me to act as if induction will continue to hold, I’m really not capable of renouncing induction, so why should I? It isn’t as if I had a reason to think that I will be worse off if I don’t renounce it. The fact is (Kant made something like this point) to function as a sentient, plan-following being requires us to assume that induction will continue to hold. There is nothing to DO in a counter-inductive world.
3. For all I know, even if induction does not continue to hold, my efforts to act as if it is going to continue to hold will still give me the results that I am aiming for. For instance, maybe when I “try” to reach for my coffee cup, my hand won’t move, but the coffee will stream out of the cup and vanish in the air, and I will have the sensation of drinking coffee.

(cont…)

 

[MichaelLewis]

(…cont)

Efficient cause is predicated on time and space. There is no change outside of time. Furthermore, laws are not material objects, they are immaterial. What is nonsense is to say that immaterial laws could be the product of an efficient cause that occurred outside of time. God’s creative act in this regard was not a function of efficient cause. Yet we know from the Kalam Cosmological Argument that the universe had a beginning. The infinite regress that you seem to be so fond of is impossible, because an actual infinite cannot exist. This is what turned Antony Flew from an atheist to a deist.

Just what was God’s role, if he is not the efficient cause? I would think you would ascribe power to God. What do you mean by “power” if not the power to cause things to be?

I don’t postulate an infinite regress (I’m inclined to not believe in actual infinities or infinitesimals). I do not suppose that the universe always existed. I have maintained that there need be no explanation for its having begun to exist. It may have just begun to exist, end of story. If there is an explanation, then there must be a larger system with its own regularities in reference to which the origin of the universe might be explained. But if that is the case, we still have regularities to explain.

Wait just a second, given that God created the universe and it’s laws. Are you saying you find it more likely than not that he isn’t in control of those laws? He claims that he is in divine revelation. Of course you don’t subscribe to any of this, preferring instead to hold onto a non-rational aka irrational view about induction.

I’m not speculating on the probability of his being in control of the laws of nature. My point is that to the extent that God’s will and the state of the universe correspond, a set of relationships hold and call for an explanation as much as the regularities that constitute the universe itself call for an explanation. You have unexplained regularities in any case.

You don’t get to in one breath claim that you have reason to act as if induction will hold and then in the next say that it is a non-rational act, without reason. That is a contradiction. How much more specific can I be? More importantly, my worldview accounts for the possibility of the uniformity of nature, yours does not.

I think I do have reasons (mentioned above), I am only pointing out that I don’t NEED reasons to avoid being irrational. So long as I’m not acting contrary to reason, I’m not being irrational. The burden is yours to demonstrate that my behavior is actually inconsistent with my having no epistemic reason to suppose that induction will continue to hold.

 

[tdgesq]

“Irrational” is a derogatory term, and one of the definitions of “irrational” in my American Heritage Dictionary equates it with “illogical” which is defined as “contradicting or disregarding the principles of logic”.

It is? I hardly see how it is any more or less derogatory than the phrase “not rational.” Rather than insulting you, I was trying to point out that there is no meaningful distinction between the two as you claimed. As for other definitions of the word, since I didn’t use the term in that way, I don’t see why I need to put on a defense.

I am doing neither. It is consistent with reason and logic to not use reason or logic under some circumstances. It is sometimes consistent with reason to make arbitrary, non-rational choices. This brings to mind the “Buridan’s Ass” thought experiment: A donkey is equidistant between two identical bales of hay. He starves to death because he has no reason to move toward one bale as opposed to the other.

If what you mean is that there may be certain actions that a human being might take that are not based upon reason, then I agree with you. Purely reflexive physical responses to outside stimulus are good examples. Whatever else I might think about the thought experiment you present, it doesn’t seem to apply here. Animals regularly do act on instinct. I don’t see any reasoning process employed in this example. On the other hand, a person in a similar situation who might want to get a bale of hay for the donkey would also have a choice to make. Now you might claim that his decision would be a pure function of instinct just like the donkey, but this is far from being immediately obvious. If you did a series of experiments with human test subjects, I would wager most would give you reasons for why they acted as they did. They probably wouldn’t even be the same reasons. Some of the reasons might not make any sense, but there would still be reasoning going on. Let me ask you, do you find my scenario more likely to be the case, or your own?

Some habits begin with reasons and others don’t. Are you actually claiming that we always have a reason for doing anything that we do? Do we never make arbitrary choices?

No, I’m not. There are certain actions that we take that are not based on reason. Take the reflex example. But now comes the real dilemma. Do most of us continue to act as if induction will hold because of some kind of ingrained instinct, or do we have reasons to continue to act as if it will hold? What evidence is there one way or the other? The pragmatist seems to be in the unenviable position of having to prove that there could be no reason (epistemically speaking) that most of us continue to act like this. I don’t see how a pragmatist could ever go about proving that proposition. It is an interesting rhetorical device to shove the burden on to someone else to demonstrate that they have an epistemology that works, but even if they fail it doesn’t follow that no such reason exists. It also creates some other problems that I’ll address below.

I have offered reasons that do not rest upon the assumption that induction will continue to hold for acting as if induction will continue to hold. I will reformulate them, since apparently I wasn’t clear enough the first time around

Although I believe I understand what you are saying here, the confusion persists because of the enumerated reasons you have given. I understand the distinction between giving an explanation for why it is we continue to act as we do and how that is different from having some kind of epistemic justification for why we continue to act as we do. For argument’s sake, let’s say that pure instinct is the explanation for why most of us continue to act as we do. The problem is that you then list a number of reasons that appear to go far beyond your ontological conclusion. You start giving other reasons for why you should continue to act is if induction will hold, or at the very least why you should not act contrary to induction. But if it’s really all just about ingrained instinct (something that has yet to be demonstrated) that would just be an ontological statement. It wouldn’t give me any reason to continue to act as I have been. It wouldn’t give me any reason to not buck instinct and make a different choice instead. At best it could explain why I’ve acted like I have up to this point.

 

[tdgesq]

continued . . . .

1. While there is no non-pragmatic reason to assume that induction will hold, there is also no reason to assume that it won’t. There is no non-arbitrary non-inductive plan of action I can adopt. In fact, any “plan” I might make will assume that at least some regularities will continue to hold. I can’t even operate your random number generator if I don’t assume my fingers will respond to my attempts to move them to turn it on, or that my eyes will look to the numbers generated if I try to focus on them. I might as well go limp, for I can follow no plan of action if I don’t assume induction will continue to hold.

It isn’t an either/or proposition. Using a little bit of imagination, we can construct a world where the random number generator and your perceptions related to it will work precisely the same way it always has, but some other regularities will cease. Would this be an arbitrary way of operating? Yes it would, but no more arbitrary than the one you have set up.

1. It is natural for me to act as if induction will continue to hold, I’m really not capable of renouncing induction, so why should I? It isn’t as if I had a reason to think that I will be worse off if I don’t renounce it. The fact is (Kant made something like this point) to function as a sentient, plan-following being requires us to assume that induction will continue to hold. There is nothing to DO in a counter-inductive world.

We are capable of renouncing induction, at least partially. I’m not sure if we could act completely contrary to it. There are too many variables involved for me to be able to even make a guess. I suppose going limp as you suggested would be about as close as one could get. And why not do just that. If it is just about instinct, why should it have any priority over my decision to go limp? People do use their faculties to buck induction, and not infrequently. For instance, every few years some fringe religious group decides that they can handle venomous snakes without consequence. Then they are bitten. I assume they change their minds at that point.

1. For all I know, even if induction does not continue to hold, my efforts to act as if it is going to continue to hold will still give me the results that I am aiming for. For instance, maybe when I “try” to reach for my coffee cup, my hand won’t move, but the coffee will stream out of the cup and vanish in the air, and I will have the sensation of drinking coffee.

So it goes like this: You have no reason to believe that induction will hold, yet you act like induction will hold because nobody has given you a reason to act like it will not hold. It is sort of a clever argument, because you will find very few people indeed who will seriously contend that you should not act like induction will hold. But you would assume that it would be an equally valid (if not more valid) argument for the person who says we should act like induction will not hold. That is - you have no reason to believe that induction will hold, and you act like induction will not hold because nobody has given you a reason to act like it will hold.

The pragmatic argument just seems riddled with problems to me. It can’t really establish that our actions with respect to induction are merely some kind of ingrained instinct. Even if it could, it appears to be limited to the conclusion that we do act as if induction will hold because it is instinctual. Trying to draw any conclusions from this that would give us “reasons” to act as if induction will hold seem to work just as well for the opposite proposition.

 

[tdgesq]

. . . .continued

Just what was God’s role, if he is not the efficient cause? I would think you would ascribe power to God. What do you mean by “power” if not the power to cause things to be.

The Scholastics taught that there is more than one kind of cause. There is material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause. To talk about what change is we have to be ready to understand substantial form and accidents. Are these categories you are willing to deal in? I’m really not inclined to give a treatise here. I’ve written too much already.

I have maintained that there need be no explanation for its having begun to exist. It may have just begun to exist, end of story. If there is an explanation, then there must be a larger system with its own regularities in reference to which the origin of the universe might be explained. But if that is the case, we still have regularities to explain.

Since when have things sprung into existence from non-existence? As for needing a larger system with it’s own regularites, I don’t disagree in principle, but you assume that those regularities can’t be explained in any meaningful way. I believe that agent causation is the explanation. If you have a God whose will is the source of these regularities, then you have an answer.

I’m not speculating on the probability of his being in control of the laws of nature. My point is that to the extent that God’s will and the state of the universe correspond, a set of relationships hold and call for an explanation as much as the regularities that constitute the universe itself call for an explanation. You have unexplained regularities in any case.

Only to the extent that you could question why God’s will is what it is. If these regularities are constitutive of God, and he does not have any force working on Him outside of Himself, then my proposal does have some explanatory power. The alternative is to believe as you do that existence, laws, and all the rest spring from nothingness. A strange thing that nothingness would result in the regularities we see in the universe.

I think I do have reasons (mentioned above), I am only pointing out that I don’t NEED reasons to avoid being irrational. So long as I’m not acting contrary to reason, I’m not being irrational. The burden is yours to demonstrate that my behavior is actually inconsistent with my having no epistemic reason to suppose that induction will continue to hold.

As I pointed out though, those reasons you gave are equally applicable to the person who contends that we should act like induction will not hold. In fact, he has a better argument because he can point to your own admission that there isn’t any reason to believe that induction will hold. I believe I’m using the English language correctly when I use the word irrational, but if you like, I can amend it to say not rational. I think the best you can do is claim that you are acting in accordance with instinct. Is this a reason, or is this an explanation of why you act like you do? I find it difficult to grant that it’s even an explanation, since in your system it isn’t possible to demonstrate that it is the correct explanation. I fail to see how you acting in accordance with instinct would constitute a rational act on your part.

 

[San_Patricio]

1. Many theists argue that various things external to God (order, matter, energy, morality, etc.) must have a cause, God must be that cause, and so God must exist.

As a Catholic, I believe that all things exist because God created them, not that things exist, therefore must have a cause, therefore God must be that cause, therefore God must exist. However it is true that all things have a cause, even when we can’t directly determine what that cause is. The Church is in no way opposed to science trying to explain how things came about or how things work, but to flat out deny the possibility of God is unscientific and irrational as there is no scientific or rational basis for doing so.

I agree with your second point, but deleted it for sake of space.

1. If we have a causal explanation for a state of affairs, then, we are showing how that state of affairs fits into a pattern.

Please note: there is a difference between a “causal explanation” and a thing or event having a cause.

1. We can only causally explain patterns, then, in terms of other patterns. If a regularity has a causal explanation at all, it must be explained in terms of some other regularity. Some regularities, then, must be simply taken for granted. Theists choose to take the regular co-incidence between God’s will and the existence and circumstances of the universe for granted. This doesn’t really answer any questions about the origins of the universe or its regularities, however. It just changes the question from “Why does the universe exist, and why does it have the properties it has?” to “Why does God’s will that the universe both exist and have the properties that it has correspond with the actual universe’s existence and its properties?” In both cases, you have regularities that you might want to explain, but there is no way to explain them without postulating MORE regularities or giving a circular explanation that explains the regularities in terms of the events that constitute them (For example: Stones fall when released from my hand because of gravity. / Gravity is that which causes stones to fall from my hand.)

Your logic here doesn’t follow. Obviously if it is “God’s will that the universe both exist and have the propertis that it has”, then the actual universe will correspond with that existence and the properties that it has. It is anything but a circular explantion and the fact that God made the universe with the properties that it has, and gave us the intelligence to discover those properties is what gives us the ability to explain regularities and the events that constitute them. The only event that acknowledging God would deprive you of is an un-God created origin of energy and matter, which science is completely at a loss to explain.

1. So, God’s existence explains the regularities we observe only by giving us a whole new set of regularities to explain. Even granting God’s existence, we still have no ultimate explanation as to why the universe exists or why it exists as it does, and we have God’s existence to explain as well. So, far from answering questions, God’s existence and power just leave us with more questions.

There is no explanation for God’s existence except for the one He Himself gives us: “I AM”. He is the one constant in a universe of variables, the one cause without cause, the one originator without origin. The universe exists, and exists as it does because He made it and made it that way. As I already said, that fact does not and should not prevent or deter science from trying to better understand and explain the universe. This is a vastly oversimplified analogy, but if you’d never seen an internal combustion engine before and I presented you with one that I made and said “figure out how it works!”, does the fact that I made it prevent you from trying to understand and explain it? Once you had gained an understanding of it, could you not be satisfied with the fact that I was the one who made it?

(cont.)

 

[San_Patricio]

(…cont.)

In both cases, you have regularities that you might want to explain, but there is no way to explain them without postulating MORE regularities or giving a circular explanation that explains the regularities in terms of the events that constitute them (For example: Stones fall when released from my hand because of gravity. / Gravity is that which causes stones to fall from my hand.)

I’d like to address that last part briefly. While it is true that gravity would make the stones fall, the actual cause is not only the gravity but also your act of releasing them from your hand.

1. We ought to accept that there aren’t always answers, “why” questions must stop at some point. Our notions of “cause” and “power” only make sense when applied to problems within an ordered universe. They can do no honest work in metaphysics.

I completely disagree with you here. We may not be able to determine “why” right now, and there may be some things for which we will never be able to determine “why”, but I don’t see any reason that we should stop seeking the answers. And by the way, we live “within an ordered universe”.

 

[Aleii]

MichaelLewis

I don’t think it is very fruitful to play the motives game Gilbert. You may have been avoiding God when you didn’t believe, but you shouldn’t assume that other non-theists are. Many of us have struggled and suffered a good deal over religious questions, and have simply concluded that we can’t justify belief in God’s existence.

I have to disagree. Since God’s existence cannot be absolutely proven or disproven intellectually to anyone’s satisfaction, the only possible approach or flight from God is through motive … an act of the will, rather than the intellect. People approach God because they want to. People flee from God because they want to. The motives in each case may vary, but the fundamental truth is that they act from motive, rather than from conviction.

Adam and Eve established the precedent. They fled from God’s truth not because they were able or not able to grasp it, but because they wanted to be as God, which the Serpent tempted them to believe was possible.

I think the atheist is following this precedent. Instead of submitting to God’s plan, the atheist wants to be as God by being in charge of his own plan.

To use your own metaphor, that is his game plan.

Believing or not believing in God is ultimately a matter of what one wants, or does not want, to believe.

It does no good for the atheist to insist that he has struggled to believe and would like to believe. There is deep down inside him a desire that he should not believe, rather than that he should believe … and it is up to him to find out what that motive is.
paulvitz.com/

I have to disagree with you Gilbert, on this one. I know of atheists who certainly have struggled with faith, and want to believe. If I could pick one as my absolute certain fate: having someone loving watching over you, helping you, and welcoming you into everlasting life in a paradise; or dying and that’s it, having life be unfair and pretty much meaningless, I’d chose the first every time. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school and church every week, was an altar server for years. Went on Catholic retreats, volunteered, did outside study with a mentor on Catholic faith. I wanted to be a nun for years. But even though something sounds more comforting doesn’t mean it should be accepted without question.

As the years passed in my young adult and adult life I struggled more and more severely with the faith. I have talked with priests, spent countless hours reading and researching, went to a weekend retreat, prayed, cried to God for help, but little enhanced my view of Catholicism being the truth. Over the years the inability to grasp the Catholic God as the one true God got harder and harder. I have intensified the hours spent in this pursuit over the last few months and it has only pushed me further from accepting the Catholic God. I am exhausted from trying to find a way to make it the truth for me. But I simply can’t believe that it is the 100% truth anymore. I want to deeply, as I was given great comfort by it in my early years, and the thought of this life meaning nothing is depressing. But just because something is depressing doesn’t disqualify it from being the truth. I don’t have trouble with the faith because I want to be God, although it is certainly possible that this is the reason for some atheists. But I have trouble with the faith because I can’t say it makes sense to me. I can’t fathom it as being the absolute truth. The counter arguments make far more sense to me. I think, in general, that the church’s teachings are positive, but can’t see it as the truth anymore.

I see myself as an agnostic/weak atheist now. I feel we can’t disprove or prove the existence of God just yet. I simply go about my life trying to be the best person I can, and continue searching.

 

[teachccd]

I think it also shows that in this sense, atheism is a positive belief (but a conservative belief) and not simply a denial. If you ask the question “What is God?” instead of “Does God exist?”
you have atheists applying the “imaginary being theory” while theists use the “powerful being theory” as their respective answers to the question.

And if you ask the question, " what is beauty?" you have theists applying the “imaging of God” theory and you have the atheist applying the " ??" theory.

 

[ribozyme]

I have to disagree with you Gilbert, on this one. I know of atheists who certainly have struggled with faith, and want to believe. If I could pick one as my absolute certain fate: having someone loving watching over you, helping you, and welcoming you into everlasting life in a paradise; or dying and that’s it, having life be unfair and pretty much meaningless, I’d chose the first every time. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school and church every week, was an altar server for years. Went on Catholic retreats, volunteered, did outside study with a mentor on Catholic faith. I wanted to be a nun for years. But even though something sounds more comforting doesn’t mean it should be accepted without question.

As the years passed in my young adult and adult life I struggled more and more severely with the faith. I have talked with priests, spent countless hours reading and researching, went to a weekend retreat, prayed, cried to God for help, but little enhanced my view of Catholicism being the truth. Over the years the inability to grasp the Catholic God as the one true God got harder and harder. I have intensified the hours spent in this pursuit over the last few months and it has only pushed me further from accepting the Catholic God. I am exhausted from trying to find a way to make it the truth for me. But I simply can’t believe that it is the 100% truth anymore. I want to deeply, as I was given great comfort by it in my early years, and the thought of this life meaning nothing is depressing. But just because something is depressing doesn’t disqualify it from being the truth. I don’t have trouble with the faith because I want to be God, although it is certainly possible that this is the reason for some atheists. But I have trouble with the faith because I can’t say it makes sense to me. I can’t fathom it as being the absolute truth. The counter arguments make far more sense to me. I think, in general, that the church’s teachings are positive, but can’t see it as the truth anymore.

I see myself as an agnostic/weak atheist now. I feel we can’t disprove or prove the existence of God just yet. I simply go about my life trying to be the best person I can, and continue searching.

That is an interesting testimony. How did you try to find your answers? Did you delve into the fields of morality, philosophy, or science in your quest for knowledge? Personally, I choose to delve into the scientific literature to answer one of the most profound questions in science, and such a question is also relevant to religion. What is life and how did life originate? I do not have a satisfactory answer to the latter question, and I think that no one possesses an answer.

 

[Aleii]

That is an interesting testimony. How did you try to find your answers? Did you delve into the fields of morality, philosophy, or science in your quest for knowledge? Personally, I choose to delve into the scientific literature to answer one of the most profound questions in science, and such a question is also relevant to religion. What is life and how did life originate? I do not have a satisfactory answer to the latter question, and I think that no one possesses an answer.

Ah, its been a gamut of education, heavily in the sciences of psychology, biology(mostly human anatomy, physiology, and neurology), and the history and culture of other people such as ancient Asian Mythology. Kind of a holistic humanity study. I also did minor studies in anthropology and philosophy (both of which I want to delve into more heavily in the near future)

All of these have guided me immensely in my quest for the truth. First studying anthropology and Asian Mythology was fascinating in understanding the depth of others’ beliefs. When you see how these detailed stories explain the world around them and the unknown, and give a sense of order and peace to its people, it makes you look twice at Christianity and question how it is so much different than the others. This has started me looking into understanding other major religions of the present day.

Psychology and biology show just how mechanical humans really are and gives immense credit to evolution. This bridges onto philosophy and the question of free will, among others. Philosophy is an area that I have only scratched the surface of, and I would like to continue reading and understanding that aspect better in the future.

The ‘mystery’ of life lessens every day with new discoveries. So much of what was explained by religion in the past, science now explains (even though many people still attribute these things to God). In my opinion, this trend will only continue(since it has already for thousands of years), and in the future science will explain things that “only religion explains” currently.

Then there are my problems with Christianity, of which are too numerous to mention in this post. I talked extensively with priests but it hasn’t been helpful in bringing me closer to the faith. All in all I think Christianity is one of the most comprehensive religions out there. It “explains” a lot and most of its teachings I agree with. Our inquisitive minds need to have some sort of explanation. How convenient that God can fill pretty much any void in knowledge to satiate our curiosity. I feel like someone knocked on my door and told me there was a savior called Joe and he had a book of stores as proof and if I didn’t believe in Joe I would suffer eternally. I have a hard time believing Christianity and believing that God acts that way.

I do recognize the beneficial impact of religion on people. I’m not going to argue with these people and try to take that away from them. But I also recognize that religion can and does do harm. I think it was a good tool of the past to keep societal order, but that it is losing its value in present day.

I agree that there is so much to discover yet in astrophysics and related sciences. Neurology, likewise, is another area with much left to discover. I looked into the human sciences hoping to try to understand life from that side, to find out what humans are made of, how they act, and why. And my reasons to think that all religion is just a product of humans grow with time. If Christians can emphatically claim that 99.9% of all religions out there are wrong, then they need to consider that theirs may be wrong too.

 

[ddmason]

What makes you think God is a human invention? Do you think God is an invention? Explain please. I may be able to answer your question better rather than rambling scripture to you and overwhelm you since it would be foreign to you. I am interested in hearing your views first. A little at time can make all the difference. Thanks. I look forward to hearing from you.

 

[Nullasalus]

If Christians can emphatically claim that 99.9% of all religions out there are wrong, then they need to consider that theirs may be wrong too.

The problem is that - as with anything - it’s not that simple.

Does the Catholic Church - does the Pope, even - emphatically claim the Islam, hinduism, buddhism, protestantism, mormonism, humanism, and other faiths/worldviews are wrong? Sure; there’s a belief that the other faiths are wrong, sometimes starkly so, depending on what’s being discussed. But they’re also believed to be correct on many things - from social outlooks to theology, depending on who’s being discussed. Religions typically resist being reduced down to single, simple 'Right or wrong?'s, even if many people often discuss them as if that’s the case. It’s human nature.

(And for the record, the Catholic Church does not contain - and I believe, does not claim to contain - ‘100% of the truth.’ The Church’s teachings may be true, but at no point in the Church’s history have those teachings been exhaustive about everything. That’s why the Church is considered by Catholics to be guided by the Holy Spirit from its inception - rather than guided once, given a bunch of rules, and then left alone as a finished Church.)

I’d also strongly question the claim that religion ‘Explains that which can’t otherwise be explained (yet, scientifically.)’ I hear this one tossed around a lot - but I have yet to hear a real satisfactory explanation of how Christianity acted as a placeholder for science. Yes, natural curiosities were often attributed to God (or, on a lower, more folk level, the generally supernatural) - but so too were things that people understood the inner workings of. Everything was considered to have had God as its ultimate source - and to most Christians, the belief holds. Discovering the mechanistic workings of the human immune system didn’t step on religion’s turf - neither did discovering the big bang or black holes (In the former case, some would argue the opposite occurred.)

 

[ddmason]

What is your knowledge of the Catholic church and where did you get this knowledge?

 

[Nullasalus]

What is your knowledge of the Catholic church and where did you get this knowledge?

Sorry, who are you addressing? That looks like it could be directed at myself or others here.