Atheists delusional?

[HarryStotle]

So what “truths” are there that you can be absolutely certain are true?

Perhaps the problem is that you are attempting to take one or each part (individual facts or experiences) in isolation from the whole (meaningful context) and then absent any comprehension (or even allowance) of any whole you decry the fact that each particular lacks any certainty.

The mere fact, however, that certainty is only epistemically possible within a meaningful context that sufficiently explains any particular fact or experience, means you are putting the cart before the horse regarding certainty.

You assume each fact or experience is sufficient unto itself and can explain itself absent any context at all.

Not going to work.

The far better option is to fully understand possible contextual frameworks and then assess which of those sufficiently explain or more completely explain the particular facts and/or subjective experiences.

There is good reason why models of reality such as maps, blueprints, schematic drawings, theoretical models, etc., are devised.

It would seem a strike against atheism, from the very beginning, that it denies, rather arbitrarily and with no real justification, that there is (nor can there be) any overall reason, plan or design for existence and that we merely happen to exist as a brute fact.

 

[HarryStotle]

We know we cannot know,…

How do you KNOW that for certain?

 

[HarryStotle]

…it confuses me and saddens me that so many people are so fervent in their beliefs that they can’t even begin to admit that they might be wrong. To me the most delusional person, is quite often the one who’s absolutely certain that they can’t be wrong.

And, ironically, you are equally “absolutely certain” about your fervent belief regarding those you call “delusional persons.”

How do you know with absolute certainty that anyone who claims to know with certainty they are correct about something is, in fact, delusional?

You’ve just made yourself your own undertaker. Congratulations!

And you didn’t even suspect you were ill.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The far better option is to fully understand possible contextual frameworks and then assess which of those sufficiently explain or more completely explain the particular facts and/or subjective experiences.

But the error doesn’t lie in creating that contextual framework, the error lies in deluding one’s self into being absolutely certain that that contextual framework is correct.

You keep insisting it is an “error” rather than a recognizable limitation.

It is possible to have various levels of certainty, rather than mere absolute certainty or absolute uncertainty. Some things are more certain than others.

If you wish to use absolute certainty as your necessary warrant or opening position, you will go nowhere. Perhaps the certainty is built up as we move along in a reasonable fashion? Thus, a proclivity to trust only absolute certainty might be a stumbling block to achieving any kind of certainty whatsoever.

You also assume a unilateral relationship vis a vis God, as if the onus is all upon us to know God rather than upon God revealing himself.

Think of it along the lines of trusting another human person. You can enter that human relationship in a state of absolute distrust and continue going nowhere precisely because every avenue towards you trusting them is blocked by your radical doubt and resolute demand that they prove to be absolutely trustworthy before you show any level of trust. How is that to be accomplished by the other person right at the beginning of any relationship?

 

[Darryl_B]

Thank you for coming forward with this. I will first of all address the issue of absolutes. Yes you are correct that God who is absolute, is not absolutely provable by reason. That is why we have reason and faith. The two exist together, both for Christian and Atheist. I recognize that the subject line has probably been responsible for the obvious little frustration that has arisen in your approach, and I guess it is to a certain extend justifiable to feel that way and respond accordingly as you have. But if we could put that aside and all recognize that just simply having a discussion of “You’re irrational”, “No you’re irrational”, “no you’re irrational”, “no you’re irrational”, may make us feel better within ourselves, it is hardly constructive towards understanding. So if you could please accept my apology that the subject may not be so well worded, and permit expression of point of view, we can perhaps produce reasonable discussion.

Personally objectively I have two reasons for the existence of God. Statistics and Divine Revelation.

 

[PickyPicky]

PickyPicky:

We know we cannot know,…

How do you KNOW that for certain?

The impossibility of proving a negative.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

PickyPicky:

We know we cannot know,…

How do you KNOW that for certain?

The impossibility of proving a negative.

More like making a self-refuting claim.

You are claiming to KNOW that you cannot know. That is a positive claim, not a negative one.

You cannot know for certain that you CANNOT know. You are presuming to know something with certainty that you claim (in the very same statement) is what you cannot know.

The best you can do is state something like: Knowing is uncertain and even knowing the fact that we cannot know is, likewise, uncertain.

To be consistent, that is.

Besides there are lots of things we can know with absolute certainty. That 1=1 is certain.

 

[abucs]

I’m trying to get him/her to think about THE most fundamental aspect of his/her position, or of anyone’s position for that matter

with respect what makes you think that I am not aware of this and that you need to position me into a situation of realising it?

If I can do that, if I can get people to focus on what they can be absolutely certain of, then perhaps they’ll realize that we’re all arguing from the exact same position of ignorance, and that in all of our supposed reasoning and logic we’ve overlooked the most fundamental truth of all …that there are certain things that we just don’t know.

So if I ask you if there’s a God, the correct answer is …I don’t know. And it should be the exact same answer regardless of whether you’re an atheist or a theist. If you can’t do that, if you can’t answer “I don’t know” to that question, then you’re not being honest

well perhaps you could have saved a lot of time and simply asked me if I know God exists. When you did ask me what I know for sure I don’t remember listing ‘There is a God’. But your ‘correct’ and ‘honest’ answer to your own question of ‘I don’t know’ is an extremely limited response. We should not be limited in our discussions and investigations.

My answer would be that given the probabilities of evidence I rationalise that there being a God far outweighs the probability that there is not a God. A simple ‘I don’t know’ does not relate the full scope of thinking on the matter. For me, it is not the correct answer. It is if you like - a useless answer in many ways because it limits the breadth of knowledge and thought on the matter.

Do I know tomorrow will be Saturday? Well I accept in all probability that it will be. Unbeknown to me there may be some authority meeting right now to change the way we do our calendars and it will start tomorrow with the new system. I suppose because I really don’t know if this is happening, if someone asks me if tomorrow is Saturday your ‘correct’ and ‘honest’ response would be ‘I don’t know’. But that is a useless answer in my reckoning.

In order to function in the world I have to accept that tomorrow will be Saturday. That is the intelligent response which will likely correlate with reality. Likewise to my rationalising I live my life with the acceptance that there is a God because this is the most intelligent response that will likely correlate with reality.

We can continue with our discussion (if you like) or having indicated to others where you are taking the discussion perhaps you would like to change tack.

I’ll reply anyways and leave it to you on where/if the discussion goes on.

 

[abucs]

So, in effect, you perceive things. You’re aware of the context in which you exist. You’re not just a mind floating in a void. You have a reality by which to define what it means to exist.

Not really. Any verb constitutes existence. Perceiving is a verb, so is hallucinating, thinking, experiencing etc.

I have a context in which I exist but I accept that these are my perceptions and probably incorrect in the grand scheme of things. Through scientific evidence ( a lower level of surety as discussed above) I accept that this reality is a secondary reality. I accept it is a created reality and so the context that I experience the reality in is also a secondary, created phenomenon.

In fact I would insist on our awareness of existence (context) not directly being the fundamental reality.

 

[abucs]

Why would one have to have knowledge of this? For every action there are consequences, intended or otherwise. One doesn’t need to know how to create the consequences. The consequences are simply inevitable. How do you know that reality isn’t simply a consequence of your existence? There’s a difference between merely being a cause, and being a creator. Perhaps you’re simply the former, and not the latter.

You say that every action has consequences and this is inevitable. Where do you get that from?

If I am all that exists (the scenario we are investigating) then surely actions have consequences only if I allow it.

If this rule exists independent of me, that is, that actions have consequences and I must obey this rule then I have proved that there is a reality beyond me that I am not creating. Q.E.D.

On the other hand if this rule that you use as logic is a creation of mine (remember I am all that exists) then I will this rule right here and now to no longer be true.

waiting…

waiting …

Q.E.D.

there is a reality beyond me that I am not creating.

 

[abucs]

Quantum physics even has a name for this predicament, it’s called the measurement problem. The conscious mind can never gain a perspective outside of itself. It’s not that people can’t be certain of anything at all. But the conscious mind cannot be certain that anything actually exists outside of itself. This is true for you, and for me, and even for God.

I would define the measurement problem as something different.

Anyway I think I have shown above that there is existence outside of myself, but addressing your claim about God in relationship to quantum mechanics -

Quantum mechanics is the study of matter at the quantum level. God is not matter and so no quantum discoveries bind God .

You can take quantum physics experimental results about our material world and philosophise them onto the non material world but to go back to the current theme - you cannot know such philosophy is truth.

 

[PickyPicky]

You cannot know for certain that you CANNOT know.

OK, one more scratch at this epistemological itch. I know that I cannot be certain of God’s non-existence because such a certainty would require knowledge of the full rollcall of things that exist in every location, discovered and undiscovered, explored and unexplored. Such knowledge would be omniscience. I have convincing evidence, to my chagrin, late in life, that I am not omniscient.

 

[Darryl_B]

Quantum physics can only let us consider closer, the place we live, it does not produce a picture of anything outside and beyond it, unless of course we get to see a complexity so great, that the paradox of God, becomes a realistic possibility, and the possibility of coincidental becomes awkward. Man is learning lots we have come a long way in 80 years, I cannot wait until we actually scratch the surface.

 

[KindredSoul]

@Prodigal_Son

Why is that?

Is God valuable? If so, then you think that value can exist without something else existing that values it. And if you think that, then value could presumably exist without God around to give things value.

Just to take a stab at this, value statements can never be proven by argument or evidence, so for anything to have objective value, there must be some invisible, intangible, unprovable things (such as “Some things are objectively, independently important,” which is the cornerstone of ALL objective value) that are true “just because they are,” and it must be okay to believe some things “just because,” and even to let such a belief, arrived at without the aid of compelling deductive reason as we humans know it, govern one’s life and even one’s laws and interactions.

That’s all good and well, and indeed you’d be right to say even Christians are in that boat since, at least as the human intellect is for now on this side of eternity, it is the only way we can even insist God has objective value. He just does.

The problem when it comes to objective value in an Atheist proposition, however, is that many of the objections Atheists tend to raise to letting faith in God govern one’s life, one’s treatment of others, one’s politics, etc, would also apply to belief in objective value: That it isn’t something that can be logically proven, so why risk “wasting” one’s life on it or, even if one is happy believing it, what true right have we to try to insist upon it to anyone who may disagree, no matter on how vital an element of it?

So in a sense you’re right: Technically there could be objective value in a universe where there is no Personal Creator. It would have to exist and be believed independent/transcendent of traditional logic OR hard evidence, though. And in that sense, @Paddy1989 is right: Most of the major reasons one would have for confidently embracing Atheism, especially enough to criticize Theism for being inherently irrational or lacking enough evidence to be justifiable, would also apply to any belief in objective value. So it’s not that objective value absolutely could not conceivably exist if there was no personal Creator, it’s that it would possess many of the intangible, immaterial, super-rational (above reason) traits that Atheists tend to cite as their justification for rejecting Theism in the first place. So it’s a matter of intellectual consistency. If I’m going to be convinced there is no God, the most likely reasons for embracing that would also logically compel me to doubt objective value and objective morality, etc.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[IWantGod]

I exist
There is a reality beyond me
I didn’t create that reality

The first two I don’t have a problem with, but the third one …although seemingly just as self-evident as the first two, isn’t quite as certain, because creation, or more broadly…causation, can be either intentional or coincidental. One can be the cause of something without being consciously aware that you’re the cause. So although I may not necessarily disagree with abucs on point #3, I need him/her to explain how it is that he/she can be absolutely certain that it’s true. How does he/she know that he/she isn’t in fact the cause of everything that he/she sees around him/her?

If you are only your mind, and your mind by definition is your self consciousness (since by your standard of epistemology, that’s all you can be really certain of), it seems to me a peculiar idea that you can be unaware at any point of whats going on in your mind.. I think therefore i am. Therefore if things only exist in my mind, then they exist because i think them, otherwise things just arbitrarily populate my mind and i am not the cause of them, which is absurd if existence is my mind alone, because my mind alone is the source of all information… This raises a serious problem for your position since you cannot not know what you are thinking.

Certainly, if physical reality is objective you can be unaware of causing something there because its not your mind, because it does not behave or exist according to what you think, and the fact that you experience things that you cannot control is evidence in favor of their objective reality. And certainly if you have a physical brain, that can be responsible for some of the content in your mind because it is responsible for processing information. But without these things, any information that you have not knowingly produced becomes inexplicable because there is nowhere else for it to exist other than in your self-awareness. If all of reality happens in your-self awareness, then to say that you are unaware of whats going on in your mind is to say that you are unaware of what you are by definition, which is self-awareness. Since everything is going on in the context of your self-awareness, how can you possibly be unaware of being the cause of something in your awareness, unless being the cause of something is in the power of something else that is not your self-awareness, and in fact exists outside of your awareness. Thus when your mind is not conscious, this would imply that your mind is more than your self-awareness. But how can that be if you can only define existence in the context of being self-aware; epistemological speaking.

 

[IWantGod]

As you no doubt noticed, I stopped responding to your posts, not because I don’t have answers to your questions, but because as often happens on forums such as this one, there was no one here willing to truly listen to those answers. And without someone willing to listen, answers…even correct ones…aren’t worth a whole lot. So since I had nothing of any value to give you, I thought that I might as well leave.

I don’t believe you.

 

[Seeksadvice]

I had been a very staunch atheist / moral nihilist for about 7 years or so. I came from a background of hard sciences, with a specialization in cellular and molecular biology. I tell folks I came back to Christianity by the following:

When I moved out here, I got to know folks in the community. As a member of the public sector, you wind up doing a decent number of community functions, which generally includes church dinners out here. I got to see the kitchens of Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, and other denominations. Having cooked lots of dinners, I came to the realization that there must be something to the Christianity thing, as people don’t die in droves after consuming church meals

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Hi Kindred! Long time, no see!

Just to take a stab at this, value statements can never be proven by argument or evidence, so for anything to have objective value, there must be some invisible, intangible, unprovable things (such as “Some things are objectively, independently important,” which is the cornerstone of ALL objective value) that are true “just because they are,” and it must be okay to believe some things “just because…"

I agree with this, for the most part, although I would say that intellectual knowledge can arise from non-deductive means. So, for instance, when I see a donut in front of me, I see the donut; I do not deduce its existence. I think the same could go for experiences of God or experiences of value.

And it doesn’t rule out the idea that there IS a reason why valuable things are valuable (e.g. because they are reflections of the nature of God). It just means that we are incapable of accessing that reason in a non-circular fashion. It may not actually BE a brute fact, but from our perspective, it’s a brute fact.

The problem when it comes to objective value in an Atheist proposition, however, is that many of the objections Atheists tend to raise to letting faith in God govern one’s life, one’s treatment of others, one’s politics, etc, would also apply to belief in objective value…

I agree that this applies to many atheists, who hoist themselves on their own petard, if they claim the value of things is transcendent AND we have evidence for this, but also claim that we cannot have evidence for God. But it’s perfectly consistent for an atheist to say that – as a matter of sheer inexplicable fact – we have non-deductive evidence for things being valuable, but we lack non-deductive evidence for God. Such an atheist would not be in a position to argue with a Christian, but the atheist’s view would not be incoherent.

And I personally know atheists like that, atheists that would never try to convince anyone God doesn’t exist, but that just don’t happen to believe in God. They tend to keep a low profile, so Christians rarely hear from them. (And yes, these atheists DO feel justified in convincing other people to change their lives, to accord to their values).

Most of the major reasons one would have for confidently embracing Atheism … would also apply to any belief in objective value.

I think I agree. My only concern is that there may be arguments against the existence of God (e.g. the problem of evil) that do not have any analogues when it comes to value, as such.

But I like that all your arguments are put forward in probabilistic form: “tend to”, “most likely”, etc. Those qualifications make common ground easier to find than blanket statements.

Peace,
Prodigal

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Not sure why the quotes are wonky.

 

[pocaracas]

You need a new line before the
[/quote] tag.
This forum’s software is very smart, but seems unable to handle that sort of thing… :roll-eyes: