Based on probability, if one had to make a choice, is it more reasonable to be an Atheist or a Theist

[tonyrey]

Yet many millions of Buddhists, Hindus and atheists, to name just a few, disagree with you. It has not been shown that the God of classical theism is the only possible explanation. The failure of any other belief system to account for something that classical theism accounts for, doesn’t mean that we’ve determined which one is actually correct. It may be that no belief system or world-view can currently account for some of the things we observe. Classical theism doesn’t win by default just because it seems to be able to account for it.

Postulating an omnipotent, omniscient creator-god is to create a panacea. It can account for anything, by design, but only by providing a bigger mystery. Explanations tend to be in terms of other things that we understand. By appealing to a bigger mystery it removes all explanatory power.

In that case the ToE in science is worthless! It is unreasonable to believe the Ultimate Reality is not mysterious given the limitations of human insight, knowledge and intelligence. More important criteria are whether the explanation is economical, adequate, intelligible, coherent, consistent, probable and fertile, attributes which certainly apply to theism. One Supreme Being is certainly a far more convincing interpretation of the origin of reality than a gratuitous hypothesis which reduces everyone and everything to a set of mindless, valueless, purposeless and meaningless events, i.e. “nix bits”.

 

[Nixbits]

Does that count as an ad hominem attack on my user-name? Ha ha.

tonyrey:

One Supreme Being is certainly a far more convincing interpretation of the origin of reality than a gratuitous hypothesis which reduces everyone and everything to a set of mindless, valueless, purposeless and meaningless events

I would agree. But a positive interpretation of classical theism is always likely to be more convincing than the deliberately negative straw-man version of another world-view.

 

[PRmerger]

Yet many millions of Buddhists, Hindus and atheists, to name just a few, disagree with you.

There are also millions of folks who deny the efficacy of vaccines…

It has not been shown that the God of classical theism is the only possible explanation.

It is the best possible explanation.

The failure of any other belief system to account for something that classical theism accounts for, doesn’t mean that we’ve determined which one is actually correct.

But it does eliminate the other belief systems, no?

It may be that no belief system or world-view can currently account for some of the things we observe.

I certainly hope that your view is that there is no explanation! It just happened by magic?

Classical theism doesn’t win by default just because it seems to be able to account for it.

It is heartening to see you acknowledge that it does seem to be able to account for it.

Postulating an omnipotent, omniscient creator-god is to create a panacea.

This is begging the question, Nix.

It can account for anything, by design, but only by providing a bigger mystery. Explanations tend to be in terms of other things that we understand. By appealing to a bigger mystery it removes all explanatory power.

This makes no sense.

Apply your paradigm above to science. Do you think that’s a good epistemology–“We should reject this accounting because it only leads to more questions!”

 

[Aloysium]

And some remain dissatisfied and continue to look for the proof, determined to try to find the real answer and wary of accepting whatever seems to be sufficient with no demonstration that it’s also necessary.

Perhaps it would help to discuss the nature of proof. We intuit naturally that the world has a structure which can be understood. We formulate an understanding of that structure. This enables us to predict what will follow. If the prediction holds true, then the theory is supported. We have proof of its validity, at least as far as we have delved into the matter. The theory allows us to understand some aspect of the over-all structure of reality and the proof relates back to that particular area.

Let’s consider this moment. All that is going on here can be described in terms of physical events taking place in the computer, monitor, the room, the retina, optic nerve, brain, etc. We could produce a lenghty book (library) filled with descriptions of what is materially happening. Now, none of it would have to do with the reality of ideas, images and mind, which is the reality of our experiential world at the moment. In regards to proof, when we examine solely what is physically happening, there is no proof that the mind exists or that it is necessary for these physical processes to operate. The idea of mind is a necessary construct when we seek after the meaning of it all, not to mention the very reality of the experience we are having.

Similarly, with the idea of God. It very is relevant when we try to fathom the mystery of our own existence, its meaning and the nature of beauty, goodness and truth. Keep looking into how matter interacts and that is all you will ever find. Altough it should be pointed out that in relativity and quantum physics what is clear although left unexplored is the necessity of a rational mind to the observations, let alone the understanding. Study the mind and you will find instincts, symbols, emotions and perceptions. They can be a field to explored on its own, without reference to what is beyond ourselves. The fact is that we do not bring ourselves, any of this into existence. We may pick a direction, but the choice is given, to be discovered. What, how, and why is that? The proof of such spiritual matters is to be found in one’s relationship with God. It is necessary.

 

[Nixbits]

PRmerger:

It is the best possible explanation.

By what criteria have you judged classical theism the ‘best’? By ‘best’ do you mean ‘most likely to be true’?

PRmerger:

But it does eliminate the other belief systems, no?

No, absolutely not. If belief system A does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe and belief system B does, belief system A is not automatically dismissed as untrue. The burden of proof is still on the adherents of belief system B to demonstrate the truth of their proposed explanation and belief system A can still be true until it is demonstrated otherwise.

PRmerger:

I certainly hope that your view is that there is no explanation! It just happened by magic?

I don’t understand what you are saying here. To which of the many things that we observe are you referring?

PRmerger:

It is heartening to see you acknowledge that it does seem to be able to account for it.

I don’t think you should be heartened by my words. I also described classical theism as a panacea with no explanatory power.

PRmerger:

This is begging the question, Nix.

You’re right. I should have said that an omnipotent, omniscient creator-god is a panacea.

PRmerger:

This makes no sense. Apply your paradigm above to science. Do you think that’s a good epistemology–“We should reject this accounting because it only leads to more questions!”

I disagree. Where science offers an explanation for something it is based upon more fundamental scientific theories. The number of new questions that arise as a result of a scientific explanation is irrelevant. But if the ‘explanation’ offered relies not on things that we understand but upon something that, by its very nature, we do not and perhaps cannot understand, then that ‘explanation’ is worthless.

 

[Nixbits]

Aloysium:

All that is going on here can be described in terms of physical events taking place in the computer, monitor, the room, the retina, optic nerve, brain, etc. We could produce a lengthy book (library) filled with descriptions of what is materially happening. Now, none of it would have to do with the reality of ideas, images and mind, which is the reality of our experiential world at the moment.

I was in complete agreement with you up to this point. It seems to me that the “reality of ideas, images and mind” that constitute our experience of the world probably “can be described in terms of physical events taking place in the . . . brain”. We may not yet be able to detect, measure or interpret all of these physical events, but I don’t see any evidence to suggest that we need to look beyond what is happening in the physical world to explain the experiences that each of us have.

 

[PRmerger]

By what criteria have you judged classical theism the ‘best’? By ‘best’ do you mean ‘most likely to be true’?

By “best” I mean: that which provides the most logical, reasoned, accurate application to reality.

No, absolutely not. If belief system A does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe and belief system B does, belief system A is not automatically dismissed as untrue. The burden of proof is still on the adherents of belief system B to demonstrate the truth of their proposed explanation and belief system A can still be true until it is demonstrated otherwise.

But if Belief System A can be eliminated as contrary to logic, or unreasonable or inaccurate, we have no need to consider it, no?

I don’t understand what you are saying here. To which of the many things that we observe are you referring?

Have you ever observed, in the entirety of your experience, something coming from nothing?

I don’t think you should be heartened by my words. I also described classical theism as a panacea with no explanatory power.

One step at a time.

You did acknowledge that it does seem to offer an explanation for the things we observe.

You’re right. I should have said that an omnipotent, omniscient creator-god is a panacea.

That’s still begging the question, Nix.

I disagree. Where science offers an explanation for something it is based upon more fundamental scientific theories. The number of new questions that arise as a result of a scientific explanation is irrelevant. But if the ‘explanation’ offered relies not on things that we understand but upon something that, by its very nature, we do not and perhaps cannot understand, then that ‘explanation’ is worthless.

But who says that the theistic “explanation” relies upon something that we cannot understand?

Certainly we proclaim that God cannot be* fully* understood. Just like the universe.

But that doesn’t mean that God cannot be apprehended with our intellect.

Everything you object to about God here can be applied to science.

And everything you say about science here can be applied to God.

You certainly seem to be implying that science is going to provide the answers…

and what is that if not a Science of the Gaps mentality, eh?

Also, NIXBITS, could you please learn how to multi-quote in the correct manner, rather than cutting and pasting each poster’s words?

You need to be able to provide that little arrow icon so folks can click it and see exactly what post you’re referencing.

There’s numerous threads here that detail how to do this correctly.

Thank you.

 

[Latinitas]

The first principles of knowledge are obtained by introspection! First and foremost we are aware of our mental activity and then we infer the existence of physical reality from what we perceive. We have immediate and direct knowledge of our thoughts and feelings whereas it is not self-evident that there is a world or other persons because we are in the “egocentric predicament”.

No they aren’t. What you’ve expounded here is classic statement of Cartesian solipsism. But, if, as I, and most Catholic philosophers, admit the peripatetic axiom, that nothing is in the intellect which is not first in the senses, then this cannot be true. Even to know ourselves we need the use of our senses. We abstract the first principles of knowledge of those things which we see.

We don’t need to have faith in our existence but we do need it for everything else. Our mind is our primary datum and sole certainty. In other words like charity knowledge begins at home! We do need faith to believe in the Supreme Mind but even more faith to believe in material objects. As Quine pointed out they are “posits” whereas our mental experiences are the very foundation of all our knowledge and therefore much closer to spiritual reality -which is certainly far more sublime and meaningful than what we perceive with our senses - which tell us nothing about the nature of truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love.

While I assume you mean this well, what you’ve said is actually heretical. It is a defined article of faith that God can be known from reason alone (this was defined by the First Vatican Council in Dei Filius). That is, no supernatural faith is needed to know the existence of God. Sacred Scripture itself testifies to this. In the Book of Wisdom it declares:

"For all men who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature;
and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know him who exists,
nor did they recognize the craftsman while paying heed to his works; but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air,
or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water,
or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world.
If through delight in the beauty of these things men assumed them to be gods,
let them know how much better than these is their Lord,
for the author of beauty created them.
And if men were amazed at their power and working,
let them perceive from them
how much more powerful is he who formed them.
For from the greatness and beauty of created things
comes a corresponding perception of their Creator.
Yet these men are little to be blamed,
for perhaps they go astray
while seeking God and desiring to find him.
For as they live among his works they keep searching,
and they trust in what they see, because the things that are seen are beautiful.

• Wis. 13:1-9

Notice, in this passage quoted, that it’s always from creating things that the Creator is known; we do not know created things because we know the Creator. St. Paul speaks much the same way in the first chapter of the letter to the Romans.

It is indeed. God bless…

I’m glad you were helped,
Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Aloysium]

. . . It seems to me that the “reality of ideas, images and mind” that constitute our experience of the world probably “can be described in terms of physical events taking place in the . . . brain”. We may not yet be able to detect, measure or interpret all of these physical events, but I don’t see any evidence to suggest that we need to look beyond what is happening in the physical world to explain the experiences that each of us have.

There’s more known about neurological functioning than you imagine. That said we cannot explain neurological events without appealing to mental phenomena.

One of the earliest neurosurgical procedures to be carried out in the treatment of epilepsy was conducted on a woman who smelled burned toast as a prodrome event to having a seizure. The surgeon probed the brain of the awake patient until she reported experiencing the smell. Excising the area of the brain, cured her of her malady.

One has to go beyond the macromolecules, membranes, electrolytes, the CT scans, MRI’s, EEG’s and actually speak to the person, who conveys her impressions, to understand what is going on. This is not to say that we cannot detect malfunctioning tissue using technology.

In terms normally function, the brain is organized in accordance with mental processes. The structure of the mind is of a different order than that which is the physical activity of the brain. All we really know for sure, is that we perceive, think, feel and act. The only concept that pulls it all together is that of the person, multidimensionally complex yet one in being.

 

[tonyrey]

In that case the ToE in science is worthless! It is unreasonable to believe the Ultimate Reality is not mysterious given the limitations of human insight, knowledge and intelligence. More important criteria are whether the explanation is economical, adequate, intelligible, coherent, consistent, probable and fertile, attributes which certainly apply to theism. One Supreme Being is certainly a far more convincing interpretation of the origin of reality than a gratuitous hypothesis which reduces everyone and everything to a set of mindless, valueless, purposeless and meaningless events, i.e. “nix bits”.

Does that count as an ad hominem attack on my user-name? Ha ha.

I thought it reflects your view of reality because most of your posts seem to point in that direction. It is certainly a good description of a universe composed of purposeless particles but you haven’t really committed yourself…

I would agree. But a positive interpretation of classical theism is always likely to be more convincing than the deliberately negative straw-man version of another world-view.

Which world view is more positive?

 

[tonyrey]

The first principles of knowledge are obtained by introspection! First and foremost we are aware of our mental activity and then we infer

Can we get outside our mind and know things directly?

Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer . . . For my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer’s gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But** in point of epistemological footing**, the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conceptions only as cultural posits.

• wikipedia

Irrefutable! Like charity all our knowledge begins at home - in our mind. Introspection does** not **entail our physical senses. Our primary datum and sole certainty is our consciousness and awareness of our thoughts, choices, decisions, feelings and sensations. When we are born all we are aware of is our sensations. We gradually associate them with external objects - which goes to show that without a mind **we **wouldn’t even know we exist, let alone anything else. That is why the Supreme Mind is the most adequate explanation of reality.

While I assume you mean this well, what you’ve said is actually heretical. It is a defined article of faith that God can be known from reason alone (this was defined by the First Vatican Council in Dei Filius). That is, no supernatural faith is needed to know the existence of God. Sacred Scripture itself testifies to this.

Notice, in this passage quoted, that it’s always from creating things that the Creator is known; we do not know created things because we know the Creator. St. Paul speaks much the same way in the first chapter of the letter to the Romans.

The issue is not knowledge of God’s existence but our knowledge of physical reality which is subordinate to spiritual reality. Our power of reason, insight, free will and capacity for love are not derived from molecular activity but directly from God because we are made in His image and likeness. The supernatural aspect of our existence is more significant than all the empirical knowledge in the world. From every point of view persons precede particles! That belief is hardly heretical…

 

[tonyrey]

There’s more known about neurological functioning than you imagine. That said we cannot explain neurological events without appealing to mental phenomena.

One of the earliest neurosurgical procedures to be carried out in the treatment of epilepsy was conducted on a woman who smelled burned toast as a prodrome event to having a seizure. The surgeon probed the brain of the awake patient until she reported experiencing the smell. Excising the area of the brain, cured her of her malady.

One has to go beyond the macromolecules, membranes, electrolytes, the CT scans, MRI’s, EEG’s and actually speak to the person, who conveys her impressions, to understand what is going on. This is not to say that we cannot detect malfunctioning tissue using technology.

In terms normally function, the brain is organized in accordance with mental processes. The structure of the mind is of a different order than that which is the physical activity of the brain. All we really know for sure, is that we perceive, think, feel and act. The only concept that pulls it all together is that of the person, multidimensionally complex yet one in being.

A very important point. Unity is lacking in the atomistic view of reality espoused by materialists. Analysis has to be supplemented by synthesis - as in modern medicine which treats the whole person rather than individual organs when diagnosis becomes difficult.

 

[inocente]

One of the earliest neurosurgical procedures to be carried out in the treatment of epilepsy was conducted on a woman who smelled burned toast as a prodrome event to having a seizure. The surgeon probed the brain of the awake patient until she reported experiencing the smell. Excising the area of the brain, cured her of her malady.

One has to go beyond the macromolecules, membranes, electrolytes, the CT scans, MRI’s, EEG’s and actually speak to the person, who conveys her impressions, to understand what is going on. This is not to say that we cannot detect malfunctioning tissue using technology.

In terms normally function, the brain is organized in accordance with mental processes. The structure of the mind is of a different order than that which is the physical activity of the brain. All we really know for sure, is that we perceive, think, feel and act. The only concept that pulls it all together is that of the person, multidimensionally complex yet one in being.

The learned professor’s logic eludes me. The surgeon homes in on the exact area which is malfunctioning, so proving with exquisite precision that in this case the mind is the physical activity of the brain.

The surgeon is using the same diagnostic principle as any doctor who prods you and asks where does it hurt. Are you claiming that every time a doctor does that it proves dualism of the mind?

 

[tonyrey]

The learned professor’s logic eludes me. The surgeon homes in on the exact area which is malfunctioning, so proving with exquisite precision that in this case the mind is the physical activity of the brain.

The surgeon is using the same diagnostic principle as any doctor who prods you and asks where does it hurt. Are you claiming that every time a doctor does that it proves dualism of the mind?

“every time” is excluded by Aloysium’s proviso:

This is not to say that we cannot detect malfunctioning tissue using technology

You’ve also missed the point that it would have been impossible to detect the precise location without the patient’s subjective knowledge.

Why do you specify “In this case the mind is the physical activity of the brain”? Do you believe the mind is independent on other occasions?

 

[inocente]

“every time” is excluded by Aloysium’s proviso:
Aloysium;14061484:

This is not to say that we cannot detect malfunctioning tissue using technology.

No it isn’t. Read it again: “Are you claiming that every time a doctor does that [prods you and asks where does it hurt] it proves dualism of the mind?”

btw the use of technology to detect a malfunction also proves the mind is the physical activity of the brain. Thanks for pointing that out.

You’ve also missed the point that it would have been impossible to detect the precise location without the patient’s subjective knowledge.

No I didn’t. Read it again, “The surgeon is using the same diagnostic principle as any doctor who prods you and asks where does it hurt”.

Please explain how you think prodding you and asking where does it hurt has nothing to do with detecting the precise location using the patient’s subjective knowledge.

Why do you specify "In this case the mind is the physical activity of the brain"? Do you believe the mind is independent on other occasions?
Illogical. Compare with: Why do I specify in this case Tony read the post before replying. Do I believe Tony doesn’t read posts before replying on other occasions?

It would be certainly be great if in this case Tony read this post before replying.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No it isn’t. Read it again: “Are you claiming that every time a doctor does that [prods you and asks where does it hurt] it proves dualism of the mind?”

btw the use of technology to detect a malfunction also proves the mind is the physical activity of the brain. Thanks for pointing that out.

Actually, it “proves” no such thing. It proves some kind of correlation between mind and brain, but it doesn’t prove the mind is the physical activity of the brain. If it did then the fact that a driver of an automobile moves their hands or feet every time the automobile changes direction or moves is “proof” that the driver is the “physical activity” of the automobile.

The use of technology (say, radar camera) to detect a malfunction (tendency to speed excessively) does not “prove” the driver is merely an epiphenomena of the control systems of the car.

Sure there now exist self-driving cars, but the fact that a big deal is made of the proves that those which are not self-driving are driven by something more than the “physical activity” of the car.

You have to revise what you accept as “proof” to one which is more logically sound.

 

[o_mlly]

Based on probability, if one had to make a choice, is it more reasonable to be an Atheist or a Theist. Which is more likely to be true given human experience and the evidence.

Which way does the pendulum of probability swing and why.

Given one’s own experience and applying Bayesian Probability theory, one who has had a religious experience will calculate a high probability for Theism. One who has only experienced evil (if that’s possible) will remain at the 50/50 beginning assumption that God exists.

See" firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/08/the-probability-of-god

 

[Aloysium]

. . . “Are you claiming that every time a doctor does that [prods you and asks where does it hurt] it proves dualism of the mind?” btw the use of technology to detect a malfunction also proves the mind is the physical activity of the brain. Thanks for pointing that out. . . .“The surgeon is using the same diagnostic principle as any doctor who prods you and asks where does it hurt”.
Please explain how you think prodding you and asking where does it hurt has nothing to do with detecting the precise location using the patient’s subjective knowledge. . .

The mind is most definitely not the physical activity of the brain. The banking system and the sociopolitical realities of this world are not the electronic infrastructure. The brain is part of the physical structure of the person. The connections in the brain are in large part organized in accordance with mental phenomena. And, the mind is related to the person’s soul, the spiritual capacity to relate, to connect with what is other, perceptually, with our thoughts, feelings and actions, most perfectly seen in the giving union that is love. There is no dualism; there is one person who can be understood from different perspectives. It is not dualistic thinking that a person is a taxpayer and a patient undergoing a medical procedure. The last sentence in the quote, to me suggests a dualistic understanding of the body and mind. One does not eliminate dualism by eliminating one side. Mind and body are not separate entities and do not even intertwine. There is one person, one being, whom I see as 100% physical and 100% spiritual. The spiritual part is eternal, the physical transient, btw.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Given one’s own experience and applying Bayesian Probability theory, one who has had a religious experience will calculate a high probability for Theism. One who has only experienced evil (if that’s possible) will remain at the 50/50 beginning assumption that God exists.

See" firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/08/the-probability-of-god

The word “evil” is a morally laden term, one which actually presumes a Moral Substrate (aka God) underpinning reality.

The experience of evil might point someone towards the existence of a morally deficient deity or put into question human perspectives or expectations regarding morality. It doesn’t, as far as I can tell, reduce the probability of God’s existence.

Perhaps if you used the term “misfortunes” in place of “evil,” your point would be better made.

 

[o_mlly]

The word “evil” is a morally laden term, one which actually presumes a Moral Substrate (aka God) underpinning reality.

The experience of evil might point someone towards the existence of a morally deficient deity or put into question human perspectives or expectations regarding morality. It doesn’t, as far as I can tell, reduce the probability of God’s existence.

Perhaps if you used the term “misfortunes” in place of “evil,” your point would be better made.

The presence of natural or physical evil would not require a moral predicate. And as Joe Carter explains, the experience of evil in general does not make or break the calculation.

The existence of evil has very little to do with the argument at hand. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga shows, the existence of evil is as possible in a world where God exists as in one where he does not [due to free will]. Some people might still claim that the appearance of evil tilts the scales in favor of the non-existence of God. To make that claim, however, they must first refute Plantinga’s argument.