Can the logical naturalist-agnostic believe that anything is true?

[seductus_sum]

PRESCRIPT: I don’t mean for this to be a “why are/do atheists/theists” kind of thread. If it is, I apologize. I am actually really interested in hearing responses to this. It has been on my mind for some time.

I have been reading on this forum this morning and have come across this kind of sentiment a number of times:

(premise)1. There is no evidence for God.
c(onclusion)1. God is improbable.
c2. I will be an agnostic.
2. I have direct experience of the world and natural causes.
c3. There are natural causes.
3. Science has always discovered new natural causes.
c4. Science will continue to find new natural causes.
c5. Naturalism is more sound than theism and I will be a naturalist.

If I have misrepresented this view, I am sorry. I do not like straw men.

This view is, of course, mostly logical. The naturalist-agnostic is saying that only that which is based on evidence is probable, and that he will personally believe in only that which is probable or provable. This leads him to agnosticism, because there is no conclusive evidence either way, and to naturalism, because the only evidence he has experienced is of the natural world and natural causes.

But…

Where is the justification IN NATURE for ascribing belief in what is probable? Why is c2 justified?

Where is the justification IN NATURE for believing that there are natural causes because one experiences natural causes? Why is c3 justified?

How do we know FROM NATURE that science will continue to find new natural causes? Why is c4 justified?

Heck, why ascribe belief in what is more sound? Why is c5 justified?

It seems to me that someone who will only believe in something that is based on evidence cannot actually believe in much at all. If someone rejects God because there is no evidence, then should they not reject a whole host of things because they have not yet received evidence (e.g., that natural causes cause an effect, that people tell the truth about scientific experiments that they perform, that the world is round, that China exists, etc.). And what evidence makes our ability to receive evidence accurately reliable?

And how can the logical argument I outlined above be accepted? Logic is operated in our brains, and how do we know we are thinking straight? What evidence is there for that? How do we know, logically, that we are not “a brain in a jar?” It seems the only LOGICAL conclusion is… nothing, that nothing can be logically true.

But who is the world lives like this? And why should I believe you?

In the end, I do respect the agnostic more than the atheist, because I feel he is more honest. He does not lie and say that he can disprove God. But why not take it all the way? Can the logical naturalist-agnostic believe that anything is true?

On the other hand, if one believes in God, one suddenly finds that the windows of explanation open wide: “In the beginning was the Word…” Only something beyond the world can explain the world. Thanks be to God, who gives light our own minds and to the world.

 

[liquidpele]

PRESCRIPT: I don’t mean for this to be a “why are/do atheists/theists” kind of thread. If it is, I apologize. I am actually really interested in hearing responses to this. It has been on my mind for some time.

I have been reading on this forum this morning and have come across this kind of sentiment a number of times:

(premise)1. There is no evidence for God.
c(onclusion)1. God is improbable.
c2. I will be an agnostic.
2. I have direct experience of the world and natural causes.
c3. There are natural causes.
3. Science has always discovered new natural causes.
c4. Science will continue to find new natural causes.
c5. Naturalism is more sound than theism and I will be a naturalist.

If I have misrepresented this view, I am sorry. I do not like straw men.

This view is, of course, mostly logical. The naturalist-agnostic is saying that only that which is based on evidence is probable, and that he will personally believe in only that which is probable or provable. This leads him to agnosticism, because there is no conclusive evidence either way, and to naturalism, because the only evidence he has experienced is of the natural world and natural causes.

But…

Where is the justification IN NATURE for ascribing belief in what is probable? Why is c2 justified?

Where is the justification IN NATURE for believing that there are natural causes because one experiences natural causes? Why is c3 justified?

How do we know FROM NATURE that science will continue to find new natural causes? Why is c4 justified?

Heck, why ascribe belief in what is more sound? Why is c5 justified?

It seems to me that someone who will only believe in something that is based on evidence cannot actually believe in much at all. If someone rejects God because there is no evidence, then should they not reject a whole host of things because they have not yet received evidence (e.g., that natural causes cause an effect, that people tell the truth about scientific experiments that they perform, that the world is round, that China exists, etc.). And what evidence makes our ability to receive evidence accurately reliable?

And how can the logical argument I outlined above be accepted? Logic is operated in our brains, and how do we know we are thinking straight? What evidence is there for that? How do we know, logically, that we are not “a brain in a jar?” It seems the only LOGICAL conclusion is… nothing, that nothing can be logically true.

But who is the world lives like this? And why should I believe you?

In the end, I do respect the agnostic more than the atheist, because I feel he is more honest. He does not lie and say that he can disprove God. But why not take it all the way? Can the logical naturalist-agnostic believe that anything is true?

On the other hand, if one believes in God, one suddenly finds that the windows of explanation open wide: “In the beginning was the Word…” Only something beyond the world can explain the world. Thanks be to God, who gives light our own minds and to the world.

Theism, agnosticism, naturalism, atheism etc are all just generalizations. You’re overthinking things. Let me ask you this, are you agnostic about the existence of unicorns? Let me know why, and I’ll repeat the answer to you to answer why I’m agnostic about God.

 

[seductus_sum]

liquidpele, I fear you have missed my point.

I do not think that agnosticism about God or unicorns is unreasonable, and I tried to say so in my original post. I was trying to make the point that believing something is absolutely true is difficult within a logical-evidence-only-naturalistic framework, and that a solely logical approach for the naturalist leads to extreme consequences which they seem to forget more often than not.

If someone wants to believe that they can know nothing for sure (which I suggest is the only truly consistent conclusion for naturalistic logic) then so be it–but, as C.S. Lewis wrote, he must then live that way. And who does? Who can?

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele, I fear you have missed my point.

I do not think that agnosticism about God or unicorns is unreasonable, and I tried to say so in my original post. I was trying to make the point that believing something is absolutely true is difficult within a logical-evidence-only-naturalistic framework, and that a solely logical approach for the naturalist leads to extreme consequences which they seem to forget more often than not.

If someone wants to believe that they can know nothing for sure (which I suggest is the only truly consistent conclusion for naturalistic logic) then so be it–but, as C.S. Lewis wrote, he must then live that way. And who does? Who can?

That’s why I said those classes were generalizations. No one can be perfect in respect to their goals, but we can try. Besides, humans are notoriously hypocritical. Being agnostic doesn’t suddenly change that fact. In essence, you are correct that someone that demands proof for something should be consistent and require it for everything, but that is not reasonable or expected just because it’s impossible due to information and time constraints. We take a lot for granted in this world, agnostics simply took the time to look critically at religion instead of their carbon footprint or other issues. What people decide to try and verify just depends on their preferences and the seriousness/extravagance of the claim.

 

[seductus_sum]

That’s why I said those classes were generalizations.

I am sorry, but I still do not know what you mean by this. what does those classes being generalization have to do with your point? I think I am missing something…

No one can be perfect in respect to their goals, but we can try. Besides, humans are notoriously hypocritical. Being agnostic doesn’t suddenly change that fact.

Good point and well said.

In essence, you are correct that someone that demands proof for something should be consistent and require it for everything, but that is not reasonable or expected just because it’s impossible due to information and time constraints. We take a lot for granted in this world, agnostics simply took the time to look critically at religion instead of their carbon footprint or other issues. What people decide to try and verify just depends on their preferences and the seriousness/extravagance of the claim.

Is this not dodging the issue? It really seems like what you have said here amounts to “Well, I SHOULD have to get evidence for everything, but who has the time for that? How is such a thing even POSSIBLE?!” If a theist must offer a convincing argument, then so must the naturalist… and I am afraid that “there isn’t enough time” just doesn’t cut it.

The problem is that at a fundamental level a naturalist must make a huge leap of faith to avoid the issues raised above, to “take a lot for granted.” Thus the logical/philosophical position of a naturalist starts to look a lot like that of a theist. Both must believe in SOMETHING (or, as I said above, a whole range of things) without absolutely convincing evidence.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Theism, agnosticism, naturalism, atheism etc are all just generalizations. You’re overthinking things. Let me ask you this, are you agnostic about the existence of unicorns? Let me know why, and I’ll repeat the answer to you to answer why I’m agnostic about God.

Your agnostic about God because you like being agnostic? Am i correct?

 

[Spock]

It is very unwise of me to engage in a new conversation, since I already participate in too many. But, what the heck, it is just time.

Incipiam. Let’s start with one unassailable fact: “Cogito, ergo sum”. (If I would leave out the “g”, it would be even more profound. ) There can be no doubt about one’s own existence. It would be foolish to ask: “But how do you know that you exist?”.

That being established, we can think about our surroundings. Is there an external world, or is everything my imagination? The solipsist asserts that there is no external world, everything is his imagination. It can easily be refuted, by asking the solipstist to imagine that there is a hot iron in front of him, and that touching the iron will not hurt him - then present that hot iron. If he touches it, he will feel pain, no matter how hard he tries to imagine that there is no pain. Of course the solipsist immediately refutes his own position, if he opens his mouth and starts to talk.

So we can establish that there is an external world, which exists independently from us. Now what can we know about this world? We can hypothesize and experiment, and verify our hypotheses. If we imagine that we can draw nutrition by drinking acid, and experiment, then we die - and the lack of “cogito ergo sum” will assure us of that fact.

Our continued existence is the method, which will validate the result of our experiments. Of course this is not a deductive method, rather an inductive one. To use deduction only one needs an arbitrary set of axioms. Induction always contains the possibility that we overlooked something, that our hypotheses are incorrect. That is why the naturalist will never assert to “know” anything, rather states that according to the best of our information, the hypothesis presented is consistent with our observation. He will also admit, that the knowledge is provisional, it is subject to re-evaluation, should new information arrive.

The currently accumulated “knowledge” is vast. It can be used as a reliable ground for expanding it. As long as we survive, our hypotheses are mostly correct.

This is in dire contradiction with the theist’s foundation. It does not rely on evidence, moreover, if the evidence points in the “wrong” direction, it is explained away, and rejected as incorrect. Example is the assumption of God’s goodness. We associate “goodness” with being helpful, with taking care of those who are in need, by protecting the weak against the strong. God manifestly does not do any of these. Yet, God’s goodness is never disputed, the evidence to the contrary is explained away, by stipulating that “God knows best”, or the existence in this world is irrelvant, or that free will is more important, and God had to compromize. In other words, it is based on a few axioms, and faith. If the facts contradict faith, then it is too bad for the facts.

Quick disclaimer: I do not want to go into the subject of God’s goodness. I merely used it as an example of the theist’s foundation.

 

[liquidpele]

I am sorry, but I still do not know what you mean by this. what does those classes being generalization have to do with your point? I think I am missing something…

Good point and well said.

Is this not dodging the issue? It really seems like what you have said here amounts to “Well, I SHOULD have to get evidence for everything, but who has the time for that? How is such a thing even POSSIBLE?!” If a theist must offer a convincing argument, then so must the naturalist… and I am afraid that “there isn’t enough time” just doesn’t cut it.

The problem is that at a fundamental level a naturalist must make a huge leap of faith to avoid the issues raised above, to “take a lot for granted.” Thus the logical/philosophical position of a naturalist starts to look a lot like that of a theist. Both must believe in SOMETHING (or, as I said above, a whole range of things) without absolutely convincing evidence.

My point about generalizations was that each individual person beliefs slightly different things. I suppose I was making the “well duh” point that your definitions and argument will only apply to a certain percentage of the group you mention.

Did you do scientific analysis on your lunch yesterday to determine it was safe? Are you checking the air you currently breath to ensure there is not Carbon Monoxide there? Did you get in your car and drive without checking that the breaks were functional? What about a homeless man asking for change, did you assume he was lying about needing bus fair? Do you believe things your significant other, or friends, tell you or do you demand proof for everything?

My point is that 99.9% of things and information we simply accept or assume, and it is unreasonable to call for someone to request evidence for everything. You’re right that it’s dodging the question, because the question is loaded. It demands something that is irrational. What if I told you that Christians should be acting like Christ 100% of the time or else they can’t call themselves Christian? That bar is infinitely high, and we are finite creatures. This is why people demand proof only at their whims, in relation to things they choose to care about and investigate further. Religion might be one, and it might not be.

 

[geometer]

This is in dire contradiction with the theist’s foundation. It does not rely on evidence, moreover, if the evidence points in the “wrong” direction, it is explained away, and rejected as incorrect. Example is the assumption of God’s goodness. We associate “goodness” with being helpful, with taking care of those who are in need, by protecting the weak against the strong. God manifestly does not do any of these. Yet, God’s goodness is never disputed, the evidence to the contrary is explained away, by stipulating that “God knows best”, or the existence in this world is irrelvant, or that free will is more important, and God had to compromize. In other words, it is based on a few axioms, and faith. If the facts contradict faith, then it is too bad for the facts.

Quick disclaimer: I do not want to go into the subject of God’s goodness. I merely used it as an example of the theist’s foundation.

You have described a complete delusion. You claim that you know the foundation. Why do you even bother?

Belief in God is founded in experience. Why do you believe that anything less could be its foundation.

Someone who knows God through experience, does not have to pretend to know things beyond his experience, and neither does the atheist.

 

[geometer]

There absolutely nothing wrong with an atheist or agnostic asking for evidence of the existence of God. But it is a total waste of time, unless they appeal directly to God.

God will provide the evidence…

 

[Spock]

Belief in God is founded in experience. Why do you believe that anything less could be its foundation.

What experience? I never had such experience. And how does the claimant decide if the experience is valid, or just a delusion?

 

[geometer]

What experience? I never had such experience. And how does the claimant decide if the experience is valid, or just a delusion?

Look if you need epistemological certainty from God, you need to ask him. If you have no experience of God, you have not really desired that experience. Most people call on God for the first time when they are under stress, but he can also respond to you simply because you truly desire his response.

It seems that your life has been rather uneventful, it that the case?

 

[seductus_sum]

Let’s start with one unassailable fact: “Cogito, ergo sum”. (If I would leave out the “g”, it would be even more profound. ) There can be no doubt about one’s own existence. It would be foolish to ask: “But how do you know that you exist?”.

That being established, we can think about our surroundings. Is there an external world, or is everything my imagination? The solipsist asserts that there is no external world, everything is his imagination. It can easily be refuted, by asking the solipstist to imagine that there is a hot iron in front of him, and that touching the iron will not hurt him - then present that hot iron. If he touches it, he will feel pain, no matter how hard he tries to imagine that there is no pain. Of course the solipsist immediately refutes his own position, if he opens his mouth and starts to talk.

So we can establish that there is an external world, which exists independently from us.

I agree that the naturalist can think that he himself does exist. As you say, a famous Latin saying comes to the rescue (yet again). So, I will revise the title of my post: “Can the logical naturalistic-atheist believe that more than one thing is true?”

The problem is when he tries to make the jump to the outside world. His evidence for the existence of himself was his own solid experience, an experience which itself eliminates all possible counter arguments. But all other evidence (as far as I can imagine) will have the *possibility *of being countered by a reasonable argument. Therefore, the logical naturalistic-agnostic cannot believe that anything is true, only that it is **probable **(and you did say this, I will get to it soon).

Even the evidence you cite in defense of the external world can be countered by a reasonable argument. It is possible that I am the only thing that exists and that my experience of the external world is merely generated by a part of myself that is unknown to me. Moreover, I have direct experience of parts of myself that are unknown to me, especially my emotions and desires. Where do those come from if not from somewhere within me? The same place whence comes the projection of the world, my wife, and hot iron, perhaps? This part of myself is not the imagination, as your example seems to assume. Rather, it is completely separate from the imagination and acts without my willing it. Therefore, my interaction with the external world and my ability to garner useful evidence is unsure at best, false at worst. So, I must take a leap of faith to interact with the external world as a source of useful evidence.

then we die - and the lack of “cogito ergo sum” will assure us of that fact

.

Will it, now? Do we stop thinking when we die? What an assumption!! But this is a topic for another thread.

Induction always contains the possibility that we overlooked something, that our hypotheses are incorrect. That is why the naturalist will never assert to “know” anything, rather states that according to the best of our information, the hypothesis presented is consistent with our observation. He will also admit, that the knowledge is provisional, it is subject to re-evaluation, should new information arrive.

This is best thing I have seen written on this issue by a non-theist in a long time. I think you have basically said here what I repeated above. Yes, the naturalist must always approach his knowledge with skepticism and with the ability to change his opinion if new evidence arises. I guess I myself was skeptical that such faithful naturalists still existed. The problem I see is that many many atheists/agnostics/naturalists/I-Don’t-Know-What-What-Those-Words-Mean-But-It-Is-Popular-Not-To-Believe-In-God-Nowadays-People do not argue with belief in God having this mindset. They believe that they can disprove God with natural evidence, which is nonsense, instead of merely rendering God improbable.

I am totally fine as a Christian saying that I only believe that God is true because of faith, not because of natural evidence. But the naturalist must say something quite similar, namely, that his belief that the external world is true is based on a faith of the external world. And all of his conclusions must be prefaced with “all of the evidence seems to suggest that…” But where is the fun in that case?

Anyways, Spock, I see no problem with the latter part of your reasoning. I suppose I am just longing for more Bertrand Russell’s in the world who are honest about what they can say they know and don’t know. It seems you might fit the bill.

 

[seductus_sum]

And how does the claimant decide if the experience is valid, or just a delusion?

EXACTLY! But the naturalist is stuck here too (see my last post).

 

[seductus_sum]

Did you do scientific analysis on your lunch yesterday to determine it was safe? Are you checking the air you currently breath to ensure there is not Carbon Monoxide there? Did you get in your car and drive without checking that the breaks were functional? What about a homeless man asking for change, did you assume he was lying about needing bus fair? Do you believe things your significant other, or friends, tell you or do you demand proof for everything?

My personal reason for believing most of the things mention (and other things like them) is that I believe in the Christian God who would not allow me to be so deceived. And my trust in others is based on my trust in God.

My point is that 99.9% of things and information we simply accept or assume, and it is unreasonable to call for someone to request evidence for everything. You’re right that it’s dodging the question, because the question is loaded. It demands something that is irrational.

I was not asking for the naturalist to give evidence for everything. But I was trying to get him to understand that according to his own system of understanding the world he requires natural evidence for everything, and that therefore naturalists more often than not end up being untrue to themselves.

What if I told you that Christians should be acting like Christ 100% of the time or else they can’t call themselves Christian?

I do believe that Christians should act like Christians 100% of the time, lest they end up being untrue to themselves.

 

[liquidpele]

I do believe that Christians should act like Christians 100% of the time, lest they end up being untrue to themselves.

And how many do you know that do? That’s my main point. Criticizing people for not holding to their beliefs is easy, but holding to your own is much harder. And that’s just with the generalizations… most Christians would likely disagree about how Jesus would act in modern day world situations, as would naturalists disagree on what needs more evidence and what doesn’t.

I do get your point. I suppose my point is just saying that your end conclusions made from it are unreasonable given the limitations and nature of humanity and the complexity of the ideas and information.

 

[Spock]

My apologies to all… I don’t have a long enough access to a comp to answer the posts. Hopefully sooon I will.

Spock

 

[Spock]

Look if you need epistemological certainty from God, you need to ask him. If you have no experience of God, you have not really desired that experience. Most people call on God for the first time when they are under stress, but he can also respond to you simply because you truly desire his response.

It seems that your life has been rather uneventful, it that the case?

So it is my fault? It sounds like some assertion of new-agers, who say that if I am ill, then I wanted to be ill, and to overcome cancer (for example) is to “love” myself more, and genuinely desire to get better…

Uneventful? Hardly. But I solved my problems, and when I could not solve some, I accepted it, and stopped worrying about it.

 

[Spock]

I agree that the naturalist can think that he himself does exist. As you say, a famous Latin saying comes to the rescue (yet again). So, I will revise the title of my post: “Can the logical naturalistic-atheist believe that more than one thing is true?”

The problem is when he tries to make the jump to the outside world. His evidence for the existence of himself was his own solid experience, an experience which itself eliminates all possible counter arguments. But all other evidence (as far as I can imagine) will have the *possibility *of being countered by a reasonable argument. Therefore, the logical naturalistic-agnostic cannot believe that anything is true, only that it is **probable **(and you did say this, I will get to it soon).

Even the evidence you cite in defense of the external world can be countered by a reasonable argument. It is possible that I am the only thing that exists and that my experience of the external world is merely generated by a part of myself that is unknown to me. Moreover, I have direct experience of parts of myself that are unknown to me, especially my emotions and desires. Where do those come from if not from somewhere within me? The same place whence comes the projection of the world, my wife, and hot iron, perhaps? This part of myself is not the imagination, as your example seems to assume. Rather, it is completely separate from the imagination and acts without my willing it. Therefore, my interaction with the external world and my ability to garner useful evidence is unsure at best, false at worst. So, I must take a leap of faith to interact with the external world as a source of useful evidence.

.

Will it, now? Do we stop thinking when we die? What an assumption!! But this is a topic for another thread.

This is best thing I have seen written on this issue by a non-theist in a long time. I think you have basically said here what I repeated above. Yes, the naturalist must always approach his knowledge with skepticism and with the ability to change his opinion if new evidence arises. I guess I myself was skeptical that such faithful naturalists still existed. The problem I see is that many many atheists/agnostics/naturalists/I-Don’t-Know-What-What-Those-Words-Mean-But-It-Is-Popular-Not-To-Believe-In-God-Nowadays-People do not argue with belief in God having this mindset. They believe that they can disprove God with natural evidence, which is nonsense, instead of merely rendering God improbable.

I am totally fine as a Christian saying that I only believe that God is true because of faith, not because of natural evidence. But the naturalist must say something quite similar, namely, that his belief that the external world is true is based on a faith of the external world. And all of his conclusions must be prefaced with “all of the evidence seems to suggest that…” But where is the fun in that case?

Anyways, Spock, I see no problem with the latter part of your reasoning. I suppose I am just longing for more Bertrand Russell’s in the world who are honest about what they can say they know and don’t know. It seems you might fit the bill.

This is the nicest post I have received in a long time. Thank you very much!

Now what we could talk about is the level of evidence which we use to accept some of our hypotheses as “properly” founded. It is a very subjective matter, the same amount of evidence is sufficient for some, and insufficient for others. Also we could talk about the nature of direct evidence, and the indirect evidence.

 

[seductus_sum]

I do get your point. I suppose my point is just saying that your end conclusions made from it are unreasonable given the limitations and nature of humanity and the complexity of the ideas and information.

My only real conclusion, I think, was to say that the naturalist cannot approach a discussion with, “I know for a fact that what I think about everything is true.” He must always start with, “The evidence seems to suggest that…” It was an objection against a certain attitude that I have seen lately, I suppose. Some naturalists are dogmatic in their beliefs, but their worldview does not afford them this luxury. As a naturalist, one can only say “I exist” with 100% confidence; everything else is conjecture based on limited evidence.

And where’s the fun in that?