Gnostic Atheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samwise21
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
I think I might correct this to saying that there are many supra-rational concepts in Catholicism. Or meta-rational.

It would be a mistake to call the dogma of the Trinity non-rational.

It is rational, it just goes beyond rationality, or transcends it.

Thus, supra-rational.
Click to expand...
Right. It’s fine if God is a strict super-set of reason. It is not fine if God contradicts reasoning.
 
reggieM said:
What is the origin of all contingent reality (the universe, the multiverse, all things)?
Click to expand...
To answer that we need to clarify which meaning of “contingent” do you have in mind. The colloquial meaning which says that some external cause is needed for the existence of something? Or that the universe is not a logical necessity?

Of course, for me this is an irrelevant question. As I said, for the atheists the universe is a metaphysical primary (another philosophical “buzzword”), meaning that the universe does not need explanation. The question of “origin” is just as meaningless as asking “what is outside the universe”, or “what existed before the universe came into being”? You could ask equally incorrectly: “what exists to the north from the North Pole?” or “what exists on the other side of the Mobius strip?” or “what is the taste of middle ‘C’ as manifested in the color ‘green’?”

Just because a question is syntactically correct, it does mean that it is semantically meaningful.
reggieM said:
First, that consideration is a major problem for materialist-atheism, and it basically refutes scientism.
Click to expand...
Why would it be a problem? And no self-respecting and rational atheist subscribes to this nonsensical idea of “scientism”. Scientism is an incorrect representation of “empiricism”. It is supposed to mean that every meaningful question about reality can only be answered by the scientific method. Only an idiot would assert that questions in mathematical problems can be decided empirically. Also the subjective questions about reality (“which picture is beautiful?”) are not even entertained by a rational person.

The rest of your points I will only answer if and when we can agree that the “first cause argument” is invalidated by the existence of uncaused events coming from free will. Otherwise we cannot have a common platform.
 
JapaneseKappa said:
Only if you tried to claim that each leaf was identically the same thing as the whole clover.
Click to expand...
:hmmm:

No metaphor is perfect, and all the less perfect when trying to grasp the mind of God which admittedly is beyond complete grasping. The finite cannot grasp the Infinite except by analogy.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
The rest of your points I will only answer if and when we can agree that the “first cause argument” is invalidated by the existence of uncaused events coming from free will. Otherwise we cannot have a common platform.
Click to expand...
No, I can’t agree that events coming from human free will are uncaused.
When you arrive at the fork in the road, which way to you choose?
The free will decision at that point comes from deliberation, consideration, comparison, reflection - acts of the human intellect,which drive the human will to make a decision.
These are all parts of a long causal chain.
We posit an uncaused cause as the beginning of that causal chain.
 
reggieM said:
No, I can’t agree that events coming from human free will are uncaused.
When you arrive at the fork in the road, which way to you choose?
The free will decision at that point comes from deliberation, consideration, comparison, reflection - acts of the human intellect,which drive the human will to make a decision.
These are all parts of a long causal chain.
Click to expand...
Ouch. I did not say that the “events” coming out of our decision process are uncaused. Of course they are caused by our decisions.

Again, we need to clarify. “Free” and “undetermined” are synonyms. “Caused” and “determined” are synonyms. “Influenced” is NOT the same as “determined”.

Let me use your example. When we get to that fork, we do all that your mentioned, deliberation, consideration, comparison, reflection, and a whole lot of other things. Those are part of other causative chains. But when it comes to the actual decision making, that decision is influenced but not determined. So a brand new causal chain starts with the new decision. So the concept of “uncaused” events is not problematic at all.
reggieM said:
We posit an uncaused cause as the beginning of that causal chain.
Click to expand...
Sorry, don’t understand. What is your referent of the “that” in “that causal chain”?
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
“Free” and “undetermined” are synonyms. “Caused” and “determined” are synonyms. “Influenced” is NOT the same as “determined”.
Click to expand...
I would say that there are conditions which influence your determination.

For example: Do I put a jacket on when I go to the corner shop? There are conditions (it’s cold and wet) which influence my decision making (do I want to stay warm and dry) which then determines my action (I want to stay warm and dry so I put my jacket on).

You cannot make a determination without something having an effect on your decision making process. That is, without something influencing you one way or the other. There is a causal link between conditions, influence and determination.

If the conditions are identical, then the influences will be the same and so will be your determination. How could it be any different?
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
But when it comes to the actual decision making, that decision is influenced but not determined.
Click to expand...
An act of the will is something determined by the intellect. The is free to choose and therefore direct or cause the will to choose.
The intellect has the capability of freedom but intellectual processes are caused by the person. There are no uncaused causes here. Even if one were to grant that there is a difference between a choice that was determined by reason and one influenced by reason - they are both contingent on a prior causal chain. They cannot exist without prior causes.
Additionally, you didn’t like the term scientism, but it’s another word for materialst reductionism. Very prominent atheist express belief in that view.
I’ve mentioned “The Atheist’s Guide to Reality” – it explains that everything is reducible to physics, so ultimately bosons and fermions. Everything is determined by physical laws, energy, matter.
You are positing something that is uncaused by physics - something non-reducible.
That’s fine but you would have to either assert its existence - a faith-based proposition, or have some kind of immaterial cause that created it.
Sorry, don’t understand. What is your referent of the “that” in “that causal chain”?
Click to expand...
“That” is the process of a human being creating the entity (your term) that is a free-will decision. It emerged from a human being, the existence of which was caused by something else.
 
Bradski said:
If the conditions are identical, then the influences will be the same and so will be your determination. How could it be any different?
Click to expand...
First, I agree that conditions are the influencer on the decision. When we make the free-will choice, we use our intellect and we direct our will to determine the choice. That can be influenced by conditions, habits and even random factors. And some decisions are more conscious than others.

But I disagree that we could ever have identical conditions in making a decision (just given the changing sequence of time, and prior experience and learning).
But even if we could, hypothetically – we are capable of reasoning differently even if the conditions were the same. This would yield a different choice.
As I see it, that’s what free-will is. it is influenced by conditions but not determined by them. It’s actually the freedom of the intellect to choose various options that makes the will free - since the intellect directs the will after reasoning about something.
 
reggieM said:
But I disagree that we could ever have identical conditions in making a decision (just given the changing sequence of time, and prior experience and learning).
But even if we could, hypothetically – we are capable of reasoning differently even if the conditions were the same. This would yield a different choice.
Click to expand...
The identical conditions scenario is just a thought experiment. Appreciate one could never experience exactly the same conditions.

But if you could, you say that you might make a different choice. But there is a reason for every choice. Quite often subconscious. So what you are saying is that decisions you make are either arbitrary or not necessarily the best one under those particular conditions.
 
Bradski said:
So what you are saying is that decisions you make are either arbitrary or not necessarily the best one under those particular conditions.
Click to expand...
Yes to both of those and also - in many cases there is no best decision. It takes discernment but sometimes it could be gut feel or a toss up. We could say, mood, pattern of thought, all external conditions, all memories, all imagination - everything exactly the same then what? Ok, but I think that hypothetical is just saying: “If you replayed a moment in time, like rewinding a DVD, what would happen”? That’s just replicating an exact scenario.
I actually make decisions after praying and seeking the guidance of God. I try to discern which way He wants me to choose. So for me, there’s God’s guidance involved - not determining, but indicating what His Will is in that moment.
 
reggieM said:
Even if one were to grant that there is a difference between a choice that was determined by reason and one influenced by reason - they are both contingent on a prior causal chain.
Click to expand...
Influenced or caused are two different phenomena.
reggieM said:
Additionally, you didn’t like the term scientism, but it’s another word for materialst reductionism. Very prominent atheist express belief in that view.
Click to expand...
I am not “responsible” for the ideas of others. And I definitely deny the simplistic reductionism they might or might not have espoused. Since I have not seen their works, I have no idea what they meant.
reggieM said:
I’ve mentioned “The Atheist’s Guide to Reality” – it explains that everything is reducible to physics, so ultimately bosons and fermions.
Click to expand...
I have not read that book, so I have no opinion. I rather doubt that the writer was unaware of the concept of emerging attributes. Just a simple explanation: The properties of graphite and diamond are very different, even though their molecules are both composed of six carbon atoms. The lack of simple reductionism does not open the door to some “supernatural”. There is nothing supernatural about the arrangement of the 6 carbon atoms, whether they are on the vertices of an octahedron or a flat six-sided hexagon.

The laws of chemistry cannot be reduced to the laws of physics. The laws of biology cannot be reduced to the laws of chemistry. The laws of sociology cannot be reduced to the laws of biology… etc.
reggieM said:
Everything is determined by physical laws, energy, matter.
Click to expand...
Maybe you are not aware that NOT ALL physical laws are deterministic, some are stochastic. One example would be the second law of thermodynamics. And maybe you did not consider the so-called emergent attributes, which explain the non-reducible properties without considering something “supernatural”.
reggieM said:
You are positing something that is uncaused by physics - something non-reducible.

That’s fine but you would have to either assert its existence - a faith-based proposition, or have some kind of immaterial cause that created it.
Click to expand...
The arrangement of the six carbon atoms is “immaterial”. 🙂
reggieM said:
“That” is the process of a human being creating the entity (your term) that is a free-will decision. It emerged from a human being, the existence of which was caused by something else.
Click to expand...
Ok. But the actions of a child are NOT determined by the actions of the parents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top