Gnostic Atheism

[JapaneseKappa]

Well, there is the double-slit experiment where one photon will appear as if it is two photons acting independently. There are other physical paradoxes (google “quantum paradox”).

I’m sure, if you’ve read any of the quantum paradox articles, you will have already encountered the answer. Specifically, when science gets information that, when understood through existing theories, results in a contradiction they first acknowledge there is indeed a problem. Then, two things happen:

1. They question the information.
2. They question their theories.

Scientists aren’t in the practice of defining things into existence, in the way that theologians do. If scientists need to change how they define “particles” and “waves” in order to resolve a contradiction with new information, they don’t have a crisis of faith; they get excited because they have an opportunity to learn something new. Science is not the set of theories and definitions themselves, science is the process of refining our theories and definitions.

Feser can’t do either of those things because religion has “locked him in” to certain theories and information. If he were to try to pick and choose his own information and theories, people would accuse him of being a cafeteria catholic. And since he can’t question the premises that result in the contradiction (the way scientists can) his only recourse is the awkward and squirming appeal to mystery we saw in his blog post.

But more importantly, I have to agree with your original contention in many ways. I don’t think Mr. Feser should have brought the topic of the Blessed Trinity into his site devoted to philosophy. Philosophy is the study of the world using human reason alone. With logic, guys like Feser seek to establish the categorical certainty you mention. Yes, I think he made a big mistake with this. Because the Trinity is the subject of religion. It is a supernatural phenomenon. We only know of the Trinity through divine revelation given by Jesus. Those kinds of truths are meant for Theology (and Feser is not a theologian anyway). To try to analyze the Trinity using Philosophical tools ends up with the mess that you rightly pointed out.

I strongly disagree with your characterization of the relationship between philosophy, theology and logic. You don’t get to just say “well logic and philosophy don’t apply” by invoking supernatural phenomena. If that were really the case, then philosophy could never hope to accomplish step #1 in your 4-step program.

The correct or more ordinary way to proceed is:

1. First, a person uses philosophy to understand the rational arguments for the existence of God.
2. Once those are accepted (including arguments for a personal God), then the study of Revelation can show Jesus as a unique, Divine incarnation giving teachings about God.
3. After this, we see Jesus established a Church with the divine authority to explain and codify the doctrrine of God in an infallible manner - given from heaven.
4. Only after all of this, can we talk about the Trinity (definitions defined in Council).

Some people can skip some of those steps. Perhaps they read the Gospel and discover that Jesus is divine - they don’t have to go step by step from atheism through the philosophical arguments.

But again, I would agree that Mr. Feser - in trying to say that the Trinity is compatible with human reason - makes it seem like we supposedly could use philosophy to understand the Trinity, which we can’t.

I invite you to re-read what you just wrote. It sounds an awful lot to me like you are saying that the normal course of action is:

1. Philosophy is only useful to prove that God exists and has certain properties.
2. Once philosophy convinces someone God exists, that person should slowly stop philia-ing sophia and pick whatever religion is the most popular.
3. Once they’re invested enough in that religion, then they can be presented with the really philosophically problematic teachings.

Now I’m not disagreeing with you; I do think that your steps are how people normally think conversions will go. All I’d like to do is drive an is/ought wedge. That is to say, just because people do follow your 4 step plan, doesn’t mean that they should (or are correct in doing so.)

However - given all of that, I also would not say that Feser’s arguments, as confused as they may be, are grounds to conclude that the Christian God cannot exist.
As I said, simply saying that there is a paradox in understanding means that you would expect no paradoxes even in material reality, but they do exist.

I do not believe that Feser is confused. He is simply backed into a corner. As I said originally, I believe the doctrine of the trinity is grounds for denying the logical possibility of the Catholic God. I am only “picking on Feser” because his blog post is unusually candid. Most other treatments of the trinity employ a kind of Gish Gallop approach, where they invoke a dozen different concepts, half of which have super imprecise definitions and obscure names, and the other half have everyday names but have been temporarily imbued with a bunch of unusual nuance.

Essentially my argument is: Feser does understand the teachings on the Trinity, and if you took the time to wade through the swamp of other literature on the Trinity, you would end up concluding that Feser has correctly summarized the core church position.

If you believe that it is possible for logical contradictions/paradoxes to exist, then your #1 step can never succeed. Any non-believer can always simply say “sure, it might be a logical contradiction for stuff to exist without God, but they do anyway (since logical contradictions can exist.)”

 

[minkymurph]

But then we could say that about an iPhone just a few hundred years ago. It’s working but we can’t identify how it is working, we have no scientific understanding of it nor of the laws of nature under which it works. I’d say that you’d get 100% agreement on it being supernatural. And a lot of people would put it down to God.

Yes, if you went back in a time machine and showed people an iphone, they would be blown away and probably say it was supernatural. I did say every event perceived as supernatural is in the majority of case accompanied by a rational explanation. People put lots of thing down God that may in fact have nothing to do with God. My personal view of this, and it is a personal view, I don’t think God directly intervenes in human affairs very often. Rather, what I think He does is guide us in terms of finding the solution to the problems ourselves. The reason I say that is many times in the past I have prayed to God and thought He did not answer. In hindsight I now know the answer was right in front of me all the time, and within my own capacity. I either just didn’t see it, or it was not the answer I wanted.

But, hey…we know better now. We know that if there’s something that has no apparent explanation, we don’t assume the supernatural. We just say: ‘Nope, no idea how THAT happened. And we may never know. But we’re working on it…’…

So what’s wrong with that? Who knows everything? A very talented clinician once said to me the more we learn the more we realize we don’t know. Once we know everything, there will be even more to learn.

If God exists, then so do devils and demons, ghosts, dead people making appearances, talking trees, resurrection from the dead, angels, magic…nothing is off the table. It would be as if CGI had crossed over into real life.

Why?

Why does there have to a devil if there is a God? You once said to me in dialogue something like if there is one legacy you would hand on to your children it is question everything. I’m questioning why this is compulsory. And - why it compulsory to believe trees to have the capacity to talk if there was a God?

 

[reggieM]

Thanks for taking the time with a detailed response, JK. I appreciate this discussion.

If scientists need to change how they define “particles” and “waves” in order to resolve a contradiction with new information, they don’t have a crisis of faith; they get excited because they have an opportunity to learn something new. Science is not the set of theories and definitions themselves, science is the process of refining our theories and definitions.

That’s fine but the point I was making is:

1. There are things in reality, that we observe, which are paradoxical. They are logically inconsistent. There are things in physics, biology, science of the mind, and in our own lives and relationships. (You either agree or not here).
2. Just because something is, in fact, a paradox or illogical - it does not follow that the thing does not exist. On what basis must we accept that all of reality should conform to strict logic? Why is that necessary and how would you prove that to be true? (You can’t use logic to prove that everything must conform to logic - that would be circular).

Feser can’t do either of those things because religion has “locked him in” to certain theories and information.

I think I showed some “locking” in your view. First, are you saying that empirical science is the only means of knowledge we can use to understand reality? If so, that is illogical.

If he were to try to pick and choose his own information and theories, people would accuse him of being a cafeteria catholic. And since he can’t question the premises that result in the contradiction (the way scientists can) his only recourse is the awkward and squirming appeal to mystery we saw in his blog post.

I disagree here. I don’t think he is picking and choosing information and theories, but rather he is applying the wrong category of knowledge to the topic. But that follows with your objection below.

I strongly disagree with your characterization of the relationship between philosophy, theology and logic. You don’t get to just say “well logic and philosophy don’t apply” by invoking supernatural phenomena. If that were really the case, then philosophy could never hope to accomplish step #1 in your 4-step program.

This is an important area of disagreement but it might just be a misunderstanding in how the argument is ordered.
I am not saying that “this method doesn’t apply” simply be invoking various phenomena.
I’m saying “this method, by definition, is limited to some things”. If we find something that goes beyond the self-described limits to that method, then the method obviously doesn’t apply.
Philosophy is a method that is limited to what human reason (through logic and rational conclusions) can evaluate.
Theology is the study of God via Divine Revelations. That is, teachings that are claimed to come directly from God. These, by their nature, transcend what human reason could deduce. A person cannot study or understand theology and at the same time insist that God does not exist. Theology requires faith as a starting point. Philosophy does not.

1. Philosophy is only useful to prove that God exists and has certain properties.
2. Once philosophy convinces someone God exists, that person should slowly stop philia-ing sophia and pick whatever religion is the most popular.
3. Once they’re invested enough in that religion, then they can be presented with the really philosophically problematic teachings.

On point 1.
Philosophy has other uses, but they are confined to what human reason can deduce. The data for philosophy comes from observations and rational processes. When dealing with God, yes - philosophy has limits. Just as physical science has limits. Philosophy can give arguments to show that a supernatural world exists. In fact, the term supernatural is a philosophical term. However, philosophy cannot arrive at conclusions regarding teachings that have been revealed by God. For example, Moses asked God what His name is. God said “I am, Who am”. Philosophy can remark that this name is consistent with “Fullness of Being” - which is a rational conclusion about God. But Philosophy could never have determined that “God’s name is …” whatever. The same is true of the Trinity or the Divinity of Christ. These are truths that have been revealed by heaven to mankind. That is what theology studies - various texts that have come from God. If a person does not believe the text is divine, then the text is meaningless. Philosophy provides no help at all with that.
On point 2.
Of course, I didn’t say pick what is most popular. But yes, once we reach the limits of what human reason can deduce about God, we must go beyond philosophy. The revelation that Christ gave, is not something that could be arrived at through logical deductions alone. Logic can evaluate what Christ said about God. But when we talk about a God who transcends human knowledge, space, time, power and being itself – human reason is limited. Humans did not create themselves. Humans did not create the universe. Humans are dependent beings - dependent on other things for existence. All of this is a limitation on the kind of knowledge we can possess. Knowledge that directly comes from God can be had in no other way. Only God can reveal those things. Philosophy and science cannot help. Yes, we can phila - sophia, but it’s a different kind of knowledge. It’s not the knowledge of logical syllogisms, but the knowledge that is infused directly into the world by God.
Regarding the most popular religion: Part of the evidence required in discovering God are the questions: “Why are these religions most popular? What do they have in common? What are their histories?”

 

[reggieM]

As I said originally, I believe the doctrine of the trinity is grounds for denying the logical possibility of the Catholic God.

Ok, but keep in mind my follow-up question: Why should belief in God necessarily require a completely logical approach? Catholicism attempts to show some high degree of rational and logical consistency. Other religions don’t. Religious experience is considered enough. Or simply religious authority supported by miracles or capabilities of the teacher. Why are these methods false or wrong in supporting the existence of God? In other words, you have chosen logic as your method of undrerstanding if God exists - but I asked before, what made you think that an understanding of God would conform completely to logic? Aspects of the universe itself are incomprehensible in terms of logic. Why should God be different.

I am only “picking on Feser” because his blog post is unusually candid. Most other treatments of the trinity employ a kind of Gish Gallop approach, where they invoke a dozen different concepts, half of which have super imprecise definitions and obscure names, and the other half have everyday names but have been temporarily imbued with a bunch of unusual nuance.

I don’t agree with Feser so I’m not going to defend or argue against him.

Essentially my argument is: Feser does understand the teachings on the Trinity, and if you took the time to wade through the swamp of other literature on the Trinity, you would end up concluding that Feser has correctly summarized the core church position.

I’ve read much on the Trinity in my many years as a Catholic. Feser and those like him, offer one method (that of Aristotle). There are many other methods used. Feser’s approach (while from Greek philosophy) is a Western Christian view. Eastern Christianity does not use that method.
I’ll restate - Analysis, evaluation, description, attempts at understanding the Trinity - have to start from a Faith perspective. It’s an entirely revealed doctrine. It does not come from philosophy or science – human knowledge. It comes from God.
If a person does not believe God exists - there is no sense in talking about or trying to understand the Trinity. A person must believe that there is some kind of immaterial plane, and that there is a Being who can and does communicate Himself to humanity. If that is not accepted, obviously, nothing about the Trinity can be accepted because the Trinity comes entirely from God and the supernatural world.

If you believe that it is possible for logical contradictions/paradoxes to exist, then your #1 step can never succeed. Any non-believer can always simply say “sure, it might be a logical contradiction for stuff to exist without God, but they do anyway (since logical contradictions can exist.)”

This is a great point.
First, you seem to be saying that “if something is a logical contradiction, it cannot exist”. We might call that the Law of Non-Contradiction. But that’s a law of logic. It is not meant to apply to all of reality. But anyway - you do not think there is anything in observed reality which is a paradox - insoluble by logic and inconsistent with reason?
Second, yes - and that is exactly what non-believers do say. But it’s a double-standard.
I already cited one non-believer here who claimed to have an evidence-based approach. Strictly logic. Then, when he needed an argument, he claimed that “some other kind of matter, space or time” could exist somewhere.
That’s a multiverse argument. It’s irrational.
So, we can’t have it both ways.
The Catholic view is that some, enough - of reality, is conformable to human logic and reason for us to draw solid conclusions that God exists.
But we state also that logic is not sufficient for an understanding of all of reality or of the fullness of God - much of which He has revealed.
The Catholic view is “both/and”. Not just logic. Not just blind faith.
But logic and faith. Reasoning and Revelation. Philosophy and belief-based Theology.

 

[Vonsalza]

Sorry Mr. Bradski. Missed this.

So justice can’t be decided by you or me because that would be subjective, but you are quite definite that there should be punishment. Incarceration in this case.

Not quite. Close. But not quite. I am conceding that temporal justice and divine justice are not mutually exclusive of one another. You can have both.

I’m sure you are aware of the three reasons we consider punishment to be suitable. As a deterrent to others, as a means of protecting the public and, here’s the interesting one, retribution. Or to put it another way, vengeance. God may claim it as His own but we mere mortals will have our pound of flesh in this world.

Sure. As carried out by the state.

If you exact your own brand of justice when grievous wrong is done to you and yours, you will continue to post on this site only if your warden gives you access.

I will concede that I understand the tremendous difficulty an atheist may have in trusting justice purely to the oft-erring state. However, it’s simply the best you have.

I actually read a book once where it was recommended. Something about eyes. I forget the exact wording. You’d know it if you saw it.

Excellent, excellent reference, Mr. Bradski. Now who did it say carries out this justice?

So we have and do, and always will, demand and expect justice. You are no different. Nobody defers it on the offchance that God will make the final call.

Again, I didn’t say temporal and divine justice were mutually exclusive. I shall not post a defense as though I did.

Yet you still insist that repentance (and you can define that however you choose) will allow the murderer an eternity of bliss whilst the father, adamant in his anger against God, is committing himself to hell.

No, I’m insisting that God makes the call and that you cannot know if any particular person is in hell.

Sure, we can come up with some non-real polemic example of anything. But when a real Jewish father dies and stands before God in his judgement, only the fool would presume to know how God will weigh him.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

First, you seem to be saying that “if something is a logical contradiction, it cannot exist”. We might call that the Law of Non-Contradiction. But that’s a law of logic. It is not meant to apply to all of reality.

First of all, the laws of logic are NOT directly about reality, they are about the PROPOSITIONS concerning the reality. Of course, they are indirectly about the reality.
If you do not apply the law of identity, you cannot speak of anything at all. If “A” is sometimes “A” and other times it is “B”, no one can know what are you talking about.
If you do not apply the law of non-contradiction, there is no difference between a true and false proposition.
If you do not apply the law of excluded middle then you propose that some proposition can be neither “true” or “not true”, which makes no sense.
Important to realize: propositions can be “true”, “false”, “meaningless” or “un-decidable”. But they can always be subdivided into “true” and “not true” propositions (or “false” and “not-false”, or “meaningful” or “not meaningful”… etc.) - and there is no third option.

As a matter of fact, to try to refute the laws of logic, you need to apply the laws of logic.

But anyway - you do not think there is anything in observed reality which is a paradox - insoluble by logic and inconsistent with reason?

Can you show one? The usual examples, like the Zeno paradox, the matter vs. wave dichotomy or the double slit experiment do not show something that is logically impossible (and yet they “exist”), they merely show the ignorance of those who consider them bona-fide paradoxes. Many times our understanding of the physical world is incomplete, and we make erroneous assumptions about it; like the particle-wave dichotomy.

Again, the propositions about reality (are photons particles or waves) can be incorrect, but that does not make the reality illogical.

I already cited one non-believer here who claimed to have an evidence-based approach. Strictly logic. Then, when he needed an argument, he claimed that “some other kind of matter, space or time” could exist somewhere.
That’s a multiverse argument. It’s irrational.

Well, I am very disappointed. I was hoping that you will quote me correctly. The thought experiment I presented did not violate any law of logic. And it was not a proposition to be verified or falsified. It was simply a proposition that our knowledge of the physical world cannot be considered total or complete, and we are justified to make a “what-if” type of thought experiment. And I cannot emphasize enough, for a thought experiment there is only one requirement, it must be logically coherent. It can be wildly improbable, extremely unlikely, but not logically inconsistent. (By the way, the multi-dimensional assumption is not the same as the multiverse.)

The Catholic view is that some, enough - of reality, is conformable to human logic and reason for us to draw solid conclusions that God exists.

All the attempts to “prove” God’s existence on a strictly logical ground failed. They are only satisfactory for those who already believe that God exists. Of course, if they were successful, then faith would become obsolete - it that respect. Interesting that I read the catechism, and when I found the part, which said that God’s existence can be proven in a strictly rational fashion (no appeal to faith or revelation), I became quite excited. Finally - I thought - I will see the authoritative proof of God’s existence, not like the failed attempts of Aquinas and the other philosophers and theologians. Of course no “details” were forthcoming, it was just another empty claim, like all the other ones.

But we state also that logic is not sufficient for an understanding of all of reality or of the fullness of God - much of which He has revealed.
The Catholic view is “both/and”. Not just logic. Not just blind faith.
But logic and faith. Reasoning and Revelation. Philosophy and belief-based Theology.

Since the strictly rational proof for God’s existence was never forthcoming, the rest just hangs in the air. As a matter of fact I have never seen a comprehensive definition of God, with explanations about the alleged attributes that God is supposed to have.

 

[Vonsalza]

You once said to me in dialogue something like if there is one legacy you would hand on to your children it is question everything. I’m questioning why this is compulsory. And - why it compulsory to believe trees to have the capacity to talk if there was a God?

Verily, I’m on the other side of the planet from him and I STILL heard that lance strike its mark.

I think it was PR who posted “scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist”.

Q-E-D.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

That’s fine but the point I was making is:

1. There are things in reality, that we observe, which are paradoxical.
2. Just because something is, in fact, a paradox or illogical - it does not follow that the thing does not exist. On what basis must we accept that all of reality should conform to strict logic?

This is literally the first time I’ve heard someone propose the possible existence of logically impossible things.

What I’m saying is that in a self-contradictory scenario we should immediately assume that we’re wrong about something, and the existence of the self-contradictory thing is one possible thing we are wrong about. There are places we can be wrong other than existence/nonexistence (e.g. in our evaluation of the evidence, or theoretical interpretation.) What I have done is argued that these areas are not available to Feser (and by extension other Catholics) and so non-existence is the only remaining conclusion.

I think I showed some “locking” in your view. First, are you saying that empirical science is the only means of knowledge we can use to understand reality? If so, that is illogical.

So here we see that Feser’s attempt to distract from the issue was at least partially successful. My criticism of the trinity and conclusion that the trinitarian god can’t exist doesn’t rely on science or empiricism or naturalism, it relies on the simple premise that logically self-contradictory things don’t exist (which I have never heard anyone contradict until this very thread.) Furthermore, Christian theology and naturalism are not a dichotomy. They can both be wrong, and some third philosophical system turn out to be correct. So trying to turn this discussion into a criticism of empiricism/naturalism is merely a red herring.

Your whole digression into scientific paradoxes was an attempt at a tu quoque wherin you want to show that science also asserts logical contradictions exist. I believe that I have sufficiently rebutted that claim by explaining that science does not say

“Everything we have said so far with regards to this logical contradiction is incontrovertibly correct, so logical contradictions really do exist. It’s just a mystery how this can happen.”

Instead, science says:

“The fact that there is a logical contradiction means that something we’ve said up to this point is wrong. We will look for ways to change our theories and interpretation of the evidence such that the contradiction can be resolved. (Of course we will also have to test all the new theories and interpretations once we make them)”

If Feser were to try to copy science’s procedure, instead of invoking mystery he would say:

“The fact that there is a logical contradiction means that something we’ve said up to this point is wrong. We will have to look for a way to change the church’s teachings about the trinity [can’t happen] or reject some of the church’s “raw material” on which they base their pronouncements on the trinity [also can’t happen.] (Of course we’ll have to apply the religious validity test to any new teachings we come up with [there is no such thing.])”

This is an important area of disagreement but it might just be a misunderstanding in how the argument is ordered… Theology requires faith as a starting point. Philosophy does not.

Philosophy is literally the process of thinking carefully about things. If you’re thinking about something, philosophy applies. It very much seems to me that you have confused philosophy with metaphysics (a subset of philosophy.)

(I am not saying that “this method doesn’t apply” simply be invoking various phenomena.) But yes, once we reach the limits of what human reason can deduce about God, we must go beyond philosophy. The revelation that Christ gave, is not something that could be arrived at through logical deductions alone. Logic can evaluate what Christ said about God. But when we talk about a God who transcends human knowledge, space, time, power and being itself – human reason is limited… Philosophy and science cannot help. Yes, we can phila - sophia, but it’s a different kind of knowledge. It’s not the knowledge of logical syllogisms, but the knowledge that is infused directly into the world by God. (I am not saying that “this method doesn’t apply” simply be invoking various phenomena.)

This seems an awfully lot like saying “philosophy/logic doesn’t apply” by invoking God’s transcendence.

Here we actually do have a dichotomy. Either logic applies to God, or it does not. If logic does not apply, then we can’t know anything about God ever, full stop. God could be a deceiver (since any a-priori defense of his goodness and truthfulness would rely on logic and therefore not apply) and therefore no “revealed” truths can ever be relied on either. If logic does apply then his transcendence doesn’t exempt him from logical contradictions.

In discussions with other people I have made the point thusly:

I deny that “the infinity and transcendence of God” is anything other than a get-out-of-jail card. We can reason about infinite things. People have successfully done so. I also believe that your use of “transcendence” is just a way to re-introduce fuzziness. For any apparent contradiction, you will simply say “well God is transcendent, so that contradiction doesn’t apply” without specifying exactly what it is about transcendence that makes it not apply. In my view, it is just a way to disguise the fact that you’re saying “logic doesn’t apply” in order to escape what are plainly contradictions

 

[Vonsalza]

I’ll start by saying that I enjoy your perspective. Thanks for posting.

What I’m saying is that in a self-contradictory scenario we should immediately assume that we’re wrong about something, and the existence of the self-contradictory thing is one possible thing we are wrong about.

I think we have to be certain that the concepts in question are actually self-contradictory - which is surprisingly difficult to do - especially with metaphysical ideas. It’s not a contradiction unless you can first actually show that it is and your proof survives attempts at rejection.

The discussion will usually boil down to semantics and therein you’ll probably be unable to agree on common definitions.

Furthermore, Christian theology and naturalism are not a dichotomy. They can both be wrong, and some third philosophical system turn out to be correct. So trying to turn this discussion into a criticism of empiricism/naturalism is merely a red herring.

Of course they can both be wrong. But it might be prudent to realize that:

1. Religious people admittedly rely on faith. Reminding them where exactly they do so in order to fill the gaps a religion creates from a purely materialistic approach does little to disprove the religion when faith is a given.
2. Materialism itself is an excellent analytical tool. It is, however, not the only one. There are some problems that a “screwdriver” won’t help fix. For a “screw-drivers only” kinda guy (read: materialist), the only option they have would be to insist the problem doesn’t exist when the only tool that would address it would be a socket-wrench.

"The fact that there is a logical contradiction means that something we’ve said up to this point is wrong. We will look for ways to change our theories and interpretation of the evidence such that the contradiction can be resolved.

Quote you provided. Emphasis mine.

Here we actually do have a dichotomy. Either logic applies to God, or it does not.

That’s a solid western approach to philosophical truth. An eastern approach has two more options. I prefer western too, but I see no reason why God, if it exists, is subject to anything if all systemic rules we’re aware of are by that God’s design.

 

[reggieM]

JK, thanks for your respose. I will reply but I just want to validate a few things.

:

1. There are things in reality, that we observe, which are paradoxical. They are logically inconsistent. There are things in physics, biology, science of the mind, and in our own lives and relationships. (You either agree or not here).

Note, I didn’t say there are true syllogisms that are illogical. Note the bold text.
You either agree or not. I believe you’re saying “I have never encountered anything in reality that was paradoxical and is not explained with logic”. Just checking with that.
I offered a google search on quantum paradoxes. That is just one area to look at. I will go there and post scientific papers here if you want. Beyond that, we can talk about determinism and free-will. We can talk about materialistic atheism. We can talk about the origin of the universe. Something coming from nothing. We can talk about an infinite number of universes. We can talk about the mind-brain problem. We can talk about your own personal life. Everything you think, decide and do is always done with perfect logic? You never encounter a situation where the logical thing to do is not necessarily the right thing?
I didn’t see your answers to this.

1. Just because something is, in fact, a paradox or illogical - it does not follow that the thing does not exist. On what basis must we accept that all of reality should conform to strict logic?

Your answer here would be helpful. On what basis.

Why is that necessary and how would you prove that to be true?

How do you prove that your belief above (on the basis) is true? You didn’t answer this.

First, are you saying that empirical science is the only means of knowledge we can use to understand reality? If so, that is illogical.

You didn’t answer that question.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I think we have to be certain that the concepts in question are actually self-contradictory - which is surprisingly difficult to do - especially with metaphysical ideas. It’s not a contradiction unless you can first actually show that it is and your proof survives attempts at rejection.

The discussion will usually boil down to semantics and therein you’ll probably be unable to agree on common definitions.

In this instance I was talking about “scientific self-contradictions” and how they typically do result in the creation of different definitions and semantics that resolve the contradiction.

With respect to the trinity, I have provided a proof of self-contradiction elsewhere:

Here is the heart of the matter, which all the faffing about with relationships fails to resolve, and merely confuses. Let us consider the father (F), the son (S) and God (G).

1. Either there is a respect in which F and S are different, or there is not.
2. Suppose that there is a respect (R) in which F and S are different, and let the difference be characterized by some description “d” such that F is d, while S is not d.
3. Within R, either F is identically the same as G, or F is not identically the same as G.
4. If F is not identically the same as G in R, then we have contradicted a trinitarian requirement (i.e. that F be identically the same as G.)
5. Repeat 3 and 4 with S instead of F
6. Therefore, according to 4 and 5, S and F must both be identically the same as G in R.
7. Therefore, according to 2 and 6, G is both “d” and “not d” in R.
8. 7 is a violation of the law of non-contradiction.
9. Therefore 2 either violates a trinitarian requirement, or is logically impossible.
10. Suppose there does not exist a respect in which F and S are different.
11. 1. is a violation of a trinitarian requirement (i.e. that F and S be different)

and subsequently clarified thusly:

I have already quoted Feser’s explanation of the trinitarian requirements. So let us apply our shorthand to them and once again consider the case of the The Father (F), the The Son (S), and God (G). According to Feser:

When Feser says “F is G” what does he actually mean? It seems to me that he could either mean “F is identical to G in every respect” or he could mean “F is identical to G in some particular respect that I have in mind.”

When Feser says “S is G” what does he actually mean? It seems to me that he could either mean “S is identical to G in every respect” or he could mean “S is identical to G in some particular respect that I have in mind.”

When Feser says “F is not S” what does he actually mean? It seems to me that he could only mean “I have in mind some respect in which F and S are different.”

Now what? Clearly if Feser means “F/S are identical to G in every respect” then we’ve got ourselves a logical contradiction when he says F is not S. It is also clear that we have ourselves a logical contradiction if the respect Feser has in mind is the same for all three assertions. So the only way to avoid the contradiction is to claim that Feser equivocated on “is” by having different respects in mind between assertions 1, 2, and 4.

Of course they can both be wrong. But it might be prudent to realize that:

1. Religious people admittedly rely on faith. Reminding them where exactly they do so in order to fill the gaps a religion creates from a purely materialistic approach does little to disprove the religion when faith is a given.
2. Materialism itself is an excellent analytical tool. It is, however, not the only one. There are some problems that a “screwdriver” won’t help fix. For a “screw-drivers only” kinda guy (read: materialist), the only option they have would be to insist the problem doesn’t exist when the only tool that would address it would be a socket-wrench.

I have elsewhere argued that religion does not provide any alternative to the epistemic method that is science:

Science is an objective epistemic method; it is a means to separate true claims from false ones.

I agree that lumping all religions together isn’t entirely fair, but I think they all have a feature which allows us to reason about them collectively. That feature is: lack of a well defined epistemic method for testing their claims.

That’s a solid western approach to philosophical truth. An eastern approach has two more options. I prefer western too, but I see no reason why God, if it exists, is subject to anything if all systemic rules we’re aware of are by that God’s design.

I was not talking about western gods, I was talking very specifically about the Catholic God as described by Aquinas/Feser:

Would you accept that noted Catholic thomistic philosopher, Edward Feser, knows what Aquinas is talking about when he is talking about God?

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

If you do agree, then I can quite comfortably say that I am gnostically atheistic with respect to that God.

 

[Vonsalza]

With respect to the trinity, I have provided a proof of self-contradiction elsewhere:

Your three primary subjects do not accurately describe the trinity. It appears you mention the Father, the Son and God. The third will need to be corrected as “Holy Spirit” [H] Ergo, any conclusion you draw from the proof may be pertinent to your system, but your system is not equal to the trinity.

The Catholic understanding of “The Godhead” in your example would be f(G)=F,S,H

Point #3 “Within R, either F is identically the same as G, or F is not identically the same as G.” is nonsensical because the only meaning R has been granted is that it represents (delta)(F,S). The descriptor (d) is simply the absolute expression of this difference.

Point #4 “If F is not identically the same as G in R, then we have contradicted a trinitarian requirement (i.e. that F be identically the same as G.)” assumes that “F be identically the same as G”. This is a false assumption. Many, if not most, trinitarians would hold that G is some function of F, S and H.

The remainder of your set compounds the mentioned errors.

and subsequently clarified thusly:

…compounding the same errors.

I have elsewhere argued that religion does not provide any alternative to the epistemic method that is science:

Your error is the assumption that they’re answering the same questions. Metaphysical questions involve content that is often not observable in a material way. The best determinism and materialism can do in these situations is insist the questions don’t exist.

I was not talking about western gods, I was talking very specifically about the Catholic God as described by Aquinas/Feser:

The objection remains intact.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Your three primary subjects do not accurately describe the trinity. It appears you mention the Father, the Son and God. The third will need to be corrected as “Holy Spirit” [H] Ergo, any conclusion you draw from the proof may be pertinent to your system, but your system is not equal to the trinity.

The Catholic understanding of “The Godhead” in your example would be f(G)=F,S,H

Irrelevant. Introducing H doesn’t resolve the contradiction between F, S and G. So long as there is at least one contradiction, the fact that there may exist others (between F, H, and G or S, H, and G) doesn’t matter.

Point #3 “Within R, either F is identically the same as G, or F is not identically the same as G.” is nonsensical because the only meaning R has been granted is that it represents (delta)(F,S). The descriptor (d) is simply the absolute expression of this difference.

This is not the correct reading of “Respect.” When I say respect, I mean “the way in which we are talking about something.”

So for example, if I said someone’s car was hot (with respect to temperature) I would not contradict myself if I said it their car was simultaneously cool (with respect to stylishness.)

Point #4 “If F is not identically the same as G in R, then we have contradicted a trinitarian requirement (i.e. that F be identically the same as G.)” assumes that “F be identically the same as G”. This is a false assumption. Many, if not most, trinitarians would hold that G is some function of F, S and H.

That account is incompatible with the Catholic doctrine of divine simplicity, so it is possible that some trinitarians take that view, but it is not a view that is compatible with the Catholic god (i.e. the one we’re talking about.

 

[Vonsalza]

Irrelevant. Introducing H doesn’t resolve the contradiction between F, S and G. So long as there is at least one contradiction, the fact that there may exist others (between F, H, and G or S, H, and G) doesn’t matter.

Without a term representing the Holy Spirit, on a technical basis your system does not describe the trinity.

Components of Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
Components of your logical proof: Father, Son, God.

There is a disparity in terms.

Additionally, your proof contains a questionable axiom: …that (the Father) be identically the same as (God). What do you mean by “God”? The “Godhead” is made of the three persons, none of them solely called “God”.

Is the Father the same as the Godhead? No. He’s part of it. Like my engine is not the same as my car. It’s part of it.

This is not the correct reading of “Respect.” When I say respect, I mean “the way in which we are talking about something.”

Ah. Then the axiom lacks soundness. I’ll repeat from above:
Is the Father the same as the Godhead? No. He’s part of it. Like my engine is not the same as my car. It’s part of it.

As I’ve mentioned many times in other places, this stuff usually boils down to semantics. We have a crucial semantic difference on what “God” means with respect to the trinity. I think it’s a completely irrelevant term in that technical context. “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” represent the full set for “Godhead”.

But on a casual note, when most Catholics say “God” in a casual (but religious) conversation, they’re usually referencing “The Father” in most instances. They’d be synonymous then; with no (R) or (d) between them. That context, applied to your proof, renders G as fully redundant of F.

That’s all I’ve got. Floor is yours.

 

[reggieM]

What I’m saying is that in a self-contradictory scenario we should immediately assume that we’re wrong about something, and the existence of the self-contradictory thing is one possible thing we are wrong about. There are places we can be wrong other than existence/nonexistence (e.g. in our evaluation of the evidence, or theoretical interpretation.)

The presence of a thing that contradicts logic (which is not the same as asserting the truth of an illogical syllogism) may mean that we are wrong. It may also mean that the thing does not conform to logic. This should be enough for you to know that you cannot arrive at a Gnostic Athestic position when there is the possibility that you are wrong. That is the point under contention. Can you make the positive claim that “God definitely does not exist” merely on the basis of encountering a paradox in reality? There are, today, scientific paradoxes that have not been resolved.

Furthermore, Christian theology and naturalism are not a dichotomy. They can both be wrong, and some third philosophical system turn out to be correct. So trying to turn this discussion into a criticism of empiricism/naturalism is merely a red herring.

Christian theology is non-naturalism. Non-naturalism means that there is something more in the universe beyond physical nature. Non-naturalism is a dichotomy with materialism, naturalism and empiricism. By definition, empiricism has access only to physical/natural/material phenomena. If there is something more than this in reality, if non-naturalism is true - then empiricism does not work as an analytical tool. This is true for science.
Logic is a function of human reason. Empiricism, science, logic, naturalism, materialism - none of those can prove that logic is an adequate tool to describe all of reality. None can prove that science is an adequate tool.

Your whole digression into scientific paradoxes was an attempt at a tu quoque wherin you want to show that science also asserts logical contradictions exist. I believe that I have sufficiently rebutted that claim by explaining that science does not say

“Everything we have said so far with regards to this logical contradiction is incontrovertibly correct, so logical contradictions really do exist. It’s just a mystery how this can happen.”

Actually, many scientists do say this with the exception of “incontrovertibly correct” which is unnecessary. They say, “our results lead us to this conclusion. The conclusion provides a logical contradiction that we are not able to resolve.”
Yes, that is a tu quoque because at that point, you would have to say “the logical contradiction does not exist”. But scientists affirm it does exist.

“The fact that there is a logical contradiction means that something we’ve said up to this point is wrong. We will look for ways to change our theories and interpretation of the evidence such that the contradiction can be resolved. (Of course we will also have to test all the new theories and interpretations once we make them)”

Sure, that’s fine. But you’re missing something. Nowhere does it say, “we are absolutely certain that we will resolve this paradox”. It’s an assumption. Until the paradox is resolved, it remains a contradiction. In your view, this would supposedly mean the contradiction is impossible and cannot exist. But that is not shown. It may be, we never resolve the paradox. It is merely part of reality.

The point here is that if you set a barrier like this: “if I encounter a logical contradiction in an explanation of God, this means that God cannot exist”, then you’re not being consistent because science accepts contradictions (at least accepting that they are unresolved and some answer may come in the future). Again, there is a difference between a contradiction in logic (in a syllogism) and paradoxes in observed reality.

If Feser were to try to copy science’s procedure, instead of invoking mystery he would say:

"The fact that there is a logical contradiction means that something we’ve said up to this point is wrong. We will have to look for a way to change the church’s teachings about the trinity [can’t happen] or reject some of the church’s “raw material” on which they base their pronouncements on the trinity [also can’t happen.]

Actually, not true. We can certainly say that the Church teaching is inadequate. Nobody who knows of the doctrine of the Trinity could claim that it is a perfect explanation. A much better explanation could be given, and theologians work on that. The Thomistic definitions that Feser uses are correct but limited. They are 800 years old and the Church has been around a lot longer than that. They do not need to be considered “wrong” to be improved upon. Science does the same. A theory may be correct but limited.

 

[reggieM]

This seems an awfully lot like saying “philosophy/logic doesn’t apply” by invoking God’s transcendence.

Philosophy does not apply when the datum is revealed teaching. The Revelation has to be accepted as truthful first, before it can be analysed. Philosophy alone cannot determine the truth or falsehood of a revelation given by God. It can assist with that, but faith is required. Philosophy does not require faith. Theology does. A person lacking faith cannot analyze statements that require faith to believe - obviously. The truth of those statements is rejected out of hand before any analysis can be done.

Here we actually do have a dichotomy. Either logic applies to God, or it does not. If logic does not apply, then we can’t know anything about God ever, full stop.

That’s a pretty extreme position and it’s false.
I want to learn how to swim.
Either logic applies to swimming or it does not.
If it does, I accept some logic - therefore I can swim. Throw me in the water, I’ll be fine.
Or, we say then: “Logic does not apply to swimming. Therefore, we cannot learn how to swim.”.
Obviously, Logic applies “to some degree in some aspects” when it comes to learning how to swim. Logic will not enable you to swim. You need other knowledge for that.
To then say that, “since logic is not adequate” then we can’t swim is false.

Logic applies to God “to some degree and in some aspects”. The human mind is not capable, for example, of designing a universe. Does that mean “no Being therefore could design a universe”? The human mind is not capable of being the First Cause of all Being. Should we say, “since humans cannot be the First Cause, no First Cause could possibly exist”?
Human beings cannot observe the first life forms on earth. Therefore, nothing can be known about first life?

God could be a deceiver (since any a-priori defense of his goodness and truthfulness would rely on logic and therefore not apply) and therefore no “revealed” truths can ever be relied on either. If logic does apply then his transcendence doesn’t exempt him from logical contradictions.

Again, logic is a method for knowledge. It relies on many assumptions. It cannot prove its own value.

We use logic to come up with a human approximation of what God is.

God created the universe. Therefore, God transcends everything in the universe.
Humans are part of the universe. Therefore, God transcends what the human mind is.
Can any intelligence comprehend a thing that transcends its own capability?
That would be a logical contradiction.

A contingent thing (humans) which come into existence upon their creation by a non-contingent thing (God) cannot have direct experience of their existence before they were created. Only their creator (God) can.
That’s what transcendence means.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Is the Father the same as the Godhead? No. He’s part of it. Like my engine is not the same as my car. It’s part of it.

That is heretical for Catholics to believe.
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/11/william-lane-craig-on-divine-simplicity.html

The doctrine of divine simplicity holds that God is in no way composed of parts… This doctrine is absolutely central to the classical theistic tradition, and has been defended by thinkers as diverse as St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna, and Averroes, to name just a few. It is affirmed in such councils of the Roman Catholic Church as the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and Vatican I (1869-70) – which means that it is de fide, an absolutely binding, infallible, irreformable teaching of the Church, denial of which amounts to heresy.

Given your clear lack of understanding of the Catholic God, the burden is still on you to show why fact that I didn’t mention the Holy Spirit in my syllogism invalidates any aspect of the syllogism.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The presence of a thing that contradicts logic (which is not the same as asserting the truth of an illogical syllogism) may mean that we are wrong. It may also mean that the thing does not conform to logic. This should be enough for you to know that you cannot arrive at a Gnostic Athestic position when there is the possibility that you are wrong. That is the point under contention. Can you make the positive claim that “God definitely does not exist” merely on the basis of encountering a paradox in reality? There are, today, scientific paradoxes that have not been resolved.

Denial of the “supremacy” of logic is tantamount to denying the reliability of our own reason. Which is fine to do, but you can’t do anything else.

To give a brief summary:

There is no way, under **any **system of reasoning, to defend the reliability of reason. **Any **attempt to do so is tantamount to saying:

If I assume my reasoning is reliable, I can prove my reasoning is reliable!

No theology, *philosophy *or *science *can defeat the uncertainty surrounding the reliability of reason.

This assumption that our reason is reliable is a kind of stool, and we are all standing on it. Around our necks, we all wear the same noose of uncertainty. So it is true that in any philosophical argument you can kick over the stool. But the result isn’t a win for you; its always a stalemate. Kicking the stool doesn’t hang your opponent, it hangs everyone, you included.

So given that rather morbid picture, when I say that I am gnostically atheistic with respect to the Catholic God, I mean that

I know that the Catholic God doesn’t exist (to the extent that I can know anything.)

 

[goout]

Verily, I’m on the other side of the planet from him and I STILL heard that lance strike its mark.

I think it was PR who posted “scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist”.

Q-E-D.

This was originally said by a well known apologist, I forget who. Mark Shea used it often. Not sure if it’s his or not.
But it is true, and it betrays a reluctance to handle difficult discussion. Atheists construct Christian straw men around their own easy conclusions.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Atheists construct Christian straw men around their own easy conclusions.

Or, as demonstrated in this thread: skeptics offer the accurate Catholic account, and are instead presented with a view the church considers heretical.