God Delusion is Delusional

[wanstronian]

How about the delusion that truth, goodness, freedom, beauty, joy and love are fictions of the human imagination?

Yep, that would be some delusion alright.

 

[wanstronian]

Is that what you really get when you read people like Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, or William Lane Craig (and these are just the popular ones)?

We don’t just go “God did it!” We use logical syllogisms like this:

(1) If naturalism is true, then all persons are just conglomerates of material parts.
(2) There is at least one person that is not just a conglomerate of material parts.
(3) Therefore, naturalism is not-true.

Let’s start with (1). Isn’t (1) what you believe? Ultimately, aren’t we, along with all virtue, feelings, and reasoning, just a bunch of matter put together? On the naturalistic atheist view, how is something the same thing as it was five seconds ago, five years ago, or five decades ago? If, when I’m fifty, the matter constituting my body is 70% different from when I was twelve, am I only 30% of the twelve-year-old me?

Yes, I believe in (1). I see no evidence that (2) is true. And even if it were, it’s not an argument for the existence of God, it’s just an unanswered question.

Your post amounts to the Argument from Ignorance.

 

[wanstronian]

But for many other atheists, in fact, I would say most atheists, they are atheists for rather visceral reasons that don’t hold up to logical snuff.

It’s funny, I would say exactly the same for most theists.

I suspect we’re both right - there are atheists and theists who think about their belief or lack thereof, and there are those that don’t.

Ultimately though, no convincing argument for the existence of God has yet been demonstrated, so the intellectually robust position, in my view, is agnostic atheism.

 

[Windfish]

It’s funny, I would say exactly the same for most theists.

I suspect we’re both right - there are atheists and theists who think about their belief or lack thereof, and there are those that don’t.

Ultimately though, no convincing argument for the existence of God has yet been demonstrated, so the intellectually robust position, in my view, is agnostic atheism.

The difference, though, is that God is a properly basic belief that does not need evidence to be rational. You may disagree with this, of course, but if you talk to any ordinary Catholic, they will say that they “just know” as a matter of basic belief.

And “convincing” is a matter of psychology. Many of the arguments for the existence of God are sound, but whether or not they are convincing is a mater of individual psychology. There are a lot atheists in academia that actually DEFEND a lot of these arguments as sound but not convincing enough for them to convert. Roger White, Brad Monton, and Jeffrey Lowder, for example, are all top-notch PhD atheists that defend the Fine-Tuning argument. I, of course, am also very dismissive of the notion that “agnostic atheism” is the “intellectually robust position,” especially when you have to assent to its corollaries like materialism and nihilism, just to name two.

Anyway, so while the arguments may not be convincing for you, they are convincing for a lot of people and even for people that are a whole lot smarter than either of us. I am in talks right now with a brilliant professor who was a life-long atheist until his recent conversion to the Church on entirely reasonable grounds. So to say that no argument for the existence of God isn’t convincing isn’t really accurate.

 

[awatkins69]

Yes, I believe in (1). I see no evidence that (2) is true. And even if it were, it’s not an argument for the existence of God, it’s just an unanswered question.

Your post amounts to the Argument from Ignorance.

You’re correct in saying it’s not an argument for God’s existence. We can do that some other time. First, we should show that naturalism is untenable.

For (2), consider this. Prima facie, when people say “I am hungry” they do not mean “This arrangement of matter at 6:51 PM December 2, 2010 is hungry.” Moreover, one could doubt the existence of their material bodies. Some Hindus and George Berkeley do. You could doubt the existence of anything outside of yourself, even, and hold it to be an illusion. However, you could not doubt the existence of the self. “I don’t think I exist”? The problem with naturalism is, if the self is equivalent to the material body, you could both doubt and not doubt the existence of the self.

There is no argument from ignorance here. This is a very simple logical syllogism modus tollens. We’re not someday going to find out by empirical research that metaphysical naturalists really don’t think that people are essentially conglomerates of matter.

The only thing that’s being ignored is my question. (Sorry, couldn’t help make the awful pun! ) Tell me, when does a thing become something else? When I am seventy years of age, am I only 20% of the person I was when I was five? I’m reducible to my material constituency, right? That doesn’t seem plausible, does it?

 

[awatkins69]

It’s still an important book, though. For evangelizers, it’s a must-read, and not really for it’s content (it really only has one argument in the whole thing, and it commits the fallacy of induction, among others), but for it’s psychology. As much as I still think posters like AntiTheist are still unequivocally wrong, he at least isn’t an atheist (or at least I hope not) because of the stuff written in The God Delusion. But for many other atheists, in fact, I would say most atheists, they are atheists for rather visceral reasons that don’t hold up to logical snuff.

That’s a good point. Dawkins uses a lot of words that make atheism sound so much more appealing, even if behind those words there is a huge gap of substance.

The many atheists that convert because of Dawkins do have visceral reasons, like you say. Ultimately, what that means for us, is that we have to be more zealous, charitable, and reasonable. This entails studying atheism seriously, as opposed to coming down to the low level of people like Dawkins. Thus, we really must study the more reasonable and intelligent atheists. Real truth and understanding, plus charity, shines better than weak rhetoric.

Some people become atheists because they just can’t answer the questions Dawkins poses (not everyone is trained in logic, philosophy, etc.). Remember that conversion is a matter of God’s grace. If people refuse it with hard hearts, there is little we can do. But for those who do not refuse it, but can’t bring themselves to believe, God uses us, the priesthood of believers, as a means of His grace, by having us remove any intellectual obstacles.

 

[wanstronian]

The difference, though, is that God is a properly basic belief that does not need evidence to be rational. You may disagree with this, of course, but if you talk to any ordinary Catholic, they will say that they “just know” as a matter of basic belief.

Yes, I do disagree with it. The claim of God’s existence is absolutely one that needs a level of evidence commensurate with the enormity of the claim. Anybody who says they “just know” either means they really **believe **it (but cannot, ultimately justify their belief, we have seen), or is a thoughtless idiot.

We’re not talking about a claim such as, “my friend can juggle five balls” here - this is a claim that literally impacts everything in the world. You can’t say, “I just know” and expect to be taken seriously by anyone who’s able to be objective about it.

And “convincing” is a matter of psychology. Many of the arguments for the existence of God are sound, but whether or not they are convincing is a mater of individual psychology. There are a lot atheists in academia that actually DEFEND a lot of these arguments as sound but not convincing enough for them to convert. Roger White, Brad Monton, and Jeffrey Lowder, for example, are all top-notch PhD atheists that defend the Fine-Tuning argument. I, of course, am also very dismissive of the notion that “agnostic atheism” is the “intellectually robust position,” especially when you have to assent to its corollaries like materialism and nihilism, just to name two.

Atheism does not demand nihilism, unless you’re talking about the very mild form meaning “rejection of religious beliefs and morals,” not including the misrepresentation that this leads to despair and lack of individual purpose.

And no evidence has ever been produced that shows materialism to be anything other than true. In fact, all the objective information we have gathered about the world has come about through materialistic means. Nothing supernatural has ever contributed.

Anyway, so while the arguments may not be convincing for you, they are convincing for a lot of people and even for people that are a whole lot smarter than either of us. I am in talks right now with a brilliant professor who was a life-long atheist until his recent conversion to the Church on entirely reasonable grounds. So to say that no argument for the existence of God isn’t convincing isn’t really accurate.

No argument for the existence of God has been put forward that conforms to the standards of evidence expected in far less demanding considerations - such as plate tectonics, to take just one example. By putting God beyond the reach of scientific, empirical verification (using a combination of back-pedalling equivocation and redefinitions over the years), theists may have made him impossible to disprove, but they have also made him impossible to prove. And given the manifold and manifest contradictions in the God hypothesis, open-minded lack of belief is absolutely the intellectually robust approach to make.

 

[wanstronian]

You’re correct in saying it’s not an argument for God’s existence. We can do that some other time. First, we should show that naturalism is untenable.

For (2), consider this. Prima facie, when people say “I am hungry” they do not mean “This arrangement of matter at 6:51 PM December 2, 2010 is hungry.” Moreover, one could doubt the existence of their material bodies. Some Hindus and George Berkeley do. You could doubt the existence of anything outside of yourself, even, and hold it to be an illusion. However, you could not doubt the existence of the self. “I don’t think I exist”? The problem with naturalism is, if the self is equivalent to the material body, you could both doubt and not doubt the existence of the self.

There is no argument from ignorance here. This is a very simple logical syllogism modus tollens. We’re not someday going to find out by empirical research that metaphysical naturalists really don’t think that people are essentially conglomerates of matter.

Actually, I think you’ve demonstrated my point for me there. If, as you clearly believe, the body and the mind were separate, then it would make far more sense for one to say, “This arrangement of matter at 6:51 PM December 2, 2010 is hungry.” However, as one actually says, “I am hungry,” this supports the more sensible scenario that the mind is part of the body - that sentience is the product of the electro-chemical reactions occurring in the brain. A totally physical process.

Because how would a soul get hungry? How would a soul feel physical pain? Yet we say “I am hungry,” “I am in pain” - not “my body is hungry” or “my body is in pain.”

You have proved nothing here! Certainly not that materialism is untenable. In fact, to do that you would have to provide a better explanation, and “God did it,” or variations thereof, provide no explanation at all. You can’t reject a theory on the basis of, “it doesn’t seem right to me,” you can only do so by providing a better one, with more explanatory power. Your argument amounts to “the sense of self exists, therefore it can’t be the result of physical processes.” Without some substantiation, this is absolutely an Argument from Ignorance.

The “problem” you claim, is nothing of the sort.

The only thing that’s being ignored is my question. (Sorry, couldn’t help make the awful pun! ) Tell me, when does a thing become something else? When I am seventy years of age, am I only 20% of the person I was when I was five? I’m reducible to my material constituency, right? That doesn’t seem plausible, does it?

You claim that no Argument from Ignorance is being posed, then ask “That doesn’t seem plausible, does it?” I don’t think I need to say more.

 

[wanstronian]

That’s a good point. Dawkins uses a lot of words that make atheism sound so much more appealing, even if behind those words there is a huge gap of substance.

The many atheists that convert because of Dawkins do have visceral reasons, like you say. Ultimately, what that means for us, is that we have to be more zealous, charitable, and reasonable. This entails studying atheism seriously, as opposed to coming down to the low level of people like Dawkins. Thus, we really must study the more reasonable and intelligent atheists. Real truth and understanding, plus charity, shines better than weak rhetoric.

Some people become atheists because they just can’t answer the questions Dawkins poses (not everyone is trained in logic, philosophy, etc.). Remember that conversion is a matter of God’s grace. If people refuse it with hard hearts, there is little we can do. But for those who do not refuse it, but can’t bring themselves to believe, God uses us, the priesthood of believers, as a means of His grace, by having us remove any intellectual obstacles.

This strikes me as something of a pompous and unjustifiably self-congratulatory post. Your claim is that Dawkins provides nothing more than weak rhetoric - funny, because weak rhetoric is what I’ve found in abundance from the theists on this very board. So who’s right and who’s wrong? Well, ultimately, atheists are on the side of science-based knowledge, which has proven to be incredibly successful in describing our world and benefiting our society. Theists, by contrast, claim the existence of something infinitely incredible (literally), based not on scientific discovery or empirical evidence, but on evident wishful thinking, awful arguments like the Cosmological etc., Arguments from Ignorance, and so on.

Your opinion that some people become atheists ostensibly due to a lack of education in formal logic or philosophy is laughable, and I’d be interested to see your rationale for such a statement. If you can explain how such an education makes up for a total lack of evidence for theistic claims, then I’ll be amazed.

Dawkins isn’t providing original arguments - these are arguments that have been around, debunking religious claims, for centuries. All Dawkins has done is compiled them into a readable (set of) book(s) and added his own distinctive brand of derision. Indeed, it seems to be his attitude that most theists get upset about (my very first post on this board was to ask “What’s wrong with Dawkins” and almost without exception, it was because he was seen as “rude”). Do you think your beliefs deserve respect, exemption from criticism/ridicule? By what rationale?

 

[mgreen77]

And no evidence has ever been produced that shows materialism to be anything other than true.

Ever played with a Mobius strip? I know God doesn’t make mistakes, but I HAVE to think that one was a big oopsie! along the lines of a surgeon accidentally closing up surgery with a tool still left inside.

Material instruments measure material things, verifying their own existence. It seems like we’re onto something when we can map and predict things, but I’m always left wondering, what we REALLY “know?”

To say things fall because of gravity ultimately says nothing. Yes, things fall, and we know the rate and can make predictions. But WHY do they fall? OK, so space is warped so they fall in a straight-line from their point of view through curved space. But WHY? Why not turn at right angles? Or do nothing at all?

I do love science and it’s contributions. I just think it starts to get delusional when we start to think we “understand” anything just because we can predict or model material effects and patterns.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

AntiTheist has some valid points, the Christian contingent makes others. But this isn’t the kind of argument that can be resolved in favor of one or the other side in the manner of a trial or formal debate. Arguments, however persuasive, are not evidence.

Neither side is even speaking the same language.

 

[mgreen77]

Neither side is even speaking the same language.

And they shouldn’t.

Personally, I think it’s as wrong to use faith for science, as it is to require evidence for God.

Personally, I think the whole POINT of God IS faith. The choice to believe… or not. It’s not a belief that’s supposed to be founded on evidence, or even a mysterious “knowing” somehow. It’s a choice. A willing, irrational choice that you accept complete responsibility for since there’s no “because…” to blame it on.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

And they shouldn’t.

Personally, I think it’s as wrong to use faith for science, as it is to require evidence for God.

Personally, I think the whole POINT of God IS faith. The choice to believe… or not. It’s not a belief that’s supposed to be founded on evidence, or even a mysterious “knowing” somehow. It’s a choice. A willing, irrational choice that you accept complete responsibility for since there’s no “because…” to blame it on.

Exactly. That’s why I avoid debating atheists. Once you step onto their turf, you play by their rules – which are good rules for deciding criminal trials or determining social policies.

As I see it, there’s a component of human reason that’s necessarily supplemented by God’s grace. Without that grace, there’s no real faith. Its just not a debatable point.

 

[Windfish]

And they shouldn’t.

Personally, I think it’s as wrong to use faith for science, as it is to require evidence for God.

Personally, I think the whole POINT of God IS faith. The choice to believe… or not. It’s not a belief that’s supposed to be founded on evidence, or even a mysterious “knowing” somehow. It’s a choice. A willing, irrational choice that you accept complete responsibility for since there’s no “because…” to blame it on.

Well, whatever that thinking is, it’s not Catholic, mgreen77. The existence of God can be known through reason, and quite easily, imo. The problem, here, is that atheists tend to have an arbitrary criterion of justified belief (i.e., empirical evidence), even though that criterion is self-defeating. As long as they persist with that criterion, there is no conversation to be had because, lol, God is a non-empirical being (or, for you theological cool cats, is being itself)! This may sound smug, but this kind of atheism, I think, has been exposed over and over again, so I think it’s time to move on. (Come to think of it, this is probably why many of brilliant CAF’ers have not been posting as much lately. You can’t really work with this kind of atheism until the atheists themselves come around.)

 

[mgreen77]

Well, whatever that thinking is, it’s not Catholic, mgreen77. The existence of God can be known through reason…

Seriously? Faith isn’t the foundation of Catholicism?

Once you prove God exists, even if it’s just to yourself, there’s no faith there. You believe “because…” And it’s a conditional belief, since tomorrow you might prove He doesn’t exist, and hence stop believing.

Well, maybe it’s not Catholic, but I always kinda felt God wanted people who came to him out of free will, who chose Him, not necessarily people who were “convinced” to do it.

 

[Windfish]

Seriously? Faith isn’t the foundation of Catholicism?

Once you prove God exists, even if it’s just to yourself, there’s no faith there. You believe “because…” And it’s a conditional belief, since tomorrow you might prove He doesn’t exist, and hence stop believing.

Well, maybe it’s not Catholic, but I always kinda felt God wanted people who came to him out of free will, who chose Him, not necessarily people who were “convinced” to do it.

Well, faith, at least in a Christian sense, is trust, and trust isn’t blind - it has to be based on some rationale. So the two, faith and reason, always go together and people get into a lot of errors whenever they try to separate them.

 

[mgreen77]

Well, faith, at least in a Christian sense, is trust, and trust isn’t blind - it has to be based on some rationale.

In my life, Trust is freely given by me. People don’t “earn” my trust. I trust someone freely, openly because I choose to. It’s not “blind,” but it’s not “earned” either. It’s a choice made from Love, not rationale.

 

[Windfish]

In my life, Trust is freely given by me. People don’t “earn” my trust. I trust someone freely, openly because I choose to. It’s not “blind,” but it’s not “earned” either. It’s a choice made from Love, not rationale.

Well, than what you have is fideism. A Muslim would say that he has the same kind of faith as you but in Allah. And this is a problem. He is wrong, and we can show him that he is wrong through reason, but because, like you, reason was not a factor in his choice, we can’t really argue with him, can we?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I agree with much thats been said, most important is bias thinking. This exists with all books. And for soemone who doesn’t read much? You should pay particular attention top that point. Its a simple fact of publishing.

Its just a worthy mental note to make that most individuals have an agenda. And rarely is that agenda to bring followers to Jesus Christ. More often than not its monetary gain and even the ability to deal with one’s personal feelings in a productive manner. Which is really whats involved in this example. The hate is obvious. But I suppose its not as counter productive as unprovoked violence for the sake of ones anger.

Even if you begin to read the teachings of Jesuits “Society of Jesus”. It becomes clear very quickly that there are specific points of view they uphold which are not based on the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. A quick mention once or twice would suffice. But when it becomes apparent theres a concentrated effort to run something into the ground, then the question has to be why?

How does Jesus Christ and the Church have a negative effect on society? Where does the church and God corrupt the family or any morals? Its a false teaching and it doesn’t exist. So what we are dealing with in atheism is an “opinion” based on ZERO FACT. What we do know is that for Thousands of years the Church works. In particular with the area of Family where atheism utterly fails. The point could be argued that there is ultimately no such thing a Good Atheist. How would you describe one?

Obviously when you read satanic teachings corrupt thinking will exist. The simple fact is Atheism doesn’t work, nor has it ever, nor will it ever. If it does where is that society? Its certainly not in the West. England held the closest Atheist beliefs and just look at their society today? Thats so close to crumbling its ridiculous. The USA? Anything Atheist has only led to corruption not a better society. What is one good example of where Atheism leads to a productive, peace loving society? I fail to see their agenda except one of hate for the right of living as one chose’s with no regard for existing religion, but for the political agenda man makes through human law? So in other words GIve Rome everything and God nothing? Its that the teaching? Certainly sounds like it? All atheism does is leave a Void. And physics tells us what must happen with a Void. Think about England again.

Where are these atheist familys productively raising children to be good law abiding citizens. Where do we find those statistics in History? How does Good co-exist with evil? One cannot be both. Good isn’t mans better thinking. Take a look at the world? Thats mans better thinking? Where Cuba? North Korea? We see it, we get it. Its has nothing to do with Good/God.

I keep hearing about Science based knowledge? I have an EE degree, so let me leave you with this. Science can’t explain mans existance in the universe, nor his purpose. Science remains mute on these topics, and on these exact topics is where Religion does speak. Of course we can have more ridiculous conversations about Evolution, Physics in depth, but at the very end of all those paths. Theres no explaination for man here in this Universe on earth? We can talk aliens? They never bought violence to Earth? They don’t come here because they think we are barbaric, and we are. Thats exactly how uncivilized we are. We haven’t even acheived the feat of managing to live together. We’ll be the 6th great civilization of earth that just didn’t make it. So far thats our destiny and path without Christ.

I also have two degrees in Psychology. Trust me,you don’t even what to hear what I witnessed for twenty years in that field. I lived like a pagan and atheist for years. My own education and field of employment continued to lead me to using “Bible” quotes to help others? Ironic how God works isn’t it? Well after about 7-years down that road, you have to honestly evaluate your own beliefs. Was I bad? Well I didn’t think so. But hindsight tells another story. I wasn’t bad when I read the news-paper and compared myself to mass murder’s and rapists. Yet I was far from consecrated to God as I live today. Maybe I would have made it to purgatory…maybe. And thats only because my parents were devote Catholics and raised me that way. Otherwise there might not have been any hope?

Anyone could gain a following and put forth a false belief. Charles Manson did that. The proof is in the pudding. I agree the debates are a waste of time and favor anyone who can talk as a great orator and with wit. I have see some facinating pubilc speakers in Psychology especially in the substance abuse area. But again when I really got to know them as individuals, there was a completely different message from the one they preached. It then became, do as I say not as I do? How in good conscience does one live that lie? I’m here to tell you anyone with any kind of open mind will see right through this, “if” your mind isn’t drenched in dope and alcohol.

Maybe its me, I maybe just don’t “get” atheism? And I “can” understand a lot of things. This isn’t one of them though. Live that way if you chose, its your Soul and your Free-Will, tell me what you think next decade. You’ll change your mind, I’m positive. Darn fool on deaths-bed preaching atheism? Anyone with a brain on deaths-bed picks up a Rosary and prays to God. Check your local hosptal if you believe I’m talking out of my head.

I’m not understanding is the best way to put it.

 

[JimG]

I haven’t read the book, but I did happen to see, on CSPAN2, Dawkins giving a talk at some university–a fundamentalist college, if I recall correctly. In any case, I was wholly unimpressed, and astonished at his caricature of actual theology. At one point, he was arguing that God, should He exist, must be infinitely complex, in order to account for the complexity of the universe. And that such an infinitely complex being has a vanishing probability of existence. Standard Catholic theology has, of course, always said that God must be utterly simple in his essence. It seemed as though he was demolishing his own concept of God, not the Christian concept of God. Even a quick reading of F. J. Sheed’s slim volume “Theology for Beginners,” would have given him a more accurate starting point.